Topic: What is your favorite movie by Stanley Kubrick?
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U started this discussion 6 years ago #92,269
A Clockwork Orange? Full Metal Jacket? Spartacus? 2001: Space Odyssey? Dr Strangelove? The Shining? Lolita?
Which masterpiece of cinema would you say was his defining achievement? If you feel it is borderline, name 2.
Which masterpiece of cinema would you say was his defining achievement? If you feel it is borderline, name 2.
jodi !ariasXXmaE joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later[^] [v] #1,047,487
spates odyssey
i Liked the set design on the shining
i Liked the set design on the shining
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,490
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 2 minutes later, 7 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,491
I don't watch dadfilm
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 9 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,492
@1,047,490 (C)
> > Lolita?
Yeah, that one was borderline I admit. People really should burn that movie outside churches.
> > Lolita?
Yeah, that one was borderline I admit. People really should burn that movie outside churches.
(Edited 40 seconds later.)
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,514
Barry Lyndon
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 16 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,528
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 10 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,533
I like Lolita but I prefer the remake
I also like A Clockwork Orange. I haven't read the book yet, but I will likely do so soon
I also like A Clockwork Orange. I haven't read the book yet, but I will likely do so soon
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 8 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,537
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> I like Lolita but I prefer the remake
Yes, the remake was way better. Jeremy Irons' performance was brilliant. Arguably Kubrick's version was his worst movie (and Peter Sellers' worst role as Quilty).
> I also like A Clockwork Orange. I haven't read the book yet, but I will likely do so soon
The book's grate.
> I like Lolita but I prefer the remake
Yes, the remake was way better. Jeremy Irons' performance was brilliant. Arguably Kubrick's version was his worst movie (and Peter Sellers' worst role as Quilty).
> I also like A Clockwork Orange. I haven't read the book yet, but I will likely do so soon
The book's grate.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 6 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,539
@previous (H)
The Kubrick version was so campy and the girl seemed older and very worldly/seductive so that there was less sympathy for her
The Kubrick version was so campy and the girl seemed older and very worldly/seductive so that there was less sympathy for her
(Edited 42 seconds later.)
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 14 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,547
@1,047,533 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> I also like A Clockwork Orange. I haven't read the book yet, but I will likely do so soon
The book is fantastic and makes extremely clever use of the Russian language, more so than the adaptation. Burgess (who was fluent in the language) makes some fantastic word play.
Another positive of the book is that the central question - is it better to choose to be evil or to be forced to be good (as in a clockwork orange, something artificially sweet?) - is treated far more subtly, and therefore better, than Kubrick did in the film. All that said, the film is a masterpiece, but it really is a case of the novel being better in my opinion (the ending of the novel is very different also, but that's likely the result of US censors butchering the book and Kubrick reading the version that didn't have the all-important final 21st chapter).
> I also like A Clockwork Orange. I haven't read the book yet, but I will likely do so soon
The book is fantastic and makes extremely clever use of the Russian language, more so than the adaptation. Burgess (who was fluent in the language) makes some fantastic word play.
Another positive of the book is that the central question - is it better to choose to be evil or to be forced to be good (as in a clockwork orange, something artificially sweet?) - is treated far more subtly, and therefore better, than Kubrick did in the film. All that said, the film is a masterpiece, but it really is a case of the novel being better in my opinion (the ending of the novel is very different also, but that's likely the result of US censors butchering the book and Kubrick reading the version that didn't have the all-important final 21st chapter).
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U (OP) double-posted this 6 years ago, 1 hour later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,559
@1,047,539 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> The Kubrick version was so campy and the girl seemed older and very worldly/seductive so that there was less sympathy for her
Dolores ('Lolita') in the novel is also very seductive and worldly. She's not even a virgin by the time Humbert gets his evil claws on her. That was one of Nabokov's defences against the critique that his novel was a metaphor for the debauchery of 'clean America' by 'old Europe' (Humbert is European, Dolores is all-American). He was honestly baffled that Dolores was read as some pure and innocent creature who got defiled by the evil Humbert.
> The Kubrick version was so campy and the girl seemed older and very worldly/seductive so that there was less sympathy for her
Dolores ('Lolita') in the novel is also very seductive and worldly. She's not even a virgin by the time Humbert gets his evil claws on her. That was one of Nabokov's defences against the critique that his novel was a metaphor for the debauchery of 'clean America' by 'old Europe' (Humbert is European, Dolores is all-American). He was honestly baffled that Dolores was read as some pure and innocent creature who got defiled by the evil Humbert.
Anonymous C replied with this 6 years ago, 18 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,567
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 6 years ago, 40 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,588
@1,047,559 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
I do not find her very seductive at all. He even writes that she never enjoys the sex and cries every night
Later when she is older, she gets a bit seductive with Quilty
I do not find her very seductive at all. He even writes that she never enjoys the sex and cries every night
Later when she is older, she gets a bit seductive with Quilty
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 33 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,595
I'd probably throw my vote in for Dr. Strangelove.
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 3 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,598
@previous (I)
> I'd probably throw my vote in for Dr. Strangelove.
That comes in 3rd in my ranking, behind 2001 (1st) and Eyes Wide Shut (2nd).
> I'd probably throw my vote in for Dr. Strangelove.
That comes in 3rd in my ranking, behind 2001 (1st) and Eyes Wide Shut (2nd).
Anonymous I replied with this 6 years ago, 21 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,604
@previous (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
So many of his films are great. It's hard to come up with any kind of rubric by which to compare them. Films are such a collaborate effort that it's hard (for me at least) to try to distill the uniquely Kubrick parts out of each film and judge them on their own merits.
Also, I'm just a sucker for Peter Sellers. I think Dr. Strangelove saw both Kubrick and Sellers doing their best work in a way that raised them both up above what they could do alone. As was mentioned upthread, Lolita was probably an example of how not to combine a great actor and great director. Not that Lolita was bad by any means, it's just not the sparks we see two years later when Sellers isn't confined to a supporting role and Kubrick isn't confined to writing a screenplay for a literary adaptation.
So many of his films are great. It's hard to come up with any kind of rubric by which to compare them. Films are such a collaborate effort that it's hard (for me at least) to try to distill the uniquely Kubrick parts out of each film and judge them on their own merits.
Also, I'm just a sucker for Peter Sellers. I think Dr. Strangelove saw both Kubrick and Sellers doing their best work in a way that raised them both up above what they could do alone. As was mentioned upthread, Lolita was probably an example of how not to combine a great actor and great director. Not that Lolita was bad by any means, it's just not the sparks we see two years later when Sellers isn't confined to a supporting role and Kubrick isn't confined to writing a screenplay for a literary adaptation.
(Edited 50 seconds later.)
Sheila LaBoof joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 1 day later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,048,025
@1,047,559 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
> > The Kubrick version was so campy and the girl seemed older and very worldly/seductive so that there was less sympathy for her
>
> Dolores ('Lolita') in the novel is also very seductive and worldly. She's not even a virgin by the time Humbert gets his evil claws on her. That was one of Nabokov's defences against the critique that his novel was a metaphor for the debauchery of 'clean America' by 'old Europe' (Humbert is European, Dolores is all-American). He was honestly baffled that Dolores was read as some pure and innocent creature who got defiled by the evil Humbert.
well god damn, that bitch was a whore, that's some fucked up story
anyway, a nice tune came from the film, penned by the famous Nelson Riddle and sung by the actress. It took me time to figure it out, but the shouty quality of the vocals was meant as a signal that the singer was to be taken to be an unsophisticated teen. There is a whole genre of 1960s girl singers with similar affectation in their singing. They are singing in that style on purpose. Today, the effect is lost on the modern ear I would say, because we are used to young singers singing with full depth and maturity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiayefY8-As
the tune was covered lots of times, notably by the Ventures:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7EyM9-R5Ik
> > The Kubrick version was so campy and the girl seemed older and very worldly/seductive so that there was less sympathy for her
>
> Dolores ('Lolita') in the novel is also very seductive and worldly. She's not even a virgin by the time Humbert gets his evil claws on her. That was one of Nabokov's defences against the critique that his novel was a metaphor for the debauchery of 'clean America' by 'old Europe' (Humbert is European, Dolores is all-American). He was honestly baffled that Dolores was read as some pure and innocent creature who got defiled by the evil Humbert.
well god damn, that bitch was a whore, that's some fucked up story
anyway, a nice tune came from the film, penned by the famous Nelson Riddle and sung by the actress. It took me time to figure it out, but the shouty quality of the vocals was meant as a signal that the singer was to be taken to be an unsophisticated teen. There is a whole genre of 1960s girl singers with similar affectation in their singing. They are singing in that style on purpose. Today, the effect is lost on the modern ear I would say, because we are used to young singers singing with full depth and maturity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiayefY8-As
the tune was covered lots of times, notably by the Ventures:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7EyM9-R5Ik
Hyperlink !!2MPWksMg1 joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 27 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,048,031
The one where there is that thing and that guy, and they do some stuff.
(Edited 13 seconds later.)
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 6 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,048,033
Kubrick did Repo Man?
Ananthanarayanan M R joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 5 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,048,056
> no poll
Dead !Pool..v42s joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,048,070
Clockwork Orange
book was better
2001 a space Odyssey
book series was grate
book was better
2001 a space Odyssey
book series was grate