A
reader, Trent, writes:
“Your thoughts on Stanley Kubrick and his
contributions to the world of film as it relates to horror/sci-fi?
And do you think he did a disservice to his fans by
directing so few films over such a long career, or, was his meticulous
preparation what made his films so unique?
Trent, that’s a great question.
Stanley Kubrick (1928 – 1999) is one
of my all-time favorite film directors, in part because he hopped so adroitly between
genres. He wouldn’t consider himself a
horror or science fiction film director, I’m quite certain, and yet he gave the
world Dr. Strangelove (1964), 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), A
Clockwork Orange (1971), and The Shining (1980).
I also count Eyes Wide Shut (1999) as
a meaningful horror genre contribution, by the way. In fact, it’s one of the most unnerving and
deeply creepy films of the last fifteen years.
In a very real sense, the film features real-life vampires: a predatory,
vulture-like upper-class feeding on the rest of society. Watch Eyes Wide Shut again today, and you’ll
detect immediately how it forecasts the kind of Occupy Wall Street divisions we’ve
seen playing out culturally in the last year or so.
What I appreciate most about Kubrick
and the films I listed above however, is their overtly cerebral and
intellectual nature. Even outside of the
chilly setting of The Shining, the aforementioned films boast a sense of removed,
dispassionate, glacial intelligence. There is nothing warm or “easy” about these
films, and yet -- engaging with Kubrick’s films -- I love to align myself with
that kind of crisp, unemotional mentality.
For me, Kubrick offers a unique vision, one of almost clinical precision
and focus. His films are beautiful to
watch, and challenging – but rewarding -- to interpret.
A great many folks count 2001:
A Space Odyssey as the greatest science fiction film ever made, and one
of the best films ever produced to boot.
I don’t place 2001 at the number one slot for the
genre, but I understand the arguments for such positioning. I prefer the political/social commentary of Planet
of the Apes (1968) to the technological vision of 2001, and yet I take
every opportunity to watch 2001 again. It’s indisputably a great film and a landmark
sci-fi film.
I believe Stephen King convincingly
wrote chapter-and-verse on the reason that he didn’t care too much for Kubrick’s
interpretation of The Shining.
And yet that horror film has
flourished as the definitive adaptation of that literary work, and as one of
the most beloved horror films made in the last half-century. I suspect this is because of Kubrick’s
intelligent, obsessive, psychological approach to the material. From the wintry, foreboding landscapes and
the recurring title cards, to the episodic, repeating incidents at Jack’s typewriter,
the film perfectly captures the sense of a human mind coming slowly unhinged…a
piece at a time. The film may not work
in supernatural terms, but there’s an uncomfortable truth -- brought out ably by
both Nicholson and Kubrick -- in Torrance’s psychological disintegration that’s
tough to deny. The film is the ultimate nightmare of a "bad" Father.
I suspect that if Kubrick had made
films more quickly, he would have sacrificed his own particular, obsessive
genius.
The films I’ve mentioned here are
just one facet of his glorious career, but there are other enterprises of
fascinating dimension (Barry Lyndon, Full Metal Jacket, Paths of
Glory, Spartacus) as well. Until
Ridley Scott’s Black Hawk Down (2001), Full Metal Jacket was my favorite
war film, actually.
In all, Stanley Kubrick gave
audiences a good dozen films or so, and that’s more than enough quality work by
which to assess his genius.
Instead of working faster, I just
wished he had lived another decade. I
would have loved to see a Kubrick-directed A.I. (2001), for instance. But I’m
immensely grateful for the films Mr. Kubrick gave the world in his time on this
mortal coil.
Ask me a question at Muirbusiness@yahoo.com.
John I agree with your thoughts on Kubrick. 2001(1968), like Planet of the Apes(1968), is one of the great science-fiction films exploring different realms. 1968 was a great year in science-fiction films. Kubrick's The Shining(1980) is a brilliant film and , for me, surpasses the 1997 miniseries adaption. Also, John I would recommend that you see [currently not on dvd] the documentary STANLEY KUBRICK'S BOXES(2008) which gives you an insight into just how he worked on all of his films with intense pre-production research from all those that worked with him.
ReplyDeleteSGB
Hi SGB,
DeleteI'll have to keep an eye out for that documentary that you mentioned in your comment. It sounds very interesting.
And I wholeheartedly agree that 1968 is a great year for science fiction cinema. I love both POTA and 2001. Great films!
best
John
I cannot but love his work. My single most favorite film is Barry Lyndon. Such a wonderful historical drama with great production. Eyes Wide Shut is also a really haunting experience with sensuality, yet not too explicit. I am happy that we have this many movies with varying themes by this great director.
ReplyDelete-T.S.
Hi T.S.
DeleteBarry Lyndon is a great film. I also count Eyes Wide Shut as one, though it was largely misunderstood by critics and audiences at the time of its release (because it was advertised, essentially, as "porn" with "stars" Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman).
I agree wholeheartedly with your last sentence. I am happy we have a dozen films from this amazing talent.
best,
John
Yes, he could do creepy very well. Look at Lolita. And it's not just that the pedophilia is creepy, but Humbert is pretty creepy just by himself. It's a very great, sad movie.
ReplyDelete