I don't think this is my kind of film. Battles are even less interesting to me than football games. I have a feeling the spectacle would have overwhelmed the psychological study. But still it's the kind of vast project Kubrick liked to get his teeth into and that he didn't get to do it is a great loss.
Barry Lyndon benefitted enormously from Kubrick's Napoleon research. The battles in that film didn't overwhelm the psychological study of Redmond Barry, a character that Kubrick said rose to the top because he was unknown in society, he could weasel his way up, something many many people do today, in obscurity.
"Set the controls for the heart of the Sun" - Pink Floyd
cinemabon made a recent remark about BARRY LYNDON re: new cinematographic/ lighting technique being wasted on a crap film, that underlined that BARRY LYNDON is veiwed as a failure. I take it you would not agree?
Unfortunately I never saw it in a cinema/theater, hence I did not get the full value. I do think you're right that the battles didn't overwhelm character study.
Also, if you notice, many of Kubrick's "protagonists" are un-involved. His films have "main characters" who are in the world but not really OF the world. They exist in a space that is very specific, with contexts that are very interesting. They are unlike other main characters in most other films, another reason why I love Kubrick. He just did things his way. And the world is a better place for it. Not that the world has changed, just that it is better for having Stanley hold up that mirror of human folly, which he found endlessly fascinating.
Great talent does not prevent cruelty and injustice and greed and evil.
No way.
"Set the controls for the heart of the Sun" - Pink Floyd
He seems best in caricaturesque people like in A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, where people are hilariously vivid and unreal. That was my first great favorite Kubrick film before 2001. Of course everything he did was notable but CLOCKWORK ORANGE was through the roof for me. Utterly amazing.
If you think Barry Lyndon sucks then you don't know cinema very well.
As Lars von Trier said, Barry Lyndon is Monumental. It is more monumental than 2001.
Kubrick never got worse with each film.
He soared higher and higher and higher- right up until his death. He WAS Icarus. In the flesh.
Barry Lyndon won a cinematography Oscar for John Alcott, a Genius.
The story is about an Irish opportunist, and it ends in misery, total destruction.
Who would dare end a film in this way?
People want their movies to be perfectly gift-wrapped in a bow, and that is a sell-out.
I want filmmakers to shake the shit out of the audience, and that is what men like Trier, PT Anderson and Kubrick do.
They don't give audiences what they want. They give them what THEY DON'T KNOW THEY WANT YET, a Kubrick Maxim.
"Set the controls for the heart of the Sun" - Pink Floyd
More Kubrick items: (just cuz I wanna post 'em)
He felt that Chaplin, deSica, Welles, Bergman, Fellini, Max Ophuls and Hitchcock all have superb films to their credit.
He felt that there were only 3 ways to relate to life:
Power: grotesque (such as GDP to megadeaths ratios...)
Love: very hard to find and very hard to give
Withdrawing: very hard because of the tempo of Life, communication and social mobility
He also felt that cynicism, two world wars, loss of spiritual values, the communist disillusionment, and PSYCHOANALYSIS has forced writers to keep their heroes un-involved. The point being:
THE MODERN WORLD IS ABSURD.
"Set the controls for the heart of the Sun" - Pink Floyd
A wild rumour is circulating that Steven Spielberg will direct a mini-series of Kubrick's script for Napoleon.
And the wild thing about it is that the rumour says he will tell the story from the perspective of Napoleon's horse. (?!?!!)
Mr. Spielberg, if you are listening, PLEASE do not tell that story from the perspective of Napoleon's horse.
That is a batshit insane idea.
I can't see how that would be novel or entertaining. Don't do it. No horse-perspective please.
We got that with WAR HORSE, didn't we?
Even LINCOLN had peeps on horses.
What is this horse kick you're on Steven?
Stanley wasn't going to do his Napoleon that way, why do you think that would be a great idea?
I have no problem with Spielberg making Kubrick's Napoleon- if any man is worthy to try, it's him.
But Lord Almighty, don't throw this into the shitter because of some creative licence....I will never forgive you.
You have the filmmaking skills to make something INCREDIBLE with Kubrick's Napoleon.
You could hand us another Glorious gift to cinema like you did with A.I, a film that I am very happy exists.
That torch is fucking heavy, isn't it, Steve?
"Set the controls for the heart of the Sun" - Pink Floyd
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks