Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Mon Dec 22, 2014 1:47 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 
Stanley Kubrick's Favorite Movies 
Author Message
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pm
Posts: 2157
Post Stanley Kubrick's Favorite Movies
I will keep the preamble short: this is a list of movies known to have been praised by Kubrick, as sourced from interviews and as related by those who knew him well.

http://www.bfi.org.uk/news-opinion/sigh ... -cinephile

A brief sampling: loved City Lights, hated The Wizard of Oz, didn't love The Jerk but loved Steve Martin, preferred Branagh's Henry V over the Olivier classic.

_________________
The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.


Fri Jul 26, 2013 5:06 pm
Profile
Producer

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 2016
Post Re: Stanley Kubrick's Favorite Movies
The Decalogue was his favorite movie.


Sat Jul 27, 2013 3:40 am
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2012 2:42 pm
Posts: 1117
Location: New Zealand
Post Re: Stanley Kubrick's Favorite Movies
MGamesCook wrote:
The Decalogue was his favorite movie.

I realise this is being pedantic but here goes anyway. Is The Decalogue strictly speaking a "movie"? It's more like a TV mini-series to me - or do mini-series count as movies under certain circumstances? I could kind of get it if each individual entry (since they have no relation to one another outside of relating back to one of the The Ten Commandments) is seen as a film (albeit with a short 55 min runtime), but to see the entire 10 segments as a singular "movie" makes little sense to me. There are many made for TV documentaries or the excellent series Black Mirror, for example, that also follow a central theme that fit the same criteria. Indeed, The Decalogue is listed as a "TV Mini-series" on both imdb and wikipedia - not as a movie http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092337/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Decalogue_(TV_series).


Sat Jul 27, 2013 4:21 am
Profile
Second Unit Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 5:38 pm
Posts: 265
Post Re: Stanley Kubrick's Favorite Movies
How do we define movies? And what separates a movies from television? There are of course many key characteristics films and tv share, (still images shown in sequence to create the illusion of motion, often to a soundtrack). Is where we experience them important? I've seen more movies on my TV set then I have in theaters by now thanks to Netflix.

Now consider the following and ask yourself what essential characteristic(s) makes them a tv show, a mini series, or a movie?
Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter?
Film serials shown before movies in the 1940's and earlier
James Bond? (I bring this up as we have a recurring character, played by multiple actors like Dr. Who, where there is usually no overarching plot arch between episodes, although there have been on occasion)
Made for TV movies
The Twilight Zone
Anthology horror movies, such as the ABC's of death.
Pier Paolo Pasolini Trilogy of Life
Sharknado, which will soon be given a theatrical release
Television shows that have been made into movies with the original cast (The X-Files, Star Trek)

_________________
My Blog: Queering the Closet


Sat Jul 27, 2013 8:57 am
Profile WWW
Producer

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 2016
Post Re: Stanley Kubrick's Favorite Movies
This is the kind of topic I really love.

I haven't watched a TV show in about 9 years, so I won't try to comment on whether or not it's a legitimate art form. But I don't think it is (damn, I couldn't resist).

I don't consider Decalogue to be a movie. But not a mini-series either. I think it's ten superb short films (could be considered short features) which stand very well on their own, but never come together enough to be a really holistic work for me.

Lord of the Rings...not a movie. I'm not even sure it's three movies. I don't know what it is anymore, really. It's unlike anything else I've seen. I used to think that was a good thing, now I think it's a bad thing.

Deathly Hallows part 1 & 2: definitely not movies. While watching part 1, I began to develop the sinking sensation that the crazy fans had finally won. They'd finally gotten the movie they would have gotten in the first place had a 13-year old reader been allowed to direct them. And part 2 confirmed it.

And I'll say once again, Avengers is not a movie, or even close to being one. And to tie it back into the topic of the thread (this is a diversion, I know), I believe Kubrick would have had a thing or two to say about that movie if he were alive, along the lines of Wally Pfister. Kubrick's not my favorite, but I like what he stood for, and we could really stand to have him around today.


Sat Jul 27, 2013 6:03 pm
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2012 2:42 pm
Posts: 1117
Location: New Zealand
Post Re: Stanley Kubrick's Favorite Movies
MGamesCook wrote:
This is the kind of topic I really love.
I haven't watched a TV show in about 9 years, so I won't try to comment on whether or not it's a legitimate art form. But I don't think it is (damn, I couldn't resist).

I disagree - TV shows can just as easily be an "art form" as a movie (although come to think of it, what does "art form" even mean, exactly?). A mini-series could in theory be strung together to make a really long movie. e.g. Roots or Band of Brothers could easily be made into mega-movies. If Lord of the Rings aren't movies, than neither are any of the Star Wars films (except, perhaps, A New Hope since it is the only film that can stand alone).


Sat Jul 27, 2013 8:21 pm
Profile
Producer

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 2016
Post Re: Stanley Kubrick's Favorite Movies
Quote:
If Lord of the Rings aren't movies, than neither are any of the Star Wars films


Well the three Star Wars films are fairly distinct from one another, and vary wildly in quality, so I count them all as their own movies. With Lotr, none of the three is complete unto itself. I find the latter two to be watchable, though Fellowship I just can't do anymore. They feel very arbitrary, largely due to the fact that they're simultaneously intended for extended versions which are absurdly different from the theatricals to the point where it's almost six movies, not three. Mr. Ebert's reviews of them are still pretty interesting; some of my favorites from him.

For me, it's telling that none of the actors ever made it big on their own. Elijah Wood is just way too creepy (he's played a rapist serial killer three times now). Even after 10 hours, Jackson never made up his mind as to whether we should sympathize more with the Hobbits or the humans. You have a comic duo in Legolas and Gimli, but it's overkill because Merry and Pippin are also a comic duo. The happy ending(s) are gratuitous and totally go against Tolkien's original vision. And there's a lot of times in Lotr where there just isn't enough of a POV. It's too objective to the point where it's difficult to really experience anything. It just never made up its mind what kind of movie it wanted to be. There are wild shifts in tone throughout all three of them. And there's not really a consistent aesthetic behind any of it. This last point is probably what bothers me the most.


Sat Jul 27, 2013 8:46 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Gedmud, Majestic-12 [Bot] and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr