Stanley Kubrick

[Nerd]

He deserves a thread here, doesnt he ??

These are my favourite Kubrick movies, in the order:

1. A Clockwork orange
2. The Killing
3. Dr. Strangelove
4. The shining
5. Full metal jacket
6. Spartacus
7. Lolita
8. 2001: A space odessey
9. Eyes wide shut (Probably his worst movie )

I havent seen barry lyndon and I ve heard a lot about that masterpiece !! Are there any other Kubrick movies that I had missed ??

[alwarpet_andavan]

Paths Of Glory

[P_R]

I have only watched two films.

The Shining
2001..(yesterday)

The Shining was very spooky in parts but dragged a bit in the others. I wouldn't put it among the scariest I have seen.

I have some very mixed feelings about 2001. I was blown over by the look of it (our star release in '68 was Kudiyirundha Kovil). It is doubtlessly one of the most visually spectacular (to borrow the DVD jacket words) films I have seen.

Symbolism is all very well but I am used to a lot more stuff happening in films. A dramtic story with symbols buried in and around goes very well with me. But a movie that relies, almost completely on the symbols to carry the story forward was too new for me. It denied me the usual black or white response to a film.

It did seem way way longer than in actually is. At some point the lingering breathing in the lonely space stopped appealing. I have heard and read a lot about music in Kubrick's films. My untrained year could recognize the Blue Danube Waltz but it did seem out of place sometimes (for instance after the scenes where the first astronaut is lost and the second is tussling with Hal).

The film is still sinking in. This is a reaction of someone pampered by Kamal and IR. Where the films have something for each of the viewing (to use a threadbare review phrase "appealing at many levels") and the symbols, are sown within the drama. So I am reasonably convinced there was lot more in the movie than what I took home.

How did you guys like it the first time you saw it ?

PS: Kasi, I see you rank it just above EWS, which is what I intended to borrow, till an uncle came home from nowhere and was going to share my room that night. So I didn't want to give him a coronary if he got up for a midnight snack or something :P

[alwarpet_andavan]

PR,
2001 is my favorite Kubrick film. Easily. The opening few minutes are enough! [Not to mention the closing minutes ].
And you have written about symbols in the TF category. Can you elaborate on 2001 w.r.t symbols? Usually, you seem to observe a lot of stuff i tend to miss

2001 makes Star Wars and Spielberg's sci-fi movies look like animated cartoons in comparison.
Oru kelvi. Where and How the fcuk did he shoot the opening sequences?????? I mean, i've never seen anything quite like it.

All this reminds me i should watch it again soon!

[kannannn]

2001.. was sleep-inducing to many of my friends, but I have happy memories of it. As for the typical Kubrick use of classical music, that's what makes the movie so different. And brooding. I know it's bit like our very own Sunday afternoon DD movies, but what kept my jaw hanging were the SFX and the music. That said, the best scene for me was the jump cut from the tool to the space ship. And the dialogues. I would treasure 2001.. just for the exchanges between the crew and HAL.

A_A, If you refer to the ape sequences, I remember the DVD commentary saying that he tried many ideas before coming up with masked extras. Someone can confirm this. (For those wondering how Kubrick managed to make a sci-fi movie so realisitic, watch Tarkovsky's 'Solaris'. To make a sci-fi movie with meagre Governement funds is plain unthinkable. Still he makes it work and how!!).

[Nerd]

2001 is sure an amazing movie. But the genre, Sci-fi is not my cup of tea. I hate movies like star wars, alien etc.., But I would rate 2001 above all those so called sci-fi movies. My order was strictly based upon my preference of genres. Also I love film-noirs for some reason and thats why you can see The Killing at #2. I watched EWS with my brother three months back

[kannannn]

I somehow feel Spartacus doesn't deserve the place it has on the list. It just didn't feel like a Kubrick film. Douglas and the expensive sets dominated the entire film, with no chance for Kubrick to showcase his style. Maybe it was the money that made him go for it.

[alwarpet_andavan]

Nerd,
I absolutely hate sci-fi and Matrix/MI kind of "action" movies too
The greatness of 2001 is that it completely arrested even sci-fi haters like me and you!

[P_R]

And you have written about symbols in the TF category. Can you elaborate on 2001 w.r.t symbols?

As I said, TF (read Kamal) is completely different. One can watch Mahanadhi as the story of a naive guy who was cheated, his revenge and subam and be completely satisfied. (So it was for me, till I watched it again during my first year of college !)
With 2001 that is just not possible. Here there is no conversation about evolution, tools-and-man, who's the boss and what-next. The whole storytelling is visual. So to try to put into words would be to paraphrase poems. It would neither be tasteful (nor would I be equal to it). So I'll stick to what outline I received from watching the movie.

Even from the first part you see how the ape interacts with other beings. There is an ant-eater (I think it was an ant-eater) that initially seems to cohabit with the apes. (They both run from the leopard). When it looks like the ant-eater competes for food it is chased away with brute force. It finally reaches a stage where the apes fight each other for territories. After the appearance of the monolith the ape-man makes the weapon that helps establish who's the boss. If one is pretty serious one could find material for a huge essay about the internal organization and societal structure etc.

Then we have the beautiful cut that kannannn refers to. Where we go from the simple tool that started it all to the present tool. This tool "contains" man. It creates a whole new environment where he safely sleeps (with no apparent threat to his water hole). But now he needs to play according to the rules of the tool -wear special shoes, eat crazy food or risk floating out of control (like the pen). So even by the time of the lunar mission who-controls-who is an unsettling question.

With the entry of HAL the gloves are off. The mummified experts are virtually kept alive by the system. Just like one would stash away screwdrivers in the shelf till we choose to use them. As things develop HAL's integrity becomes the center of drama. And it becomes a brutal fight when HAL has a goal. When HAL -a supposedly non-emotional creature spells out how the mission is "too important for me to let you jeopardize it", it questions raises questions about the nature of our aspirations. Are they also emotionless pursuits ? Or should we question the nature of emotion ? Or instead fight kill the source of such uncomfortable questions. Man seems to score a point with good-old brute force when he kills HAL with a screwdriver. It still looks as if man can be in control, if he is back to the basic ape-strengths.

There are just too many ways in which to interpret the ending. And anyone disappointed with it may be justifiably accused of refusing to meet the artist half-way. This is a very superficial take. I am sure the movie has people with very intricate theories and detailed philosophical reading into it. People who read into the sequence of colours when the astronaut hits "infinity". But for those of us, who find books like Film Sense by Sergei Eisenstein to be impenetrble fog, this movie still appeals as a string of stunning visuals which have a stronger impact than whatever philosophical argument it tried to showcase.

Where and How the fcuk did he shoot the opening sequences?????? I mean, i've never seen anything quite like it.

Truly amazing. 20 minutes before the first line is spoken. And the actors were unbelievable. I can't imagine the response it would have generated in'68.

I remember the DVD commentary saying that he tried many ideas before coming up with masked extras.

The DVD I borrowed was one cheap Chinese version. No commentary and hilarious subtitles that do not match what is said on screen. Curious to know what the other ideas were. But those guys pulled of a fanstastic performance.

I was in fact deciding between this and Solaris. But now I am pushing Solaris back a while. I need to watch some historical with thorough drama thrown in ( Throne of Blood )

[Nerd]

Full Metal Jacket:

Sargeant: How tall are you private joker ?
Private Joker: Sir, Five foot nite sir
Sargeant: Five foot nine ! I dint know they stacked sh*t that high

Sargeant: Do you think I am cute ? Do you think I am funny private pyle?
Private Pyle: Sir, no sir
Sargeant: Then wipe that stupid looking grin off your face
Private Plye: Sir yes sir (tries hard but cudnt)
Sargeant: Any ******* time sweetheart
Private Pyle: Sir I m trying Sir
Sargeant: Private Plye, I m gonna give you 3 seconds. 3 ******* seconds to wipe that disgusting grin off your face. Otherwise I ll gouge out your eyeballs and skull-**** you !!

These scenes will be extremely funny when you watch them, the first time. But when you think of it after watching the whole movie you will certainly see a difference !!