What's the deal with Kubrick?
Craven0r
Often they claim Kubrick is more talented and place him higher on their list of
film makers than Lynch. I basically just want to know what is it that makes
someone prefer Kubrick to Lynch (especially in terms of pure talent and
creativity).
I personally haven't seen anything amazing by Stanley, I can see him being
more creative than an average director in some cases but not too much. I've
seen some great shots...just not amazed.
Also, his scripts seem to always be adaptations or written with a few writers
or both. They are also fairly simple stories...linear, (although entertaining
and dramatic) blablabla...However Lynch is almost always the sole writer...and
in most cases does these amazingly creative and well thought out movies that
are so twisted up and meaningful...unlike anything you've seen before..with
some much attention to detail...the sound and music has meaning ...
his directing is great gives hints and all this stuff that a lot of people
don't even think about....
...I'm getting off-track...I'm sorry if I sound like I'm bashing Kubrick...I'm
not...I know he's great. I just think Lynch is on a level greatness that
Kubrick possibly just barely scratched the surface of....not that he was trying
to.
Mikko Pihkoluoma
If you want emotional experiences more than intellectual content Lynch is
your guy. Lynch touches the truths of life through moments and experiences,
Kubrick paints his films with strong, deep themes about humanity, society
etc...
I find far more depth in one Kubrick script than the whole work of Lynch...
but they're not really comparable. They are far more subtle than Lynch
films. Lynch plays with narrative in places that are visible to every
viewer. Kubrick toys with it on different levels.
A Kubrick film needs to grow on you. Whereas with Lynch it's pretty much
love it or hate it. Lynch touches people personally and their personal
experiences. Kubrick looks people from the god's-eye-viewpoint and shows
them as they are -- often with unflattering results. Kubrick goes for the
objective; big truths about mankind, society, culture...
Which Kubrick films you have seen?
Mikko
--
mpihkolu at welho dot com
Surfchan
Lynch is how nearly every one of Kubrick's films (save Killer's Kiss, or Fear &
Desire -- if you can find it) directly challenges your perception of the world
and the people who live in it. I always considered him more of a social
commentator or a benevolent philosopher (I suppose I could use the word
"intellectual" here, as well) than a movie director. He seems pretty intent on
"reporting" the truth of human nature -- no matter how disturbing or
heartbreaking it might be (perhaps this explains his interest in photography
from a very young age). I use the term "reporting" instead of "filming"
because, as a previous poster noted, he is seemingly always shooting things
from this omniscient, eye-of-god point-of-view. This is not necessarily a
quality completely unique to Kubrick (I would describe the films of Bergman and
Kurosawa, among others, similarly). Having said that, I have never seen a film
that has rivaled "2001: ASO" in terms of its purely lucid objectivity.
Lynch has always struck me as more of a tradional "artist" in the sense that
many of his films exist in a heightened state, and he's capable of drawing
connections between people that seemingly don't exist, and enhancing those
connections that do. Someone once called Lynch's movies "living, breathing
paintings," and I found that description fairly appropriate given his
background in that discipline.
natch
Hey everyone is entitled to their opinion. Kubrick happens to be my
favorite and Lynch my second favorite, yet I view Lynch as a sort of
avant-garde acquired taste that if some unknowledgeable person said to
me "he sucks, his movies are weird" I wouldnt mind. But if someone
said Kubrick sucks well you have an argument. Your comment about "Ive
seen some great shots but nothing floored me" actually floors me. I
mean Kubrick is one of the best if not the best visual director of all
time; David Lean, Michaelangelo Antonioni are some others that pop
into mind, but Kubrick is the master. To fault Kubrick for his films
being adaptations is something that really gets me. How can you view
that as a fault? Kubrick IS a director who adapts works. But HALF or
more of ALL directors adapt works. Not that he needs defending but
Kubrick feels that no story he can come up with can give him the same
feeling, and therefore confidence, that he gets when he reads another
person's work for the same time and feels its great. Being somone that
has written some I completely understand, you just cant know if your
original idea can possibly even give yourself the feeling you get when
you read a great work by someone else for the same time. So he chooses
not to write original stories, like almost all other directors do as
well. You cant judge him as a "director" based on that. And linear?
Did you complain that Kubrick's stories are linear? Thats really weird
-You can call 99.99% of directors stories linear when you compare them
to Lynch for gods sakes. Lynch aside Kubricks stories are much, much
less linear than the average story. Is 2001 linear? Heck no, The
Shining? No. The Killing? No. As far as any one's work being
meaningful thats in the eye of the beholder. I find Kubricks work to
be very meaningful. All that said I looooooove Lynch, dont get me
wrong.
James M
somaBoyMX
being
> more creative than an average director in some cases but not too much.
I've
> seen some great shots...just not amazed.
He was infinitely more creative than most living directors. For every
project he chose a different approach to style, storytelling and theme while
every one of his films remains a deeply personal and artistic
accomplishment. The chosen form was always perfect for what he was trying to
convey. Lynch utilises a couple of stylistic and thematic constants that are
easily identifiable and reproducable, Mulholland Drive being the absolute
rock bottom of style repeated to death. It's very difficult to apply
'auteur'-theory to Kubrick, because in a way he was above all that.
Kubrick didn't need red drapes or backward-speaking dwarves to offer the
viewer a glimpse into his character's subconciouss. He showed it by way of a
character's actions, which is more powerful and true-to-life. Of course
Kubrick was only human (although he might've disagreed :) and not all of his
films are masterpieces.
Kubrick was more in league with great writers like Nabokov and Faulkner than
with any of his living colleagues. The only one that comes to mind is
Polanski. This approach to filmmaking is indeed a dying art.
.somaBoyMX
BubbCoop
that's how most stories are told, whether oral, written, sung, shown, or acted.
BubbCoop
handing AI over to Spielberg.>>
He was dead. What did you want him to do?
tikibars
> done without Clockwork Orange
> Just seemed like
> Kubrick indulging his sadistic streak.
Did you watch more than the first third of the film?
> And I can't forgive him for
> handing AI over to Spielberg.
He was DEAD!
What else could he have done?
JT
...
R. Westermeyer
wrote:
Leave it with Kubrick's ending, which, I believe, was David at the
bottom of the sea.
The ET shit ruined the movie.
--R
>JT
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>...
***
"Upward toward the sun we go."
"Careful plants, be careful plants".
---The Residents
R. Westermeyer
wrote:
>> I personally haven't seen anything amazing by Stanley, I can see him
>being
>> more creative than an average director in some cases but not too much.
>I've
>> seen some great shots...just not amazed.
>
Apples and oranges.
Kubrick couldn't make Blue Velvet and Lynch couldn't make Clockwork
Orange (Though I think he could have done a cool justice to the
already cool Eyes Wide Shut. Excluding Kidman's husband would have
been a good start).
I consider Kubrick to be a more traditional film maker who blows your
mind with subtlety but stays on track with the linear plot. Of course
there are exceptions, EWS being the best comparison to a. Lynch film.
Lynch, on the other hand, seems to have comfort reducing plot to a
mere sideline. It's almost ironic, as most movies today have done that
too. The action crap we see. Plot is 2%, while special effects and
"action" are 98. Lynch makes that 98% character, or some other theme,
even an unconscious one, like the Freudian conflict resolution of
blue velvet.
Again, apples and oranges. It's like comparing Nick Cave to Lenonard
Cohen. Both are song writers with dark messages, but....
--Robert
somaBoyMX
I think I made that perfectly clear by saying not all of his films are
masterworks.
> I could have
> done without Clockwork Orange or Full Metal Jacket. Just seemed like
> Kubrick indulging his sadistic streak.
They are both great films. The films I could've done without are Barry
Lindon and most of 2001.
> And I can't forgive him for
> handing AI over to Spielberg.
Why is it his fault that Spielberg fucked up?
.somaBoy MX
Chris Cathcart
> Often they claim Kubrick is more talented and place him higher on their list of
> film makers than Lynch. I basically just want to know what is it that makes
> someone prefer Kubrick to Lynch (especially in terms of pure talent and
> creativity).
>
> I personally haven't seen anything amazing by Stanley, I can see him being
> more creative than an average director in some cases but not too much. I've
> seen some great shots...just not amazed.
Interesting that Mr. Lynch himself -- and pretty much every director
of the last half century -- would disagree. He is on record as
saying that "Kubrick is the coolest," and that almost every Kubrick
film is in his personal top 10.
> Also, his scripts seem to always be adaptations or written with a few writers
> or both.
It should be noted that Kubrick's greatest project -- 2001 -- was an
original project that was co-written at the same time, and along with
Clarke's novel.
> They are also fairly simple stories...linear,
This is a bullshit critique, plain and simple. Not only is there some
argument about whether all his storytelling is linear (is -The
Killing- linear????), the fact that something is told linearly is not
an argument against the style.
(although entertaining
> and dramatic) blablabla...However Lynch is almost always the sole writer...and
> in most cases does these amazingly creative and well thought out movies that
> are so twisted up and meaningful...unlike anything you've seen before..with
> some much attention to detail...the sound and music has meaning ...
> his directing is great gives hints and all this stuff that a lot of people
> don't even think about....
Well, maybe you can explain how the most accomplished directors today
-- including Lynch, Scorsese, and others -- emulate Kubrick and hope
to succeed in living up to the kind of standard that Kubrick set, with
every project they work on.
> ...I'm getting off-track...I'm sorry if I sound like I'm bashing Kubrick...I'm
> not...I know he's great. I just think Lynch is on a level greatness that
> Kubrick possibly just barely scratched the surface of....not that he was trying
> to.
Well, it's enough to say that they both admire each other's work.
Kubrick was a big admirer of -Eraserhead-. But to say that Lynch was
on a level that Kubrick only could touch, is silly, and if anything --
and Lynch and other greats might admit as much -- it's the other way
around.
Lynch has yet to make a film that, visually, matches up with -Eyes
Wide Shut- or -Barry Lyndon-, for instance, however beautiful Lynch
has made some of his pictures. Heck, Kubrick himself hardly matched
-Eyes Wide Shut- visually, with anything else that he, much less any
other director, had made.
Mikko Pihkoluoma
> On Wed, 28 May 2003 21:18:35 +0300, in article
> <bb2uin$uda$1...@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi>, "Mikko stated:
like
> "The Straight Story" or "Mulholland Drive" or "The Elephant Man" has less
> "depth" than "The Shining"? I see no basis for such a broad claim.
Yes, it means exactly that.
Mikko Pihkoluoma
> On 29 May 2003 14:26:26 GMT, in article
> <20030529102626...@mb-m12.aol.com>, surf...@aol.comslayspam
stated:
> >
> >Well put. I think for me, the thing that puts Kubrick head and shoulders
above
> >Lynch is how nearly every one of Kubrick's films (save Killer's Kiss, or
Fear &
> >Desire -- if you can find it) directly challenges your perception of the
world
> >and the people who live in it.
>
"Mulholland
> Drive," see "Lost Highway," see "The Straight Story").
TSS challenges nothing, MD and LH are the same thing, but with BV you might
be on to something.
> >I always considered him more of a social
> >commentator or a benevolent philosopher (I suppose I could use the word
> >"intellectual" here, as well) than a movie director. He seems pretty
intent on
> >"reporting" the truth of human nature -- no matter how disturbing or
> >heartbreaking it might be (perhaps this explains his interest in
photography
> >from a very young age). I use the term "reporting" instead of "filming"
> >because, as a previous poster noted, he is seemingly always shooting
things
> >from this omniscient, eye-of-god point-of-view.
>
> What does that mean? Does Kubrick use more than his share of crane shots?
What
> exactly is the "eye of god point of view"?
It's a story element. The way he tells his stories.
somaBoyMX
regard
> to Kubrick. Both should be prized as rare examples of directors who
manage to
> stay outside the studio system and who are able to give us (more or less)
> uncompromised work.
Stay *outside* of the studio system? Kubrick had Warner Bros. in his
pockets!
...and stop flooding this ng. I won't acknowledge your argumentation until
you learn how to post straight!
somaBoyMX
> understood as Kubrick's homage to Lynch. And Blue Velvet is Lynch's
homage to
> Lolita. :o)
Yeah, I own a WIP issue with a lengthy (and I mean leeeeengthy) comparison
between Lynch and EWS. Somehow, I never seem to make it beyond the third
paragraph without falling asleep. Is it just me?
Anyhow, I don't see the connection. That's like saying Bunuel borrowed from
Lynch.
.soma
R. Westermeyer
wrote:
Probably right.
What I love is how the psychoanalytic folks go overboard,
over-fucking-board, on interpreting every little bit of Mulholland
Drive and, especially, Lost Highway. I've read some wild stuff, where
you have to sit back and repeat that sometimes a cigar is just
a....well a director who knows what works and defies interpretation.
A lot of MD, I'm fairly certain, was not a priori decided as meaning
this or that. And the analysts will say, well, it was Lynch's
unconscious making decisions, which becomes procrustean bed logic for
the psychoanalyst.
You mention Bunuel. I guess it's one of the things that's so fun about
Surrealists and their disciples, you can dive in and your own brain
can meld it into its own meaning.
Something tells me LYnch would not agree to "one" interpretation.
--R
Trichome
R. Westermeyer <wst...@cts.com> wrote:
> What I love is how the psychoanalytic folks go overboard,
> over-fucking-board, on interpreting every little bit of Mulholland
> Drive and, especially, Lost Highway. I've read some wild stuff, where
> you have to sit back and repeat that sometimes a cigar is just
> a....well a director who knows what works and defies interpretation.
Okay, but where exactly do YOU draw the line?
Can you give us maybe an online example of the "psychoanalytic folks"
going "over-fucking-board" in their MD or LH interpretations? It's only
that such could be said either by someone who correctly OR incorrectly
labelled the insights as bu!!$!t.
> A lot of MD, I'm fairly certain, was not a priori decided as meaning
> this or that.
I have to disagree. I've seen Lynch explicitly state that most
elements of MD have precise and specific meanings to him, though
components certainly lend themselves to some degree to multiple
interpretations. He creates from concrete, personal symbols, but
cultivates and encourages the multiplicity of workable interpretations.
> You mention Bunuel. I guess it's one of the things that's so fun about
> Surrealists and their disciples, you can dive in and your own brain
> can meld it into its own meaning.
>
> Something tells me LYnch would not agree to "one" interpretation.
>
> --R
Yes, Lynch whole-heartedly appreciates the breadth of personally
meaningful interpretations. And yet for him, there is one specific
interpretation privileged personally above all other interpretations
(excluding themes which were only to be filled in later in the MD
series, like Judy would have appeared in the "other" TP films).
My passion is for digging to the deepest layer. I'm glad there are
many layers; but the puzzles have one set of director-approved answers,
and those are the meanings which I think I find most rewarding.
Trichome
--
Texts available: Grandmother, EM, Eraserhead FAQ, Dune, WaH;
TP:episode guide, timeline, allusions, symbols, Log Lady intros,
Laura's Secret Diary, Cooper's autobioy, On the Air, LH, MD pilot.
R. Westermeyer
wrote:
>In article <5c5aev0grr1dt3ie8...@4ax.com>,
> R. Westermeyer <wst...@cts.com> wrote:
>
>> What I love is how the psychoanalytic folks go overboard,
>> over-fucking-board, on interpreting every little bit of Mulholland
>> Drive and, especially, Lost Highway. I've read some wild stuff, where
>> you have to sit back and repeat that sometimes a cigar is just
>> a....well a director who knows what works and defies interpretation.
>
> Okay, but where exactly do YOU draw the line?
Good rectorial question. I guess it depends on how much the artist
cares about the audience getting his idiosyncratic message.
>
> Can you give us maybe an online example of the "psychoanalytic folks"
>going "over-fucking-board" in their MD or LH interpretations? It's only
>that such could be said either by someone who correctly OR incorrectly
>labelled the insights as bu!!$!t.
Sure. Here's the one I was thinking of:
http://courses.washington.edu/freudlit/losthighway.html
>
>> A lot of MD, I'm fairly certain, was not a priori decided as meaning
>> this or that.
>
> I have to disagree. I've seen Lynch explicitly state that most
>elements of MD have precise and specific meanings to him, though
>components certainly lend themselves to some degree to multiple
>interpretations. He creates from concrete, personal symbols, but
>cultivates and encourages the multiplicity of workable interpretations.
>
>
>> You mention Bunuel. I guess it's one of the things that's so fun about
>> Surrealists and their disciples, you can dive in and your own brain
>> can meld it into its own meaning.
>>
>> Something tells me LYnch would not agree to "one" interpretation.
>>
>> --R
>
> Yes, Lynch whole-heartedly appreciates the breadth of personally
>meaningful interpretations. And yet for him, there is one specific
>interpretation privileged personally above all other interpretations
>(excluding themes which were only to be filled in later in the MD
>series, like Judy would have appeared in the "other" TP films).
>
> My passion is for digging to the deepest layer. I'm glad there are
>many layers; but the puzzles have one set of director-approved answers,
>and those are the meanings which I think I find most rewarding.
>
Well certainly. Who else would have the one answer but the creator of
the film?
I don't think it's always important to mirror the message of the
artist. But like you, I sure think it's fun to try.
> Trichome
--Robert
somaBoyMX
> Ed Wood was a solid flick and Pee Wee's Big Adventure is very fun.
> Both show the guy has talent somewhere underneath all that production
> excess.
I agree. Burton is one of the most original people working in mainstream
cinema. All of his films are at least enjoyable, from "Vincent" to "Planet
of the Apes". "Ed Wood" is a masterpiece.
Trichome
R. Westermeyer <wst...@cts.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jun 2003 17:18:56 GMT, Trichome <proph...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Can you give us maybe an online example of the "psychoanalytic folks"
> >going "over-fucking-board" in their MD or LH interpretations? It's only
> >that such could be said either by someone who correctly OR incorrectly
> >labelled the insights as bu!!$!t.
>
> Sure. Here's the one I was thinking of:
>
> http://courses.washington.edu/freudlit/losthighway.html
My God, that a 300-level course on Freud and the Literary Imagination
should think that this "Sample Paper" was adequate. That was some truly
HORRIFIC writing. It casts doubt on the quality of the entire
department, the whole of the academic institution of the University of
Washington (the state). Professor Professor Richard T. Gray must have
very low standards for his students, to promote such blathering nonsense.
But surely it would be unfair to take this incompetent writer as the
representative for "psychoanalytic folks'? This is the work of a poor
writer, and further I doubt he knows Thing 2 about Freud.
tikibars
> Good rectorial question.
Is this a typo for 'rhetorical', ignorance of English language usage,
or a new word you have created, meaning 'rhetorical in a particularly
anal way'?
:-)
JT
...
tikibars
somaBoyMX <nos...@fakemail.net> wrote:
And lets not forget Nightmare Before Xmas... he didn't actually
direct it, but it's still completely and totally 'his', as I am sure
all people familiar with his work would agree.
JT
...
R. Westermeyer
wrote:
You tell me, Moniker.
While you're at it, how being a terrible speller is "anal". Sounds
like "projection" to me.
--Robert
R. Westermeyer
<SteveHan...@aol.com> wrote:
>Trichome wrote in
><prophit1970-7A33...@nnrp02.earthlink.net>:
>
>>In article <d88cev0s14hjepofp...@4ax.com>,
>> R. Westermeyer <wst...@cts.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 10 Jun 2003 17:18:56 GMT, Trichome <proph...@earthlink.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Can you give us maybe an online example of the "psychoanalytic folks"
>>> >going "over-fucking-board" in their MD or LH interpretations? It's only
>>> >that such could be said either by someone who correctly OR incorrectly
>>> >labelled the insights as bu!!$!t.
>>>
>>> Sure. Here's the one I was thinking of:
>>>
>>> http://courses.washington.edu/freudlit/losthighway.html
>>
>> My God, that a 300-level course on Freud and the Literary Imagination
>>should think that this "Sample Paper" was adequate. That was some truly
>>HORRIFIC writing. It casts doubt on the quality of the entire
>>department, the whole of the academic institution of the University of
>>Washington (the state). Professor Professor Richard T. Gray must have
>>very low standards for his students, to promote such blathering nonsense.
>>
>> But surely it would be unfair to take this incompetent writer as the
>>representative for "psychoanalytic folks'? This is the work of a poor
>>writer, and further I doubt he knows Thing 2 about Freud.
>
>Ah, Freud. I remember what a waste of time reading Freudian literary
>criticism was. It's a cesspool where people who can't analyze
>anything themselves go to fester.
>
>Freud was himself a fraud in so many ways (just read his case
>studies), one would think at last the cult had lost its steam.
>Apparently not.
Freudian psychotherapy, in its traditional sense, is utter horse shit.
And for the most part, so was Freud's (and his wild band of followers;
Jung, etc) notion of the psyche.
Gee, ten years of "analysis" to treat a moderately depressed patient
who would respond to cognitive therapy and/or an SSRI in a couple
months.
Utter nonsense.
Pure Freudian Analysts are rarer these days, I think (one of the good
byproducts of managed care) Except in quarters where comfortably
narcissistic patients with 160 bucks to blow a few times a week to
talk about themselves are aplenty.
On the other hand, as an art lover, Freud stuff is fun. Freud made it
fun to take things apart. And great artists know how to trigger
viewers into trying to solve the puzzle. Why the view becomes more
tilted in Third Man, Why Mahler's last symphony swells and falls
repeatedly. It's not necessarily the "unconscious" at work (in freud's
sense. there are more empirically supported conceptualizations of
nonconscious, schema-driven information processing). Sometimes it's a
hitchcock who meticulously plants his message, or a less rigid sort
who acts more spontaneously, like Lynch, affording the puzzle-loving
viewer more room.
--Robert
Trichome
R. Westermeyer <wst...@cts.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 21:17:15 GMT, tikibars <tiki...@NOSPAMyahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >> Good rectorial question.
> >
> >Is this a typo for 'rhetorical', ignorance of English language usage,
> >or a new word you have created, meaning 'rhetorical in a particularly
> >anal way'?
> >
> >:-)
> >
> >JT
>
> You tell me, Moniker.
>
> While you're at it, how [is] being a terrible speller is "anal".[?]
> Sounds like "projection" to me.
>
> --Robert
No, Robert. "rectorial" sounds like "rectum".
Or "rectory", but I don't think that's as funny.
That Evil Koala
news:savrev0gs381ig1qu...@4ax.com...
> AllYourBaseAreBelongToUs wrote in <bcknm...@drn.newsguy.com>:
> >
> >Never mind surrealism, which along with existentialism is perhaps the
defining
> >art movement of the 20th century.
>
> I don't see a connection between Freud and either of those art
> movements. Surrealism had its roots in a complete rejection of
> reason, and Freud intended to dig up rational explanations for
> irrational behavior.
<snipty snip snip>
Um, just jumping in here, but Breton talks quite a bit about Freud in the
Surrealist Manifesto...
That Evil Koala
somaBoyMX
"Steve Hanson" <SteveHan...@aol.com> wrote ...
> I don't see a connection between Freud and either of those art
> movements. Surrealism had its roots in a complete rejection of
> reason, and Freud intended to dig up rational explanations for
> irrational behavior.
It's back to art history 101 for you Steve-o! If it wasn't for Freud, the
surrealist movement probably wouldn't have existed. Andre Breton found in
Freud's "discovery" of the subconscious a way to liberate art from its
bourgeois constraints. Freud and Breton even corresponded, Breton asking the
former's advise while compiling the surrealist manifesto.
While you can argue that Freud was far-off, he was still a pioneer in the
field. Saying that Freud was a fraud is like saying that Plato had it all
wrong.
.soma
Dclizardking
>>
>>what makes you say that? Tim Burton has never done a good job at anything
>>(cinematically).
>
I beg to differ, Ed Wood was a fine fine movie, probably his finest. I also
have a particular soft spot for Sleepy Hollow, any movie that's so
stylistically like Mario Bava can't be all bad.
BubbCoop
>>(cinematically).>>
Batman
Nightmare Before Christmas