Stanley Kubrick : He was a great cinematographer, nothing more.

He was a great cinematographer, nothing more.

It's true.

Re: He was a great cinematographer, nothing more.

Lel

Re: He was a great cinematographer, nothing more.

Hehe ok your opinion I guess ?

Re: He was a great cinematographer, nothing more.

I find this odd considering his films are praised more for just their cinematogrpahy, things like his soundtracks and editing...often things he had a large large part in doing. Very baseless post.

Re: He was a great cinematographer, nothing more.

Perhaps the OP means he was a technically proficient film maker, but he lacked in areas such as acting and story.

Personally I can't think of a single "wow performance" from an actor in a Kubrick movie. It's usually good, because the actors are good, but he utilizes them more as props than as characters imo.

And the stories are never his. Maybe because he doesn't have anything to say? That's compounded by the stories he chose to tell. Most of them have very little to say except on an abstract level (code for don't know what I'm doing, imo).

He's a visualist more than a film maker I'd say.

Re: He was a great cinematographer, nothing more.


Personally I can't think of a single "wow p 2000 erformance" from an actor in a Kubrick movie


"Kubrick acting" is, I think, the chief thing which makes his films so rewatchable. His alienation effects, plus the level of subtlety, ambiguity and intensity he imbues his actors with, allows his films to withstand a level of scrutiny most films can't withstand. There's also almost always a thin vein of comedy/satire in all his performances.

Most of what passes as "good acting" is flashy and empty, and gets silly the more you watch it.


And the stories are never his. Maybe because he doesn't have anything to say?


The films clearly differ from their source material and clearly demonstrate a very singular, and broad, set of interests.


Most of them have very little to say except on an abstract level


Again, it is this "abstractness" which makes his films age so well. Realism, neorealism and literalism tend to get phony with time, or they impose limitations which eventual lead to the work being seen as a stupid.

Re: He was a great cinematographer, nothing more.


"Kubrick acting" is, I think, the chief thing which makes his films so rewatchable. His alienation effects, plus the level of subtlety, ambiguity and intensity he imbues his actors with, allows his films to withstand a level of scrutiny most films can't withstand. There's also almost always a thin vein of comedy/satire in all his performances.

Most of what passes as "good acting" is flashy and empty, and gets silly the more you watch it.


I don't have a problem with the performances. I think what we see on screen is exactly what Kubrick wanted, and he often took many, many takes to get it that way.

My issue is with what he wants. It came to me as I watched 'Lolita'. This is a film where interesting visuals and an interesting story are mostly absent. Human drama is what drives a movie like that, no flash, just characters. And I think it's his worst film by far. It simply bored me. I have to care about those characters, and I just don't. The acting is fine, but it doesn't resonate.

A similar movie is 'The Straight Story' by David Lynch, also a very visual director who isn't always too concerned with plot. And I love that film, the human interactions are heart felt. Nothing much happens except watching characters.

That's when I realized what was lacking in 'Lolita' and in Kubrick's work in general. He has a very feeble approach to the human condition. He engages your intellect and he delivers stunning visuals (wrapped in well produced films), but he does not engage my feelings on the existential level. He can scare me, make me laugh, but he does not bring out the feeling of having watched something profound. That's not to say he is void of those things, I just don't think he masters them like he does other areas. I can list a range of directors who I think are superior in the 'human department', and the older I get those are the movies I enjoy more, because they are more rewatchable. Like there is always something new to learn in life, there is always something new to learn in a great drama. Imo Kubrick has no great drama's, only genre movies. Except perhaps Eyes Wide Shut, which I think is his best film.


The films clearly differ from their source material and clearly demonstrate a very singular, and broad, set of interests.


Indeed they do, and often are they better than the source material as well. This is where Kubrick's greatness comes in. He had an absolute knack for getting out the essence of a story and present it with breath taking imagery and sound. But look at the stories he chose. WWII movie, gangster movie, comedy movie, sci fi movie, dystopian future movie, horror movie, period movie, vietnam movie. He's like the athlete wanting to win all the major competitions he can. There is certainly beauty in that, but art comes from the mind, not the body. Where is Kubrick's own experience with the world he wants to show? He's like an aloof personality. You see his works, but you don't see him. His messages are all abstract and vague, emanating from the story being told (which for the most part weren't his).


Again, it is this "abstractness" which makes his films age so well. Realism, neorealism and literalism tend to get phony with time, or they impose limitations which eventual lead to the work being seen as a stupid.


I'd rather say it's his greatness that makes them age so well. A (truly) good movie never ages. But being human in 2000 is not much different from being human in year 0. Love, pain, death all the same. And I would argue a work coming from that human place has far more longevity since the stories will always apply in another age. Kubrick's list of genre movies are bound to eventually fade as trends and the memory of trends fade also.

Re: He was a great cinematographer, nothing more.


A similar movie is 'The Straight Story'...


Ironically, "Lolita" is Lynch's favourite Kubrick film.

Re: He was a great cinematographer, nothing more.

The genres Kubrick saw fit to indulge are more or less incidental, a means to an end, a framework onto which to hang the ideas. Besides, no genre is inherently unworthy; the basic genres are as old as cinema (or, rather, much older, carrying over from literary tradition)... so hardly a "trend".



"facts are stupid things" Ronald Reagan

Re: He was a great cinematographer, nothing more.

My ripostes:

1) Peter Sellers was up for an Oscar for his role in "Dr. Strangelove", and many
other Kubrick 'leads' have gotten praise for their work: Kirk Douglas (in "Paths of Glory" and "Spartacus", Malcolm McDowell ("Clockwork Orange)", etc. What may have frustrated actors the most about working with Stanley (and this is mainly conjecture) is his "perfectionist" ways, which included multiple takes of the same shots / scenes.

2) His films are all adaptations, but that was well within his rights as a film-maker. That should't take away from his legacy.

3) Since film is a visual medium, being called a 'visualist' has little meaning, in the context of a film-making career.

Re: He was a great cinematographer, nothing more.

Yeah, well, ya know, that's just like, your opinion man. - The Dude

Re: He was a great cinematographer, nothing more.

And everyone is entitled to there own opinion... even tho you're wrong
Top