Kubrick. Kubrick is a behemoth. By every metric it is Hitchcock and Kubrick as #1 and #2. Kubrick has the most top 100 all-time film (5) which I think is as good as any metric to use. If you’re talking volume—he’s behind Hitchcock and maybe Ford or Bergman but on a per film basis, and as a stylist, there’s no one superior to Kubrick. The only non-masterpiece he made from 1964 to 1999 was Full Metal Jacket and even that ended up as my #1 film of 1987 (an admittedly weak year at the top). If boiled down I think the art of cinema is, firstly, about visual beauty and formal rigor and I think you could make a strong case Kubrick is the single best at both.
Best film: 2001: A Space Odyssey. I almost moved it to my #1 slot this year. Yes, it’s beautifully photographed and visually designed, but the gobsmackingly genius formal achievement is what may ultimately put it in my #1 slot.
Total archiveable films: 12
top 100 films: 5 (2001: A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange, The Shining, Paths of Glory, Barry Lyndon)
top 500 films: 8 (2001: A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange, The Shining, Paths of Glory, Barry Lyndon, Eyes Wide Shut, Dr. Strangelove, Full Metal Jacket)
top 100 films of the decade: 8 (2001: A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange, The Shining, Paths of Glory, Barry Lyndon, Eyes Wide Shut, Dr. Strangelove, Full Metal Jacket)
most overrated: Dr. Strangelove is slightly overrated at #48 of all-time on TSPDT but the easy choice here is Lolita which TSPDT puts at #721 of all-time. If I expanded my top 500 to 1000 I still wouldn’t get to Lolita. I haven’t seen it in ages so I hope I’m wrong, but I actually thought, visually, it was a clear step back from Paths of Glory (that’s no insult) and Spartacus.
most underrated: Paths of Glory #243 all-time on TSPDT and I’m nearly 200 slots higher on it. Kubrick is telling a story with the tracking shots (both in the trenches and in the officer’s chateau) and with the detailed mise-en-scene rich in their individual beauty and formal juxtaposition. It’s a stylistic and formal theme through is work.
gem I want to spotlight: The Shining uses the technological innovation (the Steadicam) to continue the brilliance he started in the 50’s with Paths of Glory. The house is a set-piece, one of cinema’s greatest, and Kubrick leaves no detail in the mise-en-scene unturned. He’s even more obsessed with symmetry (those hallways!) here than his previous (already crazy rigorous) works. The use of color is up there with the best work in the decade. The tracking shot of Jack going into the ballroom…sublime…
stylistic innovations/traits: Like Hitchcock there is just too much to choose from. Experts and cinema lovers could (and have) put together supercuts highlighting his use obsessively composed mise-en-scene, consistent themes in his films, use of music, etc. He may be the greatest technician in the history of cinema and is perhaps cinema’s greatest overall perfectionist. And how about “event cinema”? Every Kubrick movie from 1968 to 1999 was an event. Broken out there’s Steadicam/tracking work (Paths of Glory, 2001, The Shining, opening of Full Metal Jacket). Steadicam/tracking. Barry Lyndon may be the pinnacle of cinematic natural lighting, costume décor. Rigor—both formal and visual along with symmetry in set design. From a narrative and thematic standpoint there’s a profound emptiness or coldness in Kubrick’s world- whether it be in war, marriage, space, family, or the future.
top 10
- 2001: A Space Odyssey
- A Clockwork Orange
- The Shining
- Paths of Glory
- Barry Lyndon
- Eyes Wide Shut
- Dr. Strangelove
- Full Metal Jacket
- The Killing
- Spartacus
By year and grades
| 1955- Killer’s Kiss | R |
| 1956- The Killing | HR |
| 1957- Paths of Glory | MP |
| 1960- Spartacus | HR |
| 1962- Lolita | R |
| 1964- Dr. Strangelove | MP |
| 1968- 2001: A Space Odyssey | MP |
| 1971- A Clockwork Orange | MP |
| 1975- Barry Lyndon | MP |
| 1980- The Shining | MP |
| 1987- Full Metal Jacket | MS |
| 1999- Eyes Wide Shut | MP |
*MP is Masterpiece- top 1-3 quality of the year film
MS is Must-see- top 5-6 quality of the year film
HR is Highly Recommend- top 10 quality of the year film
R is Recommend- outside the top 10 of the year quality film but still in the archives
Barry Lyndon (1975)
Notes:
Part I: By What Means Redmond Barry Acquired the Style and Title of Barry Lyndon:
1:27 Kubrick starts with gorgeous painterly quality composition as narrator explains Redmond Barry’s father would have made a great lawyer if he were not killed in a duel
4:11 Barry falls in love with his cousin Nora Brady who seduces him
6:36 slow zoom out as British and UK armies march forward accompanied by marching music
8:04 Captain John Quinn with hilarious facial pose looking toward Nora Brady
9:20 hilarious dancing from John Quinn
13:16 Redmond gives Norah back her panties leading to another hilarious pose from Captain Quinlan, all this over another gorgeous shot of the landscape
18:27 Barry throws drink in Captain Quinlan’s face following his successful proposal to Norah
25 min Barry wins the duel after several minutes of build up
28:08 gorgeous shot of Redmond riding away on a horse with looming gray cloud taking about much of the frame
31 min Captain Feeny might be the politest armed robber in history
38 min Ryan O’Neal was an amateur boxer, Kubrick uses handheld camera for the boxing scene
43 min Redmond learns the duel was fixed and that John Quinn is not only still alive but now married to Norah. The bullet he did Quinn with during the duel was made of tow
45 min tracking shots as army marches into combat are alternated with POV shots
46:27 wide angle shot from POV of enemy
47:47 Redmond breaks down holding his dying uncle
52:14 camera held as Redmond moves through countryside toward back of frame
54 min candlelight shot, one of many to come later
59:28 stunning shot with wide angle capturing landscape
1:04:50 Barry now fighting for Prussian Army
1:05:50 frame filled to the brim with Prussian soldiers
1:06:02 great use of frame in frame and depth of field with 3 rows of soldiers fighting in open field
1:11:20 incredible interior of mansion
1:14:30 immaculate shot of courtyard, perfect symmetry
1:14:35 even more beautiful interiors as the room screams out grandeur
1:17:44 Barry has another emotional scene breaking down in a conversation with the Chevalier de Balibari, after confessing to his real identity
1:18:53 beautiful shot during night with silhouette blue sky
1:19:10 incredible candlelight shot as Redmond and Chevalier work together cheating in cards
1:27:47 perhaps the most famous sequence, the high class gambling manor that Kubrick filmed entirely using candlelight as the sole source of light. This results in some of the most gorgeous shots in Kubrick’s entire filmography
1:32:20 spectacular long shot with Castle in background
1:33:02 zoom in on Countess of Lyndon, a wealthy and beautiful woman with a much older husband who is in a wheelchair
1:35:50 Barry and Lady Lyndon exchange looks during card game
1:39:15 another immaculate candle lit shot
1:40:00 Barry pointlessly lies to Sir Charles Reginald Lyndon who realizes that his young wife is interested in Barry, Sir Charles dies shortly after
Part II: Containing an Account of the Misfortunes and Disasters Which Befell Barry Lyndon
1:43:20 Barry is married officially to Lady Lyndon and has finally reached his ultimate goal as he now has the title Barry Lyndon
1:45:00 incredible shot overlooking hills and landscape
1:47:58 Barry has child with Lady Lyndon, shortly after zooming out to showing Barry in whorehouse
1:59:36 Barry’s treatment of his biological son and Lord Bullington (his stepson) is vastly different
2:01:53 Barry’s mother returns, she persuades Barry to get Title for the sake of financial security
2:04:50 pan over candlelit dinner
2:05:37 Barry shown a collection of expensive paintings he intends to purchase as an investment
2:15:00 shallow focus shot as Lord Bullington publicly rants on his hatred of Barry who reacts violently right after Lady Lyndon leaves the room
2:16:45 zoom out shows Barry isolation outside of the estate following his beating of Bullington
2:27:27 two images of manor in the frame with the second a reflection in the pond
2:31:03 Barry’s son tragically passes away
2:40:30 reverse tracking shot of Lord Bullington return
2:41:00 my favorite shot of the film along with the opening frame; Barry and several others are pasted out sitting around a table
2:42:44 tense music repeating as preparations for the duel begin
2:46:32 Lord Bullington misfires into ground
2:49:11 triangle composition as Barry fires into ground intentionally, throughout scene there is notable difference between Bullington who looks petrified and Barry with his steely glare
2:51:08 over the shoulder shot following Lord Bullington shooting Barry’s leg resulting in Barry losing his leg
2:53:53 incredible shot of silhouette wagon moving through the night with intense blue and red sky
The films ending is not really clear a “happy” or “sad” ending though it is somewhat depressing in its mood
Thoughts:
Kubrick gives one of the 5-10 most beautiful films ever made; the entire film is a collection of museum art paintings right from the brilliant opening shot. If forced to pick I would struggle picking between this and Days of Heaven (1978)
Here are some previous posts I have made about this film that I stand by:
“This may sound strange, but I couldn’t help but notice similarities between Barry Lyndon and Forrest Gump. They are both passive adult characters who are a little off (obviously more so with Gump). With both of them it seems things happen to them more than they make things happen. They both live incredible lives and sort of accidently stumble into important historical events (Vietnam War, 7 Years War) and situations.
Underrated humor, John Quin’s face when Redmond hands Nora the ribbon or Quin’s face when Redmond refuses to apologize right before their duel. The deadpan delivery of dialogue for much of the film is a significant contributor to the humor
Ryan O’Neal’s performance has grown on me overtime. Barry is a character without any redeeming qualities or any authentic personality aside from being a fortune chaser and I have to question if using a different actor would have dramatically improved the film. I can understand the criticisms but at the same time I am starting to think O’Neal’s underacting works quite well. It also sets up the scenes where he shows a great deal of emotions like when his uncle is killed in battle, and he breaks down intensely
Kubrick seems to have a great deal of contempt for the people of this era and their faux manners and etiquette. This is consistent with his standard questioning of the goodness of humankind”
The opening shot is museum worthy as are about another 100 shots following it. The production design is immaculate as Kubrick demonstrates incredible world building, with costumes, lavish estates, artwork, and everything else that is used to give authenticity to the story. As stated above Kubrick demonstrates a clear contempt for the people of this time. The highway robbery committed by Captain Feeney and his son is a perfect example of this etiquette that is at odds with the actions the characters are committing. Captain Feeney has to be the politest armed robber of all time
I really love the use of Zooms here. Zoom outs especially, as it creates an intrigue by giving increasing context to the visuals. The use of a omnipresent narrator is a strong formal choice as it allows Kubrick to use zooms and not worry about more traditional exposition. There are stretches with little dialogue, not nearly to the extent of 2001 but still
The candle lit interiors are the aesthetic highlight of the film, they produce some of the most visually stunning shots that I have ever seen in any film. Utterly breathtaking and beyond the aesthetic value these scenes fit into the films emotionally distant atmosphere, interested to compare the lighting with Eyes Wide Shut (1999)
The final showdown duel is drawn out perfectly, for all Barry’s flaws and faults he shows that he is actually capable of humanity and for the first time takes actions that will obviously complete his demise. Still Barry has few redeemable qualities as he lies, cheats, and steals his way to the top even though he certainly is not evil, sadistic, or violent. He is simply an ambitious man with little personality and even less scruples. He does show legitimate bravery in the 2 Duel scenes he’s involved in; his opponents are visibly terrified while Barry maintains a steely glare from start to finish
Everything about this film screams Kubrick; technically innovative, emotionally distant, formally consistent, subtle humor, and epic in scope
Verdict: MP
@James-I wanted to add two things. One is I agree I don’t think another actor would have really improved the film. The voice over doesn’t really give Barry the chance to express more personality or make his own decisions. But removing the voice over would probably hurt the film.
However O’Neal remains decent throughout(and he is a scoundrel, not supposed to be likeable). And lands his big scene which is the one with his dying child. He is very good in the final duel and also has another couple of breakdown scenes with his dying uncle and when he reveals the truth to his master. I thought he was very good and don’t understand the buzz and negativity surrounding his performance. I don’t think it’s anyway near the quality of Jack in One Flew Over the Cukoo’s Nest and Pacino in Dog Day Afternoon but it’s still a worthy performance.
I also saw O’Neal in A Bridge Too Far and he is not good there. So I understand Kubrick’s perfectionism may have helped to get a good performance from a limited actor but still you need to be at the right place at the right time. And I didn’t find any faults in O’Neal’s performance. And he has big scenes as well not just an empty emotionless vessel.
@Malith – I have only seen him in 2 other films; What’s Up Doc? (1972) which is a sort of remake of Bringing Up Baby but not nearly as good, he is playing the Cary Grant role and it does not really work for me. The other is Paper Moon (1973) which is also directed by Peter Bogdanovich, I loved him there. In fact, the two stars were Ryan O’Neal and his real life daughter Tatum O’Neal who won an Academy Award for her performance, she was 10 years old at the time
@James-You haven’t seen A Bridge Too Far? I’d say the parachute landing scene alone is worth the price of the ticket. What a cast. Almost every great British actor in history is there. Bogarde(who has the lead role), Connery, Caine, Hopkins, Olivier. Plus you also have the likes of Ullmann, Caan, Redford etc. Hackman is here too but the less said about his bizzare role here the better.
>“This may sound strange, but I couldn’t help but notice similarities between Barry Lyndon and Forrest Gump. They are both passive adult characters who are a little off (obviously more so with Gump). With both of them it seems things happen to them more than they make things happen. They both live incredible lives and sort of accidently stumble into important historical events (Vietnam War, 7 Years War) and situations.”
Those are tropes of the Picaresque novel, as old and probably older as Candide’s Voltaire. Another example, probably closer to Forrest Gump, would be Little Big Man.
>Ryan O’Neal’s performance has grown on me overtime. Barry is a character without any redeeming qualities or any authentic personality aside from being a fortune chaser and I have to question if using a different actor would have dramatically improved the film. I can understand the criticisms but at the same time I am starting to think O’Neal’s underacting works quite well. It also sets up the scenes where he shows a great deal of emotions like when his uncle is killed in battle, and he breaks down intensely
I really like O’Neal, always found the criticism overblown, although Redford would probably have made it even better. I certainly disagree with the lack of redeeming qualities. His love for his son is obvious, his love for his mother is authentic, his massive mistake in giving Bullingdon another chance in the duel stems from manly honor as you say. He certainly took huge risks for Chevalier in a spontaneous bit of camaraderie. There’s also the angle of Barry Lyndon dealing with a rock rigid social hierarchy that can’t ever be climbed truly, and how the lower classes still have to deal with being sent on dumb wars and getting their women “stolen” at home by foreign soldiers. Barry is an opportunistic, womanizing and ambitious douche, but he’s sort of leading a noble revolt against his social condition under which we have seen him suffer, and almost succeeds. Kudos to Kubrick for making him and Bullingdon both sympathetic and unsympathetic characters.
>If forced to pick I would struggle picking between this and Days of Heaven (1978)
I wouldn’t. I think the interior lighting work with the candles but not only, give it an additional dimension over Days of Heaven’s landscapes, which BL also has in spades. More setpieces too.
I’m struggling to see Redford in this role. De Niro?
He was literally Kubrick’s first choice. And he already looks like O’Neal, with an upgrade in charm and physical presence.
I don’t think De Niro is good looking enough.
I would not want to recast with another non-British actor personally.
Well too much charm is not one the role requires. I’m happy they went with O’Neal over Redford. De Niro at this stage was one good looking actor. He is stunning in Taxi Driver imo especially in the early parts
@Malith – how about James Fox or Gary Bond ? They have the right age and talent at the time. David Hemming also isn’t as loud in his Deep Red performance.
@Harry-I’m not overly familiar with James Fox or Gary Bond. Infact I have never heard of Gary Bond. I will watch The Servant very soon. And I think James Fox plays a big role in that film. How about David Warner? I think the problem with him is he is not overly attractive. I actually can’t complain about anything in Ryan O’Neal’s performance. I thought Kubrick got a really good performance out of him. But it’s fun to speculate other actors.
@Harry-Who are the British actors you are thinking of? David Hemmings? He can definitely play a scoundrel. But isn’t he too loud and brash just going by his Blow Up performance
@Vaanilla – Interesting points regarding the Barry Lyndon character having redeeming qualities, this is my more recent take:
“Still Barry has few redeemable qualities as he lies, cheats, and steals his way to the top even though he certainly is not evil, sadistic, or violent. He is simply an ambitious man with little personality and even less scruples. He does show legitimate bravery in the 2 Duel scenes he’s involved in; his opponents are visibly terrified while Barry maintains a steely glare from start to finish”
So I agree he has some redeemable qualities
The wording confused me I think. It reads as “it’s hard to find good in him as he lies, cheats, etc”, while it seems you wanted to communicate that he has a few qualities in spite of him lying and cheating. Is that it ?
Nonetheless, I think you’re expected to sympathize with him to an extent.
@Vaanila-I sympathized with him in both the final duel and the kid dying scene. He nails these
I don’t think you need redeemable qualities to do a great performance haha. The biggest thing for me is Barry is not an emotionless vessel. And O’Neal’s just got better and better through the film
@James-I sent a friend request on Discord. Did you got it?
A Clockwork Orange (1971)
Notes:
Starts off with slow zoom out from Alex and his Droogs hanging out in the Korova Milkbar
Droogs is slang for friends in Nadsat, a fictional language made up by the author of the novel A Clockwork Orange that the film is based on
1:57 hyper sexualized mannequins scattered throughout bar
2:55 amazing use of shadows as Droogs enter underpass with blue light in background and Droogs beat up pathetic drunken old homeless man
4:44 another zoom out, another gang sexually assaulting a woman before Alex and his crew enters area. I love the outfits worn by the Droogs, white pants and shirts with black shoes and top hats
10:50 shaky camera capturing sudden rush of unpredictable violent outburst
12:07 close up on face of man in terrible anguish watching his wife being sexually assaulted while he is powerless to stop it
13:11 excellent composition of extremely disturbing sequence
15:05 Alex hits Dim for his inappropriate behavior toward woman singing in Milkbar due to obsession with “Ludwig Van”
20:30 Ludwig Van Beethoven poster
24 min Alex has a social worker due to trouble in the past
26:20 Alex captured with tracking shot moving through music store in purple outfit
26:52 a Vinyl of 2001 shown in foreground
28 min sex scene shown in extreme fast forward
29:29 wide angle shot capturing Alex and his Droogs
33:38 slow motion with internal narration as Alex assaults his fellow Droogs brutally in slow motion sequence, low angle shots of Alex throughout as he asserts his dominance over fellow Droogs
36:57 sexual images throughout frame including a flexible woman living with her cats
41:58 shaky camera present during this sequence capturing the disorienting nature of the fight
42:36 camera lingers over picture of mouth following the fatal blow Alex delivers when he slams the phallic object on the cat woman’s face, the camera changed POV twice before the fatal blow
43:14 Alex’s Droogs turn on him as they break milk bottle over his face, this is shown in slow motion
46:20 low angle shot from Alex POV looking up at the authority figures including police officers and his social worker
Prison starts near 47 minute mark
47:37 aerial shot of prison buildings
49:40 hilarious over the top prison guard
53:44 authority figure shown in low angle shot
1:00:42 interesting discussion about the concept of free will
1:03:42 strong composition with Alex in foreground as Minster of the Interior walks down the line
1:11:17 Alex being prepared for the experimental operation, blue lit theatre with Alex in foreground and observers in background of frame creating feeling of objective distance
1:12:57 one of the most distinct images in any Kubrick film with Alex strapped into a straight jacket with his eyes pried open:
“The Ludovico Treatment” is a technique that is a form of aversion therapy in which the subject is injected with nausea-inducing drugs while watching graphically violent and sexually charged films” which is supposed to condition the s him to become severely ill at the mere thought of violence
1:14:05 close up on doctor’s face as he explains the treatment
1:15:48 black and white historical footage used as film within the film
1:17:18 spectacular composition of terrified Alex
1:21:56 blue lighting creates silhouette figures during the “test” run
1:24:00 intensity of music increases as naked woman walks toward Alex
1:24:57 hilarious cutaway to close up on prison guards face
Post Prison starts near 88 min mark
1:29:00 Alex returns home and sees there is a house guest named Joe who turns out to be renting Alex room, a young man a little older than Alex
1:37:33 one of Alex’s victims recognizes him from early in the film
1:38:58 low angle shot of Dim followed by low angle shot of Georgie from Alex POV as they are both now police officers
1:40:40 shaky camera tracking shot as Dim and Georgie bring Alex to solidary location to beat
1:43:30 a repetition of a shot and camera pan from around 10 min mark as Alex coincidently arrives at house of writer who the Droogs beat and whose wife Alex sexually assaulted in front of him
1:49:25 Kubrick holds low angle shot of the Writer in extreme anguish as he listens to Alex sing “Singing in the Rain” in the bathtub
1:57:51 great two-shot with Writer in left side of frame, his face pure hatred and anger toward Alex
1:58:54 Ludwig Van # 9 increasing in volume
1:59:37 slow zoom out from face of Writer as his house guests listen to Alex screaming in anguish from the floor below, lead to great composition
2:01:03 Alex falling into ground from jump turns into POV shot before screen briefly goes black
2:02:24 newspaper montage paints Alex in more positive light resulting in his parents visiting him
2:03:20 POV shot of Alex’s parents visiting him in the hospital
2:08:00 POV from Alex of hospital staff and the politician who put forward The Ludovico Treatment
2:10:46 Alex is promised compensation and a good job when he gets out of hospital
2:12:50 the speed of the shameless photo op is quite amusing
2:13:42 Alex again imagines graphic violence and sex “I was cured all right”
Thoughts:
Kubrick delivers another landmark film, its controversial nature has been somewhat tempered over time, but the quality of the film has not
The opening shot with the slow zoom out from Alex and his Droogs hanging out in the Korova Milkbar, is one of my absolute favorite openings, the bizarre imagery combined with the haunting score sets the tone perfectly
The production design is huge here as Kubrick creates a distinct world, its very bizarre and different from any other “futuristic” films as many more conventional futuristic movies focus on technological advances such as Spielberg’s Minority Report (2002), oppressive conditions such as 1984 (1984), or stunning visuals such as Blade Runner (1982). A Clockwork Orange is set in this strange world that is not all that different than the actual real world in terms of technology or oppressive government systems.
So many standout images in this film; “The Ludovico Treatment” scene with Alex strapped to a chair and his eyes pried open, Alex and his Droogs sitting in the Korova Milkbar in their ridiculous outfits, Alex slamming the phallic statue over the Cat Lady and subsequent close up of mouth picture, and Alex’s face in general especially his eyelash. But my single favorite is the Droogs approaching the singing homeless man in the opening 10 minutes with the elongated shadows of the approaching Droogs with the blue light in the deep background of the frame
Kubrick uses both slow motion and fast motion throughout the film. The slow motion sequences are particularly great, they resolve around some of Alex’s most violent scenes in which he seems to be enjoying such as beating his fellow Droogs having thrown them into the water and then later when he fights and kills the Cat Lady by bashing her over the head with the phallic statue
The film is structured perfectly into 3 sections: Alex pre prison, Alex in prison, and Alex post prison. Each of these is about 45 minutes. Alex is set against his former victims in final third of the film including his former Droogs and of course the final showdown with the Writer
The test scene is beautifully shot, I love the theatrical nature of the scene which occurs in a literal theatre and with blue spotlights because well it essentially is theatre within the films plot as the government is using Alex as a political pawn
Kubrick uses low and high angle medium shots throughout the film in depicting power dynamics, Alex towers over his Droogs early in the film while during the revenge sequence Alex is the one looking up as his former Droogs are captured in low angle shots as they have complete control over him in the disturbing scene where they nearly drown him to death
Malcom McDowell gives one of the best performances of all time and maybe the best of any Kubrick film, will think more on this throughout the study. His character has an undeniable charisma regardless of his brutality in the first 45 minutes, the singing in the rain sequence is sort of the culmination of his duality
The “I was cured all right” was a perfect ending
Verdict: MP
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
Notes:
4:11 the lining up of the sun
4:40 Dawn of Man
Montage of images wide angle shots of desert like landscape with orange/red tinted frames
5:35 gorgeous shot of smooth surfaced boulders
6:27 pig like tapirs shown in groups
6:45 apes shown in silhouette images
7:15 first sign of aggression as ape shoves away tapir who is trying to get food
11:40 intense orange present in horizon
12:27 monolith surrounded by apes with mysterious score playing; the pairing of the monolith and mysterious/haunting music
14:32 the sun shown not quite aligned with the moon
15:50 the classical music plays again
16:19 low angle slow motion shot of ape smashing skull with bone
17:42 multiple depths of field in this shot
18:03 deep focus shot of sunset in far background of frame with the rest of the frame dimly lit
19:13 brutal violence amongst apes
19:45 famous shot of bone thrown by ape turning into shot of space
20 min spaceship gliding through space
21:55 inside spaceship, camera following pen floating through the air while classical music plays
23:40 symmetrical shot of inside ship
24:20 frame in frame
25:40 pink clothing stands out as first line of dialogue is uttered
26:56 gorgeous mise en scene with red chairs spread throughout room surrounded by white walls
29:48 the inside of the spaceship is immaculate in its neatness
31 min the conversation and manner in which people speak to one another has a strong corporate atmosphere
34:55 one of the most beautiful shots, frame in frames with symmetrical shot including yellow panels on the wall
36:02 red light infused throughout the frame
40 min spectacular imagery of spaceship entering station with red lit frame inside space station with several characters shown in long shot that I did not even notice before
47 min slow zoom out from red lit cockpit to blue/gray lit section of the ship
48:38 sketch of mysterious findings as an object which has been buried for a long period of time
50:39 frame in frame
51:16 men in spacesuits approach monolith as intensely haunting music ramps up
54:21 mysterious intense high pitched noise prevents the men from taking photograph in front of monolith
54:48 Jupiter Mission 18 months later
56:32 inverse shot of man jogging in circular structure, shaky camera movements
57:24 first shot of the machine which looks like a red dot but is known as “HAL”
1:00:48 TV interview about the crew including Dr Poole and Dr Bowman as well as HAL
1:02:04 high surveillance angle
1:06:28 blue and purple in mise en scene
1:08:38 wide angle POV from HAL perspective
1:12:14 best shot with walking in red spacesuit through the narrow hexagon shaped hallway
1:13:26 asteroids flying through space
1:13:33 close up on face through the glass protector with multi-colored lights reflecting
1:16:17 Heavy breathing noise accentuated in space
1:19:16 another POV shot from HAL’s perspective
1:20:30 low surveillance angle
1:24:44 HAL overlooking in frame in frame
1:27:07 close up on mouths of Poole and Bowman from HAL POV
1:27:40 Intermission
1:31:00 repetition, close up on face through the glass protector with multi-colored lights reflecting
1:32:42 sound drops completely as Bowman witnesses the beginning of HAL going rogue resulting in Frank, in his yellow suit, falling through space
1:38:26 close up on Bowman’s face with red light across the frame
1:38:45 POV shot from HAL’s perspective
1:44:00 constant back and forth between the soundless exterior shots of the space ships and the inside of the ship
1:49:12 sound cuts out as Bowman flies through the red lit room
1:50:10 low angle shaky camera shot of Bowman climbing
1:51:29 gorgeous shot with Bowman disconnecting HAL who is begging and pleading to Bowman
1:57:12 Jupiter and Beyond the Infinite
2:02:08 start of kaleidoscopic journey
2:11:38 start of final sequence as Bowman arrives after that mind bending 10 minutes
2:13:39 slow clockwise pan through room
2:14:04 Bowman sees himself in mirror except he now looks 40 years older
2:15:16 doorway frame with a 70 year old Bowman eating at a table by himself with a painting on the otherwise all white wall
2:16:18 surveillance wide angle shot of bedroom
2:17:54 over shoulder shot from 70 years old Bowman to an even older Bowman on his deathbed
2:18:48 Black monolith returns in bedroom from the POV of the Bowman in deathbed
2:18:55 old Bowman becomes the “Star Child”
Thoughts:
Arguably the greatest film ever made, it still has a level of intrigue that is rarely matched aside from a small number of extremely elite films like The Tree of Life (2011) or There Will Be Blood (2007) Watching this film is an experience, I watched twice in consecutive nights; one time taking notes and the other just watching without interruptions
Kubrick’s mastery of using classical music to elevate his films is crucial. Roger Ebert is spot on with his assessment of Kubrick’s musical choices for 2001:
“North’s score, which is available on a recording, is a good job of film composition, but would have been wrong for “2001″ because, like all scores, it attempts to underline the action — to give us emotional cues. The classical music chosen by Kubrick exists outside the action. It uplifts. It wants to be sublime; it brings a seriousness and transcendence to the visuals”
A visual spectacle from start to finish containing some of the most beautiful images you will ever see as Kubrick uses symmetrical shots and meticulous color patterns which includes primary colors; red, yellow, and blue. You have red chairs, pink uniforms, red spacesuits, yellow spacesuits, blue spacesuits, kaleidoscopic glare during the final 20 minutes. The sterile white is juxtaposed with the blackness of space as well as the monolith. Kubrick’s camera captures characters from various angles and various position, at times upright and other times upside down or diagonal. Because the film is not told through a single character’s perspective it gives Kubrick freedom to shoot different POV without risking formal inconsistencies
The first spoken words/dialogue do not occur until almost 26 minutes into the film and even after this there are long stretches of time without dialogue or very limited dialogue. In a more conventional film involving characters in outer space and spaceships there would be some specific destination the protagonists were attempting to travel to and for some specific purpose. This film is different, there is little plot and character development. The monolith is in a way a MacGuffin, serving as a link between time periods and events
It’s crazy how Kubrick and Douglas Rain were able to make a villain out of a red dot, that voice is robotic yet builds a subtle menace, very subtle menace. Kubrick captures Poole and Bowman from a few different shots including POV shots from the perspective of HAL and a few surveillance angle shots of Poole and Bowman that have a sinister feel to them. Yet we still have sympathy when HAL is begging Bowman to not disable him
The kaleidoscopic journey from about 2:02:00 to 2:12:00 is mind bending Cinema that is almost beyond words, as stated earlier you just have to experience this film at least one time. Just watch without notes, stops, distractions, etc. and just let yourself get lost in this journey
The ending sequence where Bowman sees himself at different ages is haunting in a way that is hard to explain. The star child is a bold ending that is fitting for a film of this enormous ambition
Kubrick was constantly asked to explain the ending of 2001 which annoyed him to no end, I love this quote regarding that:
“How could we possibly appreciate the Mona Lisa if Leonardo had written at the bottom of the canvas: ‘The lady is smiling because she is hiding a secret from her lover.’ This would shackle the viewer to reality, and I don’t want this to happen to 2001”
To his credit, Kubrick never cracked here no matter how many times he was badgered by people to explain the ending of the film and really the film in general
The fact that this film is still so heavily debated and analyzed over 50 years later speaks volumes regarding its timelessness
Verdict: HR…..just kidding obviously a MP
@James Trapp- you had me fooled on that fake verdict! haha. Great work here!
@Drake – ha thanks, like 10 years ago I read an article online on a sports site (I forgot which) where the writer argued that Karl Malone was the best NBA player of the 1990s over Michael Jordan. It turned out ot be an April Fools joke
@James Trapp- I thought maybe you were in the same camp as Pauline Kael – “trash masquerading as art” and “monumentally unimaginative.” https://scrapsfromtheloft.com/movies/pauline-kael-on-2001-a-space-odyssey/
@Drake – so bad its funny review, though Roger Ebert is the king of bashing movies he doesn’t like in hilarious ways
I have some big doubts crept in about how good a critic Ebert actually was.
https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-damned-1970
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-tenant-1976
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-tenant-1976
I get it if he is giving these 2 Stars or something. But he is absolutely destroying them. Embarassing. I think there should be more like these
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/ludwig-1973
I get it if he is giving these 2 Stars or something. But he is absolutely destroying them. Embarassing. I think there should be more like these
Dr Strangelove (1964)
Notes:
Starts with narrator speaking about the “doomsday device” floating over clouds and airplanes flying during opening credits
4 min Mandrake (1 of 3 characters played by Peter Sellers) in war room that contains hilarious “peace is our profession” signs on the wall, Mandrake speaks with unhinged General played by Sterling Hayden
4:34 Hayden’s character is named “Jack D. Ripper” as name tag in foreground I never noticed prior
6:06 series of shots of the exterior of the planes flying in the sky over narrator revealing the nuclear power the planes hold
10:18 “Johnny Comes Marching Home” drumming noise as interior of US Air Force Plane
12:00 shot of Buck’s bedroom which includes multiple mirrors shot with girlfriend of George C Scott’s character General Buck Turgidson answering phone
13:43 Buck introduced in 3 images
14:53 blastoff, sexual innuendo
21:01 over the shoulder shot with Mandrake in center of frame trying and failing to convince Ripper to issue recall on the nuclear attack with Ripper in foreground facing away from camera
22:28 high angle close up of Ripper’s face with cigar in his mouth after he refuses Mandrakes order; despite Mandrake standing over him Ripper has power in this situation
High angle shot of “The War Room” which includes oval shaped table and maps on the walls
26:12 stark use of black and white in War Room
28:09 wide angle shot of War Room
31:05 Buck talking to girlfriend on phone in front of War Room
34:20 only 10-20 million casualties
36:36 beautiful use of light which is peeking into the War Room from several small windows
37:45 “no fighting in the war room”
38:34 binoculars used to frame shot
40:06 beautiful shot of war room from lower camera position and stark lighting
46:16 Ripper insane rant about water
51 min “doomsday gap”
51:13 Sellers as Doctor Strangelove speaks for the first time, he is in wheelchair, wears sunglasses indoors, and wears a leather glove on his right hand while holding cigarette with left hand
52:36 shallow focus used first time with close up on Dr Strangelove
57:28 shaky camera positioned near ground during shooting out
58:44 close up on Ripper’s face held while Mandrake ineffectively rambles off screen
1:00:34 close up on Ripper’s face while he discusses his believe in the afterlife cueing a suicide
1:03:53 intense blinking lights and shaky camera following detonation
1:13:08 hilarious shooting of Coca Cola Machine
1:13:32 low angle shot in War Room with characters as silhouette images
1:14:15 Dr. Strangelove shot from low angle isolated in frame away from everyone else in War Room, shot uses interesting frame with wall slanted using 45 degree angle
1:27:17 high angle shot of nuclear bomb falling toward surface
1:27:53 Dr. Strangelove himself finally gets his moment
1:29:12 great blocking with multiple depths of field
1:30:10 Dr Strangelove suggests ratio of 10 females to each male
1:32:59 the film ends with a montage of nuclear bombs going off
Thoughts:
Kubrick gives us perhaps the greatest satire in US film history. Apparently Kubrick had over 70 books on nuclear war and nuclear weapons in his personal library and considered moving from the UK to Australia during the time Strangelove was made but ultimately did not go through with it. Kubrick initially wanted to make a film with similar subject matter but as a straight drama until thinking more about the absurdity of the nuclear arms race and concluding that the subject matter would be more fitting as a comedy, specifically a political satire
Peter Sellers played a man who impersonated another character within the film Lolita, but they are revealed to be the same character. Here he actually plays 3 different characters: Mandrake, US president Muffley, and the title character Dr Strangelove. The performances are great all around, but Peter Sellers, Sterling Hayden, and George C Scott are the standouts and probably in that order though Hayden and Scott are neck and neck
The War Room is a great set piece, certainly Kubrick has more complex set pieces in other films, but this works perfect as much of the film takes place in a couple of locations; Kubrick is frequently changing the shots/angles during long verbal sequences, an effective way to limit long uncinematic stretches in the film. There are some great compositions but interestingly Kubrick also uses handheld camera for the combat sequences
Along with being a great set piece, I loved the way the room was filmed as Kubrick used stark black and white photography and used wide angle shots that capture the oval table and characters but also the open space above giving the room a certain degree of mystery. The film constantly switches between shots of the War Room and shots of the fighter planes gliding through the sky
Repeated close up shots of Ripper’s face with a cigar in his mouth, effectively showing off his insane beliefs. Ripper is often shot from extreme angles during these scenes magnifying his crazed paranoia as he goes on some of the craziest and most hilarious rants imaginable
The use of “Johnny Comes Marching Home” during the plane sequences is great as is the way those sequences are shown throughout the film rather than in a linear fashion
Kubrick’s films are often highly critical of humanity, and this is no different except that it happens to be by far his most humorous film. There is sexual innuendo sprinkled throughout the film including and especially the phallic nuclear missiles and some of the dialogue like Buck talking to his girlfriend “I’ll be back before you can say…blastoff!”
Verdict: MP
Lolita (1962)
Notes:
Starts with car driving through dirt road in a thick fog
James Mason as Humbert “Hum” Humbert, a middle-aged European professor enters the house
2:34 inside of large country house is a complete mess with objects scattered
3:44 reference to Spartacus followed by Peter Sellers as Clare starting game of ping pong
7:30 Clare unfazed even facing a gun
12:11 lethal shots fired with zoom in on woman in painting followed by:
“4 Years Earlier” shown across the screen
Charlotte Haze (played by Shelley Winters) is in relationship with Humbert
17:25 first shot of 14 year old Lolita (played by 16 year old Sue Lyon), who is sitting on towel in backyard in bathing suit, sunglasses, and wide brimmed white hat; Humbert is immediately infatuated by her
18:48 Humbert literally sitting in between Charlotte and Lolita at movie theatre, foreshadowing a love triangle with the 3 of them
20:36 Kubrick seems to like Ballrooms, there are scenes involving them in several of his films, Paths of Glory, Barry Lyndon, The Shining, and Eyes Wide Shut
25:32 extended ballroom sequence, Peter Sellers as Clare makes entrance to film (well not including the flashforward to start the film)
28:03 Humbert in white surrounded by other 3 characters in black and sitting with the 3 other characters in the scene standing and are oblivious to Humbert’s facial expressions
35 min love triangle creating palpable tension
42:26 conversation between characters standing apart by staircase
44:21 high angle shot through window with frame in frame
46:07 great mise en scene with photos scattered throughout Lolita’s room as Humbert sits in her bed upon her departure for Camp
50:38 back and forth between the increasingly clingy Charlotte and Humbert shown in isolation through the scene separated by a door
54:36 horrified face of Humbert upon Charlotte saying she attends to send Lolita to boarding school when she returns from camp, Humbert’s face is hidden from Charlotte
56:16 nice blocking showing the increasing distance between Humbert and Charlotte even when in the same room
58:55 internal dialogue as Humbert loading gun with bullets
1:03:00 Charlotte discovers Humbert’s diary and discovers how he really feels about her causing her a mental breakdown
1:12:23 shot held of Lolita in passenger seat of vehicle as Humbert drives after picking up Lolita from Camp but does not yet reveal that her mother is dead
1:17:18 Lolita in all white lying in bed with Humbert standing across
1:20:30 Clare speaking a million miles a minute in foreground facing away from Humbert calmly sitting in chair in the background
1:30:42 positions of faces of Lolita and Humbert indicate intimacy, shortly after it is implied they had sex though elliptical editing
1:38:38 series of dissolves over Humbert’s narration which indicates the story has moved 6 months later with Humbert and Lolita now in a new town settling in like a father/daughter relationship
1:43:30 Humbert becoming increasingly jealous and controlling
1:44:36 Peter Sellers as Dr. Zempf, waiting inside when Humbert walks in
1:53:02 Humbert removes Lolita after success school play
1:55:16 body positions show growing gap between Humbert and Lolita
1:57:42 screaming match during fight between the two, with Humbert in black and Lolita in white
2:01:00 series of dissolves as they start long road trip
2:08:12 Humbert brings Lolita flowers as she is lying in hospital bed sick
2:10:55 over the shoulder lot of Lolita with Humbert standing above hospital bed
2:15:38 great blocking as multiple hospital staff hold down Humbert who discovers that Lolita left the hospital hours ago with her “uncle”
2:17:25 frame in frame as Humbert is escorted out of hospital
2:18:50 high angle shot of city before series of dissolves during drive
2:20:16 reunion years later between Humbert and Lolita who is now married
2:32:10 the film reaches the timeline from the flash forward scene and ends with the bullet impression on the painting
Thoughts:
This was actually my first ever viewing, only this and Spartacus had I not seen prior to the Study. I “went in cold”, so I had no idea what to expect. Visually it is unimpressive compared to other Kubrick films, but the story was gripping
Unsurprisingly this was controversial for its time and probably even today as you had a 14 year old character played by a 16 year old actress involved in a sexual relationship with a character who is in his 40s or 50s (Mason was 53 years old when released)
Kubrick uses dissolves for many of the road scenes and some elliptical editing including scene where its implied that Lolita and Humbert have sex so we do not actually see it (thank God)
I liked the transition from the end of the opening scene in which the camera zooms in on painting of Lolita to “4 Years Earlier” shown across the screen. Showing the broken James Mason Humbert in that opening works as it establishes intrigue of how this respected professor becomes such a mess by the end of the film
There are numerous shots in the first half where the increasingly infatuated Humbert makes facial expressions inappropriate for the moment that no one else around him notices, even those in the immediate vicinity
Verdict: R
Spartacus (1960)
Notes:
Starts with narrator explaining the story of Spartacus while slaves are on screen performing physical labor
10:30 long shot of men walking and riding horses through desert
14:45 pan showing men in prison cell in a courtyard
17:48 the slaves walked into dimly lit basement
22:47 Spartacus framed by light in basement
25:37 inside cage fighting lessons using yellow, red, and blue paint
43:40 bars in foreground and middle-ground of frame
44:57 frame in frame
49:00 gladiator match with man revolting against the call for death
51 min pan through empty outdoor prison cells into cage with prisoners
57:50 beautiful shot of Rome, painterly image
1:16:32 gorgeous long shot during golden hour with painterly red sky
1:22:55 painterly shot of Rome soldiers marching across frame with multiple depths of field, this is followed by high angle shot of Gladiators marching through the desert
1:28:50 4 repeat shots
1:29:13 it took me a bit to realize Antoninus was played by Tony Curtis
1:41:00 great back and forth discussion “death is the only freedom a slave knows, that’s why he’s not afraid of it. That’s why we’ll win”
1:51:00 John Dall as Marcus Glabrus, disgraced following Spartacus and his army humiliating him and sending back to Roman Senate
1:53:17 the ruthless Crassus, played by the great Laurence Olivier, banishes Glabrus as punishment for his incompetence
1:54:32 great dissolve from Crassus face listening to the Roman Senate to a bird’s eye view shot of Spartacus army crossing the desert
1:59:44 love sequence that is absent in most of Kubrick’s future films
2:10:14 painterly image by the seashore
2:13:06 pirates betray Spartacus after being paid off by the Romans
2:15:45 Spartacus speaks into crowd in foreground high angle shot in shot with thousands of extras packed into the frame; parallel editing going back and forth between Spartacus speech to the slaves and Crassus speaking to Roman soldiers
2:17:50 close up on crowd of slaves showing faces of individuals as Spartacus continues his speech preparing for inevitable battle
2:24:42 one of best shots of film as Spartacus shot in profile standing alone overlooking village from an elevated position during the night
2:33:48 high angle shot held showing the massive size of the army
2:34:05 beautiful museum worthy shot with cloud filled skyline taking up near have the frame
2:35:20 rolling fireballs
2:38:58 pan over the carnage showing the dead bodies
2:39:50 Rome defeats the slave uprising
2:40:40 “I’m Spartacus” scene
2:44:18 low angle shot of Crassus standing over Spartacus and sentencing the rebels to death
2:55:00 Crassus tries and fails to get Varinia to love him as Crassus has trouble understanding why Varinia loved Spartacus
3:02:08 Crassus and Spartacus face to face, Crassus fails to intimidate Spartacus and angrily orders a fight to the death between Spartacus and Antoninus
Thoughts:
Kubrick directs an epic film though it does not feel like a typical Kubrick film since unlike all his future films he had limited creative control here. This may or may not be the case of Lolita as well, I am not sure but will be watching that one next. Regardless, starting with Dr. Strangelove, Kubrick had complete creative control. In fact, with this film, he was not even initially supposed to direct it; Anthony Mann was hired to direct, and he actually did direct the opening of the film before being fired resulting in Kubrick taking over
Kubrick hated this film apparently and essentially disowned it which is why I had somewhat low expectations for this but was pleasantly surprised. It is not at the level of his future films but given that all his films following this (except for Lolita) are MP level that is hardly an insult
This is certainly not Lawrence of Arabia but there are some really impressive shots, this is an epic with some great ariel shots and long shots Kubrick shot the battle sequences in Spain including using 8,000 trained soldiers. Everything else has shot in Hollywood studios
I love a shot at 2:24:42 showing Spartacus in profile, standing alone overlooking village from an elevated position during the night before the big battle, Kirk Douglas gives a strong performance as does Laurence Olivier playing the ruthless Crassus
I have not seen any of them aside from Ridley Scott’s 2000 film Gladiator but apparently there are a dozen Gladiator films though I suspect a fair number of those are fairly low quality
The musical choices are very unlike Kubrick, too sentimental
Verdict: HR
Paths of Glory (1957)
Notes:
Starts with shot of courtyard in 1916 France, soldiers standing in unison outside large building resembling a castle. Narrator explains the brutal violence of trench warfare of WW1
2:12 opulent interiors
4:50 camera following Paul Mireau as he converses with George within the inside of a luxurious
Mansion, I believe Château is one name for these type of buildings
6:08 shot of anthill before zooming out followed by a soldier dead or near death carried out on a stretcher and quickly crossing the paths with Paul Mireau as drum noise plays in background
6:38 Paul Mireau meets 2 of the soldiers who are later sentenced to death, on his way to meet with Dax (Kirk Douglas) including a soldier who is “shell shocked” a term Paul rejects
11:25 Dax and Mireau in underground bunker talking shop as Mireau tries to convince Dax to lead the anthill mission in the same way George convinces a reluctant Mireau in the opening scene
16:16 tracking shot
16:42 slow pan building tension
19:06 shot held building tension as drum roll noises continue
21:07 shot of dead soldier accidently killed by his own commander
26:32 binocular POV shot of anthill
27:00 min best sequence of film so far with tracking shot through trench as Dax does not flinch even with the explosions and loud shooting noises surrounding them
28:58 low angle shot of Dax standing atop a rock and signaling his men to begin the attack, again Dax does not flinch
29 min attempted takeover of the anthill begins, the scene audio here is impressive as it drowns out everything else
32:24 Paul is infuriated by the soldier’s lack of advancements to anthill to the point that he orders shooting their own men
37:30 Paul, Dax, and George discuss aftermath of failed anthill mission in which its decided 3 men will be tried for cowardice
44:47 court martial trial for cowardice
46 min this is clearly Kangaroo Court
49:08 nice blocking with accused solider in foreground of frame
51 min low angle shot of Dax
51:25 high angle shot repeated several times through trial
54:50 symmetrical shot with impressive blocking
56:05 tracking shot as Sergeant walks back and forth instructing firing squad
59:03 light seeping into concrete prison as 3 men prepare for death by firing squad the following day while a Priest tries to get them to confess for the final time
1:06:00 George admits the deaths are not really deserved but has to be done in his position
1:11:53 long shot of condemned men marching to their deaths flanked by rows of soldiers
1:15:04 symmetrical low angle shot outside courtyard
1:17:15 the execution scene, great composition
1:17:21 Paul and George eating inside luxurious room immediately after execution scene
1:20:35 Dax rejects George’s offer of taking Paul’s job
1:22:50 The final scene is fascinating with a young and timid German woman who is a singer starts singing in front of a group of soldiers in beer hall, the demeanor of the loud and raucous men changes drastically once she starts singing
Thoughts:
Kubrick with his first truly great film which has elements of a war film, courtroom drama, and fictionalized historical film. The decision to use English speaking actors in a film about the French Army seems strange initially but really the French army can be viewed as a stand in for any country involved in a war. Is viewed through the lens of being an “anti-war film” the target of Kubrick’s criticism is humanity in general not France in particular
The majority of the film is set in 2 locations; a Château that includes beautiful art and paintings as well as a ballroom dancehall and other large and luxurious rooms. The 2nd setting is in the trenches which are about 8-12 feet depending on the area and spaces close to the trenches. Unsurprisingly it is the lowly soldiers in the trenches getting killed and the high level generals “running the war” in the Château with Douglas character Dax as the exception who is constantly going back and forth between these two worlds during the film
The films villains are the men in power who are “running the war” and they are shown to be especially despicable in their casual cruelty and total disregard for law as they conduct a “trial” that is essentially a Kangaroo Court
Kirk Douglas is excellent as he is both capable of fighting in the trenches but is also a talented criminal defense attorney
Tracking shots in trenches are the visual highlight but it is not just aesthetics, they provided understanding of the location much of the film is set in
A formal strength of this film is that the enemy is never actually shown, this is WW1 so the enemy of the French army would be the Germans, but they are never shown and rarely mentioned at all other than abstractly. The nature of war and specifically the politics of war are the real antagonists
One of the great endings in my opinion. The men yelling and leering like animals at the sight of the first and only female character, go silent as she starts to sing. The camera captures close ups on several men tearing up just seconds after their rowdy behavior.
The woman singing in the film scene is Christiane Kubrick, Stanley Kubrick’s wife who he met while making this film and married the following year. She was a trained actress at the time, but she also was a talented painter.
Verdict: MP
The Killing (1956)
Notes:
Starts with shots of a horse track as horse races underway
Narrator as older gentleman approaches bar of a horse track and slips bartender a note on paper
4:11 medium shot of man behind cage of horse track
6:55 tracking shot of Sterling Hayden as Johnny Clay, the man with a plan
10:40 Elisha Cook Jr. as George, he really excels at playing these pathetic pushover characters and this is certainly one of them as he is constantly mocked and disrespected by his attractive wife Sherry who unsurprisingly is having an affair
12:48 the placement of the two people in the frame speaks volumes of their relationship as Sherry starts off on the opposite side of the frame as George stares at her intensely
17:25 Some great noir dialogue “meatball with gravy”
19:23 high angle shot of Johnny and 4 other men sitting around table in close quarters giving the scene a secretive vibe
21:52 smoke from cigarettes rising through apartment
22:40 bars in foreground of the frame looking like prison cell
25:32 low angle shot of Johnny putting Sherry in her place, hilarious the way he sees through Sherry’s pathetic attempt to seduce him
29:40 chess match going on in this scene, Kubrick was an accomplished chess player early in his life, chess also is an effective motif as Johnny strategizes the heist
32:30 target practice in foreground with Johnny continues recruiting for the job/heist
37:33 George’s face obscured by shadow with ticking noise in background showing George’s nervousness about going through with it
39:37 George’s face shown in close up as Sherry implies Johnny assaulted her, its obvious that this is a manipulation tactic, but George is gullible enough to believe this nonsense
45:20 not much in the way of subplots (a good thing) but some brief scenes showing characters motives for getting involved in a heist
47:20 nice tracking shot
49 min some of the characters are becoming visibly anxious
49:54 overhead shot of horse track
51:55 overhead shot of the corrupt police driving toward the track
55:06 shaky camera used throughout this scene as the wrestler puts on a fighting clinic in taking on at least a half dozen police officers single handily
57:50 the sharp shooter talks his way into parking in a lot he is not supposed to be after manipulating the parking attendant
59:21 another overhead shot followed by dissolve
1:00:56 horseshoe thrown setting up
1:02:15 close up on horseshoe that was thrown in frustration earlier by parking attendant after the sharpshooter insults him
1:04:56 another shot that is repeated, this with Johny walking through narrow dimly lit hallway
1:12:37 low angle shot of Sherry’s boyfriend and another entering the apartment where the payoff is supposed to occur
1:12:59 George shockingly is the one to shoot first leading to great camera movement panning over the dead bodies in the room
1:17:26 even while dying Sherry continues to insult the hapless George
1:21:14 Johnny and his girlfriend standing behind chain gate resembling prison cell as Johnny is about to get caught
1:22:10 money scattered away by wind a la The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948)
1:23:38 “what’s the difference” great final line as officer approach to arrest Johnny
Thoughts:
Efficient storytelling at 84 min
The film is meticulously crafted as Johnny’s plan is shown step by step as he personally visits all the players explaining their respective roles in the heist; it is one of the very best heist films with the high level of detail shown in the plan
Sherry as the scheming cheating wife gives the film a noir like atmosphere making it a cross between a noir and a heist film. Sherry’s final words about it not being fair that she never got to be with “a real man” are hilarious as even in death she can’t help but continue to lob insults toward her pathetic husband, George. The pathetic George is another noir trait as you have the weak submissive man being played by the manipulative Sherry
low angle shot of Johnny putting Sherry in her place, hilarious the way he sees through Sherry’s pathetic attempt to seduce him
This is obviously less ambitious than most of his future films, but it is pretty much perfect for what it is going for
My top 10 heist films in no particular order
Rififi (1955), The Killing (1956), Reservoir Dogs (1992), Le Cercle Rouge (1970), Heat (1995), Bob the Gambler (1956), Dog Day Afternoon (1975), Jackie Brown (1997), The Usual Suspects (1995), Criss Cross (1949)
There are some repeated shots such as an overhead shot of the horse track, all the characters involved with the heist have limited information except for Johnny
It doesn’t hurt the film that much, but I did not care for the use of a narrator here, not sure the purpose of this
Verdict: HR
Killer’s Kiss (1955)
Notes:
Starts inside train station in NYC and internal narration from protagonist Davey Gordon, a solid middleweight boxer whose best days as a fighter are behind him
2:40 min a montage of photographs providing character background information
3:55 close up on face through a fishbowl a la The Graduate
6:25 silhouette shot of love interest
12:48 creative framing used inside boxing ring with low angle shot in between rounds using the legs of a fighter in the foreground to frame shot of fighter in opposite corner in the background
14:40 close up low angle shots and shaky camera used to depict boxing match
14:57 low angle POV shot after getting knocked down
17:53 frame in frame using windows
18:34 impressive composition including frame in frames and deep focus
20:13 Davey shown isolated in his small one room apartment
20:33 jump cuts used in dream sequence
22:58 nice foreground/background work
26:20 mirror shot showing Davey and his love interest, Gloria, on opposite sides of the frame
28:18 great use of lighting in otherwise pitch black stage, as Gloria narrates flashback
37:27 high angle shot of Gloria walking up steps, symmetrical composition
42:28 two thugs shown in silhouette in a dark street alley, a couple of noir staples
47:17 window used to frame shot
48 min jazz score with bright lights of NYC at night, this is followed by silhouette shot of NYC
53 min shaky camera during fight sequence
56:26 high angle shot of Davey running up stairs
57:29 nice long shot of Davey in far background running on roof tops
1:00:55 mannequin filled warehouse is used as setting for climax
1:02:42 high angle shot of police arriving
Thoughts:
Apparently Kubrick was not pleased with his first film Fear and Desire a couple years prior to Killer’s Kiss so I did not feel it was essential to seek it out and thus I begin with Killer’s Kiss
While this is certainly not a major Kubrick work it is actually more impressive than I remembered. There are some great shots including two that are similar to shots from The Graduate (1967) including a variation of the fishbowl shot. There are some nice shots utilizing mirrors and a great POV shot of Davey looking up at ref after being knocked to the canvass during a boxing match. The lighting during the ballet flashback is really impressive.
67 minute runtime is unusual as seems too short to be feature film and too long to be a short, the story is simple enough with noir staples such as silhouette images, back alley fights, use of shadows
Visual storytelling as there is limited dialogue in many of the scenes, this was partly due to a limited budget. Several great overhead and high angle shots, used for much of the chase sequences as well as a couple of long shots and deep focus shots
Verdict: HR/R
@James Trapp- the themes of wealth and social status are certainly very important to Kubrick- that is why the line from Pollack “If I told you their names… no, I’m not going to tell you their names… but if I did, I don’t think you’d sleep so well at night“ is so powerful. Plus, he did something very similar in Paths of Glory and Barry Lyndon so it plays really well in the wider specter of his career.
You say that Cruise mentioning he is a doctor even when it is irrevelent is hilarious, I actually think the entire film is a kind of a big joke of sorts, not just a satire, but a comedy. I would like to watch it again with this mindset to be sure, but the facts that nothing actually changes or that there are these unexplainable quirks (like the Costume Seller and his Daughter bizarre situation) or the deadpan atmosphere or the fact that it might all be a weird dream, and most importantly, the film ends with Kidman saying the F bomb.
That was Todd Field?
My ranking of Kubrick`s films that I`ve seen:
1. 2001: A Space Odyssey MP
2. A Clockwork Orange MP
3. Barry Lyndon MP
4. The Shining MP
5. Eyes Wide Shut MP
6. Paths of Glory MP
7. Dr. Strangelove MP
8. Full Metal Jacket MS/MP
9. The Killing HR/MS
10. Spartacus HR
11. Lolita R
12. Killer`s Kiss R
20 Best Performances
1. McDowell- A Clockwork Orange
2. Sellers- Dr. Strangelove
3. Douglas- Paths of Glory
4. Nicholson- The Shining
5. Mason- Lolita
6. Kidman- Eyes Wide Shut
7. Cruise- Eyes Wide Shut
8. C. Scott- Dr. Strangelove
9. L. Ermey- Full Metal Jacket
10. Olivier- Spartacus
11. Duvall- The Shining
12. Hayden- Dr. Strangelove
13. D`Onofrio- Full Metal Jacket
14. Rain- 2001: A Space Odyssey
15. Sellers- Lolita
16. Hayden- The Killing
17. Simmons- Spartacus
18. Douglas- Spartacus
19. O`Neal- Barry Lyndon
20. Pollack- Eyes Wide Shut
@RujK – I love Eyes Wide Shut ahead of Paths of Glory, Dr. Strangelove, and Full Metal Jacket. I have the same top 4 as you albeit a slightly different order but all 4 of those I have as top 50 films of all time. Eyes Wide Shut really improves with additional viewings even compared to other great films. The Mansion set piece is one of the most mesmerizing scenes in any film I have watched. The production design, lighting, and music create an atmosphere that is unlike any other I have seen. I wonder whether films that can be labeled as “erotic thrillers” get their proper due from critics? I like seeing you have Pollack’s performance in your top 20. He is a great character, he has a subtle menace to him. I want to learn more of his character when watching but not getting more background gives him a captivating mysterious quality
@James Trapp- I have seen Eyes Wide Shut only yesterday, and I was completely blown away. The mansion/orgy sequence is certainly the best set piece of the film and one of the best of Kubrick’s career, but I also really love the opening party in Pollack’s house- it is the best lit scene I have seen in a while.
You’re completely right about Pollack and his subtle menace. He is mesmerizing, even if he has basically two scenes. I think that if Kubrick wanted to expand his screentime and “role” it might result in the best performance in the film, but I also think it would really hurt the film on the pacing and even formal level.
@RujK – The Christmas Party lighting is just ridiculously beautiful. It rivals even Barry Lyndon’s candle scene for best use of lighting in a Kubrick film.
I also think this might be the most fascinating Kubrick film along with The Shining and 2001 regards to its themes and interpretations. These elements of film are certainly more subjective and I do not normally delve into fan theories (though they can be great fun) but this is definitely a film that rewards repeat viewings even more than usual. I agree that more emphasis on the Pollack character, Victor Ziegler, would hurt the film overall even if it would be fascinating on a character level.
Kubrick’s films in general demonstrate skepticism toward the goodness of mankind. I think the Christmas party scene can be read as a sort of facade; the immaculate beauty of Victor Ziegler’s house during the Christmas Party almost feels like a fantasy. On the surface everything feels so carefully designed, including the overly formal way people talk at events like this, especially when they greet each other. This surface level behavior is constrasted with Ziegler acting out his more primal desires as shown shortly after in a scene in which he is showed doing hard drugs and having sex with a young woman who overdoses. The Mansion sex scene is an amplificaton of Ziegler’s Christmas Party
@James Trapp- you are completely right on the `how fascinating the film is` front, it might be his most enigmatic and “un-readable“ work. I wrote at the end of might notes “It is the perfect mystery to end his career on, as it will captivate/enigmatize cinephiles forever“.
I was thinking a lot about the formal correspondence between these two immaculate party set-pieces, and your explanation seems to be the most likely- there is a lot of that “two sides of the same coin“ idea going throughout the film. It is also interesting to think about these two set-pieces as separate crescendos in their own right as one is the formal high-water for the Christmas lighting motif that persists through the film, and the other is the formal pay-off for the sexual motifs that persist through the film. I think that Kubrick is all about this contrast, even if I have no good ideas about what he is actually trying to say.
@RujK – “the separate crescendos in their own right” I like that, I was trying to find connections between them that I overlooked the possiblity of them being BOTH connected sequences but also having independent formal relevance.
I think social status is another theme running throughout the film that connects both party scenes. The way Tom Cruise’s Doctor Bill Hartford always emphasizes that he is a doctor even in situations where it is completely irrelevant is kind of hilarious. The Christmas party is attended by wealthy powerful people. The sex party at the Mansion is attended by (presumably) even wealthier and more powerful people and requires a secret code to enter.
Zeigler talks about how the Nick Nightingale character, played by Todd Field, “made him look like an idiot”. He seemed more concerned with this than the death of a young woman. At the Christmas party Ziegler is doing drugs and having sex with a young woman even though he surely could have just done that later but there is a strong sense of entitlement with his character.
@Rujk-I would definitely put O’Neal above Duvall. I watched Barry Lyndon recently and I have to say O’Neal was much better than I thought. Probably Kubrick taking a ton of takes per scene helps. But his performance got stronger and stronger as the film went on. Really culminating with the heartbreaking scene with O’Neal breaking down when his son was dying.(I couldn’t believe such a heartbreaking scene would happen in a freakin’ Kubrick film) Really with the narrator set-up this film wouldn’t be stronger with any other actor. That doesn’t allow the character to have any soul of his own.
@Malith- there is a lot of this debate about how good O’Neal actually is in Barry Lyndon. I think he was very good- I actually think his best acting moment is when he chooses not to shoot Vitali, but I simply thought that Duvall’s work was much more ambitious and much more challenging- just think how wrong this performance could go.
You also have to take into account that I have seen Barry Lyndon only once so I am no authority on O’Neal’s performance. He might actually be better, but I am simply not there yet.
@RujK-I don’t see it. The crying when his son was dying is the one. It’s weird Kubrick included this in this film in a way. It is different from the tone the rest of the film carries. But absolutely worked. Duvall’s role I’m not sure I would call more ambitious really. She always seemed a bit off. The thing is this. Loud performances(with screaming) certainly catches the eye but I always loved more subtle/quiet work with some emotional breakdowns/outbursts. And it’s not like there were any bad scenes involving O’Neal’s character either. He was always compelling without any shouting/screaming and had that big moment in the end. But still this isn’t a film where they rely on the actor to carry the film or make it work. But both are good performances at the end of the day. That’s what ultimately matters.
@Drake. Have any of your evaluations of Kubrick films changed since this post?
@Christopher- I’ll have to really dig in with the next update. Not quite sure right now. But I have seen just about all of them again since this page was last updated
I read this great Kubrick quote recently:
“When you think of the greatest moments of film, I think you are almost always involved with images rather than scenes, and certainly never dialogue. The thing a film does best is to use pictures with music and I think these are the moments you remember. Another thing is the way an actor did something: the way Emil Jannings took out his handkerchief and blew his nose in The Blue Angel, or those marvelous slow turns that Nikolai Cherkassov did in Ivan the Terrible.”
@James Trapp- Very well said!
I feel like Stanley Kubrick’s claim to being the G.O.A.T really rests on 4 films :
Dr Strangelove, 2001, A Clockwork Orange and Barry Lyndon. Each of these is at such a high standard (with 2001 and BL reach all-time masterpiece status to me), that I don’t think any director can claim to have had a better decade than Kubrick did from 1964 to 1975.
The problem for me comes when dealing with his work outside of these 4. Full Metal Jacket and Paths of Glory are great films, but not all-time great films. I’ve found the Shining outright weak, and Eyes Wide Shut I’ve thought was competent but not memorable.
Kubrick obviously had a very distinct visual style and approach to actors and acting, and when it found the right material it led to masterpieces, when it did not, I feel his weaknesses became apparent.
One big weakness of Kubrick I think was screenwriting, which if left to him, often led to bad performances. If you look at the parts of Full Metal Jacket that everyone agrees are great, namely the first third in boot camp and the last third with the sniper, you notice that the former was mostly dialogue improvised by Lee Ermey himself (with Kubrick accepted as superior to his script) and the latter has almost no dialogue, leaving Kubrick’s lighting, compositional and editing prowess to take center stage. If Ermey had not pushed to takeover the role of Sgt. Hartman, we can all agree FMJ would have possibly not even been a great film.
Similarly look at films like A Clockwork Orange and Dr Strangelove, where the dialogue was taken out of Kubrick’s hands. Kubrick handles everything but the dialogue. The acting from both Mcdowell and Sellers is rightfully praised – both give very un-Kubrick like performances – they speak at a normal tempo, there is more energy and animus. Compare those performance to the stilted delivery of John Wayne quips by Private Joker.
However, there was material which was enhanced by Kubrick’s penchant to have his actors deliver lines in an unnaturally slow and deliberate manner. 2001 is an obvious example here, with the astronauts competing with HAL to see who is more inhuman and robotic. Barry Lyndon, with its focus on high class society and manners, works very well with stilted delivery and overtly restrained mannerisms- there is hardly a weak performance in the entire film, despite having much “lesser” leads. Ryan O’neal is no Jack Nicholson, but his performance in Barry Lyndon outshines Nicholson’s in the Shining.
@Andrew- Thank you for the comments here and for visiting the site. The vast majority of this here checks out- you clearly know your stuff. The one exception here may be the comment about The Shining and Eyes Wide Shut. I’m not sure the evidence on screen supports your comment.
@Drake-He is off about Jack’s performance in The Shining as well. It is his screen presence that works here. I hardly think it is his best work either. I would easily put Cuckoo’s Nest, The Passenger and Chinatown above this performance. Despite The Shining being probably Jack’s best film.
@Andrew – just curious how many times have you seen Eyes Wide Shut? If just once I would strongly consider watching again as I have found it to be one of those films that really rewards multiple viewings. Similar to PT Anderson’s The Master (2012) there are so many ways to interpret Eyes Wide Shut and so much addition to even the smallest of details throughout the film. Here is a link to an absurdly in depth analysis of the film and possible interpretations
https://boydrinksink.com/eyes-wide-shut-hidden-in-plain-sight
Im the exact opposite of you….. i find most of kubrick’s work boring but I think both The Shining and Eyes Wide Shut are giant masterpieces (both in my top 10 of their decades). There’s lots of things that annoy or bore me with his older films, but I find those 2 films to be nearly perfect
Thats pretty crazy thinking O’Neal > Nicholson, he was incredible in The Shining, one of his best performances, while Barry Lyndon is basically the only thing Ryan O’Neal is known for
Nicholson in Shining – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmY4k85_XEE
ONeal in BL – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bC9WefXFMFk
In what world is he better than Jack, man?
Not to hate on him, I thought he was pretty good in The Driver, but hes no Nicholson in The Shining, nowhere close.
https://youtu.be/A-tgsURVNrI
One of my all time favorite trailers.
Stanley Kubrick is the DaVinci of cinema!
Just think of all the great American filmmakers who are/were in awe of his talent………Welles, Scorsese, Spielberg, Lynch, at al.
Every single one of his films, beginning with The Killing, and excepting Spartacus, has in many ways grown richer with time and repeat viewings. I’m not sure you can find that quality in any other narrative filmmaker’s work dating back nearly seven decades?
Though I regard Kubrick as the greatest film artist in history, I would feel comfortable lumping him in the same top tier of geniuses, alongside Welles and Hitchcock. I think there is clear separation between those three and the next tier of twenty or so masters who follow, namely: Antonioni, Tarkovsky, Bunuel, Ford, Dreyer, Bresson, Mizoguchi, Rossellini, Chaplin, Renoir, Hawks, Godard, Lang, Kurosawa, Ozu, Murnau, Bergman, Fellini, Keaton, Powell/Pressburger, and Wilder. And I would be remiss not to pay special homage to Jean-Pierre Melville, whose reputation as a master seems grossly undervalued by the film community.
After them begins yet another tier of stylists and poets who came to prominence in the late 60’s and 70’s, along with a handful in more recent decades, and they are: Scorsese, Coppola, Resnais, Leone, Cassavetes, Lynch, Polanski, Malick, Herzog, Kieslowski, Kar-wai and Fassbinder.
You can go on to name dozens of additional filmmakers from the early days of cinema to the Tarantino sphere of influence, along with the “minimalist” darlings of the last quarter century, figures like Kiarostami, Hsiao-hsien, Akerman, Yang, Weerasathekul, Tarr, etc.
But back to Kubrick.
A legitimate claim can be made that ANY one of 10 Kubrick films can be regarded as his greatest achievement. The same claim cannot be made by even such prolific directors as Hitchcock or Ford.
With most directors, you could whittle down their very best achievements to perhaps a choice among a half dozen films, at most; possibly get up to 7 or 8 with Hitchcock or Ford, but that’s it.
With Kubrick, everything from The Killing (hands down his most underrated film) to his swansong, Eyes Wide Shut, is a contender (except for Spartacus). And these are the opinions of prominent filmmakers and historians, let alone cinephiles the world over. Heck, I would wager that Spartacus may even be his most popular film among casual moviegoers, but I digress.
Kubrick left behind a staggeringly rich catalog of achievements – both technically and philosophically – though they are few in relation to other far more prolific directors. And yet, had he been a bit more fortunate and less rigorous in his approach, the world might have been privy to a few more masterpieces, including Napoleon, Aryan Papers and HIS version of AI: Artificial Intelligence.
Our current world is a far sadder place without any new Stanley Kubrick films to “kick us up the evolutionary ladder,” except his extant oeuvre keeps yielding new discoveries and truths about the human condition, like finely chiseled Rosetta Stones on celluloid.
As Scorsese once famously quipped, “We are the children of D.W. Griffith and Stanley Kubrick.”
Cheers!
@Wittsdream- Thank you for the comment and thank you for visiting the site. Great work here with the writeup on Kubrick. “(Sic) One of his films were equivalent to ten of anybody else’s.” – Martin Scorsese
Killer’s Kiss R
The Killing HR
Paths of Glory MP
Spartacus HR
Lolita HR
Dr. Strangelove MS
2001: A Space Odyssey MP
A Clockwork Orange MP
Barry Lyndon MP
The Shining MP
Full Metal Jacket HR
Eyes Wide Shut MS
Hello, Drake. I’ve just seen Dr. Strangelove for the second time, and I’d like to ask: do you still think it’s a masterpiece? I don’t think I found enough in it myself to get past MS.
@Pedro- Thank you for the comment. I am not as married to it as a masterpiece as I once was. I will say that it has been working its way down the best films of 1964. It was at #6 on the top 10 when I did the 1964 page and even now- if I were to rerack it and improve the pack. At least one more film (Charulata) would be ahead of it. So you might be correct here.
[…] 2. Stanley Kubrick […]
I’m not sure if this opinion is “unpopular” or not, but the first 10 minutes of Lolita are among the finest of cinema history.
@RK- Interesting. In what way? I would like nothing more than to be wrong on my “overrated” section here with Lolita.
I agree with you that Lolita is Kubrick’s most overrated. It’s a HR in my books after first viewing and his second weakest (Killers Kiss beaing the weakest) film.
I called my opinion unpopular because I dont see Lolita’s first 10 minutes being mentioned when discussing about best first 10-15 minutes in film history, while movies like Goodfellas, The Dark Knight and Saving Private Ryan are mentioned often when talking about the best first 10-15 minutes in film history (not saying that the first 10-15 minutes in those films are bad etc. I think those are among the best first 10-15 minutes in film history).
But back to the first 10 minutes of Lolita, in short the lighting, direction, camerawork, set pieces, acting (especially from Sellers) and dialogue are all flawless in my opinion. Especially how Kubrick pictures people as furnite, the ping pong sequence between two pedophiles… Wow. And the scene where Humbert shoots Quilty through the painting. Absolutely amazing. Intensity at it’s best. Bravo, mr. Kubrick.
@RK- thank you for sharing this. I’ve seen it several times but it has been too long and my memory of the opening isn’t as sharp as yours clearly. I look forward to a rewatch.
@Graham – great choices, Raging Bull might have my favorite score of all time
The Shining has one of the most incredible opening scenes with the panoramic shots of the car traveling along the Rocky Mountains. These incredible images combined with the haunting, ominous score perfectly sets up the films atmosphere.
What are some other films that effectively set up atmosphere in the opening shots?
For me:
There Will Be Blood (2007)
Aguirre, the Wrath of God (1972)
A Clockwork Orange (1971)
I’d add:
Apocalypse Now – creating psychedelic jungle terror with the opening napalm dream
Raging Bull – creating vicious gracefulness with the slow-motioning LaMotta
Roma – illustrating the daily routines of Cleo
The Hill – starting the narrative of delirious intensity while revealing the compound
Blade Runner, crafting cyberpunk cityscape grandeur, also setting up symbols of crowded environment and human eyes
Every Wes Anderson movie – the whimsical atmosphere is completely maintained throughout every second, including the beginning
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly – juxtaposing a wide desert landscape with a close-up of a cool, stoic gunfighter
Dead Man – lulling us into a off putting, deadpan stupor with mesmerizing music
The Underground Railroad – I’ve only seen one episode so far, but the opening sequence is an absolute cinematic atom-bomb of surrealist intensity
How do you define formal rigor?
@Harry– Hey Harry- so here meaning a stiff adherence to a system or form- https://sites.fas.harvard.edu/~fc76/Handouts/A__Principles_of_Form.html#:~:text=Meaning%20in%20a%20film%20is,they%20stylistic%20or%20narrative%20entities.
specifically five here- “Unity/disunity: If elements cohere strongly, we speak of a “tight” structure”
“A film is – or should be – more like music than like fiction. It should be a progression of moods and feelings. The theme, what’s behind the emotion, the meaning, all that comes later.” ― Stanley Kubrick
This may be one of my favourite quotes about cinema. It’s a good go-to whenever someone tries to argue that plot and themes are more important than anything else.
@Declan- I love this- thank you for sharing. And yes- this is a good one to have in my back pocket the next time that argument surfaces.
Kubrick is the greatest Director of all time. He has 4 Stars in every genre and his films still hold up today.
IMO- here’s my top 10
1. Kubrick
2. Kurasowa
3. Chaplin
4. Ridley Scott
5. Sergio Leone
6. Fritz Lang
7. Bergmen
8. DW Griffith
9. Hitchcock
10. Eric J. Kepner
@Eric- thank you for sharing your list and for visiting the site. This is a great list- interesting to see the inclusion of Scott as the most contemporary of auteurs here.
Who is Kepner? I see nothing online about him or any of his movies