Stanley Kubrick

[cinemabon]

It's about time I wrote something serious for this site. I owe it to Kris and Oscar and many other patrons of this art.

I grew up on Stanley Kubrick. From the first Kubrick film I actually saw in a theater (I was too young to see "Lolita"), which was "Paths of Glory" through "Spartacus", "2001", "Clockwork Orange", "Barry Lyndon", and "The Shining"; Kubrick has been my barometer as to the future of film. He always was an innovator, a pioneer, leading the way to show an aspect of film not yet attempted. As much as Wells and Hitchcock used camera work and sets to innovate, so Kubrick did with lenses, aspect and score manipulation. He completely took over a project, making it a "Kubrick" vision. Every title he put his name to (after '55) is distinct and completely different from all his other projects. Unlike Ford who specialized in Westerns, or Hitchcock for suspence: Kubrick defied definition. He existed in all the genres he put his heart and technical genius into. In the end, Kubrick left a series of personal statements, which also happen to tell a story.

Starting in 1955 with "The Killing" (I'll let someone else discuss his earliest work. In my mind, something came alive within Kubrick from "The Killing" on. Whether it was his mood or ambition is a matter of conjecture. However, from that time on, Kubrick began to demonstrate the Kubrick style), and going through "Eyes Wide Shut" in 1999, Stanley Kubrick began to make his mark in film history as the great innovator.

In "The Killing", Kubrick joined the ranks of other innovative filmmakers like John Huston and Billy Wilder in tackling the "film noir" genre. Yet Kubrick cast Sterling Hayden and gave him a personality that stuck with the actor to his death.

Kubrick's early anti-war statement in "Paths of Glory" made his film controversial. While most war pictures were patriotic, Kubrick chose to show war in far more hostile terms, ridiculing the military bureaucrasy and the over-regulated governments which create them.

He followed that film, with a religiously themed epic, on the scale of "The Ten Commandments" only far less pedantic or ostentatious. "Spartacus" is not the story of a slave. It is the question of philosophy... what is freedom? More importantly, "Who considers themselves free?" Is freedom of movement the same thing as freedom of expression? Rather bogged down with semantics in places, Douglas puts in a performance of a lifetime, not to be missed.

Did Vladimir Nabokov whisper sweet nothings into his ear one night? Who knows! All I can say is that with "Lolita", Kubrick again emerges out of nowhere to establish himself as a director/writer/producer capable of looking at new controversial subjects and tackling them in a way that will be entertaining. The perverse weaknesses of man become all too clear with Kubrick at the helm.

President Kennedy helped to increase tension between the superpowers, when he authorized the botched "Invasion via the Bay of Pigs". From that moment on, there was a period in American history where the real fear of nuclear annihilation was acted out in theater and on the screen. Kubrick firmly plants tongue in cheek to bring humor together with poignancy along with one of his favorite "intense" actors, Sterling Hayden, playing the deranged General.

Moving on to the film Rick Sanford told me was "the greatest film of all time" (and he is no fan of science fiction), backed up by Ron Havers, of the L. A. County Art Museum, in his room one night. Rick and I had many fights over coffee at 3 a.m. on Hollywood Blvd. about "2001: A Space Odessey". I'm paraphrasing these two fine gentlemen, but the argument went something like this:

Rick: "There was no film like it before it was made."
Ron: "It was totally unique."
Bill: "What about "Destination Moon" or "Forbidden Planet?"
Rick: "It's not the same."
Ron: "No, not the same."
Rick: "The apes were too believable. Everything about that movie was unique. Kubrick invented things that had never even been attempted. It changed the way we all look at film..."

And so it went on into the night. I liked it, but...

"A Clockwork Orange" was just a commentary on the decay of urban life; again, Kubrick tells us that no matter how safe we may all feel in our modern houses with electronic security, there is no safe port from violence and sadism. They have permeated many aspects of society.

"Barry Lyndon" I only went to see because of the innovative filmming techniques he used; like having Zeiss invent a superfast lens for a film camera to allow photography in candlelight, trying to replicate the feel of "night life" in the 17th Century, or when ever it was... who cares. Kubrick failed. Next film.

Stephen King always scares the @#$% out of me; and suffice it to say, Kubrick was so successful that to this day, people still use Nicholson's performance in mimicry.


In looking back on his career, and this is pure speculation, I wonder if Kubrick felt he did not make as powerful an anti-war statement as he could have by today's uncensored standards. "Full Metal Jacket" is a powerful film, filled with Kubrick's touch in probing deep inside his character's psyche and revealing more than is almost bearable to watch. I believe he relished in making his audiences squirm at times.

His final work is arguably controversial, especially about its efficacy for sex or relationships. For many years, in countless interviews, Stanley secretly and then openly expressed the desire to make a very expensive and elaborate porn film. He wanted to show the act of making love in all its "Hollywood" glory on the screen with no restrictions. At last, there would be artistic freedom. Imagine a porn film by Stanley Kubrick! What happened over time is that reality sunk in. In order to get his "porn" movie financed, he would have to depend more and more on conservatives who would want "trims", keep the rating an "R" versus an "X". This form of corporate manipulation was something he loathed. I believe he was forced to cave. While "Eyes..." is facinating at times, there is a rather boring side to it that spoils the point Kubrick was trying to make about relationships and how easily they can deteriorate (among other ideas in the film).

Kubrick is one of my heros growing up. I was always first in line to see his films, and the last one to criticize anything he did or accomplish. He will always be the "great innovator" to me, blazing new directorial trails, helping young filmmakers to develop the same kind of passion for vision and foresight he once posessed.

[Johann]

Great bit of writing, Cinemabon. why is this thread in the lounge?


I consider myself a bit of an authority on Kubrick.
Who the fuck am I, you ask?

Well, I have read every book available on the man, I have bootleg copies of Day of the Fight, Flying Padre, The Seafarers, and Fear and Desire (I paid a pretty penny for 'em too), I can almost guarantee that I have seen the man's films more than anyone on these boards.

Here's some info you might not know:

-He started out as a photog for LOOK MAGAZINE. He took photos (as a teen!) of Frank Sinatra, Salvador Dali, Montgomery Clift, and many many others. He sold a photo of a newspaper dealer looking dejected with an FDR headline that has become a classic of the era.

-On his first feature (Fear and Desire) he did every single job (besides acting) and even drove the cast home in his car nightly.
Why? he said "The only one who's going to make any money on this picture is me". The movie is actually really bad, so I won't discuss it. Trust me, I'm a Kubrick freak-it is BAD.

-His first wife Ruth is the ballet dancer in Killer's Kiss.

-A Clockwork Orange is the first film in movie history to use sound mikes on the actors (Sennheisers, as opposed to booms) and it is the first film ever to use Dolby Noise Reduction.

-Malcolm McDowell's ribs were broken during the scene where he is paraded by the prison officials and has to lick the guys shoes. The guy stepped so hard on Malc that he fucking broke his ribs!
He also scratched his cornea during the scene where his eyelids are held open (in the straightjacket), listens to Beethoven and watches Nazi films.

-Kubrick was a hired gun on Spartacus (a film he disowned-Criterion asked him to contribute to the DVD release and he declined, saying "I don't know what to say to people who like Spartacus. It's not my film. It's Kirk's". Douglas was always at loggerheads with Kubrick. The fight to the death scene with Draba (Woody Strode) is an example of how Douglas overrode his director. Kubrick wanted to dig a hole in the earth and shoot from it, looking up at Kirk and Woody in combat. Kirk said fuck that: "shoot it straight, we don't have time for fancy set-ups".
Oh, Kirk, do you regret that now....actually, Douglas is still bitter about Kubrick, I think: "I had him under contract for 6 films and I let him out of it".

[cinemabon]

I didn't think my writing rated anywhere else, and thanks for all your info on Kubrick. There are directors whom I repect, admire, and a few I worship. He's on the short list.

See also my thread on Cinerama, where "2001" was supposed to be released in the three screen process (can you imagine) and ended up in 70mm anamorphic. I saw it at the Cinestage in Chicago on a huge curved screen. We had reserved seats! When the picture ended, we weren't allowed to leave the theater. The front doors were locked. I looked out the glass front doors to see Mike Wallace and a CBS camera crew in front of the theater. The street was filled curb to curb with tons of young people chanting "End the War Now!". They were waving a huge red flag and marching up the street. We had to go out the back door of the theater into the alley. As we started to exit the alley, an Army truck came up, a bunch of young men jumped out, all carrying guns. They lined up and lowered the guns, aiming at the marching students. Frightened out of our wits, all the patrons ran in up the alley in the opposite direction. That is my memory of the first time I saw, "2001: A Space Odyssey". August 28th, 1968

[Johann]

I would call that life skills.

Wow. The most I exciting thing I can come up with is when i was in the army: I fired an 84mm Karl Gustav rocket launcher with no earplugs. I almost went deaf. Immediately I noticed the maddening ringing in my ears and grabbed my plugs. No use. That ringing would be with me for almost an entire week! By day 5 I was getting worried.

My hearing is fine, but that's about as exciting it got in my life. (And it wasn't even in a war, conflict or skirmish! It was PEACETIME TRAINING).

You witnessed riots, cinemabon. That beats anything I've done.

[cinemabon]

I tend not to rate life experiences of one person against another. While I envy being able to meet this person or that (My ultimate interview would to be in the room with John Williams, Jerry Goldsmith, Maurice Jarre, and Danny Elfman and discuss scores for about three days!), I"ve come to the firm belief that every person has something to bring to the table. We listen to one another and learn. In coming to this site, I have learned much from everyone who participates in this roundtable discussion and value every opinion.

Perhaps, someday, we can sit, sip a beer or wine, and discuss your days in the Army, and mine living next to one ( I used to live next to Fort Lewis). I'm sure our perspectives might facinate the other.


"... therefore, ask me not for whom the bell tolls... it tolls for thee."

[Johann]

The people who populate these boards are more interesting to me than most people I've met. I'm not putting my friends down, but it is hard to find people who know and love cinema as the members here do.

I am highly opinionated, but I try not be overly critical. Some days the negativity demon gets the better of me.

I also have learned much here and the thought of having a social drink or two while discussing the ultimate art form is not such a bad idea. I've travelled to a major city every year for the last 3 years. I want to be as "cultured" as I possibly can while remaining a Canadian.

Where would we meet? I'm guessing the logistics of organizing some "film summit vacation" would be difficult, what with everybody on different schedules and vastly different lives.

Yes, discussion of film is much, much easier in person.
I often don't know what to type- I just put what I know out there.

[cinemabon]

Perhaps the people to envy are the ones who live in Kansas; home of UPS and Federal Express by the way. They live in the middle of the country and everywhere is the same distance to fly or drive to. However, when you look at the glass half empty, Kansas is a long way from both LA and NY where most film and theater occur. Flying to Kansas may be a cental spot to discuss film, but once there, we might all be so depressed about being in Kansas, we'll forget about film and cry for a decent cinema. (Hallmark is there, too).

What has this got to do with Stanley Kubrick? Not a damn thing, I just thought that if you could waste a post, I'd do the same thing. Nobody else reads this one anyway!

[Johann]

Yep, we are the lost, the forgotten.

Let us weep.

:)

It would be cool to say "We're not in Kansas anymore" once I got back in Canada.




OK, bad joke.

[cinemabon]

Why did I have a feeling Dorothy Gale would come into this discussion? Makes me believe it's just another black and white issue...

Ooooo...

Ok, now it's definitely time to delete this post!

[oscar jubis]

I became a member about a month too late to participate in the Kubrick feature (September 2002). Cinemabon's informative post gave me the forum to try out a few ideas about Eyes Wide Shut, which I re-watched as preparation for an essay about my favorite films of the 1990s.
I am not surprised at the relatively poor reception it received. Kubrick does not shy away from complex and subtle statements. Audiences often reject stylization and symbolism, in favor of verisimilitude and concreteness (so much trivial talk about whether it looks like NYC or not). I found the 2002 discussion quite superficial, except for Johann's attempt to steer discussion towards what he saw as a major question: "Is fidelity worth embracing?". And now Cinemabon states that Kubrick makes a point about "how easily relationships can deteriorate (among other ideas)".

*For me, the implication of the title is what we see with our eyes closed. An inner life that's as real as behavior or action. The thoughts, dreams and fantasies that inform/influence/affect/direct our behavior. The sexual fantasy related by Alice early on, and the dream she has towards the end of the movie are as important as Bill's adventures. Actually, there's a conceptual "rhyme" between Alice's dream of being naked in public and fucked by many men and Bill being ordered to undress at the masked orgy.
*The concept of a shared mental life within a relationship has rarely been illustrated more clearly. We hear Alice describing her fantasy, but the recurring b&w images we see are entirely Bill's visualization/interpretation. It's her fantasy (and his feelings about it) that seems to drive his sexual adventures.

*I think Alice discloses her fantasy out of a need for greater honesty/intimacy/closeness with Bill. He cannot handle it . It clashes with his assumptions about the sexuality of men and women("We know what men are like"). When she says "If he wanted me that night, I was ready to give up everything:you, Helena, my whole fucking future", she knows how Bill would react to a single night of extra-marital sex. Is the street encounter with six younger men (who mock him and question his masculinity) Kubrick's way to convey his self-doubts?

*The concept of honesty is a major theme, in my opinion. Bill lies to Alice about his lust for the two models and about the reason Ziegler needs him upstairs. It's his confession to Alice just before the final scene (toy store on Xmas Eve) that constitute an accomodation. The reason you don't remember that scene is because enigmatic Kubrick decides only to show its aftermath, in a close-up of Ms. Kidman's weary, tear-stained face. It's up to us to decide the extent of Bill's disclosure and growth as a human being forced to give up comforting, old-fashioned beliefs about the sexuality of women and the sturdiness of relationships.

There are many other issues and much to say about technique, acting style, etc. These comments only deal with the main purpose of "Traumnovelle" as interpreted by the great Stanley Kubrick.

[cinemabon]

It took a great mind to breathe life back into this post, which I had originally written as a tribute to the man I most tried to emulate in film school.

As to your observations regarding Kubrick's title, "Eyes Wide Shut" (the title to me suggesting a double entente of "eyes wide open"... i.e., going into a relationship knowing the consequences; the other meaning being, going into the heart of danger but with a naive almost careless attitude, i.e., having casual sex with a stranger, even though the modern day consequences can result in death from HIV), I can only say this about you...

Oscar, you have a brilliant mind... an insightful and precise mind that cuts through all the intellectual bullshit and quickly arrives at the heart of this film. Relationships indeed! This is a film about the consequences of infidelity, both physically and mentally (Remember Jimmy Carter's, "...I was unfaithful in my heart" routine?) I saw Kidman's sequences not as a fantasy, but as a memory. I think she lied when she said that to her husband. Perhaps you felt she did, too, but you stated it differently. The thing I found facinating was that Bill felt so guilty, although he did nothing really to be ashamed of. He only thought about having sex. Whereas, Kidman's character, I feel, actually did the nasty... not in the same time frame perhaps. She chose to keep that to herself. In doing so, she retained a certain amount of control over her husband.

Here, I digress... The entire sequence with the sexual society was a bit too much, along with director Sydney Pollack's acting (now where did he study his acting?). I'm not a real big fan of Francois Truffaut, John Landis, John Huston, and Sydney Pollack showing up now and then in someone else's film as an actor doing a part. I don't know why those scenes and the ones related, such as Pollack's, were in the film. I'm still troubled over these sequences. Not so much over their content as I am why they were in the film. What did they add? What did they mean? What was the society? Why was Pollack's acting so stilted? Those parts of the film were more of a distraction and bored me.

[Johann]

You read my mind, cinemabon.

I agree, what's up with Sydney Pollack in EWS? He seems like a fish out of water. Harvey Keitel should have stayed as Ziegler.
Did you hear the story about Pollack on set?

Before the party scene was shot, Kubrick told one of his assistants to buy shirts for Pollack's character at Marks and Spencer.. Sydney said to Stanley: "Stanley, my character is supposed to be a MILLIONAIRE!".

Kubrick snapped back: "I buy my shirts at Marks and Spencer!"

[oscar jubis]

Cinemabon, thanks for your generous praise. I always look forward to your posts as sources of information and acute insight. For starters, you have amplified my understanding of the dual meaning of the title and introduced an alternate "reading" of the character of Alice: that she actually committed adultery and deceived Bill. This is not my interpretation (based, I guess, on Kidman's performance) but it's an entirely plausible and logical one. By admitting to a sexual fantasy, Alice assuages her guilt about having committed adultery without jeopardizing her marriage.

It's interesting that you wonder why the scenes involving Ziegler (Sidney Pollack) "were in the film" because this character is not in Schnitzler's source novel. Ziegler is entirely Kubrick's invention. I think he represents power/access/privilege that is unattainable to Bill, no matter his degree of success as a member of the professional class. Kubrick is making a statement about class, and the power it confers, when Bill is shown totally out of his element at the orgy and exposed as an intruder.
I read somewhere that Ziegler is a composite of every Hollywood prick Kubrick ever had to contend with, but I'm not in a position to opine about the auteur's intentions. This is an area where your opinion (and Johann's) is more credible than mine.

[cinemabon]

I picked up Norman Kagan's book, "The Cinema of Stanley Kubrick" over the weekend, and in the chapter on "Eyes Wide Shut" it states the title is what Kubrick phrased after having read the source material "Traumnovelle" saying he felt as if the story made his "eyes wide shut".... whatever that means.

Additionally, I don't mean to cast aspersions on anyone's character... but Pollack has played that role once too often ("Tootsie"). Speaking of prima-donna's, I once went to a premiere in Hollywood and was "man-handled" by Gene Hackman who wanted my seat in the theater because it was closer to the screen and around better people than where he was sitting. To the consternation of my friends, I absolutely refused... no doubt losing any chance of becoming Gene Hackman's friend in the near future. I wondered why he didn't call me!

Don't you feel, Oscar Jubis, that Bill is the "everyman" in this picture (like a Stewart or Hanks), solving or at least encountering all the quiries he has regarding... well, you said it... class... fidelity... sexual experimentation and fantasy... social commentary on promiscuity. Bill's character may not have the answers... however, his encounters raise enough questions that the viewer is forced to answer for themselves. Just a thought, perhaps a convoluted one.... that Kubrick only had speculation to guide him and presented that as a key element to a film that has beguiled viewers since it's release.

Another 'thing' mentioned in the book, was that one of Kubrick's notorieties was making controversy. Perhaps his true intention in this and all of his films was to "stir the pot" so-to-speak, so that a great debate would ensue, at least elevating the film to a conversation piece, as clearly demonstrated here... I think he accomplished that and more.

[oscar jubis]

I agree on both counts.
Bill as "everyman", more so than the Jewish protagonist of "Traumnovelle".
Kubrick creates controversy and debate partly by allowing ambiguity and mystery to seep into the narrative, then refusing to provide definite answers. For instance, what exactly do Bill and Alice confess to each other in their final scene in the apartment? Is Zeigler telling Bill the truth about how the woman at the orgy dies?

By the way, isn't the ending of Eyes Wide Shut the most optimistic (happiest?) of any Kubrick picture?