Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
erosoplier wrote:Brilliant, yes. I could go out and watch the movie again now, for the first time.<br><br>But I guess I'm still an artless philistine at the end of the day. The review may snatch victory from the jaws of defeat for Kubrick as a film-maker, but as a person he's his own best example - of a prostitute. A prostitute who donned a self-satisfied smirk while the client walked around with his eyes wide shut, and his pimps laughed all the way to the bank. <br><br>That's being as harsh as I can possibly be. He was here, and he did his thing, and he did it better than most - all is almost forgiven. But let's not forget that the thing he did so well works almost exclusively to support the entirely unsatisfactory status-quo.
compared2what? wrote:I'd say it was an intelligent review, and reserve the word "brilliant" for the movie. But mostly, I'm posting to respectfully dissent from the characterization of Kubrick as a prostitute.
What would you have had him do, honey? He made art with the aim of provoking people to think for themselves about issues that were, to him and to most on this board, essential.
Though it's true that most moviegoers aren't interested in anything more than being led to water, I think it's a little unjust to blame that on one of the few well-known American movie-makers whose work offers those who are the opportunity to drink.
In his memoir of Kubrick, Michael Herr, his friend and co-writer of the screenplay for Full Metal Jacket, wrote:Stanley had views on everything, but I would not exactly call them political... His views on democracy were those of most people I know, neither left or right, not exactly brimming with belief, a noble failed experiment along our evolutionary way, brought low by base instincts, money and self-interest and stupidity... He thought the best system might be under a benign despot, though he had little belief that such a man could be found. He wasn't a cynic, but he could have easily passed for one. He was certainly a capitalist. He believed himself to be a realist.
Herr also wrote that Kubrick owned guns and that he did not think war is entirely a bad thing. In the documentary Stanley Kubrick: A Life in Pictures, Herr says "… he also accepted to acknowledge that, of all the things war is, it is also very beautiful." Kubrick, according to Ian Watson, reportedly said of the pre-1997 socialist Labour Party “If the Labourites ever get in, I’ll leave the country.” Watson explains that Kubrick was extremely opposed to laws on taxing the rich and welfare in general.[9]
And because for another thing, thirsty people go to see them and think "wow, how cool would it be to be rich!" A million thirsty people will think this for every time an intelligent movie reviewer can divine a scathing critique of extreme wealth as one of the core themes of the movie.
compared2what? wrote:
In fact, though I liked the essay in the OP a lot, enjoyed reading it, and was stimulated to thought by it, I barely agree with its interpretation of the movie at all, as it happens. So basically there's no reason I can think of for it not to be all good: If your considered opinion is as you say, I'm happy to respect it.
Let's just find some other area of mutual interest and meet there instead!
JackRiddler wrote:Hi, c2w:compared2what? wrote:
In fact, though I liked the essay in the OP a lot, enjoyed reading it, and was stimulated to thought by it, I barely agree with its interpretation of the movie at all, as it happens. So basically there's no reason I can think of for it not to be all good: If your considered opinion is as you say, I'm happy to respect it.
Let's just find some other area of mutual interest and meet there instead!
Reading Kreider's essay and exposition I thought, finally, here is someone who saw the same movie I did, and describes all the same essentials (most of all that it's not about the inner psychological torments of the protagonists but very obviously about the brutal milieu of the super-rich in which they move).
So as someone also very devoted to Mr. Kubrick's work, and always willing to talk about it: How you disagree with this essay's interpretation of the film?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests