Rafael's Kubrick Tribute
Rod Munday
programme.by Frederic Rafael, novelist, screenwriter and one of the
collaborators with Kubrick on the script for “Eyes Wide Shut.”
Regards Rod Munday
---------------------
That Stanley Kubrick was the most remarkable film-maker of his
generation should not need saying. He was an innovator for whom
conventional formulae and habits were never appealing. He liked to
succeed but success was never enough to justify bad work; nor was good
work rendered less worthwhile by lack of applause. He knew failure -
and humiliation - as well as success; he had often been frustrated by
the system which, by his guile and brilliance, he seemed - in the end,
at least - to have transcended.
The master of many genres, he was the slave of none. Repetition was not
Kubrick’s style; his integrity was expressed in the variety of his
work. He liked the unknown; the problems he wanted to solve were those
beyond the common reach. He was fascinated by new techniques (in “The
Shining” he was the first to use, and modify, Steady-Cam) but only in
order that new methods should serve his new ideas. “2001: A Space
Odyssey” was made without the special effects which has made it so easy
to procure astonishment, but it remains more astonishing than what
followed.
His work was exquisitely finished, but it defied standard narrative
principles. The mysterious plot of “2001”... was never fully resolved;
the Odysseus who went to Clavius, and beyond, was less its hero than man
himself, the cunning, shameless, restless, ingenious venturer and
voyager of whom Homer’s Odysseus was the founding instance and Stanley
himself - as restless a man as ever loved to stay at home - was the
cinematic inheritor.
Vladimir Nabakov one said to me, “Mr Kubrick is an artist”. It was not a
title which Nabakov threw about recklessly. His respect for Stanley
came of the experience of working with him on “Lolita”, which was not, I
suspect, an unalloyed pleasure to Nabakov: many of the elements which
gave the novel its scandalous charm were beyond even Kubrick’s shocking
ability to reproduce.
I have no doubt that Stanley would have preferred to dispense with his
collaborators. Although he liked the game of intellectual chess, his
writers were also his opponents; without them, there was no game, but
they still had to be put in their (second) place. Writers were there to
supply what he wanted, and could not do himself. He sometimes said to
me, ruefully but almost angrily, “I’m not a writer”. like so many
directors, he resented his dependence on a screenplay; unlike nearly
all of them he had great respect for books. He tended to choose writers
who had earned their reputations outside the cinema: Calder Willingham,
Terry Southern, Michael Herr, Arthur C Clarke, Brian Aldiss and others
who had interests, and abilities, which gave them the capacity not to be
subservient to the industry or even to him.
For all his alleged vanities, Stanley’s least likely and most touching
quality was his modesty. His friend and great admirer Stanley Donen is
the only director with whom I have worked who constantly drew one’s
attention to the merits of other film-makers. During the two years when
we were working together, Kubrick would constantly ask if I had seen
this or that movie and whether - for instance in the case of Tarantino -
there weren’t things that we had to take in to account there.
Before I began the first draft of the screenplay of “Eyes Wide Shut,” he
sent me Kieslowski’s “Dekalog.” For a man who was always alleged to be a
stickler for formal qualities and for technical perfection Kieslowski
might seem an unlikely target for admiration. Kubrick wondered at the
often almost unendurable harshness of The Dekalog, the heroic refusal of
the director to see the world through any but an unblinking (and
certainly unwinking) eye. In the light of his famous reluctance to work
quickly, it may seem surprising that he greatly admired Kieslowski’s
speed of shooting and creative fertility. “Can you imagine,” he said,
“he did all that work in one year?” I pointed out that The Dekalog was
done for TV and offered to write him ten screenplays/stories. My
condition was that I should write them for nothing, so that I would not
be inhibited by an obligation to please. He thought about it and then
he said, “We’ll do this one first OK?”
Over four years later he had only just finished “Eyes Wide Shut.” A few
days later, after showing it to the stars and to the studio which had
remained obstinately faithful to his genius, he died in his sleep.
Death must have been cunning to catch him that night: he was usually
awake in the small hours.
I first saw a Kubrick movie in the King’s Road in Chelsea, in 1958. I
walked in off the street to see a double bill of “The Killing” and
“Paths of Glory.” My work experience of movies was limited to a
degrading, if providential, stint at Pinewood (my salary enabled me to
write novels), I was stunned by the wit and pitilessness of Kubrick’s
direction. Even now, it’s hard to realise that “Paths of Glory” is
scarcely more than 90 minutes long. Yet it says everything, and more,
than today’s most grandiose war movies manage to convey in double the
time. “Paths of Glory” was taken from a stage play, and re-written for
Kirk Douglas, who, if we are to believed certain sources, may have been
brave in insisting on the uncompromising ending which so traumatised
audiences that the film was a success without being a hit. Stanley fell
out with Kirk, as he did with so many who tried to dominate him, but he
still spoke of him, and his legendary charm with gruff affection.
Kubrick’s lack of sentimentality (you will find desire in his movies,
but never love) was not evidence of a lack of feeling. He may have
feared displays of sentiment because they could corrode and falsify his
vision Unlike the films of most directors, even good ones, his work has
an alarming durability. Its agelessness depends upon imperishable
qualities, both in the conception and, more importantly, the elaboration
of the images. His composition deserves and demands renewed attention;
even on a second and third viewing you seem to see new things in the
frame. His experience of still photography enabled him as “Barry
Lyndon” proved, to make movies approximate to immobility. No one was
ever less hurried a master of relentless progression. His movies moved
like Zeno’s arrow, apparently in an unstoppable arc and yet little by
little.
With Kubrick, even the sound seemed part of what you see. It is
sometimes said that he was without humour, this is true neither of the
man himself nor, I think, of his work. “Dr Strangelove” is so funny it
hurts; it goes on hurting, which is why it goes on being funny. Stanley
told me he had intended to make a serious movie out of the novel Red
Alert, but the more he worked on it, the more appealingly absurd it
became, because the whole business of nuclear deterrence appeared. The
horrible farce of a man’s desire for security, and the self destruction
which it implies, runs through his work like a cruel streak.
It is not the task of an artist to be agreeable or accessible whether to
the inquisitive or to parasites. Kubrick must be judged for the quality
of what he did. Too much greatness is clamed for too many people in a
business where publicity is too often as good as achievement. Kubrick
was like a great games player, whose eye was always, always on the
ball. He liked tennis, but his game of games was chess, his eye was on
the board, where the pieces were, where the pieces might be. He looked
for the brilliant solution and for the move that was beyond the merely
talented.
Might he not have made more films, more quickly? Of course. Might he
have made better films? No doubt someone might, but I do not think that
Stanley Kubrick can be accused of not doing his best; rank him as you
will, he did the best he could do, and no-one will easily do anything
better. “Talk to you tomorrow,” he used to say. I wish.
Kilgore45
:) :) :)
(nothing left to do but smile, smile, smile
-----------------------------------------------------------------
my Harmony Korine home page at:
http://members.tripod.com/gummo_guys/index.htm
if you wanna come to me, and mail me, remove the etome
M4RV1N
<contributes Raphael's tribute>
Thanks very much, Rod. I was wondering when Raphael would speak about EWS and
Kubrick. I understand he will have a book out soon about his work with
Kubrick.
A few reactions to this fascinating commentary:
> He knew failure -
>and humiliation - as well as success; he had often been frustrated by
>the system
One wonders if this references talk of more than just "Spartacus." Perhaps his
inability in the late '60s to get funding for "Napoleon."
>“2001: A Space
>Odyssey” was made without the special effects which has made it so easy
>to procure astonishment, but it remains more astonishing than what
>followed.
I assume thie means "with the special effects"...
The >great< early review in The Harvard Crimson predicted exactly this, I
believe. Now that astounding CGI effects are everywhere, "2001" stands even
farther above the rest.
>I have no doubt that Stanley would have preferred to dispense with his
>collaborators.
I understand why Raphael says this, but I don't think it's true about Clarke.
>like so many
>directors, he resented his dependence on a screenplay; unlike nearly
>all of them he had great respect for books.
That partly sums up what's wrong with cinema today.
>For all his alleged vanities, Stanley’s least likely and most touching
>quality was his modesty. His friend and great admirer Stanley Donen is
>the only director with whom I have worked who constantly drew one’s
>attention to the merits of other film-makers.
This reminds me of a recent thread. Donen was honored and pleased when Kubrick
asked if he could use "Singing in the Rain." Donen was a wonderful director in
his day.
>Kubrick would constantly ask if I had seen
>this or that movie and whether - for instance in the case of Tarantino -
>there weren’t things that we had to take in to account there.
Meaning "The Killing's" nonlinear storytelling of course came first, of course.
But then so did "Rashomon." ;)
>screenplay of “Eyes Wide Shut,” he
>sent me Kieslowski’s “Dekalog.” For a man who was always alleged to be a
>stickler for formal qualities and for technical perfection Kieslowski
>might seem an unlikely target for admiration.
Yes, but Kubrick always could recognize all kinds of qualities, and the insight
into human nature is, well, Kubrickean.
>Even now, it’s hard to realise that “Paths of Glory” is
>scarcely more than 90 minutes long. Yet it says everything, and more,
>than today’s most grandiose war movies manage to convey in double the
>time.
Take that, Spielberg! Maybe he meant Malick as well...(?)...
>Kubrick’s lack of sentimentality (you will find desire in his movies,
>but never love)
I disagree with this, but it may well be a comment focussed on EWS.
>His composition deserves and demands renewed attention;
>even on a second and third viewing you seem to see new things in the
>frame.
Raphael is one >very< perceptive fellow, as I guess we should have assumed, to
have been chosen to work on one of Kubrick's most cherished projects.
> “Dr Strangelove” is so funny it
>hurts; it goes on hurting, which is why it goes on being funny.
As the current Military/Political idiocy hurts and amuses at once. Nothing has
changed.
>Too much greatness is clamed for too many people in a
>business where publicity is too often as good as achievement.
Take that George Lucas. And so many others.
>He looked
>for the brilliant solution and for the move that was beyond the merely
>talented.
Reminds me of a Kubrick chess-is-like-directing quote:
"You look at the board and your heart leaps. But what chess teaches you is
that you must sit there calmly and think about whether it's really a good move,
and whether there are other, better moves."
Kubrick always found the better move.
>rank him as you
>will, he did the best he could do, and no-one will easily do anything
>better.
Who else will even do the best that >they< could do? I wonder.
>“Talk to you tomorrow,” he used to say. I wish.
That is sad. It's going to be hard to enjoy (although not hard to appeciate)
this film.
Mark Ervin
LEJACKAL
Rod, thanks for posting this.
p.s. I didn't get the remark about Tarantino. What did it mean? -- Alex
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Flap Teddy
in film and concerned with prevailing trends. Far from a reference to "The
Killing" (an overworked copycat theory if ever there was one), Raphael meant
that Kubrick had seen the remarkable effect of his work on the film world
and was wondering out loud whether the Tarantino-style may actually serve
his work. I guess only time, and EWS will tell.....
LEJACKAL wrote in message <19990506120754...@ng-fu1.aol.com>...
Rod Munday
> >“2001: A Space
> >Odyssey” was made without the special effects which has made it so easy
> >to procure astonishment, but it remains more astonishing than what
> >followed.
>
> I assume thie means "with the special effects"...
No, unusually for Rafael, it's not the most elegant sentence
construction (and not a typo on my part btw). Rafael was talking about
CGI in this sentence. If you qualify "special effects" with the
adjective computer-generated, it makes a lot more sense. As you go on to
say...
> The >great< early review in The Harvard Crimson predicted exactly this, I
> believe. Now that astounding CGI effects are everywhere, "2001" stands even
> farther above the rest.
Incidentally I think Rafael is being a little unfair to today's effects
technicians. Procuring astonishment is not just a case of simply
running a computer program. This is quite a lazy misconception in fact.
> >For all his alleged vanities, Stanley’s least likely and most touching
> >quality was his modesty. His friend and great admirer Stanley Donen is
> >the only director with whom I have worked who constantly drew one’s
> >attention to the merits of other film-makers.
Speaking of alleged vanities, it has become very apparent to me that
Kubrick was responsible for seeding a lot of the so-called myths about
himself. In the 2001 program (http://www.alta.demon.co.uk/2001) that I
adapted, and that I assume was sanctioned if not written by Kubrick, the
text sketches a portrait of a very eccentric individual indeed: He's
very fond of tables and charts - he refuses to fly although a qualified
pilot...etc. He may have regretted it later, but in 1968 Kubrick seemed
intent on creating, shall we say, an aura around himself.
> This reminds me of a recent thread. Donen was honored and pleased when Kubrick
> asked if he could use "Singing in the Rain." Donen was a wonderful director in
> his day.
>
> >Kubrick would constantly ask if I had seen
> >this or that movie and whether - for instance in the case of Tarantino -
> >there weren’t things that we had to take in to account there.
I think this echoes a point Michael Brook often and I think rightly
makes in this forum: that Kubrick was very aware of the commercial
aspects to making a film, and consciously tried to incorporate them into
his art. However, I think it's implicit in Rafael's quote that Kubrick
wasn't exactly a fan of Tarantino(?) Although he obviously thought his
work - or more likely the impact it had on critics and audiences alike -
worthy of his serious attention. On the other hand, maybe I'm just
articulating my own prejudices here:)
> Meaning "The Killing's" nonlinear storytelling of course came first, of course.
> But then so did "Rashomon." ;)
And Dickens of course - albeit in another medium:)
> >screenplay of “Eyes Wide Shut,” he
> >sent me Kieslowski’s “Dekalog.” For a man who was always alleged to be a
> >stickler for formal qualities and for technical perfection Kieslowski
> >might seem an unlikely target for admiration.
>
> Yes, but Kubrick always could recognize all kinds of qualities, and the insight
> into human nature is, well, Kubrickean.
The length of time an artist takes over a work of art is immaterial. I
would be hard pressed to judge which is the better art work if presented
with "The Fairy Fellows Masterstroke" by Richard Dadd (9 years and never
finished) or a sketch by Picasso which took him a minute or so. What is
so interesting about the Dekalog I think is how perfect the films are in
their restraint. They seem like sketches, but they are the sketches of
a undoubted master of cinema.
> >Kubrick’s lack of sentimentality (you will find desire in his movies,
> >but never love)
>
> I disagree with this, but it may well be a comment focussed on EWS.
To refute Rafael, I would offer Barry's Love for his son Brian in Barry
Lyndon. But he may have a point when it comes to examples of the love
between man and women in Kubrick's work, however I believe Tolstoy
provided that best answer to that accusation when he said: "All happy
families are alike, but an unhappy family is unhappy in its own way."
> >He looked
> >for the brilliant solution and for the move that was beyond the merely
> >talented.
>
> Reminds me of a Kubrick chess-is-like-directing quote:
>
> "You look at the board and your heart leaps. But what chess teaches you is
> that you must sit there calmly and think about whether it's really a good move,
> and whether there are other, better moves."
>
> Kubrick always found the better move.
That’s a great quote, it pretty much sums up why Kubrick’s movies are
special. I think all art is more or less fuelled by unconscious hunches
and serendipitous opportunities: but great art is about bringing these
things into some sort of conscious scheme or focus. Art which moves us
represents the elucidation of un-articulated feeling; the mirroring of
ourselves and our human condition in fact. This to my mind is Kubrick's
jumping off point, there is a restless inquisitiveness in all his films,
revelations which lead into yet more questions. Kubrick's output is,
perhaps uniquely, challenging and enlightening in this respect and like
a great painting, yields a little more of its secrets on each subsequent
viewing.
>
> >rank him as you
> >will, he did the best he could do, and no-one will easily do anything
> >better.
>
> Who else will even do the best that >they< could do? I wonder.
>
> >“Talk to you tomorrow,” he used to say. I wish.
>
> That is sad. It's going to be hard to enjoy (although not hard to appeciate)
> this film.
>
> Mark Ervin
Although - and I mean this with the greatest of respect by the way -
sentimentality about the circumstances of the films release, is not I
think one of the subtexts that should be seriously considered in a
critique of EWS.
Regards Rod Munday.
Edward Champion
rambled incoherently:
>It meant (didn't it?) that Kubrick was actively aware of what was happening
>in film and concerned with prevailing trends. Far from a reference to "The
>Killing" (an overworked copycat theory if ever there was one), Raphael meant
>that Kubrick had seen the remarkable effect of his work on the film world
>and was wondering out loud whether the Tarantino-style may actually serve
>his work. I guess only time, and EWS will tell.....
>
You think so? I don't think you'll see a scene in EYES WIDE SHUT of
Cruise and Kidman talking about burgers in France or foot massages.
Incidentally, it's interesting that Raphael left out Jim Thompson in
his list of writers.
M4RV1N
><37330B...@alta.demon.co.uk>
writes:
>I think Rafael is being a little unfair to today's effects
>technicians. Procuring astonishment is not just a case of simply
>running a computer program. This is quite a lazy misconception in fact.
Yes, but there is a distinction that can be drawn in terms of ease of achieving
the same effect, even if the required creativity is the same. Many of the
effects that required months of construction and shooting frame by frame could
now be done entirely at a CGI workstation in a few weeks. So while the
creative effort deserves the same respect, the difficulty of the task is
different.
>> >Kubrick would constantly ask if I had seen
>> >this or that movie and whether - for instance in the case of Tarantino -
>> >there weren’t things that we had to take in to account there.
>
>I think this echoes a point Michael Brook often and I think rightly
>makes in this forum: that Kubrick was very aware of the commercial
>aspects to making a film, and consciously tried to incorporate them into
>his art.
Oh, there's no doubt. The post-premiere cuts to "2001" were an effort to
improve the pace so that the film would appeal to a wider audience, and now we
have EWS in which it appears he intended all along to have an 'R' rating and
thus reach a wider audience. (Tip of the hat to Bilge, BTW, who predicted this
a year and half ago when people like me were thinking NC-17).
But Kubrick made these concessions only within the boundaries of his artistic
sensibilities. "Barry Lyndon" clearly has absolutely nothing to offer for the
popcorn crowd. The cuts to "2001" and the few seconds of cuts to "A Clockwork
Orange" to take it from 'X' to 'R' had no effect on those films' content.
>I think it's implicit in Rafael's quote that Kubrick
>wasn't exactly a fan of Tarantino(?)
I think he would have a felt a sort of amused pride about his influence, but I
too would assume there was little else to impress him.
>The length of time an artist takes over a work of art is immaterial. I
>would be hard pressed to judge which is the better art work if presented
>with "The Fairy Fellows Masterstroke" by Richard Dadd (9 years and never
>finished) or a sketch by Picasso which took him a minute or so.
This is a very interesing topic. I personally would suggest that the time
spent by an artist on a given work, while it may have no bearing on the
reaction of the audience (as in the example you cite above), certainly has
relevance to the complexity of content possible in the work. As I've argued in
the past, I think there's a profound, if unquantifiable relationship between
complexity and quality in Art. Sometimes the very nature of the complexity is
to seem simple, as in the sculptures of Henry Moore.
>What is
>so interesting about the Dekalog I think is how perfect the films are in
>their restraint. They seem like sketches, but they are the sketches of
>a undoubted master of cinema.
This restraint provokes one, as in SK's films, to try to think the thoughts of
the characters and in that way understand their behavior. We are spared the
drenching in emotionalism that limits so many film characters. It's not
surprising that Malick and Egoyan are also so gifted at this restraint.
>> "You look at the board and your heart leaps. But what chess teaches you is
>> that you must sit there calmly and think about whether it's really a good
>move,
>> and whether there are other, better moves."
>>
>> Kubrick always found the better>move.
>That’s a great quote, it pretty much sums up why Kubrick’s movies are
>special. I think all art is more or less fuelled by unconscious hunches
>and serendipitous opportunities: but great art is about bringing these
>things into some sort of conscious scheme or focus. Art which moves us
>represents the elucidation of
>un-articulated feeling; the mirroring of
>ourselves and our human condition in fact. This to my mind is Kubrick's
>jumping off point, there is a restless inquisitiveness in all his films,
>revelations which lead into yet more questions.
This is something that one can never be mentioned too often. There are so many
pivotal scenes in Kubrick films in which we're given a question and >not< an
answer. Think of the sudden surprise of Bowman asking about "the crew
psychology report" when discussing the point of the mission with HAL. Just
when we think we're going to get answers, an entirely new question is
introduced which redirects everything we are thinking. There are dozens of
other examples of this.
>Kubrick's output is,
>perhaps uniquely, challenging and enlightening in this respect and like
>a great painting, yields a little more of its secrets on each subsequent
>viewing.
This is another essential characteristic of important Art.
>> >“Talk to you tomorrow,” he used to say. I wish.
>>
>> That is sad. It's going to be hard to enjoy (although not hard to
>appeciate)
>> this film.
>Although - and I mean this with the greatest of respect by the way -
>sentimentality about the circumstances of the films release, is not I
>think one of the subtexts that should be seriously considered in a
>critique of EWS.
No. What I meant was a bit unclear. I going to find it difficut to enjoy this
film as I would if Kubrick were alive. He clearly had great enthusiasm about
how the public would react and it's just endlessly sad that he was denied a few
more months of life to see (and over-see) it. But that sadness I'll feel won't
interfere with the ability to appreciate, in the sense of trying to understand,
what the film is about.
As far as sentiment about his death, I'm sure there will be about as many who
falsely praise it for that reason as there are who try to be extra-critical to
show just how unsentimental they can be. As far as reactions, the one thing
I'm certain of is that anyone claiming they understand it early on is probably
wrong. I'd also bet we'll see every conceivable reaction in the media.
Mark Ervin
word...@rocketmail.com
Concur. The "palimpsest" effect--that of having layers and layers
of meaning that reveal themselves only after many viewings--is critical
to great art. I write short tales and try to pack the maximum in
various meanings (polysemy) into the story using the smallest number of
words. Kubrick was big on the economy of statement idea, and it shows.
Wordsmith :)
> >> >“Talk to you tomorrow,” he used to say. I wish.
> >>
> >> That is sad. It's going to be hard to enjoy (although not hard to
> >appeciate)
> >> this film.
>
> >Although - and I mean this with the greatest of respect by the way -
> >sentimentality about the circumstances of the films release, is not I
> >think one of the subtexts that should be seriously considered in a
> >critique of EWS.
>
> No. What I meant was a bit unclear. I going to find it difficut to enjoy
this
> film as I would if Kubrick were alive. He clearly had great enthusiasm about
> how the public would react and it's just endlessly sad that he was denied a
few
> more months of life to see (and over-see) it. But that sadness I'll feel
won't
> interfere with the ability to appreciate, in the sense of trying to
understand,
> what the film is about.
>
> As far as sentiment about his death, I'm sure there will be about as many who
> falsely praise it for that reason as there are who try to be extra-critical to
> show just how unsentimental they can be. As far as reactions, the one thing
> I'm certain of is that anyone claiming they understand it early on is probably
> wrong. I'd also bet we'll see every conceivable reaction in the media.
>
> Mark Ervin
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
LEJACKAL
>in film and concerned with prevailing trends. Far from a reference to "The
>Killing" (an overworked copycat theory if ever there was one), Raphael meant
>that Kubrick had seen the remarkable effect of his work on the film world
>and was wondering out loud whether the Tarantino-style may actually serve
>his work. I guess only time, and EWS will tell.....
I agree that Kubrick recognized how his own influence had shaped Tarantino,
but the quote is clearly a 'knock'. It took me a while to work that out, but I
think it's a negative statement. Kubrick hated the Hollywood show-offs, and
Tarantino is clearly one of those. - Alex
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~