Kubrick: A Debate on his Merits and Demerits

hellgodsrus

Actual Real Game Dev!
Location
Behind You
Pronouns
She/Her
So I got myself into an argument on a totally unrelated thread with @VolantRedX about Kubrick's filmography - I think he's hugely overrated, Vol has the more normal viewpoint - and given that interest was expressed in seeing it play out, here it is. It mostly (so far) focuses around 2001: A Space Odyssey. Here are the relevant posts...

One of the definitive examples of the book being way way better than the movie (seriously, Kubrick's a hack. You want great cinematography - go watch a Powell and Pressburger film or Abel Gance's Napoleon. They at least can do tracking shots that keep the subject in shot and jump cuts that don't look like lazy garbage my cat could do).
And people say I don't know anything about movies.
Nope, he is. His vaunted style is, frankly, amateur, and reeks of the kind of faux-pretentiousness only someone who doesn't actually know what high culture is thinks high culture is.

Smart cinematography is Gance putting his camera on a pendulum during the chaos of the French Revolution, or cutting repeatedly with increasing speed between the wheels of the train, the slowly blinded train drivers eyes and the tracks themselves. It's Pressburger's quick shot of Ruth's mad, makeup streaked eyes at the climax of Black Narcissus (or that terrifying shot of her running up the stairs - god, that still gives me nightmares), or the brilliantly bombastic and reverse-thrust of the Life and Death of Colonel Blimp's opening.

It is not badly tracking a bone being thrown in the air, then cutting to a spaceship shaped sort-of like the bone if you squint in roughly the same area of the screen the bone might have been in, while playing 'epic' classical music.

EDIT: Or the scene with the pram from Battleship Potemkin, or most of Dadaist cinema. Dadaists are great on cinematography. Go watch them.
However it is use of lights to create a sterile inhuman effect to the ships. Having the actors stay near totally still to create a sense of unease as they talk about the discovery on the moon. It's about using effects to make space travel look like space travel. It comes in the unnatural calm used by the astronauts to provide a contrast to the heightened emotions of the killer computer. I don't even like 2001 and it's not Kubrick's best work but to say it's poorly shoot is just talking nonsense.
The reason it's so famous isn't because it's some great leap in film technique, but because the underlying message and it's impact on the movie.


So I'm going to put you down as totally crazy if you think The Shining is anything other than great.


Must be. Kubrick is one of the directors that either you understand what he was going for and understand the genius of it, or you just totally miss the artistic achievement. Which is fine. It wouldn't be art if everyone got it.
Well it's such an obviously dumb message, but on top of that almost every article I've read on cinema that mentions it describes it as 'one of the greatest cuts of all time' which, as I said, shakes my griddle because it's so poorly executed. But I think we're veering very very off topic here, like we did about Shakespeare in the base thread, and maybe should take this to PMs?

I'm going to make a post on The Shining in a moment, but I figured it was best to make the setup clear before continuing.
 
First off let me say that the Shining has some great moments of actual cinema - it's just really let down by Kubrick's poor handling of the actors (Nicholson in particular, who really needs a firm hand in order to perform well). It has been a few years since I saw it, but I remember being very impressed by the way the reveals were shot, in the way Jack Torrance's descent into madness is shown.

That said, by removing the supernaturalism of the original work and making Wendy another shrieking screamy girl (for an interesting theory as to why he did this, please read The Wolf at the Door) the movie had to hang itself on Jack Torrance being convincing in the role. And Nicholson...has the same issue he did when he portrayed the Joker. Watching him, you feel like you're watching an actor, not a person. I've always held that the best performance I've ever seen of Henry V was not Larry Olivier or Kenneth Branagh, but some no-name at Stratford, who made King Harry human in the way he delivered the Crispin's day speech - like it was just occurring to him as well, not like some godwrought plan. Nicholson's portayal of Torrance lack's that crucial note - and thus the whole film (imo) falls apart.
 
Last edited:
Really? Because Jack in the Shining actually felt like a mad man out to kill his family. He really felt like a total psychopath that was driven mad by his isolation.
 
Last edited:
Really? Because Jack in the Shinning actually felt like a mad man out to kill his family. He really felt like a total psychopath that was driven mad by his isolation.

Jack Torrance is already crazy when we first see him in The Shining, though. The biggest difference between film and book, much more than Kubrick's atheism versus King's vague theism, is that Stephen King was a self-denying alcoholic writing a violent alcoholic and Stanley Kubrick was not an alcoholic directing/filming a violent alcoholic. So the book's Jack Torrance is a good man who makes mistakes and does bad things, the film's is a man that does bad things and we see him from the outside, not his self-justifying inside. The only character we really get any look at internally, in the film, is Dick Hallorann, and only for a brief moment. Wendy and Danny are also only seen from the outside.

Now, atheism versus theism is, I think, key to why the film was staged in this fashion. Within the novel, things have meaning. The Overlook is a mind that wants things, screams racial slurs, and behaves as a character, even if it's a stupid stinging wasp at the end. The old woman has a story, the lovers have a story, the party has a story, the caretaker has a story. Within the film, nothing makes sense. The layout of the kitchen is geometrically impossible, the caretaker's story exists but his name changes, his position changes, and his daughters have somehow become twins instead of being two years apart. The old woman comes from nowhere, the lovers come from somewhere beyond nowhere, and the party lacks all context. The Torrances literally live in a nonsensical space. The movie ends with a shot of pure antilogic- we cannot explain the photograph without inventing stories that are nowhere in the film, because the Overlook does not make sense, because the universe does not, in the end, make sense. And in a nonsensical universe, only the insane can prosper. So Wendy, Dick, and Danny, because they are sane, are not able to prevail in the way they can in the novel, because in the novel they are facing a racist hotel and a drunk, and in the movie they are facing a hostile universe.
 
I think a big part of the Shining too is just how much off it is "real". Are there really ghosts at all or is it all in the family's head as the descend deeper and deeper into madness. I think in that Kubrick really shines (no pun intended) the long shots of almost totally empty rooms with the exception of the characters to show how isolated they are even inside. The sheer quietness of the movie to heighten the sense of being trapped and alone with nothing but your thoughts. The unstated message of The Shining is that people don't need malevolent spirits to be driven to horrible things, we take care of that ourselves. In fact Kubrick almost seems to resent the notion that Jack is driven to murder by anything other than being wound too tight and just snapping.
 
Last edited:
Really? Because Jack in the Shinning actually felt like a mad man out to kill his family. He really felt like a total psychopath that was driven mad by his isolation.
I think a big part of the Shinning too is just how much off it is "real". Are there really ghosts at all or is it all in the family's head as the descend deeper and deeper into madness. I think in that Kubrick really shines (no pun intended) the long shots of almost totally empty rooms with the exception of the characters to show how isolated they are even inside. The sheer quietness of the movie to heighten the sense of being trapped and alone with nothing but your thoughts. The unstated message of The Shinning is that people don't need malevolent spirits to be driven to horrible things, we take care of that ourselves.
Only one 'n' in the name.
 
Well, for a start I'd be curious to know what you think the "message" of 2001 is that you can so easily dismiss it.
GOD FUCKING DAMNIT INTERNET.

Ok, so for those of you who don't know, my internet turns off regularly in the evenings until the morning, so I was going to respond quickly and say:

'The jump cut not the overall film (by the by, love the avatar - such a good movie). The jump cut says something hamfisted about how technological development stems from violence (ergo all human innovation does).'

- but, as I said, my internet. Give me a moment to catch up on the thread and I'll make any more responses as necessary.

Also, I am planning on rewatching 2001, The Shining, and Dr Strangelove (the movie of Kubrick's I actually really like) today to see if my memories have gone stale and I'm giving them a bad rap. I'll try and post my thoughts throughout the day.
 
The jump cut says something hamfisted about how technological development stems from violence (ergo all human innovation does).'
I always saw it as "from the cave to the stars we're still human." It's showing how the Monolith has guided human evolution, giving us the ability to build things and than evolves that one guy into the next step.

Also, I am planning on rewatching 2001, The Shining, and Dr Strangelove (the movie of Kubrick's I actually really like) today to see if my memories have gone stale and I'm giving them a bad rap. I'll try and post my thoughts throughout the day.
No Clockwork Orange? That's the best one.
 
I always saw it as "from the cave to the stars we're still human." It's showing how the Monolith has guided human evolution, giving us the ability to build things and than evolves that one guy into the next step.

But given Kubrick's view of humanity (see the ape kill ape scene, etc.) this is portrayed as a bad thing, that no matter how much the monolith injects technology into us we'll always distort it with violence and dread.

No Clockwork Orange? That's the best one.
Really? Ugh, it's so faux-Neo-fascist and Hobbesian, and the book wasn't any good either. If I have time.
 
But given Kubrick's view of humanity (see the ape kill ape scene, etc.) this is portrayed as a bad thing, that no matter how much the monolith injects technology into us we'll always distort it with violence and dread.
Except it's clear the monolith is pushing us better each time. We go from victims of violence, to inflicters of violence to whatever comes next.

Really? Ugh, it's so faux-Neo-fascist and Hobbesian, and the book wasn't any good either. If I have time.
Isn't it the opposite of that, given the condemnation it has for brain washing people into proper behavior?
 
Except it's clear the monolith is pushing us better each time. We go from victims of violence, to inflicters of violence to whatever comes next.

But we don't. Not going to continue this particular debate til I've rewatched the scene in question to make sure I'm getting it right, but as far as I recall it's more that the violence is always always internally self-inflicted (as a species). And even so, 'inflicters of violence' isn't really, imo, a step forward.

Isn't it the opposite of that, given the condemnation it has for brain washing people into proper behavior?
Yeah, it condemns it, but in the process it also endorses that the natural state of humanity is 'nasty poor, brutish and short' and that Alex really is better off as a violent sociopath, asserting his dominance by attacking his fellow man and acting in a pack-like mentality with his 'droogs'. A lot of this is problems inherent to the original work, but Kubrick clearly intended this to be the overall effect (see his comments on the central moral message of the movie) and the fact that once Alex is 'cured', the rest of society acts to him like an Alex of their own, showing that in the movie's universe the only way to survive is to be a bigger dick than the guy next to you, a philosophy I vehemently disagree with and find to be really bloody dangerous.
 
Just watched the first 20 minutes of 2001 again, thought I'd stop by to give my opinion.

So it's not quite as bad as I remember - there are some little details I'd forgotten and thought were quite nice (the way the bone-wielders walk more upright, the monolith arrival scene actually being wonderfully well put together, with the music slowly drowning out the cries of the apes and the otherness of the monolith against the scenery being very jarring in a good way), but there were also all the problems I remember. From the egotistical placement of Kubrick's name with the turn of Alsa Sprach from solemn to triumphant to the really irritating message (humanity was so much better off when we were being eaten by cats and we totes never killed each other before technology lol).

What I'd forgotten, though, was how awful the editing was. Checking IMDB that wasn't Kubrick's job, but the scene transitions/some of the cuts are incredibly jarring and feel out of place, almost rushed (the cuts between the different scenes of apes in particular, and between the different dawns in different places, and of course the famous jump cut). On top of that there are minor niggles - the bone changing rotation in the air, clearly due to a different take, the way Alsa Sprach rudely interrupts the scene of the ape with the bone (which otherwise is very well done, but Alsa Sprach completely undercuts any tension there might be by turning it into a weirdly bombastic affair), the leopard's eyes reflecting light which is clearly meant to indicate inhuman predator but just completely breaks immersion for me and makes me go 'I'm watching a movie, aren't I?'

On to the rest!

55 minutes in now, just got to the start of the Jupiter mission.

So let's get the obvious out of the way - that first docking scene, and the scene at the end with the monolith (and a number of shots of the shuttle flying across the moon to get to the monolith) are amazing. There's no denying that, especially with the parallels in positioning and behaviour to the apes' first encounter with the monolith.

Having said that, just because we liked one well put together ship landing scene doesn't mean we want to see it another two times, equally slowly and with basically the same music. It isn't even a Chekov's gun! Yes, it's cool and accurate, we got that the first time.

And oh god, the way they try and shovel down your throat how it's 'just like it is now but in spaaaaaaaaace' is so gorram irritating. The phone call to home, the business trip, the stewardesses, the Pan-Am ship, the stilted 60s businessman style dialogue - ugh, we get it, they're still human beings, could you find less contrived ways to show us that?

Finished. About half an hour ago, but then I had to go help with the continuing efforts to clear out the morass of liquid mortar, stone, brick and rotting wood that used to be the barn.

So having rewatched it, I -

- stand by my original statements, actually. I was prepared to be overwhelmed, and turn to my younger self and go 'you fool!' but actually if anything time had just distorted and shifted what the bad bits were. So while I'd forgotten how good Hal's voicework was (thank you Douglas Rain) I had also forgotten how many pointless scenes there are, that don't build atmosphere or characterisation and just drag, are simply there to try and make some aesthetic appeal to artistic endeavour (particularly egregious are the numerous shots of people walking around in odd gravity, especially with how lingering they are: while it's nice to see someone get the mechanics right we know that they got it right after the first time, and after that it just feels - pointless).

Overall, I think the issue with it as a film is that (I'm going to devolve into literary metaphors here because my background is more literary) in terms of style it wants to sit somewhere between the gothic curlicues of something Lovecraft-esque and the plain simplicity of Hemingway's prose, and ends up moving away with the strengths of neither and all their weaknesses.

As an adaption, it's even worse. It misses the key revelations about the aliens' motivations, the acting and dialogue is bland and emotionlessly delivered, they don't give HAL any redemption so he becomes another 'lolcrazyrobot', there's none of the ambiguity of the book (the aliens are almost certainly bad in the movie, with the light they're shown in, or we're meant to think they are). Of course, most of 2001 is a setup for the much better 2010, but (for obvious reasons) the movie doesn't manage that.

In verdict: deeply flawed, some very interesting ideas and execution, weighed down with too many attempts to seem 'significant' regardless of their effect on the overall shape of the film.

Might save the Shining for another day, it's looking pretty busy atm.

EDIT: Merged several posts.
 
Last edited:
The thing with the monolith isn't about innovation and violence being hand in hand. If i remember right, the monolith is explicitly shown as being gone when the "evolved" ape-men use violence. It only planted the idea of tool use, nothing more. I always saw 2001 as a parable not so much that we were better off living in the Stone age, but that we have come to rely on our tools way too much. Hell, for most of the 2001 segment of the movie HAL is more human and emotional than the humans are.
 
Yeah, it condemns it, but in the process it also endorses that the natural state of humanity is 'nasty poor, brutish and short' and that Alex really is better off as a violent sociopath, asserting his dominance by attacking his fellow man and acting in a pack-like mentality with his 'droogs'. A lot of this is problems inherent to the original work, but Kubrick clearly intended this to be the overall effect (see his comments on the central moral message of the movie) and the fact that once Alex is 'cured', the rest of society acts to him like an Alex of their own, showing that in the movie's universe the only way to survive is to be a bigger dick than the guy next to you, a philosophy I vehemently disagree with and find to be really bloody dangerous.
The point is that Alex was a violent bully and as soon as his power to inflict violence is taken away the people he's abused all get their revenge on him. It's not that you have to be the bigger dick to survive, but that evil is paid unto evil. The big joke of the movie is that Alex is incapable of learning or growing as a person and that the world would be better off without him.
 
The point is that Alex was a violent bully and as soon as his power to inflict violence is taken away the people he's abused all get their revenge on him. It's not that you have to be the bigger dick to survive, but that evil is paid unto evil. The big joke of the movie is that Alex is incapable of learning or growing as a person and that the world would be better off without him.
Evil is paid unto evil is one way of saying you have to be the bigger dick to survive, imo, but fair enough. Also, the whole 'lol, prison doesn't work at all' thing is classic, classic far right politics.

The thing with the monolith isn't about innovation and violence being hand in hand. If i remember right, the monolith is explicitly shown as being gone when the "evolved" ape-men use violence. It only planted the idea of tool use, nothing more. I always saw 2001 as a parable not so much that we were better off living in the Stone age, but that we have come to rely on our tools way too much. Hell, for most of the 2001 segment of the movie HAL is more human and emotional than the humans are.

And that's a weakness given the way the narrative is framed, though I do agree HAL is the most interesting character in the film. The monolith disappears because the monolith is the monolith, but the ape-man explicitly remembers it when he starts using the bone as a club, and given the cut from bone to spaceship the symbolism is clear. And there's the way it drains all the innovation and interest from the original book and I'm getting angry again.
 
Evil is paid unto evil is one way of saying you have to be the bigger dick to survive, imo, but fair enough. Also, the whole 'lol, prison doesn't work at all' thing is classic, classic far right politics.
The reason the prisons don't work is because they're run by neo-facists that don't care about anything other than reducing crime rates. It's a condemnation of the far right. It's very clearly saying "you can't fix people by beating them into submission, you need to find a way to reach their moral reason." The Minister's point to the warden is that Alex isn't a moral person after the experiment at all. He just can't act on his immoral thoughts, while the Warden points out that the state doesn't care about morality, only in making itself look good.
 
Agree to disagree i guess.
A position I'm totally ok with. Honestly, I believe this whole debate really belongs in the unpopular opinions thread, but a couple of people asked for a thread of its own and so...

The reason the prisons don't work is because they're run by neo-facists that don't care about anything other than reducing crime rates. It's a condemnation of the far right. It's very clearly saying "you can't fix people by beating them into submission, you need to find a way to reach their moral reason." The Minister's point to the warden is that Alex isn't a moral person after the experiment at all. He just can't act on his immoral thoughts, while the Warden points out that the state doesn't care about morality, only in making itself look good.
Different readings, I guess. I'll put it on the to-rewatch list, so I can again see if I'm being unfair to it.
 
Last edited:
Different readings, I guess. I'll put it on the to-rewatch list, so I can again see if I'm being unfair to it.
I think it's important to keep in mind that no one in Clockwork Orange is "right", morally speaking. The closest is the Minister and even he is too much a bleeding heart to understand that Alex is a monster.
 
I think it's important to keep in mind that no one in Clockwork Orange is "right", morally speaking. The closest is the Minister and even he is too much a bleeding heart to understand that Alex is a monster.
The idea that people are irredeemable monsters is a fundamentally right wing one! And the fact that no-one's actions can be regarded as at all right, even from their own point of view, is my problem with the movie - see my points about it taking the worst parts of Hobbes. Now I'm not Locke, I don't think man's nature is idyllic, but I think that humanity fails because it tries to touch the sun and fails - in that sense, 2001 speaks to me more in terms of its message, even if bits of it I disagree with and its presentation falls somewhat flat.
 
Except both the book's writer and Kubrick were left leaning people. It's just Alex is a character that lacks any moral reasoning.
Even left leaning people can write, and make, very right wing works or statements (see my very left wing liberal mother's occasional comments on the welfare system).
 
Back
Top