 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: NO director matches the number of Kubrick's great films. posted by tinear on February 03, 2004 at 07:02:40:
Hitchcock? Wilder? Kieslowski? Cassavettes? Altman? Bergman? Welles?Quality over quantity, I'd say. All of the above might not have quite as many great films, but their best can better Kubrick's in a good many cases, and numerically they're at least nipping at his heels.
_____________________________"What is this, a freak-out?"
- Violet Beauregard
Follow Ups:
.
has met the criterion, i.e. giving a director's name ain't tellin' me quality and quantity.
You don't appreciate "Lolita," fine. James Mason and Peter Sellers give two of the best performances of their careers, Shelley Winters is over the top fantastic, Ms. Lyons is the hottest film nymph since Martha Vickers...Any man that has ever lusted after a much younger woman will see himself here....frighteningly so.
The list of great epics is a VERY short one because it's difficult to tell a larger than life story in an already oversized format and not have it appear pompous and grandiose.
Kirk Douglas, and who else of his generation had both the acting chops, physique, and intensity to pull that roll off, and Jean Simmons sizzle together on the screen.
A fascinating glimpse of a "sport" which consumed the attentions of Romans for over 500 years.
An epic which is also a scathing indictment of the culture and mores of Rome, as portrayed through the cynical actions of two perfectly cast actors, Peter Ustinov and Lawrence Olivier.
The gladiatorial contests, as well as the larger scale battles, are as exciting as any scenes ever filmed.
The subtext, of course, is that Kirk D showed in Paths of Glory how a courageous, independent man would fight the war machine of his day; in Spartacus, he shows what drives a man to risk all to become a rebel in opposition to an Empire.
The greatest of films, no. But each is GREAT w/in its category, i.e. satirical indictment of "modern" society; historical epic.
Let us not forget that Kubrick was not the first choice for director, and that he came aboard with a weekend's notice after two weeks of shooting* when producer Douglas fired Anthony Mann. Kubrick always maintained that this was the only film he directed where he did not have complete control. Even so, he performed a magnificent job, directing actors with much more hands on experience and celebrity than he himself had at that point.
*Kubrick was working on "One Eyed Jacks" with Brando when he got the call, which is why Brando ended up directing OEJ.
I have always felt that this is one of his best performances. With just a twitch of an eyebrow, he is able to suggest the enormous power of the patrician class.
Olivier had always somthing ambivalent in his presence. I always found this to be repulsive but fascinating.
A great actor.
Lolita are like all the others Kubrick films they have a certain " coldness ". Curiously this one has an actor that I do like, a Lolita that is really one, but the whole film never pleased me, It is too long ago now that I have seent it, and I would hard pressed to say why I did not like it then.
One of this day I will give it another try.
be sensitive to the genius of Peter Sellers...and the extraordinarily brave performance of Shelley Winters.
Seldom has an actress had the courage to make herself so despicable, and yet so vulnerable. It is this last trait that makes us hate ourselves for hating her.
With a Lolita, what man of a certain age would NOT be Humbert?
***With a Lolita, what man of a certain age would NOT be Humbert?Well, that is a rather silly statement. If you mean appreciation of female beauty, then we all should have it, but as far as losing ourselves... well, broom way too broad.
Sellers is a difficult case for me, as in his life, according too many witnesses, he was a real asshole, as for his genuis...Did I ever saw him in a role that I did like?
Not even Dr. Strangelove.
As for the " Lolita " in real live she behave like one, remembering the story of her filming with Richard Burton...
Well I had it once on LD, but I always wanted to look again but never did, I never found out why!
The principal idea in this film was quite good..But somehow torturous long in the details.
But that is all from memory....
At least his British officer was perfect!
I take it you do not enjoy his Inspector Clouseau?
He also played in some earlier British comedies, one of which I remember with Terry Thomas which was hilarious.
When he died of a heart attack, he was over-training to star in Dr. No (really).
I like quite the director of the " Pink " Black Edwards. But curiously never did ANY of this series. Victor/Victoria this I did really like, even if now I do find a little trim here and there would not do harm.
He was egomaniac, chase EVERY jupon ( skirt ) was a bad guy at other actors...Was mean to women.....
But he was NOT a brillant actor....
I saw him recently in a small episode with Shirley MacLaine it was playing the " friend of the family " at the burial of his friend, she was the widow...
even though it's hard to wish to continue this, please enumerate the films (my post was specifically about quantity AND quality, you know?) of any of your directors which you feel are great.
...by the size of his blanders.In that respect Kubrick did MAJOR damage to his standing by doing the EWS peace of incredibly poor-taste cacarella.
He exibited poor judgement before, but usually was able to recover with the next film, but the EWS defies any understanding... it was a true shocker.
Gimme a break, Vic!
Lesse. Spartacus is just a weak megalomania Hollywood spectacle. Lolita is a weak old man's fantasy - no, not Nabokov's. The Shining has some moments, but it is not a strong film. 2001 a giant white elephant... great for AuPh's "young adults" and not much more... and OK entertainment.Seriously, he made many mistakes. But you are distorting what I said - he is still a great director, just not what you presented originally.
reputation. I guess I didn't understand that was such a sly compliment, i.e. he could take a major hit and still be GREAT!
Are you sure, btw, that you dislike 2001 because of its portrayal of Russians, and nothing more?
I never said he was anything but great, it is just that I regret his mistakes. 2001? Russians? Me?
No other science fiction film approaches its reach: it touches on anthropology, i.e. the origin of homo sapiens' intellectual development and the first use of weapons in violent combat.
Metaphysics: what comes after "life?" Are we alone?
Also, individual alienation in the super-modern world of space travel.
Further, the issue of technology overcoming traditional human nature, creating a hybrid personality, i.e. the astronaut communicating distractedly with his parents on his birthday through a screen; the father talking to his far-away daughter.
Finally, the power and potential danger posed by machines which have greater powers than humans--and which necessarily have "emotions."
The film also is remarkable for its many stunning visual moments: the bone transforming into the spaceship, accompanied by a waltz; the rotation of the stewardess; the flashing screens during the landings with that damn pinging!; the eerie silence---pierced only by the very heavy breathing---during the retrieval of the body floating in space; and, of course, the light trip and subsequent aging of the astronaut----culminating in the much-satirized embryo-rebirth.
Sorry you didn't appreciate it.
The basic philosophical ideas of 2001 could be nicely compressed into a paragraph... which you did.But try to do so with something like Andrey Rublev.
...that would be considered in the same context as for instance Nights of Cabiria or Persona.All that techno stuff is something I loved like thirty years ago... I think I grew out of that.
Few films, such as Solaris, for instance, can do w/out a certain amount of the "gee-whiz!" stuff. But, these are very different movies, one purely about the impact which technology can effect upon emotions and the other, well, I listed several above.
If you prefer, one can summarize 2001 in one sentence: the history of the human race. I don't believe any other movie has attempted so large a statement, or come anywhere near its accomplishment. Kind of like the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel...on film.
...if all the movie has to offer is sci-fi.Solaris has plenty to offer besides the primitive effects, so it has a strong leg to stand on, both artistically and philosophically, and the 2001 has some good stuff in the artistry area, none in philosophy (unless you indeed consider the question: "Are we alone?" a deep philosophical question...:-)), but its emphasis is on effects, so it lost me quickly. Sure, back then these were near revolutionary, but today... who cares?
we're communicating, for example!
How many of our asylum members live in different cities, away from their grown children (or children of divorces)?
Now, add space, more techo wizadry...and our tactile humanity becomes that much less "physical" and intimate.
So, in sum, the depiction of technology WAS a critical part of the movie----how it can even threaten mankind's very survival.
Is there a more originally scary (and yet, poignant) moment in film history than the "killing" of Hal by Dave? "Dave, DAVE!!---I can feel my mind...."
If 2001 is the story of the human race, I would prefer not to be a member.
Ok, the transition of the apes to another world was brillant. And some other parts too.
But it remains empty, like a Cary Grant LSD trip, it was just all ouside without very much inside.
It was just a " pseudo " film.
THAT future. Such immensity of change is terrifying. That, I believe, is the point of showing the embryo---he will only know a futuristic world; he will be at home in it (we don't miss huddling in a cave, frightened by a saber-toothed cat because we don't "remember" it).
Think of 2001 as a sci-fi cousin of "Lost in Translation."
We're well on our way!
The Lost- is coming soon to my shore.
I wonder if I will or not see it the way Victor did. her first work was a little bizarre but I had the feeling more for the sake of being.
5 never had the wish to look at it twice.
s
I was just saying there are a good number of directors with the same hit rate, and I think the artistry of some of the other directors I named is more 'special,' to be vague about it, than Kubrick's. Kubrick is still among my favorite directors.I'm at work, so all these posts hafta be hit and run. No resources or luxury to make lists, and I think my choices would be fairly predictable.
BTW, I wouldn't make the same qualifications as Victor, I like most of the films he disqualifies. But still, look at the oeuvres of the directors I mention, eliminate the probable dogs--which are collectively quite low in number--and I think you've still got a very high ratio of great works.
_____________________________"What is this, a freak-out?"
- Violet Beauregard
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
