A personal list of Kubrick 'false notes'
Matthew Ryder
legitimate critics alike) of a lack of objectivity in their appraisal of the
master's work. The perception seems to be that hardcore Kubrick fans are by
necessity pretentious cineastes who have deified the director, and whose
aesthetic vision and critical facilities have been dulled by years of paying
obeisance to their idol.
Although I too believe that every mature Kubrick film (ie from the Killing
onwards) is touched by genius, I should like to temper my adulation for the
films by listing some moments/sequences/creative choices which in some way
marred my enjoyment of these masterpieces. It is such a rarity in AMK for a
genuine fan to cast aspersions on even a single frame in Kubrick's mighty
canon that I thought the exercise might be informative.
I expect some of my criticisms may be provocative. Some may even inspire
argument or vicious invective. But, heck, I'm wearing my best
asbestos-lined, flame-retardant underwear, so do your worst!
I challenge other fans to post their own quibbles. A 'false note' thread
should help dispel the myth of the myopic Kubrickite, unable or unwilling to
admit to the existence of flaws amidst the glittering finery of Kubrick's
celluloid legacy.
So then. My personal list of 'misfires' in Kubrick movies in reverse
chronological order:
Eyes Wide Shut
----------------
The brilliantly sustained dreamlike flavour of the latter half of the movie
is tragically undermined by Ziegler's pool-table "explanation" of events.
I've heard the argument that this scene represents the rationalisations of
the waking mind contemplating the dream-logic the sleeping mind previously
accepted as fact. But if Kubrick was attempting to lay such a subtext, it
doesn't work. The scene simply makes the foregoing events seem banal by
imposing a limiting 'reality' on the inexplicable. I hate to say it, but
this scene comes off as Kubrick's concession to Warner Bros; a sop to the
mass-paying public who require neat resolutions and plot subtleties tied up
with satisfying bows. It's akin to having a green-skinned alien enter
Bowman's hotel room at the end of 2001 to explain the vagaries of that
movie.
Full Metal Jacket
------------------
The scene in which Joker informs Cowboy of his suspicion that Pyle is a
"Section 8" is completely redundant. We've watched "Leonard talking to his
rifle", we've seen the dullness in his eyes, the incipient Kubrick Stares,
the emerging psychosis. Why reiterate the obvious and disrupt the pacing of
the bootcamp sequence with this pointless beat?
The Shining
------------
The Shining works well as an enactment of the themes glimpsed in Tarkovsky's
Solaris. Evil in the Overlook manifests as the physical embodiment of the
psychological distress experienced by the protagonists. Dread is evoked by
Kubrick's masterful mapping of these psychological elements onto the
mazelike geometry of the hotel with his eerie steadicam work.
At one point, however, Kubrick stumbles. He has Duvall react in horror to
some very fake-looking phantasmagoria indeed: a room bedecked with "Horror
Movie" cobwebs and filled with skeletons. This is not even faintly scary;
it's just silly. In my opinion, this sequence seems more suited to
juvenilia like "Tales from the Crypt".
Barry Lyndon
--------------
Okay. I 'll admit it. I simply cannot find any fault with this gorgeously
conceived film at all. If I HAD to quibble, I'd say that O' Neal's German
accent in his meeting with the Chevalier is clearly tainted by his native
English and thus Balley-Barrie would be unlikely to fall for the ruse that
Barry "could not speak a word" of the language as Portzdorf hopes. A minor
issue indeed!
A Clockwork Orange
----------------------
The actor who plays Alex's "Post-Corrective Advisor", Mr. Deltoid, always
irritates me with his unfunny, overacted performance and his extraordinary
overemphatic lilting diction (which can only have been a contrivance of
Kubrick's). A blight on an otherwise perfect movie.
2001: A Space Odyssey
-------------------------
This may be regarded as blasphemy, but I have to say it.
I think the infamous 'Stargate' sequence is too long and would benefit from
some judicious trimming.
In general, I love the slow, hypnotic pacing of 2001. The deliberate editing
evokes an awesome spatiotemporal vastness like no other film; 2001 has a
solemn majesty and philosophical beauty that would be eviscerated were it to
be 'sped up'. But that 'Stargate' sequence seems a little painfully
protracted to this child of the MTV generation.
I appreciate the part where Bowman is speeding through the inky void past
exploding nebulae etc. Galaxies flow together like sperm and egg, suggesting
the principle of 'Ontogeny Recapitulating Phylogeny' writ large on a
cosmological canvass.
However, those interminable scenes of strangely solarised landscapes seem a
little self-indulgent, and add nothing of value to the sequence.
Dr Strangelove
---------------
A perfect film. I just wish Kubrick hadn't added that unfunny slapstick
moment when Col Bat Guano is sprayed in the face by a stream of cola. It's
not particularly witty and is one of the few instances when the film's
gallows humour is rooted in something other than the dynamics of the grimly
plausible political scenario.
Lolita
------
This is the only Kubrick movie that pales in comparison to the novel it's
based on. I haven't seen it in a very long time, so I'm not qualified to
pick out specific flaws.
Paths of Glory
---------------
Paths of Glory offers a stunning, ascorbic commentary on the depravity of
war's commanders. I feel, however, that Kubrick could have lent a little
more moral ambivalence to the Kirk Douglas character. He's so upright and
ethical and without blemish that the audience doesn't ever completely buy
his performance.
The Killing
-----------
The cleverly interlocking temporal jigsaw puzzle structure is occasionally
let down by a redundant, floridly phrased 'hard-boiled' expository
voice-over. Tarantino's homage to The Killing, Reservoir Dogs, illustrates
that a complex time-fractured plot does not necessitate these intrusive
voice-overs.
---
What do fellow Kubrick acolytes think of these criticisms? Have you any
gripes of your own? Let 'em rip!
Matt.
David Sticher
> Eyes Wide Shut
> ----------------
>
> The brilliantly sustained dreamlike flavour of the latter half of the movie
> is tragically undermined by Ziegler's pool-table "explanation" of events.
> I've heard the argument that this scene represents the rationalisations of
> the waking mind contemplating the dream-logic the sleeping mind previously
> accepted as fact. But if Kubrick was attempting to lay such a subtext, it
> doesn't work. The scene simply makes the foregoing events seem banal by
> imposing a limiting 'reality' on the inexplicable. I hate to say it, but
> this scene comes off as Kubrick's concession to Warner Bros; a sop to the
> mass-paying public who require neat resolutions and plot subtleties tied up
> with satisfying bows. It's akin to having a green-skinned alien enter
> Bowman's hotel room at the end of 2001 to explain the vagaries of that
> movie.
If you'll recall, the alien in Mission to Mars was orange, not green. ;)
Personally, I don't think there is any one moment in EWS that could be
considered a false note, save for the neat resolution. However, the
dreamlike tone has never really sat perfectly well with me. Nothing can
be more subjective than a dream, and clearly Kubrick's dreamstate does
not mirror mine. One of the things I particularly admire about De Palma
is how he's able to capture *my* dreams and nightmares...fast, fluid,
lurid, and full of half-remembered and malformed cliches. I appreciate
EWS, certainly, but I could never descend into it as a dream because the
mannerisms of its world had nothing to do with those of my subconscious.
It's not a flaw per se so much as it is a reality of what happens when
you try to articulate a dream on film.
I still think EWS is a fine film, but its nature holds me a little at bay.
(Now that I think about it, I still don't agree with his choice to have
Cruise and Kidman totally overact being stoned. I have never seen anyone
react to marijuana that way; however, it's been pointed out before about
the strange nature of intoxication in EWS, but that's an explanation,
not an excuse. Perhaps if there was a scene where Dr. Bill complained to
his dealer about lacing his wares with PCP, I might be little less
ruffled. ;))
> Full Metal Jacket
> ------------------
I've gone on long enough about my problems with FMJ, so I'll keep it
snappy. In short, Kubrick's strengths lay with manipulating the rules of
narrative cinema, and in abandoning them, in trying to make an
"antimovie," he played against those strengths. The result, for me, is
occasionally brilliant but muddled in focus as a whole. I was uninvolved
for key stretches of time, a fatal flaw, enough so that by the time the
climax rolled around I just didn't care.
> The Shining
> ------------
The Shining is a masterpiece of mood and atmosphere, but the plot is
hardly a well-oiled machine. Either Jack snaps too quickly, or if he's
been mad all along, it was not a credible transition from one level to
the next. Also, the whole issue of the Shining itself seemed like a lot
of suspension of disbelief for such a small amount of payoff. The
movie's other strengths, however, keep it a classic of horror.
> Barry Lyndon
> --------------
>
> Okay. I 'll admit it. I simply cannot find any fault with this gorgeously
> conceived film at all. If I HAD to quibble, I'd say that O' Neal's German
> accent in his meeting with the Chevalier is clearly tainted by his native
> English and thus Balley-Barrie would be unlikely to fall for the ruse that
> Barry "could not speak a word" of the language as Portzdorf hopes. A minor
> issue indeed!
I, too, think Barry Lyndon is flawless, but it's not for everyone. Not
everyone is going to be as involved in it as Kubrick fans, and I can't
really blame them.
> A Clockwork Orange
> ----------------------
>
> The actor who plays Alex's "Post-Corrective Advisor", Mr. Deltoid, always
> irritates me with his unfunny, overacted performance and his extraordinary
> overemphatic lilting diction (which can only have been a contrivance of
> Kubrick's). A blight on an otherwise perfect movie.
I dig it. I thought his partial unfunniness was, in a way, what made him
even funnier - he's such a strange, out of place caricature that I
couldn't help but laugh! Besides, much of the humor in ACO is like the
"humor" in "After Hours," "Blue Jam," or "Blue Velvet" - it actually
*increases* tension.
> Lolita
> ------
>
> This is the only Kubrick movie that pales in comparison to the novel it's
> based on. I haven't seen it in a very long time, so I'm not qualified to
> pick out specific flaws.
Kubrick was still clicking into gear as a true genius here. The only
flaw is its length - it's not boring, nor does it have unnecessary
parts; making a shorter version would entail a total rewrite, not mere
editing. It's just longer than it should be. It's still very good,
though, very funny.
- Dave
dc
First of all you left out Spartacus--whihc believe it or not--is thought by
some to be Kubricks best film--even if Kubrick hated it. I think Spartacus
is incredible although they are is some terrible dialogue in a few spots
especially in the very beginning. I totally recomend the new Criterion
brand DVD --LOTS of great info and interviews.
>>>>>>Eyes Wide Shut
----------------
The brilliantly sustained dreamlike flavour of the latter half of the movie
is tragically undermined by Ziegler's pool-table "explanation" of events.
I've heard the argument that this scene represents the rationalisations of
the waking mind contemplating the dream-logic the sleeping mind previously
accepted as fact. But if Kubrick was attempting to lay such a subtext, it
doesn't work. The scene simply makes the foregoing events seem banal by
imposing a limiting 'reality' on the inexplicable. I hate to say it, but
this scene comes off as Kubrick's concession to Warner Bros; a sop to the
mass-paying public who require neat resolutions and plot subtleties tied up
with satisfying bows. It's akin to having a green-skinned alien enter
Bowman's hotel room at the end of 2001 to explain the vagaries of that
movie.>>>>>>
The pool table scene was perfect as the rational mind. The way it was paced
was impecable. brilliant Kubrick at his best!
Full Metal Jacket
------------------
The scene in which Joker informs Cowboy of his suspicion that Pyle is a
"Section 8" is completely redundant. We've watched "Leonard talking to his
rifle", we've seen the dullness in his eyes, the incipient Kubrick Stares,
the emerging psychosis. Why reiterate the obvious and disrupt the pacing of
the bootcamp sequence with this pointless beat?<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Way to picky....the only thing that bothered me about FMJ was that it didn't
go far enough--and most of all it did NOT surpass Apocalyse Now. That
bugged me. I wanted more.
>>>>>>>The Shining
------------
The Shining works well as an enactment of the themes glimpsed in Tarkovsky's
Solaris. Evil in the Overlook manifests as the physical embodiment of the
psychological distress experienced by the protagonists. Dread is evoked by
Kubrick's masterful mapping of these psychological elements onto the
mazelike geometry of the hotel with his eerie steadicam work.
At one point, however, Kubrick stumbles. He has Duvall react in horror to
some very fake-looking phantasmagoria indeed: a room bedecked with "Horror
Movie" cobwebs and filled with skeletons. This is not even faintly scary;
it's just silly. In my opinion, this sequence seems more suited to
juvenilia like "Tales from the Crypt".<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
You might have a point here on this one. the scene really is out of whack
with everything else. I need to see it again and figure out why it is
there.
Barry Lyndon
--------------
Okay. I 'll admit it. I simply cannot find any fault with this gorgeously
conceived film at all. If I HAD to quibble, I'd say that O' Neal's German
accent in his meeting with the Chevalier is clearly tainted by his native
English and thus Balley-Barrie would be unlikely to fall for the ruse that
Barry "could not speak a word" of the language as Portzdorf hopes. A minor
issue indeed!<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Perfect but too bland. But then Barry was bland.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>A Clockwork Orange
----------------------
The actor who plays Alex's "Post-Corrective Advisor", Mr. Deltoid, always
irritates me with his unfunny, overacted performance and his extraordinary
overemphatic lilting diction (which can only have been a contrivance of
Kubrick's). A blight on an otherwise perfect
movie.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
give me a break.....of ocurse hes obnoxious!
>>>>>>>2001: A Space Odyssey
-------------------------
This may be regarded as blasphemy, but I have to say it.
I think the infamous 'Stargate' sequence is too long and would benefit from
some judicious trimming.
In general, I love the slow, hypnotic pacing of 2001. The deliberate editing
evokes an awesome spatiotemporal vastness like no other film; 2001 has a
solemn majesty and philosophical beauty that would be eviscerated were it to
be 'sped up'. But that 'Stargate' sequence seems a little painfully
protracted to this child of the MTV generation.
I appreciate the part where Bowman is speeding through the inky void past
exploding nebulae etc. Galaxies flow together like sperm and egg, suggesting
the principle of 'Ontogeny Recapitulating Phylogeny' writ large on a
cosmological canvass.
However, those interminable scenes of strangely solarised landscapes seem a
little self-indulgent, and add nothing of value to the
sequence.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Total blasphemy!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Dr Strangelove
---------------
A perfect film. I just wish Kubrick hadn't added that unfunny slapstick
moment when Col Bat Guano is sprayed in the face by a stream of cola. It's
not particularly witty and is one of the few instances when the film's
gallows humour is rooted in something other than the dynamics of the grimly
plausible political scenario.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I like that scene leave it alone!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Lolita
------
This is the only Kubrick movie that pales in comparison to the novel it's
based on. I haven't seen it in a very long time, so I'm not qualified to
pick out specific flaws.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Not a chance! You better see it again....it is far superior to the book. A
total masterpiece.!
>>>>>>>>>>Paths of Glory
---------------
Paths of Glory offers a stunning, ascorbic commentary on the depravity of
war's commanders. I feel, however, that Kubrick could have lent a little
more moral ambivalence to the Kirk Douglas character. He's so upright and
ethical and without blemish that the audience doesn't ever completely buy
his performance.<<<<<<<<
The film is too dry too black and white in parts. Some great scenes...
The Killing
-----------
The cleverly interlocking temporal jigsaw puzzle structure is occasionally
let down by a redundant, floridly phrased 'hard-boiled' expository
voice-over. Tarantino's homage to The Killing, Reservoir Dogs, illustrates
that a complex time-fractured plot does not necessitate these intrusive
voice-overs.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Good film interesting
---
What do fellow Kubrick acolytes think of these criticisms? Have you any
gripes of your own? Let 'em rip!
Matt.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
dc
JDusty4
"Matthew Ryder" <mry...@iafrica.com> wrote in message
news:3b180...@news1.mweb.co.za...
> The brilliantly sustained dreamlike flavour of the latter half of the
movie
> is tragically undermined by Ziegler's pool-table "explanation" of events.
> I've heard the argument that this scene represents the rationalisations of
> the waking mind contemplating the dream-logic the sleeping mind previously
> accepted as fact. But if Kubrick was attempting to lay such a subtext, it
> doesn't work. The scene simply makes the foregoing events seem banal by
> imposing a limiting 'reality' on the inexplicable. I hate to say it, but
> this scene comes off as Kubrick's concession to Warner Bros; a sop to the
> mass-paying public who require neat resolutions and plot subtleties tied
up
> with satisfying bows. It's akin to having a green-skinned alien enter
> Bowman's hotel room at the end of 2001 to explain the vagaries of that
> movie.
>
>
> Full Metal Jacket
> ------------------
>
> The scene in which Joker informs Cowboy of his suspicion that Pyle is a
> "Section 8" is completely redundant. We've watched "Leonard talking to
his
> rifle", we've seen the dullness in his eyes, the incipient Kubrick Stares,
> the emerging psychosis. Why reiterate the obvious and disrupt the pacing
of
> the bootcamp sequence with this pointless beat?
battle, and the movie lives to much in the shadow of Apocolypse Now and Born
on The Forth Of July (obviously, the former was immmensly better). The film
was too vapid, too cold...I think a amjor problem is the shitty transfer it
got for the DVD. I think I might have felt a little differently about this
movie if I'd seen it on the big screen.
> The Shining
> ------------
>
> The Shining works well as an enactment of the themes glimpsed in
Tarkovsky's
> Solaris. Evil in the Overlook manifests as the physical embodiment of the
> psychological distress experienced by the protagonists. Dread is evoked by
> Kubrick's masterful mapping of these psychological elements onto the
> mazelike geometry of the hotel with his eerie steadicam work.
>
> At one point, however, Kubrick stumbles. He has Duvall react in horror to
> some very fake-looking phantasmagoria indeed: a room bedecked with "Horror
> Movie" cobwebs and filled with skeletons. This is not even faintly scary;
> it's just silly. In my opinion, this sequence seems more suited to
> juvenilia like "Tales from the Crypt".
if it had been improved this could have been Kubrick's most appealing (if
not best) movie ever.
> Barry Lyndon
> --------------
>
> Okay. I 'll admit it. I simply cannot find any fault with this gorgeously
> conceived film at all. If I HAD to quibble, I'd say that O' Neal's German
> accent in his meeting with the Chevalier is clearly tainted by his native
> English and thus Balley-Barrie would be unlikely to fall for the ruse
that
> Barry "could not speak a word" of the language as Portzdorf hopes. A minor
> issue indeed!
> A Clockwork Orange
> ----------------------
>
> The actor who plays Alex's "Post-Corrective Advisor", Mr. Deltoid, always
> irritates me with his unfunny, overacted performance and his extraordinary
> overemphatic lilting diction (which can only have been a contrivance of
> Kubrick's). A blight on an otherwise perfect movie.
>
argue against, although the script/book has had some succesful arguments
made against it.
> 2001: A Space Odyssey
> -------------------------
>
> This may be regarded as blasphemy, but I have to say it.
>
> I think the infamous 'Stargate' sequence is too long and would benefit
from
> some judicious trimming.
>
> In general, I love the slow, hypnotic pacing of 2001. The deliberate
editing
> evokes an awesome spatiotemporal vastness like no other film; 2001 has a
> solemn majesty and philosophical beauty that would be eviscerated were it
to
> be 'sped up'. But that 'Stargate' sequence seems a little painfully
> protracted to this child of the MTV generation.
>
> I appreciate the part where Bowman is speeding through the inky void past
> exploding nebulae etc. Galaxies flow together like sperm and egg,
suggesting
> the principle of 'Ontogeny Recapitulating Phylogeny' writ large on a
> cosmological canvass.
>
> However, those interminable scenes of strangely solarised landscapes seem
a
> little self-indulgent, and add nothing of value to the sequence.
>
> Dr Strangelove
> ---------------
>
> A perfect film. I just wish Kubrick hadn't added that unfunny slapstick
> moment when Col Bat Guano is sprayed in the face by a stream of cola. It's
> not particularly witty and is one of the few instances when the film's
> gallows humour is rooted in something other than the dynamics of the
grimly
> plausible political scenario.
>
convey the idiocy of the whole situation. I don't think this scene is an
exception.
> Lolita
> ------
>
> This is the only Kubrick movie that pales in comparison to the novel it's
> based on. I haven't seen it in a very long time, so I'm not qualified to
> pick out specific flaws.
>
not provocative (in the intellectual sense), and althoughI understand that
there was a reason for this, I thought it was too bubble-gum to be taken
seriously.
> Paths of Glory
> ---------------
>
> Paths of Glory offers a stunning, ascorbic commentary on the depravity
of
> war's commanders. I feel, however, that Kubrick could have lent a little
> more moral ambivalence to the Kirk Douglas character. He's so upright and
> ethical and without blemish that the audience doesn't ever completely buy
> his performance.
impressive movie, especially considering that this was so early in his
career.
>
> The Killing
> -----------
>
> The cleverly interlocking temporal jigsaw puzzle structure is occasionally
> let down by a redundant, floridly phrased 'hard-boiled' expository
> voice-over. Tarantino's homage to The Killing, Reservoir Dogs, illustrates
> that a complex time-fractured plot does not necessitate these intrusive
> voice-overs.
FMD
a) Malcom McDowell in ACO. Can't stand him, partly because he's so "right"
for the part.
b) Breaking the glass at the end of 2001.
c) NY accents in Spartacus.
d) "Excellent party, isn't it?" ghost in TS.
e) "In the rear with the gear" guy in FMJ.
f) Weatherbeaten, wartorn faces sequence in POT.
g) "You have no right to say that" spoken by Lolita at end.
h) Absence of rigor mortis in corpse of Mandy in EWS.
i) "Only Communist stooges, eh?" line in DS.
Padraig L Henry
<mry...@iafrica.com> wrote:
>Kubrick supporters are accused with monotonous regularity (by trolls and
>legitimate critics alike) of a lack of objectivity in their appraisal of the
>master's work.
Now who, pray, informed you of >that< particular nugget of a factoid?
And where do you come on with all this specious "Kubrick supporters"
agit-prop? Like its our fave football team or political party? You're
in the wrong ball-park, kiddo ... (Ryder Cup, Matthew? Well, lets tee
off, then, and keep a keen, handicapped eye on all those objective
orbiting "bunkers" ...).
>The perception seems to be that hardcore Kubrick fans are by
>necessity pretentious cineastes who have deified the director, and whose
>aesthetic vision and critical facilities have been dulled by years of paying
>obeisance to their idol.
That is a comment that I would reserve for - substitute Hollywood for
Kubrick and money for idol - shallow, Alice's mirror-reflecting,
conservative revisionists just like yourself ...
>
>Although I too believe that every mature Kubrick film (ie from the Killing
>onwards) is touched by genius, I should like to temper my adulation for the
>films by listing some moments/sequences/creative choices which in some way
>marred my enjoyment of these masterpieces. It is such a rarity in AMK for a
>genuine fan to cast aspersions on even a single frame in Kubrick's mighty
>canon that I thought the exercise might be informative.
Well, you sound like a crystal-clear innocent newbie (but I could well
be gravely mistaken, hah!), who, far from wanting to engage in
rigorous analysis of the films themselves, wishes to - all in the best
tradiitions of mealy-mouthed tabloid provocation - nit-pick at some
juvenile perceptions of particular scenes in the Kubrick oo-oo-oeuvre
in order to generate some hick-cool, par-2, pan-acknowledgement of
your own "importance" as a net-contributing hack.
>
>I expect some of my criticisms may be provocative. Some may even inspire
>argument or vicious invective. But, heck, I'm wearing my best
>asbestos-lined, flame-retardant underwear, so do your worst!
Protective underwear, like a credit card cryptogram, is useless here
(didn't sparkling, halogen-enhanced AA-member Lloyd - "best damn
barman from beer to beer" - warn you on entry?). Its the hard hearted,
full-metal-jacketed AMK-combat correspondent, not the soft prick
eating the peanuts out of his shit, that stands a chance of
withstanding even "Hooker's" viet-kid, adult-nam 250-yard stare
hereabouts ...
>
> I challenge other fans to post their own quibbles. A 'false note' thread
>should help dispel the myth of the myopic Kubrickite, unable or unwilling to
>admit to the existence of flaws amidst the glittering finery of Kubrick's
>celluloid legacy.
If only you would say that about a certain >other< spellbinding
director ... if only, but - A "challenge"? Hee, hee - this reminds
me of my tiddly-winks, pre-adolescent - DAN-NY!!!, DAN-NNNY!!!, I'm
Behind You!!! - glorious shining past, so let's glitter over K's fine
legacy ...
>
>So then. My personal list of 'misfires' in Kubrick movies in reverse
>chronological order:
Yeah, but reverse gear is occasionally likely to "misfire", as befell
Red Lightning's assassin, but we'll move forward anyway, lucky
horse-shoe still intact ...
>
>Eyes Wide Shut
>----------------
>
>The brilliantly sustained dreamlike flavour of the latter half of the movie
Whoa! Whoa! Wait! (Alice puts the spliff back into the ashtray on the
bed).
No, it is the first half of the film, up to Bill's snake-bite at
Somerton, that is rhythmically punctuated with the >actual< interior
structural elements of a real "inside-it" dream, but what >we< witness
is no dream ... the second half represents the attempt (Bill's
efforts) to "get out" of that psychic "structural impediment",
something - of course - he can only do by >waking up< (not that
Raphael has, just yet).
>
>is tragically undermined by Ziegler's pool-table "explanation" of events.
>I've heard the argument that this scene represents the rationalisations of
>the waking mind contemplating the dream-logic the sleeping mind previously
>accepted as fact. But if Kubrick was attempting to lay such a subtext, it
>doesn't work. The scene simply makes the foregoing events seem banal by
>imposing a limiting 'reality' on the inexplicable. I hate to say it, but
>this scene comes off as Kubrick's concession to Warner Bros; a sop to the
>mass-paying public who require neat resolutions and plot subtleties tied up
>with satisfying bows. It's akin to having a green-skinned alien enter
>Bowman's hotel room at the end of 2001 to explain the vagaries of that
>movie.
Ziegler is a mere character in the film. He is not the "voice" of
Kubrick, or Warners, or the need-to-be-charmed audience. Ziegler's
"rationalisation" is the voice of formal, firm "authority", the rule
of patriarchy, verbally stamping out baffling reality to re-assure a
perceived "fallen" one of the necessity to re-assert and re-claim the
status quo ante ...
Of all of Kubrick's films, of all of Kubrick's methods of casting away
linguistic vocal precision as a modal representation of reality
throughout those films (from the near silent-film era approach in 2001
to the complete irrelevance - insipid distraction - of the spoken word
in Barry Lyndon), this one final scene, both as Kubrick's personal
cinematic "parsifal" and as the film's internal denouement,
devastatingly portrays the utter, the total, the final (am I
stubbornly repeating myself?) poverty of careless language, both in
cinematic "heaven" and in Ziegler's universe.
>
>
>Full Metal Jacket
>------------------
>
>The scene in which Joker informs Cowboy of his suspicion that Pyle is a
>"Section 8" is completely redundant. We've watched "Leonard talking to his
>rifle", we've seen the dullness in his eyes, the incipient Kubrick Stares,
>the emerging psychosis. Why reiterate the obvious and disrupt the pacing of
>the bootcamp sequence with this pointless beat?
This scene is crucial to maintaining continuity with the post-bootcamp
section of the film. It principally informs us, not about Pyle, but
about Joker, about how he too, like Pyle, is being conditioned to
associate his own sexuality with technology, with his fetishised
rifle. Joker, despite all his "ironic distance", his sarcasm, his
"John Wayne" posturing, his
I'm-safely-with-you-out-there-in-the-audience smugness, is portrayed
in this scene to be sexually aroused ("my tubesteak into your sister")
by his previous recollection of Pyle's dysfunctionality, Pyle's
feminising, romantic "conversation" with his own M-14 rifle.
Surprisingly for Kubrick, this is even literal - check out Joker's
prominantly-displayed open "fly" throughout this Head scene. But my
guess is that the scene is otherwise so narratively opaque that he had
to provide at least one clear visual cue in that scene, in addition to
the prior Pyle-cleaning-his-rifle montage). Boot-camp in FMJ is not
merely a myopic "short-story" about a marine misfit who explodes ...
>
>The Shining
>------------
>
>The Shining works well as an enactment of the themes glimpsed in Tarkovsky's
>Solaris. Evil in the Overlook manifests as the physical embodiment of the
>psychological distress experienced by the protagonists. Dread is evoked by
>Kubrick's masterful mapping of these psychological elements onto the
>mazelike geometry of the hotel with his eerie steadicam work.
Good analogy, except that Tarkovsky's film was dealing with the
Super-ego, with conscience (humanistic things back on planet earth
being much more crucial, mysterious, and over-powering than routine
clerk-scientist space travel) , whereas Kubrick's film manifests the
whole psychological spectrum, from icy-cold "no-breadcrumb-trail-here"
id to beaming sub-conscious to rational calculation to Tarkovsky's
moralising splendour. But I do like your psycho-cinematic mapping
exposition.
>
>At one point, however, Kubrick stumbles. He has Duvall react in horror to
>some very fake-looking phantasmagoria indeed: a room bedecked with "Horror
>Movie" cobwebs and filled with skeletons. This is not even faintly scary;
>it's just silly. In my opinion, this sequence seems more suited to
>juvenilia like "Tales from the Crypt".
Even cocaine-sniffing actresses are allowed to "shine" now and again,
especially when they can't find their stash, become hysterically
neurotic, and where even the director's attempts to calm them down
with a little "mood music" doesn't seem to be paying off. "Less SNOW
there, guys ..." (The scenes you refer to were cut from the shorter
European version ... but the teddybear scene: just don't ask about it
right now, okay?).
Padraig
... Larry Barry must get some shut-eye now. Oh Danny-Boy ...
pitch audio
>
> Eyes Wide Shut
> ----------------
Personally, I think the pool scene is just fine. There needs to be
SOME explanation, although I can see how it is Kubricks nod to Warner
Bros. Although the scene tells a lot, there are some things not
explained. Just because it's a Kubrick film, you don't have to walk
away completely dumbfounded.
> Full Metal Jacket
> ------------------
The 'section 8' scene only tells us that Joker wants to talk about
Pyle around Cowboy but ultimately feels uncomfortable and has to
change the subject. Of course we know Pyle is crazy, but this little
interaction in the bathroom only shows us a side of Joker that shows
he actually cares for Pyle, leading to his hesitation in the 'soap'
scene.
> The Shining
> ------------
For The Shining's 'Ballroom' scene, I completely agree with you. This
scene is absolutely ridiculous and the movie could've done without it.
This is the only upsetting part of this movie, and it makes me mad to
watch the movie with this scene included.
> Barry Lyndon
> --------------
Agreed, no faults here. This movie, although long and, well, somewhat
boring, has no in-movie flaws.
> A Clockwork Orange
> ----------------------
I think the acting of Mr. Deltoid is absolutely hilarious and only
contributes to the movies dark comedy. I love Mr. Deltoid, and I
think he's basically thrown in for some comedic enjoyment. He over
acts on purpose. ACO is also a dark comedy, and I see nothing wrong
with throwing in a funny character or two here or there.
> 2001: A Space Odyssey
> -------------------------
>
> This may be regarded as blasphemy, but I have to say it.
Well, you shouldn't have said it. The scene runs something like 15
from the 'Jupiter And Beyond' title card to the White Room. This
scene is utterly amazing and essential to the movie. The scene's
length shows that Bowman is travelling far, far away from our solar
system. It's essential. Any longer, it would've been boring, but any
shorter, it would've been unrealistic. The images shown in the
Stargate sequence are amazing. I am always in such awe watching this
scene that the immense length of the montage is unimportant to me. I
love this scene and if shortened, it would've suffered.
> Dr Strangelove
> ---------------
Personally, the Coke spraying into his face is pretty funny. I love
it, and, just as with ACO, a little comedic relief isn't bad. It just
shows Kubrick's dark sense of humor.
> Lolita
> ------
I have not read the novel, but I think this is Kubrick's second-worse
film, next to Fear and Desire. I found many flaws, all of which I
don't have the patience to list in detail.
> Paths of Glory
> ---------------
Kirk's performance all comes to a halt at the end when he breaks down
in front of the bar. Although he's uptight for the duration of the
movie, the end show's he has a weak side that he can't hide. I think
his performance is excellent, and 100 times better than his
performance in Spartacus (which I really consider Douglas' film).
> The Killing
> -----------
Surprisingly, I never saw The Killing, so I have no comment.
Only my opinions. I'd like to hear other's opinions, so keep posting
people.
-----
Geoff
Matthew Ryder
pitch audio <pitch...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1d7cd7e7.0106...@posting.google.com...
> "Matthew Ryder" <mry...@iafrica.com> wrote in message
news:<3b180...@news1.mweb.co.za>...
>
> >
> > Eyes Wide Shut
> > ----------------
>
> Personally, I think the pool scene is just fine. There needs to be
> SOME explanation, although I can see how it is Kubricks nod to Warner
> Bros. Although the scene tells a lot, there are some things not
> explained. Just because it's a Kubrick film, you don't have to walk
> away completely dumbfounded.
Eyes Wide Shut is about masks, about what lies buried behind the facade of a
happy marriage, and about what squirms in the unconscious mind. These things
cannot be 'explained', and to try to do so diminishes the visceral power of
Kubrick's images. This scene not only disturbs the mood of mounting of
existential/erotic dread, it also forces the audience's eyes wide open. The
orgy sequence and the scenes that followed have a decidely Lynchian flavour,
and I think Kubrick's film would've benefited from a little more of Lynch's
refusal to explicate the bizarre and unknowable. I smell studio intervention
here.
> > Full Metal Jacket
> > ------------------
>
> The 'section 8' scene only tells us that Joker wants to talk about
> Pyle around Cowboy but ultimately feels uncomfortable and has to
> change the subject. Of course we know Pyle is crazy, but this little
> interaction in the bathroom only shows us a side of Joker that shows
> he actually cares for Pyle, leading to his hesitation in the 'soap'
> scene.
It cannot 'lead' to the soap scene, as this occurs beforehand! We already
know Joker cares for Pyle and is concerned about his descent into madness.
This is plainly demonstrated in numerous previous scenes where Joker
patiently instructs Pyle, advises him, and watches with bemusement as he
talks to his rifle.
The only purpose of the "section 8" scene as I see it is to highlight
Joker's growing feelings of guilt at his complicity in Leonard's demise. I
still think it's pretty unnecessary though.
>
> > A Clockwork Orange
> > ----------------------
>
> I think the acting of Mr. Deltoid is absolutely hilarious and only
> contributes to the movies dark comedy. I love Mr. Deltoid, and I
> think he's basically thrown in for some comedic enjoyment. He over
> acts on purpose. ACO is also a dark comedy, and I see nothing wrong
> with throwing in a funny character or two here or there.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with a "funny character or two here or
there". ACO is all about theatrics, and I think all of the characterizations
are purposefully played way over the top to great comedic effect. I
especially love Alex's demented 'singing in the rain' performance and the
grotesque apoplexy later affected by the author he wrongs. The Deltoid bit
just doesn't work for me at all. (In fact it annoys me to the extent that I
usually skip over this part of the DVD).
> > 2001: A Space Odyssey
> > -------------------------
> >
> > This may be regarded as blasphemy, but I have to say it.
>
> Well, you shouldn't have said it. The scene runs something like 15
> from the 'Jupiter And Beyond' title card to the White Room. This
> scene is utterly amazing and essential to the movie. The scene's
> length shows that Bowman is travelling far, far away from our solar
> system. It's essential. Any longer, it would've been boring, but any
> shorter, it would've been unrealistic. The images shown in the
> Stargate sequence are amazing. I am always in such awe watching this
> scene that the immense length of the montage is unimportant to me. I
> love this scene and if shortened, it would've suffered.
>
I agree that the sequence (or some portion thereof) is "utterly amazing and
essential to the movie". But I think Kubrick could've trimmed some of the
footage of those swooping zooms over (presumably alien) mountainous terrain
changing colour every now and again in gaudy sixties style. Just snipping
about two minutes would have made an immeasurable difference to the montage.
If made shorter, you say it would render the journey "unrealistic", as
though it's happening in real-time! Kubrick has more than enough facility
with the language of cinema to convey a long journey without literally
making the scene run long. His pioneering 'tossed bone' jump-cut eliding
several million years should be demonstration of that. I don't think
Kubrick was concerned with 'realism' in the stargate sequence at all. In
fact, I think he deliberately steers the movie into the surreal and mystical
from that point onwards.
> > Dr Strangelove
> > ---------------
>
> Personally, the Coke spraying into his face is pretty funny. I love
> it, and, just as with ACO, a little comedic relief isn't bad. It just
> shows Kubrick's dark sense of humor.
>
Relief from what? Other funnier moments? To be quite honest, I found Dr
Strangelove so uniformly brilliant and hilarious that it was a real struggle
for me to come up with any criticism of this masterpiece at all. (I did so
for the sake of completeness :-)
--
Matt.
derek
> a) Malcom McDowell in ACO. Can't stand him, partly because he's so "right"
> for the part.
Agreed he is so right.
> b) Breaking the glass at the end of 2001.
Like it., its suggestiveness, its possible meanings.
> c) NY accents in Spartacus.
Don't think about it.
> d) "Excellent party, isn't it?" ghost in TS.
Prefer the shorter Euro version.
> e) "In the rear with the gear" guy in FMJ.
Enjoy most of this intense philosophical and satirical study.
> f) Weatherbeaten, wartorn faces sequence in POT.
No problem.
> g) "You have no right to say that" spoken by Lolita at end.
n.p.
> h) Absence of rigor mortis in corpse of Mandy in EWS.
Rigor mortis is a transient stage and varies in duration according to a
number of factors including temperature variation, acidity of the blood at
time of death and so on.
> i) "Only Communist stooges, eh?" line in DS.
No prob.
regards,
derek
-- "That was an excellent speech you gave, Hayward."
Winston Castro
>> c) NY accents in Spartacus.
I see your point, but is it really any more ridiculous than general
American or English accents in what is supposed to be ancient Rome?
David Fresko
> ----------------
>
> The brilliantly sustained dreamlike flavour of the latter half of the
movie
> is tragically undermined by Ziegler's pool-table "explanation" of events.
I agree. This scene never sat particularly well with me, and, looking at in
retrospect, it seems to negate a lot of what the film was trying to say and
establish through its careful build up and seqeuncing of events. The whole
feel of the film is tainted because of the scene.
However, I can see how it works. If much of the movie is supposed to operate
as if a dream, then the pool scene, a shocking change in tone, is more a
return to reality than rationality (what is *rational* about their orgy and
the protocol surrounding it?).
>
> Full Metal Jacket
> ------------------
>
I think a much more pressing problem with FMJ is the split halfway through
the movie. As the audience, we empathize with Pyle for the beginning. When
he is killed, we are immediately thrust into Joker's world, which, up till
then, has never really been in the foreground. Had Kubrick established an
emotional bond between Joker and the audience, I think the two sequences
would have flowed smoother. Similarly, Kubrick's allusion to Jung's "duality
of man" also goes along with the split in the movie. The line mentioning it,
though, is so subtle, that I'm sure few pick up on how it fits into the
movie.
I tend to think that, with FMJ in particular, Kubrick was trying to create a
cinematic version of Brecht's idea of "epic theater," forcing the audience
to look at things objectively and remove any emotional bonds. Hence, Pyle's
suicide.
>
> The Shining
> ------------
>
> At one point, however, Kubrick stumbles. He has Duvall react in horror to
> some very fake-looking phantasmagoria indeed: a room bedecked with "Horror
> Movie" cobwebs and filled with skeletons. This is not even faintly scary;
> it's just silly. In my opinion, this sequence seems more suited to
> juvenilia like "Tales from the Crypt".
Agreed. The score over the image is none too effective either. Its seem as
though right out of the Nick Castle school of filmmaking.
My gripes with the Shining are also why I like it so much. There are so many
unanswered questions and strange backstories that we have a hard time
putting all the pieces together. The Indian raids and famous socialites,
presidents, women in bath tubs, the book by the typewriter, Jack "always
being here," and so on. The movie does not add up. It establishes a sense of
permanecy, but, at the same time, we are clueless as to what the larger
picture looks like. Therein lies the fun, though.
>
> A Clockwork Orange
> ----------------------
Can't think of anything, but have any of you seen the music video for Blur's
"The Universal." Its heavily ACO influenced.
> 2001: A Space Odyssey
> -------------------------
>
> However, those interminable scenes of strangely solarised landscapes seem
a
> little self-indulgent, and add nothing of value to the sequence.
Self-indulgent, perhaps, but beautiful none the less. I remember being so
excited when they showed a slightly longer version of this sequence at MoMA.
I find the opening in 2001 to be long. Just too long. I mean, we can only
watch apes grunt and shriek for so long!
> Paths of Glory
> ---------------
>
> Paths of Glory offers a stunning, ascorbic commentary on the depravity
of
> war's commanders. I feel, however, that Kubrick could have lent a little
> more moral ambivalence to the Kirk Douglas character. He's so upright and
> ethical and without blemish that the audience doesn't ever completely buy
> his performance.
I couldn't agree less. Dax has to be an ethical moralist in the purest
senses of those words to act as a foil against the harsh the military
bureacracy and the weathered trenchman. As a man straddling two worlds,
there isn't much room for humanity and error because he's the benchmark from
which all others are compared.
-Dave
--
Dave Fresko - d.fr...@worldnet.att.net
Bootlists: http://dfresko.web.wesleyan.edu
Take me inside your body / Cover me with your soul
To the darkest recess / Is where I wish to go
You are the sweetest flower / That I have ever devoured
I ask for nothing given / But nothing in return
- Blue | Skies | Bring | Tears
Winston Castro
>>
>> The brilliantly sustained dreamlike flavour of the latter half of the
>movie
>> is tragically undermined by Ziegler's pool-table "explanation" of events.
>
>I agree. This scene never sat particularly well with me, and, looking at in
>retrospect, it seems to negate a lot of what the film was trying to say and
>establish through its careful build up and seqeuncing of events. The whole
>feel of the film is tainted because of the scene.
>
>However, I can see how it works. If much of the movie is supposed to operate
>as if a dream, then the pool scene, a shocking change in tone, is more a
>return to reality than rationality (what is *rational* about their orgy and
>the protocol surrounding it?).
>
Also, since Zielger is hardly to be believed, his version of events
is 'so much hot air' so to speak. What did Ziegler's lies during the
pool table scene really clear up? Of course if one chose to believe
the events transpired as Ziegler claimed, the scene miserably fails.
The only thing that keep it alive is the "probable" untruth in
Ziegler's explanation.
Interesting though, Ziegler is almost implying to Bill in so many
words-
"You've just been having a bad dream. This is the reality of what
has occurred".
Also;
"This is 25 year old Scotch, I'll have a case sent over to your
house".
In other words- "Go back to sleep and go back to your 'eyes wide shut'
stupor type existence. Stop this insane pursuit and 'don't ask
questions, where you shouldna been askin', in other words go back to
your former blind self".
The one that looks the other way out of 'professional ethics', when
he finds a young, overdosed hooker in your bathroom.
Tobasco
>
> I see your point, but is it really any more ridiculous than general
> American or English accents in what is supposed to be ancient Rome?
Or German accented (?) English in Nazi films...
Watched The Battle of Britain a few days ago, noting a solid 10-12
mins of German dialog --- spoken in German --- sans subtitles.
Interesting effect.
Tobasco
David Fresko
news:424ihtk6b9jn074il...@4ax.com...
>
>
> In other words- "Go back to sleep and go back to your 'eyes wide shut'
> stupor type existence. Stop this insane pursuit and 'don't ask
> questions, where you shouldna been askin', in other words go back to
> your former blind self".
The absurdity of the phrase "eyes wide shut" is implying ignorance here.
"Eyes wide open" would, obviously, imply enlightenment, the truth. However,
we're given a perverted truth, making Cruise believe what's he told, feeling
as though its all come to make sense, when he's just been suckered by what
can only be a package of lies.
Why would Ziegler ever let the truth come out? An organization so secret can
only compound its secrecy with lies.
FMD
derek wrote:
> regards,
> derek
> -- "That was an excellent speech you gave, Hayward."
My list was a joke. I actually like those moments. I was just wondering how
they would feel in a list of false notes.
But thanks for your comments anyway. They really beefed up my morale a hell of a
lot.
But I don't suppose you have any idea what the damn thing is, do you?
FMD
Winston Castro wrote:
Actually I lied: this is really one of my favorite elements.
Spawtucus! Ah'm Spawtucus!
FMD
David Fresko wrote:
> The absurdity of the phrase "eyes wide shut" is implying ignorance here.
> "Eyes wide open" would, obviously, imply enlightenment, the truth. However,
> we're given a perverted truth, making Cruise believe what's he told, feeling
> as though its all come to make sense, when he's just been suckered by what
> can only be a package of lies.
>
> Why would Ziegler ever let the truth come out? An organization so secret can
> only compound its secrecy with lies.
> -Dave
Might be worth considering here the equal plausibility of the "explanations,"
Bill's and Zeigler's. Each explanation "works," each doesn't "work"; both are
equally plausible and equally implausible, incomplete, hyperbolic, etc. One
needn't choose between them, but rather relish the impossibility of assigning
meaning to what Bill has just experienced (and what we have seen) by trying to
explain it or evaluate it according to some moral standard. What the
explanations reveal are really just two different attitudes, Bill's and
Zeigler's, and there's perhaps not much to choose between them. Ziegler mocks
the viewer's demand for an explanation of what really happened, Bill mocks our
need for moral evaluations, heros and villians, responsible agents, etc.
M4RV1N
writes:
>Kubrick supporters are accused with monotonous regularity (by trolls and
>legitimate critics alike) of a lack of objectivity in their appraisal of the
>master's work.
Kubrick detractors are accused (by some legitimate critics and trolls alike) of
lacking insight in their appraisal of the mater's work.
>The perception seems to be that hardcore Kubrick fans are by
>necessity pretentious cineastes who have deified the director, and whose
>aesthetic vision and critical facilities have been dulled by years of paying
>obeisance to their idol.
Who has this perception and makes this claim?
>Although I too believe that every mature Kubrick film (ie from the Killing
>onwards) is touched by genius, I should like to temper my adulation for the
>films by listing some moments/sequences/creative choices which in some way
>marred my enjoyment
Marred enjoyment. Tsk. Perhaps you have grounds for a lawsuit. Art is not
>always< about enjoyment.
> It is such a rarity in AMK for a
>genuine fan to cast aspersions on even a single frame in Kubrick's mighty
>canon that I thought the exercise might be informative.
Casting aspersions is rare, but we often talk about flaws or problems or things
we don't understand. Which a.m.k. have you been reading?
>I expect some of my criticisms may be provocative. Some may even inspire
>argument or vicious invective. But, heck, I'm wearing my best
>asbestos-lined, flame-retardant underwear, so do your worst!
Ni!
> I challenge other fans to post their own quibbles. A 'false note' thread
>should help dispel the myth of the myopic Kubrickite,
Or it would promote the reality of trivializing legitimate discussion by
producing a forced list of flaws?
> unable or unwilling to
>admit to the existence of flaws amidst the glittering finery of Kubrick's
>celluloid legacy.
How about if I talk about the flaws in your overdone prose, instead? Just
kidding.
>Eyes Wide Shut
>----------------
>
>The brilliantly sustained dreamlike flavour of the latter half of the movie
>is tragically undermined by Ziegler's pool-table "explanation" of events.
What about the questions the scene raises, rather than answers?
>Full Metal Jacket
>------------------
>
>The scene in which Joker informs Cowboy of his suspicion that Pyle is a
>"Section 8" is completely redundant.
The point is that Joker is trying to make contact with a "friend" in his
hellish world.
TS
>At one point, however, Kubrick stumbles. He has Duvall react in horror to
>some very fake-looking phantasmagoria indeed: a room bedecked with "Horror
>Movie" cobwebs and filled with skeletons. This is not even faintly scary;
>it's just silly.
The characters pull out of the hotel the things they want. Danny, early in the
film: "There's nobody to play with around here."
What did Jack tell Ullman about Wendy? What was she a fan of?
>A Clockwork Orange
>----------------------
>
>The actor who plays Alex's "Post-Corrective Advisor", Mr. Deltoid, always
>irritates me with his unfunny, overacted performance and his extraordinary...
This is a story told by Alex, with his own perceptions and biases. Everyone is
comical and horrid in various ways.
>2001: A Space Odyssey
>-------------------------
>
>This may be regarded as blasphemy, but I have to say it.
So far, only the quality of these criticisms is blasphemous.
>I think the infamous 'Stargate' sequence is too long and would benefit from
>some judicious trimming.
What do the sections mean? What happens in the shots that open the film, which
relates to what is seen in the stargate sequence? How do the opening patterns
relate to other images in the film?
>Lolita
>------
>
>This is the only Kubrick movie that pales in comparison to the novel it's
>based on. I haven't seen it in a very long time, so I'm not qualified to
>pick out specific flaws.
We agree on something. The question is not how it compares to the novel, but
how it compares to other films circa 1962, and how well Kubrick did regarding
censorship limitations. The film is flawed, but the question is... compared to
what, exactly?
>Paths of Glory
>---------------
>I feel, however, that Kubrick could have lent a little
>more moral ambivalence to the Kirk Douglas character.
So did Kubrick--almost certainly.
>The Killing
>-----------
>
>The cleverly interlocking temporal jigsaw puzzle structure is occasionally
>let down by a redundant, floridly phrased 'hard-boiled' expository
>voice-over.
Are you applying 1950's film standards? Noir film standards? The quality of
the writing in spots is bothersome, I'll agree. Again, though, how does it
compare to Hollywood crime/Noir films of the day?
None of these criticisms are especially insightful to me, although I fully
support your right to voice them. The thing is, we deal with subjects all the
time.
Mark Ervin
natch
> legitimate critics alike) of a lack of objectivity in their appraisal of the
> master's work. The perception seems to be that hardcore Kubrick fans are by
> necessity pretentious cineastes who have deified the director, and whose
> aesthetic vision and critical facilities have been dulled by years of paying
> obeisance to their idol.
>
> Although I too believe that every mature Kubrick film (ie from the Killing
> onwards) is touched by genius, I should like to temper my adulation for the
> films by listing some moments/sequences/creative choices which in some way
> marred my enjoyment of these masterpieces. It is such a rarity in AMK for a
> genuine fan to cast aspersions on even a single frame in Kubrick's mighty
> canon that I thought the exercise might be informative.
It's a rarity for a genuine fan to cast aspersions?
I don't think you've sampled enough posts. Besides why would anyone
waste time loggin on and writing about the negative aspects of
something they like? You come in here to share talk with like-minded
people about the positive aspects of a common interest, that's how you
enjoy your time here. It's called human nature. You should think of
the context in which this all is. Unlike you most people here don't
feel the need to prove anything to strangers, such as you seem to need
to do.
James M
Peter Tonguette
>>Lolita
>>------
>>
>>This is the only Kubrick movie that pales in comparison to the novel it's
>>based on. I haven't seen it in a very long time, so I'm not qualified to
>>pick out specific flaws.
>
>We agree on something. The question is not how it compares to the novel,
>but
>how it compares to other films circa 1962, and how well Kubrick did regarding
>censorship limitations. The film is flawed, but the question is... compared
>to
>what, exactly?
On the whole, superb post, Mark. I think I would take issue with this one
comment, however. While unquestionably the censorial limitations of the early
'60s must be taken into account in any assessment of "Lolita," I do think it's
perfectly legitimate to fault the film for not living up to the novel. This is
the one instance in SK's entire career where I feel a comparison to the
original text is valid (and Kubrick's own remarks over the years lead me to
believe he felt similarly) because "Lolita" is the one instance in his career
where he adapted a truly great novel. Before I go on, I should note that I
think "Lolita" is a wonderful film on its own terms and fully the equal in many
respects of "The Killing" and "Paths of Glory."
For me, the issue really is the relative worth of the source material itself.
Kubrick can come in and bowdlerize the entire canon of Stephen King as far as
I'm concerned because I think King is an inferior writer and Kubrick a superior
artist; he's building from the ground up and, indeed, the main elements that
Kubrick retained from the novel are the it's plot and atmosphere. There's
nothing to "live up to" in the original.
But if a filmmaker adapts a book like "Lolita" - one of the great works of
fiction of the 20th century - and doesn't equal it (regardless of whether or
not the film is faithful to the book but >especially< if it is adapted on terms
other than those of the novel), I'd say the adaptation should absolutely be
held to the very high standard of Vladimir Nabokov.
Peter
derek
Aah, *what* damn thing, FM?
And does 'beefing' have anything to do with 'tubesteak'? I hope not... ;)
Matthew Ryder
M4RV1N <m4r...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010602171746...@ng-ba1.aol.com...
> >Matthew Ryder
> writes:
>
> >Kubrick supporters are accused with monotonous regularity (by trolls and
> >legitimate critics alike) of a lack of objectivity in their appraisal of
the
> >master's work.
>
> Kubrick detractors are accused (by some legitimate critics and trolls
alike) of
> lacking insight in their appraisal of the mater's work.
>
Now here's an original form of rebuttal. Take a person's words and twist
them to hilarious ironic effect. Well done. Perhaps this idea will catch on
across the internet? Oh wait. I've just noticed it's already been
done...several billion times. Yawn.
> >The perception seems to be that hardcore Kubrick fans are by
> >necessity pretentious cineastes who have deified the director, and whose
> >aesthetic vision and critical facilities have been dulled by years of
paying
> >obeisance to their idol.
>
> Who has this perception and makes this claim?
I'm having it right now, reading your post :-)
Seriously. I've been reading AMK for years and this argument is parotted
here by a variety of critics on a regular basis. (It can be found like a
virus throughout a certain Lord Bullingdon's rantings, for example.)
> >Although I too believe that every mature Kubrick film (ie from the
Killing
> >onwards) is touched by genius, I should like to temper my adulation for
the
> >films by listing some moments/sequences/creative choices which in some
way
> >marred my enjoyment
>
> Marred enjoyment. Tsk. Perhaps you have grounds for a lawsuit. Art is
not
> >always< about enjoyment.
Wisdom from the Mount. Consider me appropriately humbled. Teach me more, o
seer, about what Art is *really* about.
> > It is such a rarity in AMK for a
> >genuine fan to cast aspersions on even a single frame in Kubrick's mighty
> >canon that I thought the exercise might be informative.
>
> Casting aspersions is rare, but we often talk about flaws or problems or
things
> we don't understand. Which a.m.k. have you been reading?
Hmm. You might have a point. Perhaps there's some parellel-universe-amk
where a post discussing minor quibbles with Kubrick's masterpieces is not
subjected to hysterical ad hominem attack?
> >I expect some of my criticisms may be provocative. Some may even inspire
> >argument or vicious invective. But, heck, I'm wearing my best
> >asbestos-lined, flame-retardant underwear, so do your worst!
>
> Ni!
>
> > I challenge other fans to post their own quibbles. A 'false note' thread
> >should help dispel the myth of the myopic Kubrickite,
>
> Or it would promote the reality of trivializing legitimate discussion by
> producing a forced list of flaws?
"I find the defendant guilty of the heinous crime of Trivializing Legitimate
Discussion! I sentence him to death by military firing squad for his crimes
against France!"
Why, if my post was so trivial and 'forced', did you take the time to
respond to it, thereby perpetuating the inanity?
> > unable or unwilling to
> >admit to the existence of flaws amidst the glittering finery of
Kubrick's
> >celluloid legacy.
>
> How about if I talk about the flaws in your overdone prose, instead? Just
> kidding.
Them's fightin' words :-)
> >Eyes Wide Shut
> >----------------
> >
> >The brilliantly sustained dreamlike flavour of the latter half of the
movie
> >is tragically undermined by Ziegler's pool-table "explanation" of
events.
>
> What about the questions the scene raises, rather than answers?
Yes, I have some questions. What possible motivation would Ziegler have for
spilling the beans to Bill, given that he is obviously high up in the ranks
of this shadowy cabal? Surely the other members of the society would react
in the same way to this betrayal as they did toward Nick?
Why waste the audience's time with obvious stuff like "was it the second
password that gave me away?"?
One of the pleasures of EWS is watching Kubrick have fun with the
conventions of the thriller. The scenes in which Bill is stalked by ominous
bald men down dark, stylised streets (where newspaper headlines offer
symbolic warnings) are so soaked with dread that they verge on black parody
of the noir form. So it is a pity that Kubrick robs these scenes of their
menace and mystery by having Ziegler casually admit that he had Bill
followed.
There are certainly some aspects of the "explanation" scene I admire:
* The malevolent red pool-table whose balls Ziegler toys with throughout,
symbolising the power the wealthy elite have to shape lives and control
events. (ACO employed a similar device.)
* Ziegler's description of the events as "a kind of charade", cleverly
reinforcing the central theme.
However, I think the scene is somehow too schematic, too neat, too
"explanatory", even if there is some doubt about the veracity of Zeigler's
explanation.
I agree that it has intellectual resonances, but it also has a disastrous
effect on the carefully constructed *mood* of the film.
> >Full Metal Jacket
> >------------------
> >
> >The scene in which Joker informs Cowboy of his suspicion that Pyle is a
> >"Section 8" is completely redundant.
>
> The point is that Joker is trying to make contact with a "friend" in his
> hellish world.
>
Okay, I can dig that. My criticism was admittedly a trivial one, but I still
think this scene (compared with the tight, economical, information-rich
moments that preceded it) is a little pointless.
>
>
> >At one point, however, Kubrick stumbles. He has Duvall react in horror to
> >some very fake-looking phantasmagoria indeed: a room bedecked with
"Horror
> >Movie" cobwebs and filled with skeletons. This is not even faintly scary;
> >it's just silly.
>
> The characters pull out of the hotel the things they want. Danny, early
in the
> film: "There's nobody to play with around here."
>
> What did Jack tell Ullman about Wendy? What was she a fan of?
>
This is an interesting point, worth considering. But I think the "confirmed
horror movie buff" reference is just an in-joke. It doesn't give Kubrick the
justification to add a moment of pure cheese to the movie.
>
> >A Clockwork Orange
> >----------------------
> >
> >The actor who plays Alex's "Post-Corrective Advisor", Mr. Deltoid, always
> >irritates me with his unfunny, overacted performance and his
extraordinary...
>
> This is a story told by Alex, with his own perceptions and biases.
Everyone is
> comical and horrid in various ways.
>
Agreed. But in my opinion, everyone who tries to be "comical and horrid" in
the movie is successful, save for this one execrable performance, which is
just plain "horrid".
> >2001: A Space Odyssey
> >-------------------------
> >
> >This may be regarded as blasphemy, but I have to say it.
>
> So far, only the quality of these criticisms is blasphemous.
>
> >I think the infamous 'Stargate' sequence is too long and would benefit
from
> >some judicious trimming.
>
> What do the sections mean? What happens in the shots that open the film,
which
> relates to what is seen in the stargate sequence? How do the opening
patterns
> relate to other images in the film?
I've always taken the stargate sequence to be symbolic of the in-utero
processes leading to conception. Apart from the mystical conjunction of
planets which starts the sequence, I cannot see how the imagery refers to
other parts of the film. I'd be interested to hear your interpretation. What
do the sections mean?
> >Lolita
> >------
> >
> >This is the only Kubrick movie that pales in comparison to the novel it's
> >based on. I haven't seen it in a very long time, so I'm not qualified to
> >pick out specific flaws.
>
> We agree on something. The question is not how it compares to the novel,
but
> how it compares to other films circa 1962, and how well Kubrick did
regarding
> censorship limitations. The film is flawed, but the question is...
compared to
> what, exactly?
>
>
> >The Killing
> >-----------
> >
> >The cleverly interlocking temporal jigsaw puzzle structure is
occasionally
> >let down by a redundant, floridly phrased 'hard-boiled' expository
> >voice-over.
>
> Are you applying 1950's film standards? Noir film standards? The quality
of
> the writing in spots is bothersome, I'll agree. Again, though, how does
it
> compare to Hollywood crime/Noir films of the day?
Kubrick's films have always been streets ahead of his contemporaries. You do
not compare 2001 with the science-fiction films of the day, or Barry Lyndon
with the historical epics of the day. So why make excuses for poor writing
in the case of The Killing?
Your knee-jerk reaction to my post plus your back-pedaling w/r/t Lolita and
The Killing suggest that, despite your protests to the contrary, you are
reluctant to admit to the possibility that there are actual flaws in the
films. Am I stepping on your Religion?
> None of these criticisms are especially insightful to me, although I fully
> support your right to voice them.
Well at least my democratic freedoms are being championed.
> Mark Ervin
Matt.
Catapult82
undersatand after seeing it 7 times and loving it to death is....how it could
be dreamlike. i guess i never felt the whole dream stuff while watching...and
prob never will. as far as flaws go...i love every bit of this film but when
tom is about to take his clothes off and the girl says "stop!" and then
kubrick zooms in really fast to her....i just think that kind of camera shot is
very corney and outdated. i almost chuckled the first time i saw it. it
totally killed my suspense...which wasn't nice.
2. FMJ : the only thing i dislike from this film is there's one shot in the
beginning where the soldiers are silouetted as they climb ropes and such and it
just reminds me of a "join the army" commercial. i guess it just gets on my
nerves only because i hate those commercials.
3. The Shining: I hate nothing..to me this film is flawless.
4. Barry Lyndon : well everyone will disagree but i just think ryan oneal is
one big mistake in this film. he doesn't look conniving....and i still don't
hate him at the end because he has that face that justdoesn't show a dark side.
plus i just didn't likehim. other then that film wise the movie is perfect
5. A Clockwork Orange : hmm no flaws really
4. 2001 : A Space Odyssey : once again no flaws i can think of
3. Dr. Strangelove: I think this film is uneven switching form slapstick to
dark comedy but it's nothing to loose sleep over. i really don't like slim
pickens though. ever since i saw it for the first time...i hated his voice...i
hated his whole cowboy character and whatnot and i hated how he's the
figurepiece of the films biggest and most memorable scene. actually the only
time i can tolerate him is when he goes down in the bomb and waves that cowboy
hat...i suppose thats fitting.
Paths of Glory: this movie is so good. and it would be flawless EXCEPT.... in
the big scene when they are draggin that big guy to his death and he's crying
and crying....not a single tear is coming out of his eyes. i felt so horrible
but i could not absorb myself in that moment because there was a lack of tears
therefore a lack of reality.
FMD
derek wrote:
No ... I was just thinking of a ham sandwhich ... I mean it tastes like it anyway
... those guys are getting better and better....
derek
> No ... I was just thinking of a ham sandwhich ... I mean it tastes like it
anyway
> ... those guys are getting better and better....
LOL. Sorry, I wasn't paying attention. Then I had a feeling that someone
would try to ... correct me. I can see why your people in Denver left it
for you to tell me.
derek
Tyberius Oxy Spam
>
>
> Full Metal Jacket
> ------------------
>
> The scene in which Joker informs Cowboy of his suspicion that Pyle is a
> "Section 8" is completely redundant. We've watched "Leonard talking to
his
> rifle", we've seen the dullness in his eyes, the incipient Kubrick Stares,
> the emerging psychosis. Why reiterate the obvious and disrupt the pacing
of
> the bootcamp sequence with this pointless beat?
Maybe the whole point of the comment is not to inform the audience of the
obvious but to illustrate the awareness of Pyle's colleagues of his mental
state demonstrating their dehumanisation as well.
>
<snip>
Benjamin Johnson
>
> >> c) NY accents in Spartacus.
>
> I see your point, but is it really any more ridiculous than general
> American or English accents in what is supposed to be ancient Rome?
>
I thought the cast was purposefully divided between English and American,
the English being free Romans and the Americans being Slaves. I don't
remember where I heard this but I thought it was common knowledge. If the
fact that they are all speaking English doesn't bother you, their accents
certainly should not. If you want total realism, shouldn't this be in Latin
with subtitles?
-Benjamin
Benjamin Johnson
--
>
> Eyes Wide Shut
> ----------------
I felt the explanation at the end was just something to reiterate the
ambiguity of the film, not to tie it up neatly. I never believed Ziegler,
but wasn't sure just what he was lying about and when he was telling the
truth. Brilliant acting and direction. My only real complaint is the
computer placed figures at the orgy, and also the fact that Kubrick died and
I think would have tightened up the editing had he lived.
>
> Full Metal Jacket
> ------------------
A friend of mine pointed out a scene where Joker uses some army slang and
then immediately explains what it means. This seemed like an artificial bit
of dialog, since a real marine would have just used the slang, not explained
what he meant. I can't remember the exact words, but I know the scene takes
place in Vietnam, and is indoors, when everyone is sitting around talking.
>
> The Shining
> ------------
>
I agree that cobwebby scene seems out of place a little, but only if you
take a break in watchinf the film. For myself, at least, if I watch this
film without breaks, the tensions builds in such a way the I am so scared
shitless that I can't be that picky. There has always been something about
this movie that gets to me. Definitely the scariest film I've ever seen. I
can't believe some people think it doesn't work as a horror film. It works
to me because it does not rely on predictable horror film cliches, but on
true psychological torment.
> Barry Lyndon
Perfect.
>
> A Clockwork Orange
> ----------------------
I like Mr Deltoid. I thought he was perfectly creepy, and lent some insight
as to why Alex put no stock in responsibility or morals.
>
> 2001: A Space Odyssey
> -------------------------
>
I've always like the stargate sequence. Although the HAL section of the
film is my favorite, the whole films seems perfectly balanced to me. The
stargate sequence, in my opinion, HAD to be long. That was the point. This
wasn't a little trip around the block. It was to infinity and beyond. I
mean, Jupiter and beyond. Or beyond the infinity. Never mind.
>
> Dr Strangelove
> ---------------
>
A little slapstick reminds us what silly apes we really are. I like it all.
>
> Lolita
> ------
>
Speaking of sacrelidge, I've never read the book, but didn't the author
write the screenplay for this. Seems to me he'd make sure it didn't pale in
comparison.
>
> Paths of Glory
> ---------------
>
I think some people really are this ethical. At least at some point in
their lives. Our age od cynicism really makes it hard to believe. Also,
someone criticised the guy crying at the end for not having tears. First, I
never noticed. Second, that actually can happen in real life. But there
are three flaws in this film to me. One is that the transition the men make
from heckling the young woman at the end seems abrupt and forced. Another
is that Kirk Douglas' face seems too smug or self-satisfied or something
while listening outside... again, seems a little forced. I forget the
wording of the scene, but when Douglas confronts the general saying
something like "I apoligize for not....." etc his rage seems, again, a
little forced.
>
> The Killing
> -----------
>
Voice over never bothered me here, but the line "it's like a bad joke
without a punch line" just seems so corny. It's hysterical, don't get me
wrong, and I'm almost glad it's there, but I'm not sure I'm supposed to be
laughing.
Killer's Kiss
This film is fine except for the voice of the main character's uncle.
Obviously fake "hillbilly" accent.
Spartacus
I thought there was something fake-looking about one shot where the slaves
break out of their gladatorial imprisonment. One shot. And I'm not even
sure Kubrick was on the job at that point.
-Benjamin
Thornhill
All too often posters give their two-cents about how they variously liked or
disliked something....but practically never with a considered reason why.
Leads one to think they either have no reason, or don't know it. Simply
*defining* what is seen is the second step to comprehension. The first
step, of course, is watching. And it often requires the scaling of many
steps to actually *see*.
Thornhill
PS - But then, some prefer escalators, not steps. If so, you're watching
the wrong films, and by the wrong filmmaker.
"M4RV1N" <m4r...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010602171746...@ng-ba1.aol.com...
Thornhill
> > The Killing
> > -----------
> >
>
> Voice over never bothered me here, but the line "it's like a bad joke
> without a punch line" just seems so corny. It's hysterical, don't get me
> wrong, and I'm almost glad it's there, but I'm not sure I'm supposed to be
> laughing.
<snip>
A little clue here to one SK method: use, even ab-use, the clichés of the
time. This cliché is derived from, at least, "Dragnet", wherein was used
the most turgid, inflexible, voice-of-authority VO twaddle to sell the
merits of the Los Angeles Police. The "ab-use" of this style of VO, as with
other VO's in his later films, is that it barely tells us anything that we
don't see. There's a disjunction between the two that reaches it's apogee
in his later work. SK undercuts that whole style and probably makes a joke
of it....or does he? "Dragnet" was probably one of the most popular shows
ever on American TV and an obvious "Target Gimme". Why re-invent the wheel?
Use it for your own purposes.
Thornhill
Thornhill
"Peter Tonguette" <ptong...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010602175754...@ng-fg1.aol.com...
Monstrous hard, that, though in theory I'd agree with you, Peter. SK later
stated that doing _Lolita_ may have been a mistake for exactly the reasons
you point out. Could this be why is his later work he never attempted to
tackle an essentially untranslatable novel? How does one live up to
Nabokov?
Likewise, witness Joseph Strick's "Ulysses". One may, or may not, like the
film, but the weaknesses of 'doing' Joyce become instantly apparent. Wasn't
it Welles who said that second-rate novels can make first rate films, while
the really great novels stand on their own, leaving ill-conceived film
adaptations twiddling in the dust?
That being said, I sure appreciate the artistic chutzpah and marketing savvy
of trying to do _Lolita_, success or not.
Thornhill
FMD
Benjamin Johnson wrote:
Actually I was joking. I love the accents. Spawtucus!
David Kirkpatrick
Or in the case of translating Nabokov, how does one live *down* to him?
Hofstadter writes that as a translator of Pushkin's Eugene Onegin, a
novel in verse, Nabokov took a literalist, anti-poetic approach to
translation almost mimicking the artlessness of machine translation,
stridently ridiculing previous translators who dared try to make rhymes
and word-plays in English paralleling Pushkin's charm. In other words,
he was all letter and no spirit. (Incidentally, Hofstadter has written
his own EO translation, but most of his Nabokov criticisms appear in the
earlier tome on translation named "Le Ton beau de Marot".)
Yet I learn from a recent Time article that Nabokov shared with his
mother a strong disposition towards "synesthesia" -- not the
metaphorical kind with which I can strongly identify (e.g. vowels evoke
different colors to me, but I don't actually see these colors splash in
front of me), but the literal kind that hallucinogenic drugs have been
known to induce.
Unconnected trivia? Or was Nabokov's literalist approach to sensicality
a reaction to his own experience of senses whimsically and irrationally
translating into others?
I find it intriguing that the distant kinship that Kubrick shared with
Hoftstadter via HAL and AI pops up again in their brushes with Nabokov
and the enigma of translatability.
> Likewise, witness Joseph Strick's "Ulysses". One may, or may not, like the
> film, but the weaknesses of 'doing' Joyce become instantly apparent. Wasn't
> it Welles who said that second-rate novels can make first rate films, while
> the really great novels stand on their own, leaving ill-conceived film
> adaptations twiddling in the dust?
I actually *did* like the film, largely because Milo O'Shea makes such a
perfect Leopold Bloom, perhaps even better than Gene Wilder or Matthew
Broderick, but you're right about the "weaknesses of 'doing' Joyce
becoming instantly apparent".
> That being said, I sure appreciate the artistic chutzpah and marketing savvy
> of trying to do _Lolita_, success or not.
>
> Thornhill
Not to mention the fact that it seems to fit seamlessly into Kubrick's
oevre. For example, the problematic nature of "fatherhood" (both from
the perspective of father and child) seems to be an important theme in
all his films; Humbert is a crucial exhibit in the game of "flaying
padre". At least in any of *my* theories de jour, Lolita is there for
sure.
I'm not even sure that a film has to "live up to" a great novel in the
strong sense that Peter proposes. I think there are some films that
function as a kind of "substitute" or "alternative" to the book version
of a story, films which earnestly try to capture as much of they can of
their source material as if they assumed the audience would watch a film
of the book but not read the book itself. Here is a case where it makes
more sense to film a book where a great story has been hurt by bad prose
rather than one where the prose itself is to be cherished.
But sometimes an adaptation takes the attitude of being a particular
"take" on a book, or even a "play" on it.
Of course, it could be argued that every filming of a book is just one
"take" on it, but I think it makes all the difference in the world
whether the subjectivity of the adaptor is regarded by the adaptor as a
bug or a feature and whether the translation is presented to the
viewer/audience as an attempt to transmit or to transform the original
material. As an adaptor, Kubrick was clearly a transformer. And even
though he may have "improved" upon The Shining, The Short-timers, even
Barry Lyndon, etc. but not have "improved" upon Lolita, this does not
mean that his intention throughout is to transmit and improve upon the
source material. The "message", as it were, gets changed by the
translation/transformation process, not just made more or less potent.
A film like "Ulysses" takes a humbler approach to its material; I would
characterize it as "providing an entry point" to a book for a novice --
and for the initiated, providing one more, albeit not definitive, way to
celebrate it.
I like the optimism in Kubrick's quote, "if it can be thought it can be
filmed". In that spirit, I would declare that a future Joyce of cinema
would be able to film the Joyce of literature, perhaps using as many
transformations upon Joyce as Joyce made of Homer.
David,
eagerly awaiting the original poster's personal list of Stravinsky's
'false notes'.
Thornhill
>How does one live up to
> > Nabokov?
>
> Or in the case of translating Nabokov, how does one live *down* to him?
> Hofstadter writes that as a translator of Pushkin's Eugene Onegin, a
> novel in verse, Nabokov took a literalist, anti-poetic approach to
> translation almost mimicking the artlessness of machine translation,
> stridently ridiculing previous translators who dared try to make rhymes
> and word-plays in English paralleling Pushkin's charm. In other words,
> he was all letter and no spirit. (Incidentally, Hofstadter has written
> his own EO translation, but most of his Nabokov criticisms appear in the
> earlier tome on translation named "Le Ton beau de Marot".)
>
> Yet I learn from a recent Time article that Nabokov shared with his
> mother a strong disposition towards "synesthesia" -- not the
> metaphorical kind with which I can strongly identify (e.g. vowels evoke
> different colors to me, but I don't actually see these colors splash in
> front of me), but the literal kind that hallucinogenic drugs have been
> known to induce.
>
> Unconnected trivia? Or was Nabokov's literalist approach to sensicality
> a reaction to his own experience of senses whimsically and irrationally
> translating into others?
>
> I find it intriguing that the distant kinship that Kubrick shared with
> Hoftstadter via HAL and AI pops up again in their brushes with Nabokov
> and the enigma of translatability.
You just tilted the scales in favor of buying _Le Ton..._. Now, just to
find the time to savor it! Interesting stuff, your synaesthetic comment,
etc.
>
> > Likewise, witness Joseph Strick's "Ulysses". One may, or may not, like
the
> > film, but the weaknesses of 'doing' Joyce become instantly apparent.
Wasn't
> > it Welles who said that second-rate novels can make first rate films,
while
> > the really great novels stand on their own, leaving ill-conceived film
> > adaptations twiddling in the dust?
>
> I actually *did* like the film, largely because Milo O'Shea makes such a
> perfect Leopold Bloom, perhaps even better than Gene Wilder or Matthew
> Broderick, but you're right about the "weaknesses of 'doing' Joyce
> becoming instantly apparent".
I didn't like the film, and I programmed it in part of the school's film
showings! My intro to _Ulysses_ was with a Joyce scholar, and given what he
revealed in it, it pretty much buried anything a film might approach. But,
I wholly agree that Milo O'Shea is *perfectly* cast.
> > That being said, I sure appreciate the artistic chutzpah and marketing
savvy
> > of trying to do _Lolita_, success or not.
> Not to mention the fact that it seems to fit seamlessly into Kubrick's
> oevre. For example, the problematic nature of "fatherhood" (both from
> the perspective of father and child) seems to be an important theme in
> all his films; Humbert is a crucial exhibit in the game of "flaying
> padre". At least in any of *my* theories de jour, Lolita is there for
> sure.
Hah! "Flaying Padre"....that's good. This above mentioned Joyce professor
had a little theory that each of SK's films depicted the eternal combat
between father and son, and that the son so often was the victor, that he
was due (this was circa 1982) for the father to win. I think a case could
be made for FMJ and EWS falling into this category.
>
> I'm not even sure that a film has to "live up to" a great novel in the
> strong sense that Peter proposes. I think there are some films that
> function as a kind of "substitute" or "alternative" to the book version
> of a story, films which earnestly try to capture as much of they can of
> their source material as if they assumed the audience would watch a film
> of the book but not read the book itself. Here is a case where it makes
> more sense to film a book where a great story has been hurt by bad prose
> rather than one where the prose itself is to be cherished.
This is the primary problem with putting Joyce to film. It's sort of like
choreographing the Book of Kells. This might be an interesting launch into
another zone, but it can hardly do justice to the original work in
"translating" it.
> But sometimes an adaptation takes the attitude of being a particular
> "take" on a book, or even a "play" on it.
>
> Of course, it could be argued that every filming of a book is just one
> "take" on it, but I think it makes all the difference in the world
> whether the subjectivity of the adaptor is regarded by the adaptor as a
> bug or a feature and whether the translation is presented to the
> viewer/audience as an attempt to transmit or to transform the original
> material. As an adaptor, Kubrick was clearly a transformer. And even
> though he may have "improved" upon The Shining, The Short-timers, even
> Barry Lyndon, etc. but not have "improved" upon Lolita, this does not
> mean that his intention throughout is to transmit and improve upon the
> source material. The "message", as it were, gets changed by the
> translation/transformation process, not just made more or less potent.
But, "the message" is often distorted with no more than a translation, eg,
English to Russian, Russian to French, etcetera ad nauseum. Given that,
some films seem to be an adjunct to the novel on which they are based. I
like FMJ and _The Short Timers_, too, yet they are both very different.
> A film like "Ulysses" takes a humbler approach to its material; I would
> characterize it as "providing an entry point" to a book for a novice --
> and for the initiated, providing one more, albeit not definitive, way to
> celebrate it.
Agreed. If the Strick is a point of entry for soon-to-be Joyce readers, all
the better.
>
> I like the optimism in Kubrick's quote, "if it can be thought it can be
> filmed". In that spirit, I would declare that a future Joyce of cinema
> would be able to film the Joyce of literature, perhaps using as many
> transformations upon Joyce as Joyce made of Homer.
Could be; wouldn't put money on it. Reading, and watching a film, are two
separate things, each weaving their own solitary brand of magic. If one
were to take specific pieces of Joyce or Nabokov and *try* to put it on
film, it would:
a) look like the fever dreams of a psychotic, and
b) never sell.
> David,
> eagerly awaiting the original poster's personal list of Stravinsky's
> 'false notes'.
The truest falsetto notes there would probably be then, given some
listeners, that Igor wasn't Ludwig or Antonio.
Mon Dieu!
Thornhill
Rod Munday
>
> So then. My personal list of 'misfires' in Kubrick movies in reverse
> chronological order:
>
> Eyes Wide Shut
> ----------------
>
> The brilliantly sustained dreamlike flavour of the latter half of the movie
> is tragically undermined by Ziegler's pool-table "explanation" of events.
> the waking mind contemplating the dream-logic the sleeping mind previously
> accepted as fact. But if Kubrick was attempting to lay such a subtext, it
> doesn't work. The scene simply makes the foregoing events seem banal by
> imposing a limiting 'reality' on the inexplicable. I hate to say it, but
> this scene comes off as Kubrick's concession to Warner Bros; a sop to the
> mass-paying public who require neat resolutions and plot subtleties tied up
> with satisfying bows. It's akin to having a green-skinned alien enter
> Bowman's hotel room at the end of 2001 to explain the vagaries of that
> movie.
I thought along similar lines for a while, but after reflecting for a
while I am willing to forgo the fairy tale/dreamlike resonances of the
film for a two reasons: firstly if that scene wasn't there Bill would
not have been able to forget about his quest to get to the bottom of
the situation re: Mandy and Nick, or it would have seemed like a major
plot evasion. In the book Fridolin simply rationalises the episode
away in an interior monologue, this cannot be duplicated in a movie,
so it is dramatised instead. Secondly it adds quite a new dynamic to
Bill's journey of self discovery to confront his clients as he does
with Ziegler in the games room and see that his eyes were shut to the
misdemeanours of his benefactors as well as his wife's fidelity. I
think this is a very interesting sub-theme in EWS encompassing and
commenting upon Bill's entire journey as well as Kubrick's attitude
(perceived by me anyway) to ingratiating cinema that takes as it's
axiom the unimpeachable goodness of the hero. Further to this last
thought, don't forget Kubrick has always been a pertinent commentator
on his times. Think of Dr Strangelove. EWS had some important things
to say about unchecked global capitalism, many of these can be read
into the scene with Ziegler and Bill, I think Padraig elaborated on
this in one of his EWS posts a while back. You should check it out on
Google.
<snip>
>
> The Shining
> ------------
>
> The Shining works well as an enactment of the themes glimpsed in Tarkovsky's
> Solaris. Evil in the Overlook manifests as the physical embodiment of the
> psychological distress experienced by the protagonists. Dread is evoked by
> Kubrick's masterful mapping of these psychological elements onto the
> mazelike geometry of the hotel with his eerie steadicam work.
>
> At one point, however, Kubrick stumbles. He has Duvall react in horror to
> some very fake-looking phantasmagoria indeed: a room bedecked with "Horror
> Movie" cobwebs and filled with skeletons. This is not even faintly scary;
> it's just silly. In my opinion, this sequence seems more suited to
> juvenilia like "Tales from the Crypt".
Yes she's a really horror show addict isn't she. Kubrick often
portrays scenes by showing things how his characters would see them,
this allows him to comment on their perceptions of the world as he
goes. Take another example - Bill's black and while porno movie of the
sailor and Alice in EWS. That too was criticised for being cliché -
that criticism, like yours, misses the point entirely!
>
<snip>
>
> A Clockwork Orange
> ----------------------
>
> The actor who plays Alex's "Post-Corrective Advisor", Mr. Deltoid, always
> irritates me with his unfunny, overacted performance and his extraordinary
> overemphatic lilting diction (which can only have been a contrivance of
> Kubrick's). A blight on an otherwise perfect movie.
Tastes differ. I like all the British sit com piss take references in
ACO but then I'm British. And I get the jokes I guess.
>
> 2001: A Space Odyssey
> -------------------------
>
> This may be regarded as blasphemy, but I have to say it.
>
> I think the infamous 'Stargate' sequence is too long and would benefit from
> some judicious trimming.
When I first saw it in 1979 I was blown away. I feel audiences have
become too use to wondrous images, this is not the film's fault.
> In general, I love the slow, hypnotic pacing of 2001. The deliberate editing
> evokes an awesome spatiotemporal vastness like no other film; 2001 has a
> solemn majesty and philosophical beauty that would be eviscerated were it to
> be 'sped up'. But that 'Stargate' sequence seems a little painfully
> protracted to this child of the MTV generation.
>
I really like the slow cutting in ALL the effects shots of 2001, which
allows us to really scrutinise them. Far too many of today's
extravaganzas seem to have a crisis of confidence in the cutting room.
Mustn't sacrifice pace for awe. Cut. Cut. Cut.... Isn't that stupid?
> I appreciate the part where Bowman is speeding through the inky void past
> exploding nebulae etc. Galaxies flow together like sperm and egg, suggesting
> the principle of 'Ontogeny Recapitulating Phylogeny' writ large on a
> cosmological canvass.
Er OK. Critical faculties sharp as ever there Matthew!
>
> However, those interminable scenes of strangely solarised landscapes seem a
> little self-indulgent, and add nothing of value to the sequence.
Yes, this is probably a miss step, but in 1968 I imagine they looked
amazing.
<Snip>
>
> Lolita
> ------
>
> This is the only Kubrick movie that pales in comparison to the novel it's
> based on. I haven't seen it in a very long time, so I'm not qualified to
> pick out specific flaws.
I think it's the only Kubrick movie that is based on a bona fide
modern classic. I guess he learnt his lesson thereafter.
>
> Paths of Glory
> ---------------
>
> Paths of Glory offers a stunning, ascorbic commentary on the depravity of
> war's commanders. I feel, however, that Kubrick could have lent a little
> more moral ambivalence to the Kirk Douglas character. He's so upright and
> ethical and without blemish that the audience doesn't ever completely buy
> his performance.
This is probably the reason why many Kubrick critics LOVE Paths of
Glory and complain that his later films are too detached and
misanthropic. Their definition of detachment I read as truthfulness
but there you go.
> The Killing
> -----------
>
> The cleverly interlocking temporal jigsaw puzzle structure is occasionally
> let down by a redundant, floridly phrased 'hard-boiled' expository
> voice-over. Tarantino's homage to The Killing, Reservoir Dogs, illustrates
> that a complex time-fractured plot does not necessitate these intrusive
> voice-overs.
Yeah but Tarrantino had the advantage of thirty years in which
audiences became au fait with the fragmentation techniques of film
editing. In Kubrick's time audiences were far less sophisticated and
Kubrick actually tried re-cutting the film as a linear narrative just
to appease the wave of opposition to its radical approach. Luckily he
and JB Harris realised that the appeal of the film was it's structure.
>
> What do fellow Kubrick acolytes think of these criticisms? Have you any
> gripes of your own? Let 'em rip!
>
> Matt.
Mine is the black man penis size thing in Full Metal Jacket. It really
grates on my liberal sensibilities playing that for comedy. But I
think it's my problem:)
Regards, Rod Munday
M4RV1N
writes:
>On the whole, superb post, Mark. I think I would take issue with this one
>comment, however. While unquestionably the censorial limitations of the>early
>'60s must be taken into account in any assessment of "Lolita," I do think
>it's
>perfectly legitimate to fault the film for not living up to the novel.
I would disagree rather strongly, and here's why: Kubrick was not engaged in
the creative task of rewriting the novel. Obviously, no one would place much
value on such a task, assuming it was something novelists occasionally did.
But the point is that the effort to use Nabokov's narrative and characters in
making a film should not be viewed (IMHO) as an attempt to "live up to the
novel." Why? Well, because it's a film. It sounds obvious, but to me it's a
very profound and important point.
This is
>the one instance in SK's entire career where I feel a comparison to the
>original text is valid (and Kubrick's own remarks over the years lead me to
>believe he felt similarly) because "Lolita" is the one instance in his>career
>where he adapted a truly great novel.
"Clockwork" is now recognized as a great one too--but your point is correct.
"Lolita" is the only literary masterpiece Kubrick chose to adapt. Just as an
aside, I think Schnitzler's "Traumnovelle" and Cobb's "Paths of Glory" are
outstanding as well.
Before I go on, I should note that I
>think "Lolita" is a wonderful film on its own terms and fully the equal in
>many
>respects of "The Killing" and "Paths of Glory."
I think "Lolita" is a major step upward from his first two studio films. So
many Kubrick trademarks (eccentric characters and dialogue, complex film
content, etc.) begin with that film. Partly from the authority gained with the
success of "Spartacus" and partly as a function of working in England.
>
>
>For me, the issue really is the relative worth of the source material itself.
Okay, if that is really true... Here is a puzzler for you to analyze
philosophically: What does a person who sees the film, but has never read (or
let's say, even heard about) Nabokov's novel? Is there something inherently
flawed in that person's ability to appreciate (understand, etc.) Kubrick's
film? My answer is no, and that means that to me, they must stand on their own
and be judged on there own.
>
>Kubrick can come in and bowdlerize the entire canon of Stephen King as far as
>I'm concerned because I think King is an inferior writer and Kubrick a
>superior
>artist; he's building from the ground
>up and, indeed, the main elements that
>Kubrick retained from the novel are the it's plot and atmosphere. There's
>nothing to "live up to" in the original.
True enough. But Kubrick used a lot of King's material "items" and gave them
different meanings.
>
>But if a filmmaker adapts a book like "Lolita" - one of the great works of
>fiction of the 20th century - and doesn't equal it (regardless of whether or
>not the film is faithful to the book but >especially< if it is adapted on
>terms>other than those of the novel), I'd say the adaptation should absolutely
be
>held to the very high standard of Vladimir Nabokov.
But that's a literary standard.
I don't see that, because Kubrick wanted different things in the adaptation. I
could go into this for many paragraphs if I had time, but briefly, it has to do
with changing the overt sexual obsession into a repressed, black comic sexual
obsession. Kubrick chose to emphasize Quilty as a walking embodiment of
Humbert's paranoia and guilt. This is in the Nabokov but it's subtle in the
way that only a novel can do. There are a myriad of such creative choices
Kubrick made.
So in a nutshell, I'll agree with Nabokov, that it's, "very much a Kubrick
film." The analogy I would use to delineate my position from yours is this:
If a composer decided to make a symphony based on a great novel, one would not
depend on the novel to evaluate the music. One would evaluate it next to other
music, other symphonies (more specifically), and other symphonies based on
novels (most specifically). But it does not compare to the novel's standard
because it's not a novel.
Mark Ervin
M4RV1N
writes:
>> Kubrick detractors are accused (by some legitimate critics and trolls
>alike) of
>> lacking insight in their appraisal of the mater's work.
>>
>
>Now here's an original form of rebuttal. Take a person's words and twist
>them to hilarious ironic effect. Well done. Perhaps this idea will catch on
>across the internet? Oh wait. I've just noticed it's already been
>done...several billion times. Yawn.
Sorry to bore you. My point stands though--and I think it's more accurate than
what it responded to. Just MHO.
>
>> >The perception seems to be that hardcore Kubrick fans are by
>> >necessity pretentious cineastes who have deified the director, and whose
>> >aesthetic vision and critical facilities have been dulled by years of
>paying
>> >obeisance to their idol.
>>
>> Who has this perception and makes this claim?
>
>I'm having it right now, reading your post :-)
My post does not have content that should produce such a perception. And I
think those comments are derisive of this group.
>
>Seriously. I've been reading AMK for years
Your comments suggest otherwise to me. Again, MHO.
and this argument is parotted
>here by a variety of critics on a regular basis. (It can be found like a
>virus throughout a certain Lord Bullingdon's rantings, for example.)
>
>> >Although I too believe that every mature Kubrick film (ie from the
>Killing
>> >onwards) is touched by genius, I should like to temper my adulation for
>the
>> >films by listing some moments/sequences/creative choices which in some
>way
>> >marred my enjoyment
>>
>> Marred enjoyment. Tsk. Perhaps you have grounds for a lawsuit. Art is
>not
>> >always< about enjoyment.
>
>Wisdom from the Mount. Consider me appropriately humbled. Teach me more, o
>seer, about what Art is *really* about.
It's about seeing things in new ways. This is all for today's lesson.
>
>> > It is such a rarity in AMK for a
>> >genuine fan to cast aspersions on even a single frame in Kubrick's mighty
>> >canon that I thought the exercise might be informative.
>>
>> Casting aspersions is rare, but we often talk about flaws or problems or
>things
>> we don't understand. Which a.m.k. have you been reading?
>
>Hmm. You might have a point. Perhaps there's some parellel-universe-amk
>where a post discussing minor quibbles with Kubrick's masterpieces is not
>subjected to hysterical ad hominem attack?
These are the brand of attacks you launched. In jest? I thought so, and
responded in a joking manner. Not a whole lot that is hysterical anywhere.
Just kidding.
Perhaps you did not notice; or perhaps I noticed incorrectly... first.
>
>> >I expect some of my criticisms may be provocative. Some may even inspire
>> >argument or vicious invective. But, heck, I'm wearing my best
>> >asbestos-lined, flame-retardant underwear, so do your worst!
>>
>> Ni!
>>
>> > I challenge other fans to post their own quibbles. A 'false note' thread
>> >should help dispel the myth of the myopic Kubrickite,
>>
>> Or it would promote the reality of trivializing legitimate discussion by
>> producing a forced list of flaws?
>
>"I find the defendant guilty of the heinous crime of Trivializing Legitimate
>Discussion! I sentence him to death by military firing squad for his crimes
>against France!"
>
>Why, if my post was so trivial and 'forced', did you take the time to
>respond to it, thereby perpetuating the inanity?
It's not really inane. I just think the place to discuss the flaws in SK films
is one at a time, when the films are being discussed. We do that. I've said
many times "Paths" is too heroic, "Lolita" needs to empasize Humbert's love
more than his lust, "Jacket" has an exploding narrative that is "difficult."
Were you delurking during such comments--mine and others?
>
>> > unable or unwilling to
>> >admit to the existence of flaws amidst the glittering finery of
>Kubrick's
>> >celluloid legacy.
>>
>> How about if I talk about the flaws in your overdone prose, instead? Just
>> kidding.
>
>Them's fightin' words :-)
>
I'll come back to your other comments as time permits. I'll try to be more
serious next time out.
Mark Ervin
Peter Tonguette
>>Peter Tonguette
>writes:
>
>This is
>>the one instance in SK's entire career where I feel a comparison to the
>>original text is valid (and Kubrick's own remarks over the years lead me
>to
>>believe he felt similarly) because "Lolita" is the one instance in his>career
>>where he adapted a truly great novel.
>
>"Clockwork" is now recognized as a great one too--but your point is correct.
>
>"Lolita" is the only literary masterpiece Kubrick chose to adapt. Just
>as an
>aside, I think Schnitzler's "Traumnovelle" and Cobb's "Paths of Glory" are
>outstanding as well.
I agree and I would add Hasford's "The Short Timers" (and its sequel, "The
Phantom Blooper," which could make a great film given the right director) as
being an excellent book that's very worthwhile completely apart from Kubrick.
But I still wouldn't place them in the class of something like "Lolita," which
is one of the great modern works of fiction. I don't think this point is in
dispute.
>>
>>For me, the issue really is the relative worth of the source material itself.
>
>Okay, if that is really true... Here is a puzzler for you to analyze
>philosophically: What does a person who sees the film, but has never read
>(or
>let's say, even heard about) Nabokov's novel? Is there something inherently
>flawed in that person's ability to appreciate (understand, etc.) Kubrick's
>film? My answer is no, and that means that to me, they must stand on their
>own
>and be judged on there own.
Your point is well taken, but I would pose this question to you: Is there a
difference between adapting a Stephen King or John Grisham novel and adapting a
play by Shakespeare or a novel by Joyce? Does a filmmaker take on a greater
responsibility when adapting the work of the latter group than the former
group? Does the quality of the source material a filmmaker draws from count as
anything? I would say it does and by tackling as great a novel as "Lolita" is,
Kubrick set himself a very high standard to meet - almost, as Thornhill notes,
an impossibly high standard. Multiply the impossibility element by a factor of
ten given the censorial limitations SK faced in the early 1960s.
To answer your question, no, a lack of familiarity with Nabokov does not
inherently impede a viewer's ability to appreciate Kubrick's film. But
"Lolita" does not exist in a vacuum; a great novel came before it and any
serious consideration of the film, IMO, should take that into account.
I should note, if I didn't make it clear enough in my initial post, that what
I'm talking about has >nothing< whatsoever to do with whether or not the final
film is "faithful" to the original work. As I said before, the real issue in
my mind is the magnitude of that work and whether the adaptation that results
is in the same class as the original. I would say that "Lolita," as good as it
is and as crucial to Kubrick's development as it was, just isn't.
>>But if a filmmaker adapts a book like "Lolita" - one of the great works
>of
>>fiction of the 20th century - and doesn't equal it (regardless of whether
>or
>>not the film is faithful to the book but >especially< if it is adapted
>on
>>terms>other than those of the novel), I'd say the adaptation should
absolutely
>be
>>held to the very high standard of Vladimir Nabokov.
>
>But that's a literary standard.
Well, I would say it's an artistic standard. A good example of a great
literary work that absolutely survives translation to another medium is Verdi's
"Otello," which differs from Shakespeare in many regards but, in the end,
reaches the level of achievement of the original, if in a very different way.
Peter
Padraig L Henry
wrote:
Hey, great posts, guys ... and good to see your sub-thread
"translation" of the "main thread" subject matter source material.
(Milo O'Shea? Sorry, but methinks I'd have to request the lowering of
the oxygen masks there. Funny, I saw Joseph Strick's Ulysses (he also,
ten years later, attempted "A Portrait of ..", this time absent
"Barbarella" Milo but plus John Gielgud) long >before< reading the
boo-uck. It served instead to greatly postpone my "novice " entry,
rather than something otherwise intended ... but contrarily, a great
film often sends one digging for any related literary sources, however
dreadful the latter)
Huston's The Dead, now that's what a Joycean adaptation detractation
delectation should aim for in any ineluctible modality of the sensory
exactification ...
"The snow is general all over AMK".
Padraig
... and Beckett is next ... all nineteen of them on a screen near you,
done, finished, failed. Failed again, failed better).
derek
> Okay, if that is really true... Here is a puzzler for you to analyze
> philosophically: What does a person who sees the film, but has never read (or
> let's say, even heard about) Nabokov's novel? Is there something inherently
> flawed in that person's ability to appreciate (understand, etc.) Kubrick's
> film? My answer is no, and that means that to me, they must stand on their
own> and be judged on there own.
That's a pretty good summary of what I think is a key element in the
measure of the distance between a literary work and its cinematic
adaptation. While there's a natural inclination to make the comparison,
the fact is that the film adaptation is an expression of (primarily) the
screenwriter's and director's impression and interpretation of the
original work, rather than the same idea expressed by the original author
on film. Variations in nuance and emphasis are likely to be nearly as
many as there are writers and directors. While there's often a claim
that a film ought to be "faithful" to its literary origins, I've yet to
understand what could be meant by that, for the very reason you follow
with.
> So in a nutshell, I'll agree with Nabokov, that it's, "very much a Kubrick
> film." The analogy I would use to delineate my position from yours is this:
> If a composer decided to make a symphony based on a great novel, one would not
> depend on the novel to evaluate the music. One would evaluate it next to
other
> music, other symphonies (more specifically), and other symphonies based on
> novels (most specifically). But it does not compare to the novel's standard
> because it's not a novel.
>
> Mark Ervin
--
Well, I can see why your people in Denver left it for you to tell me.
David Kirkpatrick
Perhaps you missed my "Flaying Padre" post from a while back...
(check out the second on the list marked "edited version")
I find it interesting that a Joyce scholar would catch this angle.
After all, father-son relationships are crucial themes in Joyce's
novels. When I consider that the ending of Portrait portrays Stephen
Dedalus as an Icarus figure (or in danger of becoming one), it reminds
me of the remarks Kubrick made about Icarus when he accepted the D.W.
Griffith award. With all this in mind, I wonder why I bothered with the
pun "flaying padre" when "flying padre" is evermore to the point.
The neat thing about the Icarus legend is how it connects father/son to
god/humanity and to cautionary tales about humanity and technology.
David
FMD
> Padraig
> ... and Beckett is next ... all nineteen of them on a screen near you,
> done, finished, failed. Failed again, failed better).
Nohow on. Said nohow on. And roger your one-niner-zero, fellahs....
David Sticher
> To answer your question, no, a lack of familiarity with Nabokov does not
> inherently impede a viewer's ability to appreciate Kubrick's film. But
> "Lolita" does not exist in a vacuum; a great novel came before it and any
> serious consideration of the film, IMO, should take that into account.
>
> I should note, if I didn't make it clear enough in my initial post, that what
> I'm talking about has >nothing< whatsoever to do with whether or not the final
> film is "faithful" to the original work. As I said before, the real issue in
> my mind is the magnitude of that work and whether the adaptation that results
> is in the same class as the original. I would say that "Lolita," as good as it
> is and as crucial to Kubrick's development as it was, just isn't.
I think the main thing to consider when an author translates a great
work to another medium is considering less how well it corresponds with
the original than what new material we've produced in the process. What
have we *gained* in the translation? Great works are great because they
are triumphs, revelations. They define new rules. In adapting a truly
great work, you're trying to subvert the rules with one of the works
that defined them. Comparing this to lightning striking twice is not out
of line.
Lolita is a perfectly fine film, maybe a little long but otherwise fine.
While it certainly brings many of Kubrick's sensibilities to the
original, and it is in some senses funnier, the experience of watching
the movie is not as much of a rush as reading the book. It has most of
Kubrick's sensibilities, but only a modicum of his *quality* is brought
to the work - it's got the touch, but not the push, if you catch my
drift. It's a successful adaptation, but it is not a revelation like
Kubrick's other works or, of course, the original. Lolita, the film, was
not as groundbreaking.
As for being "faithful" to the original, I give a big fat raspberry.
Artistic truth is a more slippery and more valuable quality than keeping
the nuts and bolts of the story intact. It's almost too obvious to
mention that what works in one medium won't in another, so why sandbag
yourself? We could go on and on with failed adaptations that are
technically faithful and practically fail for that. Everything I've
heard about the Beckett films suggests that that is the case for them -
the estate refused to allow the filmmakers to change the scripts,
leaving every single one of those films anchored with staginess, no
matter the talent or intent of the people involved. The artistic truth
is crushed with fake, enforced, Procrustean sincerity.
This is at the heart, I think, as to why an adaptation like Naked Lunch
is so much better than The Bonfire of the Vanities. Putting aside from
the notoriously hysterical in-fighting and poor judgement w/r/t casting
on the set of the latter, it just isn't a story suited to De Palma's
sensibilities, even though he'd successfully tackled the themes before;
his sense of humor is visual and rooted in the twisting of types and
cliches, while Wolfe's is verbal and rooted in observation. They should
have just told De Palma to run with the basic idea and come up with his
own ludicrous spin on it. Instead, he teamed up with other misguided
souls and tried to turn vicious satire into blockbuster material that
followed the broad outlines of the novel. The result is mediocre.
Naked Lunch, on the other hand, is Cronenberg just taking some basic
ideas and scenes from the original and spinning his own tale from the
material, and whatever its own imperfections, in my opinion it's highly
successful, because it truly does bring Cronenberg's qualities to the
original work without struggling to make it an analog or compromising
the artistic truth of the original, as well as adding inflections of his own.
Lolita is, of course, much, much, much more successful than The Bonfire
of the Vanities, but it suffers from some of the same problems; luckily,
Kubrick learned from his mistakes.
> Well, I would say it's an artistic standard. A good example of a great
> literary work that absolutely survives translation to another medium is Verdi's
> "Otello," which differs from Shakespeare in many regards but, in the end,
> reaches the level of achievement of the original, if in a very different way.
Great example! One of the rare ones, as well...
- Dave
David Sticher
> You just tilted the scales in favor of buying _Le Ton..._. Now, just to
> find the time to savor it! Interesting stuff, your synaesthetic comment,
> etc.
_Le Ton beau de Marot_ is a very good book, and I'm glad to see someone
else make the connection between Hofstadter and Kubrick. I wonder what
Kube thought of Hofstadter's AI theories...?
If you're not familiar with his work (I'm genuinely unsure, I'm sorry if
I sound condescending), definitely check out his classic _Gödel, Escher,
Bach: The Eternal Golden Braid_ first. Buy yourself a copy. It's a
wonderfully thought-provoking book, and even though some of the
technical aspects he discusses are dated it's hardly aged at all. Ditto
for _Mathemagical Themas_ and the anthology he edited, _Mind's I_. _Le
Ton beau de Marot_ is a very, very good book, but it's not as tightly
wound as his best.
- Dave
Thornhill
Didn't want to add more with _Le Ton_, much as I like Hofstadter. Gotta
choose your Battle of the Books.
Thornhill
"David Sticher" <das...@nyu.edu> wrote in message
news:3B1C7830...@nyu.edu...
Peter Tonguette
>Lolita is a perfectly fine film, maybe a little long but otherwise fine.
>While it certainly brings many of Kubrick's sensibilities to the
>original, and it is in some senses funnier, the experience of watching
>the movie is not as much of a rush as reading the book. It has most of
>Kubrick's sensibilities, but only a modicum of his *quality* is brought
>to the work - it's got the touch, but not the push, if you catch my
>drift. It's a successful adaptation, but it is not a revelation like
>Kubrick's other works or, of course, the original. Lolita, the film, was
>not as groundbreaking.
>
>As for being "faithful" to the original, I give a big fat raspberry.
>Artistic truth is a more slippery and more valuable quality than keeping
>the nuts and bolts of the story intact. It's almost too obvious to
>mention that what works in one medium won't in another, so why sandbag
>yourself?
Well, I basically agree with your assessment of "Lolita." But, as I've said,
the issue of fidelity to the original is not really what I'm talking about.
Most of the Merchant/Ivory literary adaptations are extremely faithful to the
books they're taken from, but they're also generally extremely dull and
literal-minded films that have made no attempt to re-imagine the original
material in cinematic terms. (As an aside, I regard "Mr. and Mrs. Bridge" and
"A Soldier's Daughter Never Cries" - both interesting, lively films - as being
exceptions to this, but those are also two instances where they are drawing
from more minor material than James or Forster.)
It seems to me that if any major work is going to survive translation from one
medium to another, it's going to have to be reconfigured on nearly every level.
Fidelity is rarely, if ever, a virtue, which is why I chose to cite "Otello"
as an example of a work that approximates the level of achievement of the
original but differs from Shakespeare in many specifics. I agree that
Cronenberg's "Naked Lunch" is another very good of this.
From my perspective, the real issue in dealing with assessing film adaptations
of literary material is the >magnitude< of the original work in question. When
one adapts Shakespeare or Faulkner (or Nabokov), the bar is instantly set
higher than when one adapts Stephen King. I don't fault Kubrick's "Lolita" for
differing from Nabokov's, but I do fault it for - perhaps inevitably, given all
of the factors involved - not being in the same class as the novel it's drawn
from. Perhaps tellingly, this was the first and last time in Kubrick's career
that he adapted such a major work, hereafter preferring to take on rather more
minor, even at times flawed, source material for his films.
Peter
Peter Tonguette
>Thanks. Got the others. Got others besides those that need reading.
>Didn't want to add more with _Le Ton_, much as I like Hofstadter. Gotta
>choose your Battle of the Books.
"It's intimidating, especially at a time like this, to think of how many books
you should read and never will."
--Stanley Kubrick
I >did< just finish Chomsky's "The Minimalist Program," which I'd been meaning
to read for quite a while and only recently got around to. Perhaps someone
should start a "reading list" thread - what's everyone been reading lately?
Peter
Padraig L Henry
wrote:
>Everything I've
>heard about the Beckett films suggests that that is the case for them -
>the estate refused to allow the filmmakers to change the scripts,
>leaving every single one of those films anchored with staginess, no
>matter the talent or intent of the people involved. The artistic truth
>is crushed with fake, enforced, Procrustean sincerity.
Well bravo - very good, incisive point, David (but hey, let's not get
into the application of this form of pre-judged but wisely informed
"reasoning" to a certain other imminent film, okay?)
Yes, The Beckett Film Project does suffer from these fatal cinematic
limitations (partly because Beckett, in his plays, unlike most other
playwrights, included very detailed staging instructions, precise
production and directorial details - but for the theatre, not cinema,
as his experiment in the latter, his film Film, testified.)
But I'll get back, shortly, to this film project (I have them all on
video, from Mamet to Jordan, from Damien Hirst to Michael
Lindsey-Hogg), and, hopefully, Beckett's "relevance" to Kubrick ...
Padraig
Wordsmith
Dig "A Movie Maniac's Bibliography!" for a list of film-related books I've
read. It's archived.
Wordsmith : )
Wordsmith
Beckett and Kubrick go together like hand-in-glove. Both communicate
that communication is often impossible. Re: the scene in *TS* where
Wendy and the park ranger chat.
Wordsmith :)
David Sticher
>
> Well bravo - very good, incisive point, David (but hey, let's not get
> into the application of this form of pre-judged but wisely informed
> "reasoning" to a certain other imminent film, okay?)
Thanks, and don't worry, I'll try to keep quiet about Tomb Raider until
it comes out.
> Yes, The Beckett Film Project does suffer from these fatal cinematic
> limitations (partly because Beckett, in his plays, unlike most other
> playwrights, included very detailed staging instructions, precise
> production and directorial details - but for the theatre, not cinema,
> as his experiment in the latter, his film Film, testified.)
Yes indeed, I know, and it's a shame how misguided the estate was in
placing that restriction on the artists. I understand their intentions,
but they're missing the point entirely.
There was a nice article on the BFP a few months ago in the New York
Times. The pictures they had looked nice enough, but the advance word
from people who've seen the films is not encouraging. I'll still check
them out, but my expectations are low.
- Dave
JW Moore
>>
>> Monstrous hard, that, though in theory I'd agree with you, Peter. SK later
>> stated that doing _Lolita_ may have been a mistake for exactly the reasons
>> you point out. Could this be why is his later work he never attempted to
>> tackle an essentially untranslatable novel? How does one live up to
>> Nabokov?
>
>Or in the case of translating Nabokov, how does one live *down* to him?
>Hofstadter writes that as a translator of Pushkin's Eugene Onegin, a
>novel in verse, Nabokov took a literalist, anti-poetic approach to
>translation almost mimicking the artlessness of machine translation,
>stridently ridiculing previous translators who dared try to make rhymes
>and word-plays in English paralleling Pushkin's charm. In other words,
>he was all letter and no spirit. (Incidentally, Hofstadter has written
>his own EO translation, but most of his Nabokov criticisms appear in the
>earlier tome on translation named "Le Ton beau de Marot".)
>
My regard for Hofstadter came to a screeching halt with this
Nabokov-bashing. His "EO" was pedantic, alright, because he meant it
as a teaching tool, not as some literary achievement (he wrote
"Lolita" and "Pnin" while working on this treatment). So venomous and
downright venomous was his diatribe that I thought at first it was
another of his treadbare postmodern meta self-referential things
(ranting about Nabokov's ranting, hahaha), then I saw that Arendt
blurbed his book and things fell into place.
BTW, Hof's "EO" is too precious and self-indulgent for words. I prefer
Johnston's, but any of them are, yes, more "faithful" to the original
that DH's.
Finally, have you actual read "EO" in any of its translations? Or are
you willing to take the word of one who practically boasts of his poor
Russian?
~~Jack
Winston Castro
wrote:
I'm amazed anyone would care what I'm currently reading, but here it
goes-
'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance'
Peter Tonguette
>Dig "A Movie Maniac's Bibliography!" for a list of film-related books I've
>read. It's archived.
Thanks, Wordsmith. Excellent! I knew the newly restored Google archives would
come in handy someday... :)
Peter
Gordon Stainforth
> The Shining
> ------------
>
> The Shining works well as an enactment of the themes glimpsed in Tarkovsky's
> Solaris. Evil in the Overlook manifests as the physical embodiment of the
> psychological distress experienced by the protagonists. Dread is evoked by
> Kubrick's masterful mapping of these psychological elements onto the
> mazelike geometry of the hotel with his eerie steadicam work.
>
> At one point, however, Kubrick stumbles. He has Duvall react in horror to
> some very fake-looking phantasmagoria indeed: a room bedecked with "Horror
> Movie" cobwebs and filled with skeletons. This is not even faintly scary;
> it's just silly. In my opinion, this sequence seems more suited to
> juvenilia like "Tales from the Crypt".
This scene was actually a 'bone of contention' (forgive pun!) during
the cutting of TS. I remember a lot of discussion about it in the
cutting rooms, tho not directly with Stanley. The point is that
Stanley himself did not seem too happy with it, in that he took it
out at least once, and then put it back again. I remember not liking
it at all, and talking about it on several occasions with both Ray
(Lovejoy) and Vivian K. As so often it definitely fell into two camps,
but unfortunately I can't remember what side either Ray or Vivian were
on (I think Ray was against, and Vivian for, but I may be completely
wrong)
Someone else has commented about the ballroom scene being 'completely
ridiculous'. I've never heard anyone say that before. I know that
Stanley was particularly keen on this scene and put an enormous amount
of effort into it (well, like everything, but this particularly!)
Personally I love it, but I cant quite say why. I think it's because
here we really enter a dream world (I think mostly what's going on in
Jack's demented head) - and there's also an immense sense of fate
taking him over here, and leaving him powerless to escape. He is now
somehow trapped into reliving and reenacting the madness of Torrance
in the 20s.
Gordon
FMD
Gordon Stainforth wrote:
> Someone else has commented about the ballroom scene being 'completely
> ridiculous'. I've never heard anyone say that before. I know that
> Stanley was particularly keen on this scene and put an enormous amount
> of effort into it (well, like everything, but this particularly!)
> Personally I love it, but I cant quite say why. I think it's because
> here we really enter a dream world (I think mostly what's going on in
> Jack's demented head) - and there's also an immense sense of fate
> taking him over here, and leaving him powerless to escape. He is now
> somehow trapped into reliving and reenacting the madness of Torrance
> in the 20s.
>
> Gordon
I love the scene too, and your observation of its dreamlike quality reminds me of EWS and
something I stumbled upon in an interview with Kubrick, discussing 2001 and ACO, where he
likens movies that are more visual/aural than verbal to dreams, in that they allow feelings
and ideas to work on you in ways that are unfiltered by prejudices about good and evil. His
idea of the dream seems more Jungian than Freudian.
Speaking of EWS: I recently screened "Rear Window" and wondered whether SK had watched it
again while thinking about EWS. Like the latter, the sound is extraordinary - the ambient
background chatter creates a range of feelings that are always just slightly beyond one's
direct comprehension, and it's reminiscient of the party chatter at the Zeigler mansion, as
well as the traffic that recurs in EWS like a leitmotiv. There are also some extraordinary
disjunctions between what the characters are saying and the feelings they project, as when
Grace Kelley discusses gruesome details of murder with an extraordinary gleem in her eye
(which reminded me of the quick succession of moods shown by Alice when she and Bill kiss in
front of the mirror).
David Kirkpatrick
From my reading of <Le Ton beau de Marot>, it is precisely Nabokov's
venomous ranting towards other translators that Hofstadter was ranting
about. He states quite clearly that if Nabokov merely presented his
more literalist translation as the alternative or teaching tool that it
was then he would have no quarrel with the genius. It was the
savageness of Nabokov's saracasm towards other translators, who in DRH's
view were trying to translate not only the words but the spirit, wit and
entertainment value of the original into another language that got DRH
into a counter-attack mode. I see nothing sadistic in Marot that didn't
involve holding up a mirror to Nabokov's words and his implicit ideas.
> BTW, Hof's "EO" is too precious and self-indulgent for words. I prefer
> Johnston's, but any of them are, yes, more "faithful" to the original
> that DH's.
I'm sure that DRH would agree that the best translation is neither his
nor Nabokov's. I don't have enough evidence to make a final conclusion,
but it seems quite plausible that your judgment of DRH's translation
suffers from preciousness. I thought his various translations of
Marot's poem were brilliant -- also that Marot's poem was arguably
precious and self-indulgent to begin with. It's quite conceivable that
our dilettante translator exceeded his level of competence when he
attacked EO in Russian. But that only makes his EO dispensible not
Marot.
> Finally, have you actual read "EO" in any of its translations? Or are
> you willing to take the word of one who practically boasts of his poor
> Russian?
Well, I don't speak Russian, and I've only seen the stanzas compared
with each other in "Marot", plus the first 20% or so of DH's
translation. From my point of view, whether DRH succeeds or fails as an
artist of translation has no bearing on the validity of his thesis that
translation *is* an art.
On the bright side, thanks for giving me an excuse to dip into "Marot"
again.
David
JW Moore
wrote:
<snip>
>From my reading of <Le Ton beau de Marot>, it is precisely Nabokov's
>venomous ranting towards other translators that Hofstadter was ranting
>about. He states quite clearly that if Nabokov merely presented his
>more literalist translation as the alternative or teaching tool that it
>was then he would have no quarrel with the genius. It was the
>savageness of Nabokov's saracasm towards other translators, who in DRH's
>view were trying to translate not only the words but the spirit, wit and
>entertainment value of the original into another language that got DRH
>into a counter-attack mode. I see nothing sadistic in Marot that didn't
>involve holding up a mirror to Nabokov's words and his implicit ideas.
>
Doug Hofstadter is full of shit.
Had he bothered to do any research at all, he would have discovered
that Nabokov was involved in numerous literary battles in which both
parties inevitably crossed the line into "savage sarcasm" and worse.
He took as well as he gave. In the case of his erstwhile friend Edmund
Wilson, it was the latter whose fired the first shot with his highly
critical and personal attack on Nabokov's "Eugene Onegin" translation.
Nabokov responded in kind. Yet Hofstadter never provides readers with
any context; he selects the most piquant quotations to serve his ends,
carefully omitting any inconvenient facts. It gives readers a
completely distorted impression of a towering literary figure.
I stongly urge you to read some impartial reporting of Nabokov - Brian
Boyd's acclaimed two-volume biography is an excellent place to start.
Boyd, unlike Hofstadter, gives both (or all) sides of N's complicated
personality, and is pretty critical of his translation of "Eugene
Onegin." He also provides the essential context behind the literary
pissing matches he participated in. I'm sure some information is
available on the Web too.
>> BTW, Hof's "EO" is too precious and self-indulgent for words. I prefer
>> Johnston's, but any of them are, yes, more "faithful" to the original
>> that DH's.
>
>I'm sure that DRH would agree that the best translation is neither his
>nor Nabokov's. I don't have enough evidence to make a final conclusion,
>but it seems quite plausible that your judgment of DRH's translation
>suffers from preciousness. I thought his various translations of
>Marot's poem were brilliant -- also that Marot's poem was arguably
>precious and self-indulgent to begin with. It's quite conceivable that
>our dilettante translator exceeded his level of competence when he
>attacked EO in Russian. But that only makes his EO dispensible not
>Marot.
>
Leaving aside Marot's poem, a trivial ditty IMO, there is so much
disinformation in his Nabokov-trashing that there is not sufficient
bandwidth to catalog it all. Here are the biggies:
Edmund Wilson: As I said, it was he, not Nabokov, who started the very
public war over N's "EO". His review asserted that Nabokov produced 'a
bald and awkward language which has nothing in common with Pushkin,'
but he had demonstrated 'the perversity of his tricks to startle or
stick pins in the reader ... to torture both the reader and himself by
flattening Pushkin.' " Nabokov was perplexed by this scathing review,
and returned fire. Why is this so surprising? Hofstadter, through
malice or ignorance, gives no background for Nabokov's remarks.
Walter Arndt: His "EO" translation did precede Nabokov's, but for
reasons Hofstadter typically omits. N's version was submitted to
Bollingen Press six years previous, but for a variety of reasons he
could not get it published. The "prestigious award" Arndt received was
from Bollingen itself. Anyway, Nabokov was justifiably pissed at
Bollingen and very critical of Arndt, perhaps unjustifiably. But
Hofstadter lacks the authority to weigh in on this affair. He is, in
effect, a literary troll.
Notice too that Arndt provides a complimentary blurb for "LBTM". One
even wonders whether Arndt was behind this whole sordid chapter,
feeding Hofstadter all the derogatory bullshit which Hofstadter then
rendered in his pretentious prose. This is pure speculation, but it
would not surprise me.
"Eugene Onegin": Please, please do read one of the other translations.
(I read 4 others for a comparative lit. class in college, for what
that's worth.) Hof's not only takes great liberties with the original
text, he seems to forget poor Eugene and Tatiana altogether. The NY
Times review of books had this to say: "It is Hofstadter's ignorance
of English, the English of poetry, that dooms his translation. He has
absolutely no ear when it comes to mixing levels of diction (he uses
more ofts, o'ers and 'twere's than Wordsworth and employs the word
''jive'' not once but twice). There's not a single line that sings or
zings. He's caught the rhythm and nothing else, which makes the rhythm
wrong by rendering it too pronounced. Seized by what seems to have
been some sort of acrostic obsession to make all Pushkin's nearly 400
sonnets fit into the proper form, the translator forgets the cardinal
insight he sets forth in his introduction: to wit, that Pushkin's
language is ''graceful, sparkling, yet mostly colloquial.'' The result
is tortured syntax, groan-inducing rhymes and a language unlike that
ever spoken by anyone on earth."
Nabokov's "EO" was a different species entirely, a strictly
"literalist" approach intended in large measure to give Pushkin's
verses some historical anchor. He freely admits that he sacrifices art
for fidelity to the Russian language, and that it leaves something to
be desired as a literary work. But to force an artificial rhyme scheme
in English by definition distorts the original.
No less a personage as Anthony Burgess hailed "EO": "If you want to
read Omar, then, we must learn a little Persian and ask for a good,
very literal, crib. And if we want to read Pushkin we must learn some
Russian and thank God for Nabokov."
It should go without saying that Nabokov, a Russian who was fluent in
French as well as English, had a fund on knowledge (and an academic
bent) that greatly aided in his translation of "EO". Conversely,
Hofstadter actually boasts (following yet another aspersion): "This I
fearlessly assert whle admitting I have never even read one full page
of the Russian!" And yet he presumes to understand "EO" in ways that
elude Nabokov. Balls!
The most appalling, almost evil remark is Hofstadter's reference to
the "implacably Nazistic Nabokov." (page 268.) In fact, Nabokov's
family fled Russia due to the Nazi invasion. Although his fiction was
mostly apolitical, he assailed Hitler and Stalin at every opportunity.
His father, a prominent politician prior to the Bolshevic revolution,
railed against anti-Semitism, and was assassinated at an anti-fascist
lecture in Berlin prior to WWII. Nabokov's own brother died in a Nazi
concentration camp, starved to death on account of his homosexuality.
If Hofstadter knew this as he was writing LTBM, he is a
gutter-dwelling asshole. If not, he should be jailed for journalistic
malpractice. Either way, this is an unconscionable slur.
>> Finally, have you actual read "EO" in any of its translations? Or are
>> you willing to take the word of one who practically boasts of his poor
>> Russian?
>
>Well, I don't speak Russian, and I've only seen the stanzas compared
>with each other in "Marot", plus the first 20% or so of DH's
>translation. From my point of view, whether DRH succeeds or fails as an
>artist of translation has no bearing on the validity of his thesis that
>translation *is* an art.
>
I only object to his specious depiction of Nabokov, not the theory of
translation, about which Nabokov wrote at length. Russian is such a
different language from English, with nuances that defy translation --
hence N's pedantic, tedious "EO" -- it is no surprise that the various
translations vary so widely. Nabokov admitted in his intro, "my method
may be wrong, but it is a method."
>On the bright side, thanks for giving me an excuse to dip into "Marot"
>again.
>
>David
I don't want to spoil the book for you, and I understand your hostile
feelings toward Nabokov if all you have to go on is Hofstadter, but
his characterization of Nabokov is spurious to say the least. The
irony is that Nabokov should have been one of Hof's favorite writers.
Nabokov was using self-referential techniques before H was born. In
one novel (don't recall the name) he concluded with the author himself
as a character.
Once upon a time I thought Hofstadter a bona fide genius. GEB remains
a masterpiece to my mind. But it is with profound regret that I now
find him an arrogant, self-righeous prima donna. His "meta
self-referential recusive" routine was novel 20 years ago, but as they
say, today's innovations are tomorrow's cliches. (Hey, a cliche about
cliches! A metacliche! Hey, I met a cliche! How clever I am!) You can
go the well only so many times before you hit bottom.
This being a Kubrick ng and all, I guess I should point out that
Nabokov was effusive in his praise for Kubrick, even though the
"Lolita" screenplay he worked so hard on was essentially discarded.
Had he been the ogre Hofstadter portrays, Nabokov would have denounced
Kubrick for having castrated his Humbert character - after all, he'd
already encountered the Morality Police in getting "Lolita" published
in the first place - and publicly disowned the film. Yet he was
thoroughly complimentary toward a film that Kubrick himself considered
a failure. Does sound like the same vicious, bile-spewing bastard
Hofstadter portrays?
Sorry for belaboring this issue, but as you can tell it's a sore point
for me. Maybe I'm totally off the wall, but having read and loved
Pushkin and Nabokov (and Kubrick) all my adult life I feel compelled
to defend a man 20 years dead and unable to defend himself. Once
again, I beseech you to read an impartial bio of Nabokov before
judging him. And by all means read some of his other novels (His
"Luzhin Defense" became a movie that came and went earlier this year).
He is an opinionated SOB, but he's not the misanthrope Hofstadter
depicts either. He was a genius at his art in much the same way as
Kubrick was at his: cerebral, transcendent, controversial,
misunderstood, vindicated with the passing of time. Damn good chess
player too.
Don't take my word for it, but for God's sake don't take Hofstadter's
either.
~~Jack
Thornhill
"JW Moore" <jackpeg...@att.net> wrote in message
news:3b25b0f4...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
A very interesting commentary, Jack, and thanks. Sounds to be a real chink
in Hofstadter's armor. An amusing tale from college days was told by a
professor of mine to exhibit the sometimes terrifying power, even magic, of
satire. Wilson came out with his diatribe against Nabokov (now, who between
them had the nickname "Bunny"?) and VN countered with a "Letter to the
Editor" in the NY Times. So fierce was his satiric surgery and denouncement
of Wilson for saying, in essence, than VN's Russian was very bad (VN having
*taught* Russian to EW, as I recall), that it had the effect of sending EW
promptly to the hospital for an extended stay. I wonder what this says for
VN's mastery of the English language, if his Russian, as stated, is so very
weak?
Thornhill
JW Moore
<cthor...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
<snip>
>
>A very interesting commentary, Jack, and thanks. Sounds to be a real chink
>in Hofstadter's armor. An amusing tale from college days was told by a
>professor of mine to exhibit the sometimes terrifying power, even magic, of
>satire. Wilson came out with his diatribe against Nabokov (now, who between
>them had the nickname "Bunny"?) and VN countered with a "Letter to the
>Editor" in the NY Times. So fierce was his satiric surgery and denouncement
>of Wilson for saying, in essence, than VN's Russian was very bad (VN having
>*taught* Russian to EW, as I recall), that it had the effect of sending EW
>promptly to the hospital for an extended stay. I wonder what this says for
>VN's mastery of the English language, if his Russian, as stated, is so very
>weak?
>
>Thornhill
>
>
I wasn't aware of the "Bunny" tag ... so inapt it's hilarious!
Nabokov's letter to the NYT Review was relatively tame, as I recall,
basically pointing out some factual errors in Wilson's review of "EO".
He did skewer Wilson for lecturing him on Russian pronunciation, to
which Wilson satirized Nabokov's pedantry by dissecting a particular
pronunciation crib to "EO". Nabokov considered the Petersburg dialect
of Russian superior to Moscow's. Wilson concluded, "I am rather
surprised to find him [Nabokov] recommending the pronunciation of
Minsk." Even when the arcana and in-jokes go over your head, as they
usually do mine, major-league literary firefights can be pretty
amusing
.
Yes, satire is a fantastic weapon -- and nobody wielded it better than
Nabokov and Wilson. Unfortunately, it seems to becoming a lost art.
The underlying drollery of such exchanges gets lost without at least
>some< context (my basic problem with Hofstadter). Pity also that the
"EO" duel turned personal and ruined a very close, and mutually
beneficial, friendship. They did eventually make up, BTW, but not as
close as before.
I also didn't know about Wilson's hospitalization. Satire claims
another victim!
~~Jack
David Kirkpatrick
I feel like
The "Nazi" remark obviously is not meant literally. My take on it is
that Hofstadter presumes that Nabokov would be as appalled by the tenets
of Nazism as much as himself and might for that reason be impressed by
the analogy between the idealization of "purity" in matters of language
to matters of race. Admittedly, it is a flare of inflammatory language,
but in the context of the argument in question, the metaphor makes
perfect sense, since translators are always having to steer between the
extremes of "purism" and "mongrelism". A translator has the equal
responsibilities of taking words from one language and bringing them to
another, and defending the "bringing them to another" part is what all
the criticisms directed toward Nabokov's approach are all about.
> >> Finally, have you actual read "EO" in any of its translations? Or are
> >> you willing to take the word of one who practically boasts of his poor
> >> Russian?
> >
> >Well, I don't speak Russian, and I've only seen the stanzas compared
> >with each other in "Marot", plus the first 20% or so of DH's
> >translation. From my point of view, whether DRH succeeds or fails as an
> >artist of translation has no bearing on the validity of his thesis that
> >translation *is* an art.
> >
>
> I only object to his specious depiction of Nabokov, not the theory of
> translation, about which Nabokov wrote at length. Russian is such a
> different language from English, with nuances that defy translation --
> hence N's pedantic, tedious "EO" -- it is no surprise that the various
> translations vary so widely. Nabokov admitted in his intro, "my method
> may be wrong, but it is a method."
Which of course would be a wonderful motto for artificial intelligence.
> >On the bright side, thanks for giving me an excuse to dip into "Marot"
> >again.
> >
> >David
>
> I don't want to spoil the book for you, and I understand your hostile
> feelings toward Nabokov if all you have to go on is Hofstadter, but
> his characterization of Nabokov is spurious to say the least. The
> irony is that Nabokov should have been one of Hof's favorite writers.
> Nabokov was using self-referential techniques before H was born. In
> one novel (don't recall the name) he concluded with the author himself
> as a character.
I have little in the way of hostile feelings towards Nabokov: my
original words in this thread were:
"Or in the case of translating Nabokov, how does one live *down* to him?
Hofstadter writes that as a translator of Pushkin's Eugene Onegin, a
novel in verse, Nabokov took a literalist, anti-poetic approach to
translation almost mimicking the artlessness of machine translation,
stridently ridiculing previous translators who dared try to make rhymes
and word-plays in English paralleling Pushkin's charm. In other words,
he was all letter and no spirit. (Incidentally, Hofstadter has written
his own EO translation, but most of his Nabokov criticisms appear in the
earlier tome on translation named "Le Ton beau de Marot".)"
By "living down to him" I simply meant that the philosophy of
translation espoused by Nabokov (maybe "espoused" is the wrong word
based on your comments) would allow the adaptor of Nabokov very little
leeway to add, subtract or modify anything in the original.
> Once upon a time I thought Hofstadter a bona fide genius. GEB remains
> a masterpiece to my mind. But it is with profound regret that I now
> find him an arrogant, self-righeous prima donna. His "meta
> self-referential recusive" routine was novel 20 years ago, but as they
> say, today's innovations are tomorrow's cliches. (Hey, a cliche about
> cliches! A metacliche! Hey, I met a cliche! How clever I am!) You can
> go the well only so many times before you hit bottom.
I respectfully disagree. I consider Le Ton Beau de Marot to be as
important and impressive as GEB. Whether DRH succeeds as well with
Eugene Onegin isn't nearly as important, but in judging his translation,
it is only fair to keep in mind the stylistic constraints that he is
paying attention to - for example, not only the pattern of rhyme, but
the iambic pattern and the alternation of masculine and feminine rhyme -
constraints that exist in the original Russian. While I grant you the
possibility that Hofstadter'' translation errs on the side of
"preciousness and self-indulgence" - but let's not forget that it was
Pushkin himself who chose to write a novel written in rhyming sonnets.
Surely the attitude of the original must be something other than grim
and no-nonsense.
> This being a Kubrick ng and all, I guess I should point out that
> Nabokov was effusive in his praise for Kubrick, even though the
> "Lolita" screenplay he worked so hard on was essentially discarded.
> Had he been the ogre Hofstadter portrays, Nabokov would have denounced
> Kubrick for having castrated his Humbert character - after all, he'd
> already encountered the Morality Police in getting "Lolita" published
> in the first place - and publicly disowned the film. Yet he was
> thoroughly complimentary toward a film that Kubrick himself considered
> a failure. Does sound like the same vicious, bile-spewing bastard
> Hofstadter portrays?
I agree that it's too bad that Hofstadter didn't point out that the
human being Nabokov was beautifully contradictory towards the particular
misguided polemic that Hofstadter had issue with. Similarly Stravinsky
(my favorite 20th century composer) made the outrageous claim that music
could not "express" anything, even though his music itself contradicts
this (and his scores sometimes use the word "expressively").
> Sorry for belaboring this issue, but as you can tell it's a sore point
> for me. Maybe I'm totally off the wall, but having read and loved
> Pushkin and Nabokov (and Kubrick) all my adult life I feel compelled
> to defend a man 20 years dead and unable to defend himself. Once
> again, I beseech you to read an impartial bio of Nabokov before
> judging him. And by all means read some of his other novels (His
> "Luzhin Defense" became a movie that came and went earlier this year).
> He is an opinionated SOB, but he's not the misanthrope Hofstadter
> depicts either. He was a genius at his art in much the same way as
> Kubrick was at his: cerebral, transcendent, controversial,
> misunderstood, vindicated with the passing of time. Damn good chess
> player too.
I never thought of not reading more Nabokov based on anything Hofstadter
said.
> Don't take my word for it, but for God's sake don't take Hofstadter's
> either.
>
> ~~Jack
Guess I better not mention that I liked Hofstadter's arguments against
John Searle too.
David
Thornhill
> I agree that it's too bad that Hofstadter didn't point out that the
> human being Nabokov was beautifully contradictory towards the particular
> misguided polemic that Hofstadter had issue with. Similarly Stravinsky
> (my favorite 20th century composer) made the outrageous claim that music
> could not "express" anything, even though his music itself contradicts
> this (and his scores sometimes use the word "expressively").
A sidebar. Igor's right. Yes, you can play "expressively", but to perceive
this expression is a wholly different thing. The broadest swashing example
here:
SK did work that many call cold and chilly. SS does work that many call
warm and heart-felt, and of course we know that generally, 'Cold' repels,
'Warm' attracts. Yet, paradoxically, and in brief (and my response only,
for what it's worth), it is the SK "cold" that is "warm", and the SS "warm"
that is "cold."
Which of these "expressions" is more accurate here?
In the field of music, most dig on the gilded-lily of vibrato. This doesn't
mean necessarily that the singer's voice is especially good, or that this
music is improved because such a device has been chosen to "express" the
song.
In all the above cases, often the thing "expressed" becomes its own
opposite.
Thornhill
Skutter
>Matthew Ryder wrote:
>> A Clockwork Orange
>> ----------------------
>>
>> The actor who plays Alex's "Post-Corrective Advisor", Mr. Deltoid, always
>> irritates me with his unfunny, overacted performance and his extraordinary
>> overemphatic lilting diction (which can only have been a contrivance of
>> Kubrick's). A blight on an otherwise perfect movie.
>
>I dig it. I thought his partial unfunniness was, in a way, what made him
>even funnier - he's such a strange, out of place caricature that I
>couldn't help but laugh!
I'll just ressurrect my porkership and say that I've just watched
Ralph Bakshi's Lord of the Rings (animated - 1973-ish). The character
of Mr. Deltoid speaks remarkably like the way Gollum speaks in this
version.
"Have you been a niiice hobbit, yes? Gives me my precccciouss, yes?"
--
You've reached Skutter's June 2001 Question of the Month!:
*Is there a name for NG lurkers who post occasionally?
*If not, I recommend the following term for poster/lurkers:
*'Porkers'.
Skutter
>> ----------------
>
>Personally, I think the pool scene is just fine.
Has anyone noticed that the pool balls significantly move between
shots? This can't have been accidental, because it would be easy to
mark the table between shots. Perhaps this is a clue that it is all a
dream, or maybe that Ziegler shouldn't be trusted?
Also, there is a character in Nicole's latest film called Ziddler (or
something). A reference?
Thornhill
"Skutter" <Benton7@***REMOVE-THIS-SPAMBLOCK***xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:rnbhitsjl7q6fn99e...@4ax.com...
> pitch...@aol.com (pitch audio) , your mother ate my dog!
> >"Matthew Ryder" <mry...@iafrica.com> wrote in message
news:<3b180...@news1.mweb.co.za>...
> >
> >>
> >> Eyes Wide Shut
> >> ----------------
> >
> >Personally, I think the pool scene is just fine.
>
> Has anyone noticed that the pool balls significantly move between
> shots? This can't have been accidental, because it would be easy to
> mark the table between shots. Perhaps this is a clue that it is all a
> dream, or maybe that Ziegler shouldn't be trusted?
Good God, man! You've discovered the Immortal Revelation! Tread lightly,
oh Brother. You are On Dangerous Ground when Eyes are Unshut!
First now (and quickly, quickly!!)......make a sketch of the table. Then,
draw a line between the "magic balls" as they traipse lollingly across the
plane. You will discover the code decrypted therein spells out "The Name
Unspeakable". It is, no doubt, Latin....or, maybe Hebrew. Give or take.
"*There* in secret letters Three, thou shalt find it's treasures be."
When you do, get back to me, 'kay?.
Thornhill
Mike Jackson
cthor...@worldnet.att.net 06/14/2001 9:38 AM went on about :
>> Has anyone noticed that the pool balls significantly move between
>> shots? This can't have been accidental, because it would be easy to
>> mark the table between shots. Perhaps this is a clue that it is all a
>> dream, or maybe that Ziegler shouldn't be trusted?
>
> Good God, man! You've discovered the Immortal Revelation! Tread lightly,
> oh Brother. You are On Dangerous Ground when Eyes are Unshut!
>
> First now (and quickly, quickly!!)......make a sketch of the table. Then,
> draw a line between the "magic balls" as they traipse lollingly across the
> plane. You will discover the code decrypted therein spells out "The Name
> Unspeakable". It is, no doubt, Latin....or, maybe Hebrew. Give or take.
>
> "*There* in secret letters Three, thou shalt find it's treasures be."
>
> When you do, get back to me, 'kay?.
>
> Thornhill
Dammit Thornhill!
Why don't you go and tell him about the secret handshake already?!?
Next thing I know you'll be telling him the password for the house!
-----------------
Mike Jackson
Mental Pictures Photography & Graphic Design
http://guide.net/~mental/
(228) 696-2702 Phone/ Fax
(228) 918-4596 Cellular
Thornhill
> Dammit Thornhill!
> Why don't you go and tell him about the secret handshake already?!?
>
> Next thing I know you'll be telling him the password for the house!
Dammit Jackson! I thought I'd help out the fellow. I'm not a
party-crasher, I'm just a poor country locksmith!
Mike Jackson
cthor...@worldnet.att.net 06/14/2001 7:04 PM went on about :
Well, for chrissakes, don't tell him everything! I mean he'll see
everything! He'll see the Big Board!
JW Moore
wrote:
<meta-snip>
>> The most appalling, almost evil remark is Hofstadter's reference to
>> the "implacably Nazistic Nabokov." (page 268.) In fact, Nabokov's
>> family fled Russia due to the Nazi invasion. Although his fiction was
>> mostly apolitical, he assailed Hitler and Stalin at every opportunity.
>> His father, a prominent politician prior to the Bolshevic revolution,
>> railed against anti-Semitism, and was assassinated at an anti-fascist
>> lecture in Berlin prior to WWII. Nabokov's own brother died in a Nazi
>> concentration camp, starved to death on account of his homosexuality.
>> If Hofstadter knew this as he was writing LTBM, he is a
>> gutter-dwelling asshole. If not, he should be jailed for journalistic
>> malpractice. Either way, this is an unconscionable slur.
>
>The "Nazi" remark obviously is not meant literally. My take on it is
>that Hofstadter presumes that Nabokov would be as appalled by the tenets
>of Nazism as much as himself and might for that reason be impressed by
>the analogy between the idealization of "purity" in matters of language
>to matters of race. Admittedly, it is a flare of inflammatory language,
>but in the context of the argument in question, the metaphor makes
>perfect sense, since translators are always having to steer between the
>extremes of "purism" and "mongrelism". A translator has the equal
>responsibilities of taking words from one language and bringing them to
>another, and defending the "bringing them to another" part is what all
>the criticisms directed toward Nabokov's approach are all about.
>
You're defending the indefensible here.
Of course Hofstadter wasn't literally calling Nabokov a Nazi - even
I'm not that obtuse! But hurling this emotionally charged epithet,
with all its connotations, toward anyone >but< a Nazi (or neo- as the
case may be) is not just inflammatory, it is abominable. And the
context of this slur, remember, had nothing to do with any theory of
translation but with NV's criticism of Arndt's version of "EO". The
validity of this criticism is debatable, but Hofstadter doesn't debate
at all, he just slanders with extreme prejudice.
>> >> Finally, have you actual read "EO" in any of its translations? Or are
>> >> you willing to take the word of one who practically boasts of his poor
>> >> Russian?
>> >
>> >Well, I don't speak Russian, and I've only seen the stanzas compared
>> >with each other in "Marot", plus the first 20% or so of DH's
>> >translation. From my point of view, whether DRH succeeds or fails as an
>> >artist of translation has no bearing on the validity of his thesis that
>> >translation *is* an art.
>> >
>>
>> I only object to his specious depiction of Nabokov, not the theory of
>> translation, about which Nabokov wrote at length. Russian is such a
>> different language from English, with nuances that defy translation --
>> hence N's pedantic, tedious "EO" -- it is no surprise that the various
>> translations vary so widely. Nabokov admitted in his intro, "my method
>> may be wrong, but it is a method."
>
>Which of course would be a wonderful motto for artificial intelligence.
>
And what is a computer "code" but a precise "translation" of
instructions? DH would likely agree.
As I've been trying to emphasize, you can't quote Hofstadter as if he
were a reliable source; he is nothing of the sort. Nabokov was both an
accomplished poet and a leading authority on Russian literature.
Hofstadter is neither. VN felt that it wasn't the translator's role to
>interpret< the original, but to give the reader the closest
>approximation< of the author's actual words. Nabokov's desire to
convey the "quiddity" of Pushkin's prose at the very least avoids
historical fauxs pas such as flora and fauna that aren't indigenous
to Russia. Nabokov knew what he was doing, and he knew it wouldn't be
for everybody. He said as much in his introduction, which Hofstadter
perversely turns into a form of self-abasement.
>> Once upon a time I thought Hofstadter a bona fide genius. GEB remains
>> a masterpiece to my mind. But it is with profound regret that I now
>> find him an arrogant, self-righeous prima donna. His "meta
>> self-referential recusive" routine was novel 20 years ago, but as they
>> say, today's innovations are tomorrow's cliches. (Hey, a cliche about
>> cliches! A metacliche! Hey, I met a cliche! How clever I am!) You can
>> go the well only so many times before you hit bottom.
>
>I respectfully disagree. I consider Le Ton Beau de Marot to be as
>important and impressive as GEB.
No book containing so many blatant errors and deliberate distortions
of fact deserves to be called "important and impressive"!!! You aren't
to blame for Hofstadter's mistakes WRT Nabokov's "EO" -- I cringe to
think of his other unwitting victims -- but I implore you not to keep
repeating them.
> Whether DRH succeeds as well with
>Eugene Onegin isn't nearly as important, but in judging his translation,
>it is only fair to keep in mind the stylistic constraints that he is
>paying attention to - for example, not only the pattern of rhyme, but
>the iambic pattern and the alternation of masculine and feminine rhyme -
>constraints that exist in the original Russian. While I grant you the
>possibility that Hofstadter'' translation errs on the side of
>"preciousness and self-indulgence" - but let's not forget that it was
>Pushkin himself who chose to write a novel written in rhyming sonnets.
>Surely the attitude of the original must be something other than grim
>and no-nonsense.
>
I detect a contradiction here: Nabokov is "inflexible" because he pays
such attention to the precise meanings of words, yet Hofstadter and
others are more "artistic" because they impose the additional
constraint of alternate rhyme. The latter is no more virtuous,
necessarily, and in fact risks losing much of the original's true
meaning for the sake of a rhyme that didn't exist in 19th Century
Russian. Keep adding layers of artifice and pretty soon you have a
completely different poem, not a translation at all.
But with Hofstadter it's no problem because he can't understand
original anyway... Maybe he >is< a genius after all!
>> This being a Kubrick ng and all, I guess I should point out that
>> Nabokov was effusive in his praise for Kubrick, even though the
>> "Lolita" screenplay he worked so hard on was essentially discarded.
>> Had he been the ogre Hofstadter portrays, Nabokov would have denounced
>> Kubrick for having castrated his Humbert character - after all, he'd
>> already encountered the Morality Police in getting "Lolita" published
>> in the first place - and publicly disowned the film. Yet he was
>> thoroughly complimentary toward a film that Kubrick himself considered
>> a failure. Does sound like the same vicious, bile-spewing bastard
>> Hofstadter portrays?
>
>I agree that it's too bad that Hofstadter didn't point out that the
>human being Nabokov was beautifully contradictory towards the particular
>misguided polemic that Hofstadter had issue with.
What is so "misguided" about his "polemic" anyway? Once again, DH is
the worst place to look if you're interested in Nabokov, both his life
and his work. You're on the Internet anyway, so just enter "Nabokov"
in your search engine. There, you've already done more research than
Hofstadter!
Ya know, I could literally take any page of this chapter and turn up
at least one demonstrably untrue statement, but this one's a real
keeper. DH cites in glowing prose Arndt's c.v. as "professor of Slavic
Languages and Literatures and the University of North Carolina, and
subsequently a full professor and the department head in Russian at
Dartmouth! Where does Nabokov get off?" Now consider the following:
Nabokov was educated at Cambridge, and taught at such educational
backwaters as Wellesley, Harvard, Stanford and Cornell. While he
wasn't writing books beyond Hofstadter's comprehension, he headed the
lepidoptera department at Harvard's Museum of Comparative Zoology. And
finally, his son Dmitri is a professor at the University of California
at Berkeley. No offense to North Carolina or Dartmouth, but this is a
slam dunk. Here's where he "gets off."
> Similarly Stravinsky
>(my favorite 20th century composer) made the outrageous claim that music
>could not "express" anything, even though his music itself contradicts
>this (and his scores sometimes use the word "expressively").
>
Maybe not so outrageous. As you know, non-literary artists (and at
least one filmmaker I can think of) are notoriously chary in
explaining their own work. Writing is a different matter, in that
there's no cross-medium "translation" needed. Anyway, I love
Stravinsky too, and can't fathom how "Dumbarton Oaks" and "Firebird
Suite" could come from the same brain. No wonder jazz artists
borrowed liberally from him. But I don't want to exhaust my OT
privileges so I'll leave it at that.
>> Sorry for belaboring this issue, but as you can tell it's a sore point
>> for me. Maybe I'm totally off the wall, but having read and loved
>> Pushkin and Nabokov (and Kubrick) all my adult life I feel compelled
>> to defend a man 20 years dead and unable to defend himself. Once
>> again, I beseech you to read an impartial bio of Nabokov before
>> judging him. And by all means read some of his other novels (His
>> "Luzhin Defense" became a movie that came and went earlier this year).
>> He is an opinionated SOB, but he's not the misanthrope Hofstadter
>> depicts either. He was a genius at his art in much the same way as
>> Kubrick was at his: cerebral, transcendent, controversial,
>> misunderstood, vindicated with the passing of time. Damn good chess
>> player too.
>
>I never thought of not reading more Nabokov based on anything Hofstadter
>said.
>
Then do yourself a favor and read >about< him too. You'll soon find
what utter swill Hofstadter's been serving you.
>> Don't take my word for it, but for God's sake don't take Hofstadter's
>> either.
>>
>> ~~Jack
>
>Guess I better not mention that I liked Hofstadter's arguments against
>John Searle too.
>
Hofstadter's other qualifications are not in question here. I doubt
that Nabokov would be so presumptuous as to criticize his views on
computer science.
>David
My thesaurus has been emptied for adjectives describing Hofstadter's
assault against Nabokov's writings and his character, so I'll rest my
case. Just remember this discussion the next time someone writes about
what a weird, mysterious, monomaniacal, reclusive control freak
Stanley Kubrick was. Consider the source. Always, consider the source.
~~Jack