I haven't. Here's somebody's ranking of all of them. There are 13.
Up until last night, I'd seen "Dr. Strangelove," "Lolita," "The Shining," "Clockwork Orange," "Barry Lyndon," "Paths of Glory," "2001," "Full Metal Jacket," and "Eyes Wide Shut." (Named in the order that I like them.)
Yeah, I'd never seen "Spartacus," and I still haven't. Unsurprisingly, I'd never seen "Killer's Kiss" or "Fear and Desire."
The one I finally got around to watching — it's featured in the Criterion Channel's Sterling Hayden collection — is "The Killing." Highly amusing. The women were hilarious. It had Vince Edwards. It had a poodle and a parrot. Plus the great Sterling Hayden (last seen by me in "The Asphalt Jungle"). And at one point a character explains everything (quoted at my son's 101 Years of Movies blog):
You have not yet learned that in this life you have to be like everyone else — the perfect mediocrity, no better, no worse. Individuality is a monster, and it must be strangled in its cradle to make our friends feel confident. … I’ve often thought that the gangster and the artist are the same in the eyes of the masses. They are admired and hero-worshipped, but there is … an underlying wish to see them destroyed at the peak of their glory.
The phrase "explains everything" was an intentional reference to the post 3 posts down, "Aaron Rodgers explains everything."
Here's the trailer. It gives way too much away and is completely misguided as a representation of what's cool about this movie. Watch it only if you're a connoisseur of trashy trailers:
Posts
87 comments:
Hayden was also terrific in 'Godfather.'
Spartacus is the most exciting movie he made, by a mile and a half.
Thanks for alerting me to Killer's Kiss. I could never get through the Shining and have honored the director's wish that no one see his debut effort. The rest, yeah, with Dr Strangelove on my top 10 list of favs.
After reading that you have never seen Spartacus all I could think of was "Joey, you like movies about gladiators?"
I guess I'll need to watch a double header of Airplane and Spartacus.
His body of work is impressive and admirable, but I don't feel any great affection for any of his movies. The human race is a tad better than what we see in his films.
#1: Paths of Glory.
Marie Windsor is always a hoot, and she's at her best in "The Narrow Margin". I wouldn't count "Spartacus" as a "Kubrick Movie". Kirk Douglas cast the movie and approved the script before Kubrick was brought in to replace Athony Mann.
The same is true of "paths of glory". Douglas was the Producer and had final say on casting, script, and editing. You'd never know it from the way the Kubrick fan boys talk. I'd count "Loita" as the first major league Kubrick film.
I'd rank the Kubrick films as follows:
1) Dr. Strangelove
2) Barry Lyndon
3) Full Metal Jacket
4) The Killers
5) Paths of Glory (even though Douglas was the Producer).
I'm not a big fan of 2001, Clockwork Orange, Lolita, the shining, or Eyes wide shut. All of them have some great moments or scenes, but taken as a whole, I find them boring. Especially 2001 which has only one interesting character - HAL.
Halfway through a rewatch right now. Haven't seen Fear and Desire. Killer's Kiss was interesting. Spartacus is kind of a bore unless Ustinov is on screen or two guys are trying to stab each other (or, okay, "oysters" and "snails" are involved). Looking forward to finally seeing Eyes Wide Shut, and seeing AI again. Everything else is a masterpiece of some sort or another. Barry Lyndon is wildly underrated.
It had Vince Edwards. It had a poodle and a parrot. Plus the great Sterling Hayden (last seen by me in "The Asphalt Jungle").
What?! No mention of Timothy Carey, the great Nicholas Cage prototype?!
I've seen all his films since Spartacus, plus The Killers. I'd rate Clockwork as a clear #1. 2001 has great visuals, but the acting and story are not on par with has better films.
Hayden had some great roles. His performance in "The Long Goodbye" was my favorite.
I don't think I've seen any of the big movies about the Romans — not Gladiator, not Ben-Hur — other than some things about Jesus.
"Hayden had some great roles. His performance in "The Long Goodbye" was my favorite."
Yes, I watched and rewatched that recently. He's great in that — raving "I'm all turned around."
Criterion has the documentary about him: "Pharos of Chaos." I'm taking that in a bit at a time.
'2001 has great visuals, but the acting and story are not on par with has better films.'
Watch it again and keep this in mind, especially for the astronaut characters.
They are very intelligent, highly competent men who are going on a months-long journey into space.
Tedium and boredom are what they will face.
To combat that, NASA would purposefully choose boring, low-key people for the job.
They would not be action heroes, or even very interesting for that matter.
I love the fact that Kubrick makes those characters only a few notches more exciting than a potted plant.
It's genius.
Somebody should write a book not on Kubrick but Kubrick's fans and explaining why they're such fanboys and believe "The Master" did no wrong.
Kubrick is an interesting figure in his own right of course. For example, why did he hate actresses so much? Hard to think of one film where a female is given the starring role. Instead, his women are usually supporting characters, or sex objects, or just horrible (cf: Shelly Winters".
And the subject matter. Lets see: war films (Dr.Strangelove, Paths, Full Metal Jacket). SF/Fantasy - 2001, Clockwork, the Shining. Historical - Barry lyndon. Crime - The Killing.
Sex Fantasy - EWS and Lolita. No romance. Lots of violence. Lots of weird sex. And not a lot of positive endings or characters. Heroes? Who?
I find Kubrick's work more impressive with each passing year.
As for Sterling Hayden, he is and will forever be Gen. Jack D. Ripper in my eyes.
Fun fact: Hayden briefly joined the American Communist Party after having befriended a bunch of communists while in the OSS running supplies to the Balkans (for which he earned a Silver Star for gallantry and an Order of Merit from Tito (the Yuguslavian President, not the Vodka guy).
Hayden is great in the right role. Long Goodbye, Asphalt Jungle, Dr. Strangelove, etc. Best as part of an esemble cast where he can play up to his strenghts and you can avoid his lack of acting ability. He's a better looking Charles McGraw.
Especially 2001 which has only one interesting character - HAL.
Yes, but it's worth watching just for that epic scene of HAL's breakdown. Also for the opening sequence of the film.
The Killing and Asphalt are both great.
There’s a bunch of Kubrick I still haven’t seen, but some of them like The Shining are among my most favorite films. I tend to be more a fan of individual movies than directors, though.
For my tastes, The Killing is a 'meh' movie. Which is how I feel about most, if not all of Kubrick's films. In all of them there are visually interesting scenes, but I just don't connect with the characters and don't care what happens to them.
Contrast this with The Killers from 1946. The movie isn't as visually stimulating as Kubrick's films, but the mystery of why 'The Swede' allowed himself to be killed draws you in, capturing your interest. You quickly come to care about the characters and want to know their stories. Which makes The Killing mildly interesting and The Killers truly engaging.
Yes, I watched and rewatched that recently. He's great in that — raving "I'm all turned around."
I've seen the Long Goodbye at least 3-4 times. Last time about a year ago. It's held up very well - definitely in my top 10.
According to Wikipedia, Hayden was stone and drunk for most of his scenes and lot of what his did was improvised. It certainly came across as authentic. And Gould was great in his interaction with Hayden in those scenes.
Barry Lyndon is my favorite, with Strangelove second. Kubrick's sheer craftsmanship in capturing the look and feel of eighteenth century society and the way the movie comes closest to capturing the experience of reading a great 19th Century novel. I wonder how much of Ann's and my appreciation of Strangelove is an early Boomer thing: you had to be there. Would Gen Zoomer even get the dark humor?
Eyes Wide Shut I kind of dismissed as soft-core porn at the time, but gotta say the glimpses of Epstein's world over the last 3 years (and the way no real major players ever get exposed) makes me want to give it a second viewing, for the NYC class dynamics.
Watch it again and keep this in mind, especially for the astronaut characters. They are very intelligent, highly competent men who are going on a months-long journey into space. ... They would not be action heroes, or even very interesting for that matter. I love the fact that Kubrick makes those characters only a few notches more exciting than a potted plant.
Don't know about that. I think real astronauts are more complex than those in 2001. And authenticity doesn't necessary make for an interesting film.
Ann, did you ever see "Farewell, My Lovely"? You brought up "The Long Goodbye", and those two are twinned in my mind. They're both terrific.
I see someone is trying to make lists for content. My father purchased the collection, but I think I've only seen half. The Shining was the first horror and Kubrick film I ever saw, and it never spooked me. The Shining and Full Metal Jacket are the only two that I watched in one sitting, as generally I found his movies a tad boring, but I was pretty young seeing them and likely missed the nuances.
I didn’t understand Eyes Wide Shut when I first saw it, but now it’s one of my favorites.
I’m not a movie buff- so, I’m not familiar. When I was in graded school, we watched Ben Hur. That was pretty rough. Also, idk if it’s the same movie, but I remember a scene where St Stephen was stoned- reaching his hand forward to grasp the hand of Christ.
Are there Kubricks we are not supposed to rank high because they are popular vs Kubricks we’re supposed to rank high because they are ‘important’?
A list in order of popularity is probably my ranked list…
I realize I may have painted Kubrick's films with an overly broad brush in my prior comment. I've not seen several of his movies, such as The Shining. So, I will concede that some of his movies have characters with whom I might make a personal connection and care about what happens to them.
That wasn't the case with Dr. Strangelove. I love Peter Sellers in that movie. What a range he displayed! Several of the other actors also gave great performances. Yet, I never cared about any of the characters they played. I was always aware I was watching a movie -- or a very long SNL sketch in which all the characters are satirical representations of a type of person Kubrick wished to make light of. It wasn't just that these characters were wacky; it's that they weren't believable. No real person would do what these characters did.
Contrast Dr. Strangelove with Peter Sellers' wacky performances in the Pink Panther franchise. While it might be hard to find any real person with Inspector Clouseau's combination of over-inflated ego, incompetence, stupidity, and bad luck, all of the character's actions -- as wacky as they may be -- are well grounded in character's motivations. That is, if you did find someone with Clouseau's unique set of traits, he would behave exactly as Clouseau does in the movies. Which is what make it all 'believable'.
2001 would have been far down my list of his movies... until I saw it in the theater. Totally different movie. Now it would be pretty high in my list of best movies of all time.
I liked it so much that I went back alone to watch it again.
'While it might be hard to find any real person with Inspector Clouseau's combination of over-inflated ego, incompetence, stupidity, and bad luck...'
Left-leaners and right-leaners might disagree : )
Yeah, I'd never seen "Spartacus," and I still haven't.
Sistuh, I am Spartacus.
Unsurprisingly, I'd never seen "Killer's Kiss" or "Fear and Desire."
I have seen all the other pictures you mentioned but have never heard of those two.
I just saw "Color Me Kubrick," about the Kubrick impostor. Meh. Stick to what you can find out on line, unless you are convinced that John Malkovich is gay and want something to support your view.
-
Glenn Youngkin is getting blamed for not removing the snow fast enough by people who don't realize that Northam is still governor.
Tim Kaine set out on his two hour drive to the Capitol, and nineteen hours later, he is still stuck in his car.
That has nothing to do with the snowstorm. It's just a typical Tuesday for dim Tim.
I think of him as Gilligan or Tim Conway to Hillary Clinton's Skipper or Ernest Borgnine.
until I saw it in the theater. Totally different movie
Epic cinematic movies need to be seen in a theater on a huge screen, even in this day of big screen TVs in homes (where there are also too many distractions). Last time I saw 2001 was on an IMAX.
Casablanca is coming back to theaters for a couple of days later this month. Another different experience seeing it in a dark theater than sitting on your couch at home.
Steven Spielberg once said that Dr. Strangelove is the only perfect movie ever made. That is to say that every line of dialogue, every camera shot, every facial gesture, etc. is flawless. I tend to agree with him. Great movie- funny, watchable, with many memorable lines.
Full Metal Jacket is one of the greatest war movies ever made.
Maybe it will take another Crack at the Shining. It is being offered as a double feature with Spencer, with the director and star in attendance. Apparently the film influenced them in the portrayal of Diana. On the other hand, the Shining clocks in at 144 minutes, a bit much for such a program. But I have missed the many pre-pandemic local opportunities, often free, for screenings with actors and crew from new films, especially around awards season.
I prefer to watch movies that make me feel good. Something inspiring or someone overcoming odds or good guys giving it to the bad. Kubrick doesn't make those kinds of movies. Maybe they are great art, but mostly they do not leave me with a positive view of life.
But that said, I watched 2001, and Full Metal Jacket when they came out. I also watched Barry Lyndon when it first came out at the ripe old age of 10. My mother wondered why. I do too. I am sure I missed a lot of detail.
I also saw Clockwork orange and wish I had not. One of those movies that scarred my soul. Somethings just should not be experienced on purpose.
I think I saw all of eyes wide shut, Not sure of anything else.
SPARTACUS is interesting because, with a screenplay by a fellow traveller (Dalton Trumbo) based on a novel by another fellow traveller, if not a Communist (Howard Fast), it somehow came out as one of the great libertarian movies of all time. There's a great line, "When one man says, 'No!" all Rome trembles." Substitute the statist "Hive" (as the late Joseph Sobran called the aggregate of 'liberals," socialists, Communists and other State-fuckers) for Rome.
I watched Spartacus when it first hit tv long ago. As a young boy, I thought it was pretty cool and quite enjoyed it. I tried watching it again about six months ago and turned it off after about 1/3 through. It was painful to watch such a hokey portrayal of slave life in the early Roman world. The 2010-13 Starz TV Spartacus series is orders of magnitude better.
I've sort of seen them all, "sort of" because I bailed on the two juvenilia, and Barry Lyndon and Eyes Wide Shut. Cinematography alone, no matter how high-calibre, isn't enough to hold my interest in so much sourness and inhumanity.
The Killing is my favorite Kubrick, followed by Paths of Glory and Lolita.
Strangelove, I can't help feeling would be better if it wasn't such a mess of Mad magazine style humor; the War Room scenes especially suffer from it, because Kubrick's staging there is static, though he tries to disguise it with characters jumping up and waving their arms. But then, if the Terry Southern script had been replaced by a higher and steadier class of comedy, it might have come out lifeless given Kubrick's iceman personality -- so I appreciate the quandary he was in. He stuck with his choice and we're stuck with the result. It's a fan favorite, which helped him get a measure of independence early in that transitional period of the movie biz.
2001 was the fruit of that independence -- a ponderosa. Awesome, banal, beautiful, knuckleheaded; and a reference point in my moviegoing life -- and not only mine. Whether I liked it or not didn't matter, it planted a flag on the moon.
Epic cinematic movies need to be seen in a theater on a huge screen, even in this day of big screen TVs in homes (where there are also too many distractions).
Not to take away from the point; this is one issue that may be solved with VR headsets. You can virtually create large screens within VR. You can also do other formats such as hemispherical, 360 (wrap around), or 720 (any direction). To your point though, good directors and cinematographers made certain films for the format that audiences were expected to see the movie, and full appreciation comes by viewing them that way. I do think 2001 as visually stunning, but with greater access to images from real space, no movie truly compares.
Never seen it, but isn't The Shining a romantic comedy ?
I usually like those
I saw 2001 when it came out. In the theater.
Saw nearly all of them in the theater when they came out or — Strangelove and Lolita — in revival theaters. The exceptions are Paths of Glory and The Killing.
Wa St Blogger said...
I prefer to watch movies that make me feel good
Seriously? You saw Full Metal Jacket, and That didn't make you feel good?
Adam Baldwin as Animal Mother has GOT to be one of the All Time feel good parts of All Time!
The only one I've seen: 2001. I don't watch many movies. Never have. I May have seen Spartacus on TV at some point in the 70s. Channel 5 or 11 out of NYC in the afternoon?
I see I forgot to mention Full Metal Jacket -- a curate's egg of a movie. Matthew Modine gives hands down the liveliest leading performance in any Kubrick film ever; and many of the other actors are just as fresh. I don't know why this should be so: did he have a different A.D. than on all his other pictures? Whatever the reason, you don't usually go to late Kubrick for the pleasures of the actors' art, so Jacket makes an exception.
Among Vietnam movies, it's much better than Platoon, but nowhere near as good as -- doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as -- Hamburger Hill.
My list of "seens" is almost the same as Prof's, but my ranking would be very different.
(I have watched Spartacus, and some others, 3 or more times.)
Maybe I'll have more to say after I view everyone else's contributions.
IMO, Kubrick is the best ever and it's not even close.
Never seen Lolita. In order of preference: Dr. Strangelove, 2001, A Clockwork Orange, Barry Lyndon, Eyes Wide Shut, FMJ, The Killing, Paths of Glory, Spartacus, The Shining.
Film nerds might like this YouTube channel:
https://m.youtube.com/c/CinemaTyler
Althouse writes, "Yes, I watched and rewatched ['The Long Goodbye'] recently. He's great in that — raving 'I'm all turned around.'"
Sterling Hayden was probably a better actor than the roles he was given might suggest. He was certainly patient and directable as evidenced by his work in two Kubrick pictures. However, I can't summon up much enthusiasm for "The Long Goodbye" thanks to Robert Altman doing his typical hatchet job on the material.
Gould is enjoyable enough in the lead, but he's not Phillip Marlowe. According to the studio's own publicity, Altman sees Marlowe as a "hard-bitten cynical private eye", which strikes me as a misinterpretation of Chandler's weary knight errant. In many, if not all of the stories, Marlowe is beaten, drugged, tortured, or nearly killed on account of refusing to turn a blind eye to corruption and venality -- not the action of a hard-bitten cynic. And what hard-bitten cynic ventures out at two in the morning on a quest for the perfect cat food?
My rankings:
(1) Barry Lyndon (Proof that Kubrick could make a great film using indifferent talent.)
(2) 2001: A Space Odessey (The first SK film I saw. Too much Raymond Dart.)
(3) Dr. Strangelove (Slim Pickens and James Earl Jones. Explosive bolts, negative function. B-52s cast B-17 shadows. How to enjoy a ride on a hydrogen bomb.)
(4) Full Metal Jacket (Animal Mother)
(5) Spartacus (Trumbo's history is Stalinist bunkum. SK should have studied Roman battlefield tactics. Charles Lawton is worth the effort.)
(6) A Clockwork Orange (All things considered, an optimistic view of the 21st century.)
(7) The Shining (I liked "The Shinning" better. No TV and no beer make Homer go crazy.)
(8) Paths of Glory (How did the French capture that German peasant girl?)
(9) Lolita (What the diminutive for Humbert?)
(10) The Killing (Tarantino didn't invent noir comedy.)
(11) Eyes Wide Shut (Lovey nudes, but otherwise a bore.)
I haven't seen the others, but the very best SK was "Napoleon". Too bad it was never made.
Dr. Strangelove is amazing. It's so cynical and funny. I don't think Kubrick actually had a sense of humor. But man Peter Sellers sure did. Kubrick shot it completely straight, like a documentary, which just made it funnier.
Kubrick -directed- POG whether Kirk Douglas was producer or not.
Spartacus has its moments, but it's not Kubrick's the way the others are. The Shining and Eyes Wide Shut are not to my taste as far as genre, but they are as unmistakably his as the ones I like most-- BL, Lo, POG, Dr.S, FMJ, CO, 2001 in more-or-less order from best to not-so-best.
I had always wondered why Kubrick used O'Neal in Barry Lyndon. Apparently his backers insisted that he use one of the ten top-grossing male actors of the previous year for the lead, O'Neal was the only one not already booked, and the rest is misery. But not even a wooden soldier like O'Neal can spoil the screen for long.
In visual design, themes, and use of music as part of the story-telling, he was the master.
Gilbar said:
Seriously? You saw Full Metal Jacket, and That didn't make you feel good?
Adam Baldwin as Animal Mother has GOT to be one of the All Time feel good parts of All Time!
YoOur definition of feel good and mine are worlds apart, apparently. (or is there some sarcasm I am missing?)
Even still, one feel good scene does not change the arc of a movie.
From the movie summary at IMDB:
A pragmatic U.S. Marine observes the dehumanizing effects the Vietnam War has on his fellow recruits from their brutal boot camp training to the bloody street fighting in Hue.
Yes, I feel the good all the way down to my toenails.
A Clockwork Orange (1971)
Stanley Kubrick sees Singin' in the Rain and he thinks, "rape!" I don't know if Kubrick at this point in his career is a deranged feminist or a misogynist or just hates humanity in general. The rape scene is probably the single most offensive scene I have seen from a major artist. Why are we watching this?
This film is like a paranoid nightmare. "They're going to take my free will away from me!" But that fear is so irrational, I don’t even know where to begin. Wrap some tin foil around your head, Stanley. And don't watch movies with scotch tape on your eyelids, because that's how they control your thoughts.
My Dr Strangelove story. Early 1964, an island somewhere between Viet Nam and the Philippines. A small detachment of Marines. The local government somehow got a copy of Dr Strangelove. A large canvas stretched between trees, the film begins watched by a few hundred native peoples and two US Marines. One of the Marines has always wondered what the natives thought of the film.. We thought it absurd until August when we got a first hand look at the actions of LBJ , McNamara, and Taylor.
Best Marlowe is not Bogart but the 1973 "Farewell My Lovely", Robert Mitchum, perfect. Again from first hand experience.
The first half of Full Metal Jacket is almost perfect (again from first hand experience).
Never trust a Fed..
Kubrick is an interesting figure in his own right of course. For example, why did he hate actresses so much? Hard to think of one film where a female is given the starring role. Instead, his women are usually supporting characters, or sex objects, or just horrible
And the men are worse.
Regarding 2001:
For me, the most interesting thing about the spaceship sequence is that the two astronauts never speak to one another, even when in each other's presence, until they get together to plot HAL's murder.
'For me, the most interesting thing about the spaceship sequence is that the two astronauts never speak to one another, even when in each other's presence, until they get together to plot HAL's murder.'
Very good observation. They are just sooooo laid back and boring that I don't think they care either way.
Even when they do plot HAL's demise, they are so dispassionate, even knowing their lives are on the line.
There are things I like about 2001, but I don’t know if I completely get it.
. . . "Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones"....
A movie so great, it's really hard to beat. You've got excellent writing (Terry Southern), gorgeous cinematography (Kubrick), a stunning cast (Sellers, Scott, PICKENS, Hayden, Jones, Winn and Reed)
Lolita is funny and fun. Clockwork Orange was unique and interesting. The Shining was a terrific scary movie. Full Metal Jacket was a psycho depressing film de jour.
The guy was damn good at what he did. I'd walk in to any movie he put out. He kind of leaves Steven Steilberg in the dust.
Kay: you are not supposed to get it, it's meant to be confusing. Just like the bible says, you cannot see the face of G_d. There are no answers.
2001 was really boring the first time I watched it, and amazing the second time.
Kubrick made a movie where the people are like robots and the robots are like people. So that's kind of mind-boggling, and really interesting to think about. What makes a person? What makes a robot? Is that giant baby a person? 2001 makes you think about miracles, and the creation of humanity. (Also makes you think about evolution, of course). You start off that movie as an evolutionist and then boom, you're a creationist.
Kubrick as an artist was interested in photography and composition. And he also liked ideas and making people think. So that's a Kubrick movie -- big on photography and making people think.
Kubrick had very little interest in emotion, which is what drives motion pictures and makes people happy. Cinema is a feeling art and literature is a thinking art. Kubrick should have been a writer, since he was such an idea man. But he loved photography, so he was a filmmaker.
Film critics loved Kubrick and hated Hitchcock (until Truffaut embarrassed them). Hitchcock is kind of similar to Spielberg in that way. Fun! The only Hitchcock movie your average film critic loves is Vertigo, which is not fun at all. And not really suspenseful, either. That's the worst car chase I've ever seen in my life. Vertigo is a good movie but it's so unlike Hitchcock that I didn't like it at all the first time I saw it. (Flopped at the box office, which doesn't surprise me).
Vertigo, like 2001, is way better the second time you see it.
Cinematically speaking, it's a horrible idea to have your actors act like robots. Nobody will relate to your protagonists! What the hell are you doing, Kubrick, you madman! The only character that is warm and fuzzy is HAL.
But if you like ideas, 2001 is pretty amazing. And the visuals, wow.
I can't take 50s and earlier films as the acting conventions are too fake. There's an exception for W.C.Fields under the quip exemption, where the quip is the point.
The Blue Danube docking sequence is sublime.
"Spartacus," "Dr. Strangelove," "The Shining," "Clockwork Orange," "Paths of Glory," "2001," "Full Metal Jacket," and "Eyes Wide Shut." (But the last one was basically soft porn... what the hell was Tom Cruise thinking?)
You can always tell when an artist or filmmaker has a cult following, because they'll ALWAYS write stuff like:
"Gee, i hated film/book/whatever the first time I read/saw/heard it, but then I saw/read/heard it again and realized how awsome it was."
OR "Gosh, you just won't get it the first time round. Its so DEEP. It took me 5 times before i REALLY understood".
if you need to read a book or watch a film twice to enjoy it, that's not a virtue.
Full Metal Jacket was impressive, but it didn't seem to fit together well. It seemed incoherent. Today, we could call it postmodernist, and its shortcomings would be positive selling points.
"if you need to read a book or watch a film twice to enjoy it, that's not a virtue." If you have to watch it more than one time to enjoy it, no. But to fully grasp it, yeah. I've seen the Godfather films several times each (except III, which is only OK), and I catch new things every time. Citizen Kane, the Maltese Falcon, and many others reward repeat views. Some books--Ulysses, Finnegan's Wake, Pynchon's books--seem needlessly complicated, and are such chores the first time through that I won't go back to them. But reading some of Updike's, Bellow's, or Vonnegut's books, let alone established classics, a second or third time can be rewarding.
I have seen all 13, and all twice or more except for Eyes Wide Shut. The best for me was A Clockwork Orange, the worst was probably Killer's Kiss, but none of the movies are bad. The true test for me is if I am willing sit through a movie twice- if so, then I consider the movie a good movie. And several of Kubrick's films I have seen 5 or more times.
Watched "Paths of Glory" for the umpteenth time last week.
If I were ranking them all- this would be my ranking. The top 7 of those, I have seen more than 5 times each- 2001 I have probably watched 10 times over the decades.
(1) A Clockwork Orange
(2) 2001
(3) Dr. Strangelove
(4) Barry Lyndon
(5) Paths of Glory
(6) Full Metal Jacket
(7) The Shining
(8) Eyes Wide Shut
(9) The Killing
(10)Spartacus
(11)Lolita
(12)Fear and Desire
(13)Killer's Kiss.
"Eyes Wide Shut" is one of two movies I've seen in the theater where audiences were openly laughing by the end at sequences intended to be serious.
IMDB sez, A pragmatic U.S. Marine observes the dehumanizing effects the Vietnam War has on his fellow recruits from their brutal boot camp training to the bloody street fighting in Hue.
Dehumanize is another of those words -- the kind used by simpletons to impress other simpletons.
I should add: I haven't seen A Clockwork Orange....but I did read A Crockwork Lemon in Mad Magazine in 1973.
'if you need to read a book or watch a film twice to enjoy it, that's not a virtue.'
I saw '2001' in the giant, wraparound theater when I was 7. It was awesome.
I watch it again if it's on without commercials.
I still pick up new details...
Excellent point, Q. The label of "dehumanize" gives those people a separation or absolution from the horrific behavior of other humans. It makes them feel better about themselves because only animals are capable of such activities. What euphemism do you prefer:
Desensitization?
Lowering murder inhibitions?
Liberation of repressed instincts?
I once read a Freudian analysis of "2001".
Everything had a hidden sexual meaning. Remember astronaut Bowman exploding back into the (mother) ship when HAL tried to lock him out?
Sex.
Of course. Wink wink.
But when Woody Allen depicted spermatozoa as being like paratroopers racing out of the front of an airplane, that was obvious.
So it was just comedy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nM3fglmaRrA
if you need to read a book or watch a film twice to enjoy it, that's not a virtue.
I think that's right but it's kind of irrelevant. Bad movies remain bad movies, no matter how many times you watch them. But some "bad" movies aren't bad at all. And so they will surprise you on a repeat viewing. Typically it's because I was immature when I watched the movie the first time. Bringing Up Baby is the most obvious example. I literally didn't understand the humor. So it wasn't funny at all. I saw it again in my 30s and I was amazed by it. Here's a review I wrote on that one.
Bringing Up Baby (1938) One problem in appreciating a comedy like this is you have to approach it with the right mindset. 20 years ago, I would have insisted that Animal House is a much funnier movie. But once you understand the conventions of the 1930's and 40's--particularly how people dealt with issues of sex (specifically, how they repressed their sexual desires)--the screwball comedies of that era are hysterical. Repression screws you up, man. That's why they're screwballs. To get the humor requires a level of maturity and knowledge that most teenagers simply don't possess. Sexual repression is something adults do. Kids are like, "hey, want to see my ass?"
Animal House is like your crazy id battling against the superego of Dean Wormer. Bringing Up Baby is the exact same conflict, except it's all bottled up in the character of Cary Grant. This woman is driving him crazy. She's stalking him, she's ruining his career and his wedding. She's trashing his life. And he's so polite and chivalrous about the whole thing. And his id is screaming, "let me out! let me out! I want to strangle her or have sex with her or both, anything, I'm going crazy all bottled up in here." So Grant is starting to stutter. This battle, this little war between his id and his repression of his basest desires, this is what makes Bringing Up Baby the epitome of the screwball, and a brilliant film. When I was young I didn't laugh at this. Now it puts me in stitches. It's funnier every time I watch it. Hawks is a genius.
Howard writes, "What euphemism do you prefer...?"
Human nature isn't usually a euphemism.
On seeing movies twice:
1. Yes, some movies are so unappealing that you don't want to figure out the things that might be understood on second watch.
2. With some movies, you think there might be something worth figuring out. As my son wrote about one movie: "When I first saw Howards End, I was unsure what to make of it — but rewatching it transformed this movie into a richly layered world."
3. For virtually all the movies I genuinely like, the rewatch is even better. I get through one watch and see that now I have the foundation for a really great experience -- I can now watch with greater understanding and fewer distractions. I no longer spend my attention predicting what will happen or feeling like nothing's going to happen. I can be in the moment and try to see and hear what's right there.
effinayright writes, "I once read a Freudian analysis of '2001'."
I think I read that same item, or something similarly jejune. As I recall, the writer found tremendous significance in the shape of the Discovery, the Jupiter-bound spacecraft with five humans and one digital paranoid as its crew. He called it "a gigantic spermatozoan". Big whoop. Never mind the perfectly sound engineering reasons to adopt such a shape for a nuclear-powered spacecraft. Bowman's risky stratagem to defeat HAL was called a "regression fantasy -- a retreat into the Discovery's "comforting womb", thus blithely nullifying the earlier comparison of the ship to a male gamete.
I pictured the analyst as the sort of beer-fueled ineffectual loud-mouth who gets beaten up regularly.
"On seeing movies twice..."
Human perception can only process a tiny fraction of the information load of any experience, be it visual, aural, tactile, whatever.
There's always more to see, hear, and comprehend in the second experience of any art. Furthermore, the limits of perception apply to the director, the cinematographer, the screenwriter, and everyone else connected with the production of any film. Consequently, it's fun and enlightening to look for the wealth of unintended images and sounds that contribute more than is usually acknowledged in any mise en scène.
I read somewhere that the silver halide crystals of the typical 35mm frame represents the equivalent of 45 megapixels of digital resolution. However, our current technology can translate conventional film into an 8K resolution video file, though it's time-consuming and expensive. Perhaps when quantum processing is practical we can process a more significant fraction of the latent information in 10,000 classic movies. We've a near eternity of re-watching yet to do, I think.
Though typically rewarding, re-watching movies can be abused. For example, the type of person whose interest in re-watching is primary directed at detecting all the continuity lapses.
Truly good movies hold up on Re-watch. Sometimes I will give movies a 2nd chance, or even forget that I'd watched it the first time after the passage of time. Usually my opinion of it goes even further down.
Some movies will sweep you along with a strong narrative and a desire to see "What happens next", and then you see it again and all that's left is the characters, the writing, and film's atmosphere.
Other's just show their hollow core and mechanical fakeness with multiple viewings. CF: Private Ryan.
2. With some movies, you think there might be something worth figuring out. As my son wrote about one movie: "When I first saw Howards End, I was unsure what to make of it — but rewatching it transformed this movie into a richly layered world."
Yes that's from my post about 1992 movies, which has more thoughts on that.
Kubrick's best movie is "Lolita" — here's my post about it.
What's interesting about Bringing Up Baby and Vertigo is that audiences hated both movies when they were first released.
Vertigo was a flop. Why was it a flop? Because Hitchcock has a brand ("the master of suspense") and people walked into the movie expecting a fun, exciting, scary thrill ride. That's not what Vertigo is.
Bringing Up Baby was a flop. Why did it flop? People hated Katharine Hepburn. They would write letters to the studio about how evil she was. That movie almost ruined her career. People were expecting romance, love, maybe a baby. Instead they got a crazy stalker and the poor man who has to put up with her.
2001 was arguably a flop at first. It cost the studio $10 million (budget was $6 million). It was 16 months behind schedule. It made $2 million in limited release. It was panned by a lot of critics, particularly in New York. Kubrick called them, "dogmatically atheistic and materialistic and earthbound." Dude!
Pauline Kael called 2001 "A monumentally unimaginative movie." (Kael, by the way, never watched a movie more than once, which explains that review I think). Stanley Kauffman said it was "a film that is so dull, it even dulls our interest in the technical ingenuity for the sake of which Kubrick has allowed it to become dull." (That's another "watched it once" critic I think). Andrew Sarris called it "one of the grimmest films I have ever seen in my life." (That cracks me up. Good luck with A Clockwork Orange, buddy!). To gave Sarris his props he watched it again, and liked it way better the second time.
A lot of young people watched 2001 while they were stoned, and loved it. I think marijuana saved the movie. The studio started advertising it as "the ultimate trip!"
Ultimately 2001 made $21 million during its original release. The studio re-released it in 1971, 1974, again and again. It continued to bring in millions of dollars in box office. Ultimately 2001 made $146 million after multiple theatrical re-releases.
2001 is an acquired taste, to be sure. But it rewards a second viewing. And many people rank it as one of the greatest films of all time and Kubrick's masterpiece.
Pauline Kael called 2001 "a monumentally unimaginative movie"
Both halves of that epithet are solid: 2001 really is unimaginative on a monumental scale. A damned impressive monument, though; and monuments have the advantages of size and weight over other kinds of art. Even without the resources of imagination, a monument (if it's effective at all) makes an impact on the spectator. And at higher levels of achievement, a monument can strike awe into the spectator. 2001's achievement is up there.
But at heart it's a dull post-religious religious myth: something beyond the stars beckons us to come be transformed: we follow, and are transformed as promised: the end. Never a twist in the tale, and only one exciting incident (the rebellious computer) along the way; every other detail is merely decorative.
An imaginative film uses time to create a sense of drama; Kubrick just gives the feeling of spending a long time watching a movie. That sort of thing is more common now than it was before 2001: Kubrick's influence, but also the film schools' in certifying lots of unimaginative careerist go-getters, some of whom succeed in getting their projects produced and distributed.
The craft details, and technological invention, that went into making the film, are impressive in their own right. And they cost so much, we have to struggle to remember these perfectionisms are irrelevant when they aren't in support of a commensurate imagination.
Post a Comment