
Last week I gave myself a gift that has been occupying my time. I bought The Stanley Kubrick Director’s Series collection from Warner Home Video. The set contains the last five films of Kubrick’s life, minus the poorly-received BARRY LYNDON – 2001:A SPACE ODYSSEY, A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, THE SHINING, FULL METAL JACKET, and EYES WIDE SHUT.
I had seen most of these films at some point in my life, but none in many years. Amazingly, I have never owned a Kubrick film in any form. I must admit, placing this set in my collection is much like owning an original Monet. It is art.
Here are my thoughts on these films:
2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY – Beautiful, profound, boring, annoying, joyous. The film defies explanation because it refuses explanation. Concepts and ideas are painted with forms, light, and images; words are irrelevant. The special effects still work because they are not treated as special; rather, they are crafted as a series of iconic images that are just as symphonic as the overlaid score. It is science fiction distilled and purified.
A CLOCKWORK ORANGE – This is like a mixture of DR. STRANGELOVE and 2001. It is comical, yet realistically futuristic. MY favorite aspect of the film is the use of language, and how it changes with each successive generation into something less than intelligible. It’s a bit too long and overindulgent, but still a fascinating moral parable.
THE SHINING – Although frequently cited as one of the scariest films ever made, I must admit that the film has never frightened me. But there can be no doubt that Kubrick infinitely improved Stephen King’s novel, infusing it with psychological depth. Kubrick again leaves it ambiguous, never really telling us whether the events are purely hallucinogenic or ghostly. An amazing technical achievement, and also one of the few times that Kubrick elicits some great performances.
FULL METAL JACKET – Tinkering with movie form and conventions, Kubrick makes an unsentimental and unblinking film about war. The bathroom scene is one of the most perfect moments captured on film. The end battle sequence is harrowing. Matthew Modine is terrific, Kubrick’s best hero. And what can you say about R. Lee Ermey as Gunnery Sergeant Hartman except WOW?? Unflinching and brutal.
EYES WIDE SHUT – Beautifully photographed, but ultimately a failure. Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman are mostly decent, but the film is top heavy with symbolism and stylistic flourishes. Again, Kubrick is at his best when he holds his camera on a performance and lets it sink in. Kidman’s blunt admission of adultery in her heart, exposed in her underwear, is a long and eviscerating scene. The film is too cold and too clinical to actually strike to the heart of this kind of subject matter. It doesn’t help that he’s saddled with mediocre actors this time around.
Kubrick was a once-in-a-generation phenomenon, whose eye and intellect are sorely missing from film since his death. He is often generalized as a technical director obsessed with machines rather than humans. While it is true that Kubrick’s films dealt with man’s disconnect from nature through machinery, he was also very interested in human nature. However, he didn’t approach humanity the way Steven Spielberg does; Spielberg embraces the warmth of human nature, while Kubrick hangs back, wary. Kubrick was keenly aware of human shortcomings, and he was always eager to place a mirror in front of them. He was like a caring and curious god, watching his creation with detached affection.
Although Kubrick was a distinct visual director, he never allowed his style to interfere with his attention on telling the story or relating a persepctive. That’s not to say that Kubrick’s messages are particularly easy to grasp; they are rarely presented on a platter for easy dissection. But Kubrick always focused on characters, their faces, their relationships to other people or machines, their motivations, desires, dreams. The much-vaunted style was merely the eye through which we would see these particular relationships and people.
When we look at the current crop of young directors in Hollywood, it’s hard to find someone who approaches Kubrick’s depth of vision or style. Of the bunch, David Fincher might come closest, although he has shown more style than substance in most of his films. Most of the younger directors have grown up ruined by video games and tentpole movie entertainment, and their films reflect these influences. Kubrick’s training came from still photography; the new generation of directors trained on Nintendo and TOP GUN. The artists are largely gone from Hollywood, their canvases profaned on the altar of opening weekend grosses. It’s sad state of affairs.
I miss Stanley Kubrick. I miss having that thrill of discovery inherent in his films. I especially miss him in this age of carbon-copy blockbusters and their generic mindlessness. But I am so glad to finally have some of his output on my shelves next to crap like GODZILLA and INDEPENDENCE DAY. Like Kubrick himself, they class up the joint a little.



12 Comments
Barry Lyndon might have been poorly received, but I actually think it’s up there with 2001 as Kubrick’s most extraordinary work. Seeing it on a brand new print earlier this year was a wonderful experience, and it’s a film that deserves to be rediscovered.
@ Phil – I’ve never seen the entire film, although what I have seen looks sumptuous. It makes me wish Kubrixk would have gotten around to making NAPOLEON … I can only imagine the photography of that one!
Every 2 years anyone who appreciates Kubrick should hit up his collection.
His films are both brutal and technical works of art.
His skill level behind a camera is pure guinness.
Kubrick is also one of the few directors who lets his camera shots breath and
settle. Kubrick never needed green screen, or flashy editors to help the mood or the look of his films. It’s all about camera position and lighting. Kubrick was not just a director. But he had his hand in Director of Photography, Lighting Director, and the overall look and mood of the film. And I know most would say all Directors are involved in that level. But Kubricks working habits were boarder line obsession. For example. If you watch 5 to 10 min of any Kubrick film, you know your watching Kubrick. His signature paint brush is the most recognizable in film history. Man I miss that dude.
@ Tony – You’re exactly right … his brushstroke IS one of the most recongizable in film history.
I like Independence Day :D
Not comparing to Kubrick of course. I need to watch Eyes Wide Shut…I think that and Barry Lyndon are the only flicks I’ve missed from his collection.
@ Matt – After watching EYES WIDE SHUT, I can see why Kubrick wasn’t completely happy with it. Check it out and see if you agree.
Watch Eyes Wide Shut and look for the obvious and playful use of the colors red and blue. A game within the movie.
‘however vast the darkness we must supply our own light’
I’d say PT Anderson over Fincher.
well it’s not contemporary directors’ faults that there’s such a focus now on opening weekend grosses. To make meaningful art nowadays is harder than ever and their efforts should be applauded. Making “Fight Club” today I think is just as much of an achievement as making “2001″ back then. You can’t judge art apart from historical context.
@ ym – Not sure I would call FIGHT CLUB art.
As far as 2001 is concerned, you need to keep in mind that Kubrick won the right to make a movie like that because he had directed a couple of outstanding films that also made money and won awards. Once he EARNED that right, he made the films dear to his heart.
It’s not the economic situation that shackles directors today; it’s their own lack of imagination and artistic sensibilities. They all want the big payday rather than making somthing worthwhile or intellectually stimulating.
The other problem I feel, is that society itself doesn’t reward directors who take risks nowadays. 2001 when it came out was well received. If that film came out now it would have a decent opening weekend at best because its just too odd for today’s moviegoers.
Honestly, the internet needs to share a lot of the blame for the current situation in film. Everyone acts like they are all awesome because they love these “cult” films. Most of those cult classics that everyone just loves are horrible movies that people find funny because of how bad they are. Hollywood doesn’t see it that way though. They see it as “hey, kids are talking about this obscure movie from the 70s. we should remake it so that they will all go see it and make some quick cash.” Why try to make something original when the money is staring them in the face.
Of course everyone goes to see whatever rehash they put together. Its a shitty movie most likely, but since everyone and their mom went and saw it, it made bank, so Hollywood chalks it up as a win and moves on to whatever other movie they have lined up next.
Sorry for the rant, but I just had this conversation at work with another co-worker so it is fresh in my mind.
Mainstream movies were always kinda mediocre. Adjust for inflation and the movie industry is three times more profitable than in the thirties. But hey, whining is fun!