Did Kubrick smoke weed?
Poe2...@aol.com
denounced the merits of LSD as an artistic tool in an interview but
said he was talking specifically about LSD and related drugs, and
because pot was so prominently featured in the argument scene of Eyes
Wide Shut, I wonder if he had much personal experience with the green
herb. Does anyone know anything about this? Thanks
ichorwhip
You seem to be reefering to the '68 Playboy interview where Kubrick
pretty much voiced his distaste for drugs in general. I wouldn't doubt
that he tried marijuana at one time or another, but does it really
matter?
"The pot's making you aggressive."
i
"piop"
Poe2...@aol.com
I see what you're saying, but I think the quote at the bottom if your
post proves that it is important, if someone wants to know everything
pertaining to Kubrick's films and how and why he envisioned them.
goofb...@gmail.com
really about one subject: Narcotics! In particular -- WEED, DUDE!
After all, it's not possible that those entirely too enamored with pot
(or the Holocaust?) are transfering their obsessions to works of art
that might've even been a meaningless mystery to their own creator?
Poe2...@aol.com
and no Kubrick movie has ever had a scene depicting marijuana use. I
guess I'll just go away and pray that one day my senseless post will be
lost deep in the bowels of usenet where no one will read it.
Wait, no. Anyone have any real answers?
Poe2...@aol.com
people who have worked with Francis Ford Coppola, and he smoked a
shitload of weed. I guess I am wondering if that's common amongst
filmmakers, so that is part of the inspiration for my question.
Your Pal Brian
> Perhaps an entire book will be written claiming that K's oeuvre is
> really about one subject: Narcotics! In particular -- WEED, DUDE!
>
No no no. Kubrick films aren't about weed.
Dylan songs are about weed!
Anyhoo, the FAQ knows as much about this as we do:
http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/faq/fullindex.html
See question number 28.
Brian
Wordsmith
Your Pal Brian wrote:
> goofb...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Perhaps an entire book will be written claiming that K's oeuvre is
> > really about one subject: Narcotics! In particular -- WEED, DUDE!
> >
>
> No no no. Kubrick films aren't about weed.
>
> Dylan songs are about weed!
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the bud grows!
W ; )
Winston Castro
wrote:
Businessmen they drink my wine, "come and dig my herb."
Philip S.
brian...@iFreedom.com wrote on 1/27/06 7:57 AM:
The question specifically addresses the topic of hallucinigens, which
Kubrick says he never took, and there is no reason to disbelieve him. It
seems rather unlikely that someone who relied so heavily on his intellect
would have taken any chances on a "bad trip".
As for pot, I don't find it entirely out of the question that he might have
experimented a time or two in his early days, if only because he somewhat
fit the stereotype of a Greenwich Village hipster/beatnik/jazz musician. Pot
certainly would have been in wide use in some of the circles in which he
moved in the early to mid-'50s, and it's not unreasonable to suggest that a
young artist with a voracious intellectual apetite might have been curious
enough to try it.
Then again, we have no proof either way.
Wordsmith
great artist.
W : )
Poe2...@aol.com
No. In order to be classified as a great artist, one must toke... it's
just one of nature's unalterable rules. Therefore, I have to know if
he smoked so that I can know if he was a great artist. :)
ichorwhip
Right, no one of any credibility is likely to step forward and
incriminate themselves with tales of bong hits with SK. Even if
Kubrick was around the stuff, he could have always said that he didn't
inhale. ;-)
It did occur to me that I can't think of a single instance of drug use
in FMJ. That's odd because according to the lore, Vietnam was one big
Thai stick. Michael Herr certainly contributed a few drug vignettes in
"Dispatches" and "Apocalypse Now!" is full of drug use, so it seems
like it was Kubrick's specific call not to show even a joint being
smoked, correct me if I'm wrong.
Was it approach/avoidance on Kubrick's part? I doubt it. I think it's
likely that Kubrick didn't want to cloud the issues he was tackling in
FMJ with a nimbus of pot smoke. "Platoon" was rife with smoke as well
and maybe Kubrick anticipated that. I don't know if he was even aware
of Stone's production, which came out around a year before FMJ, but
Kubrick certainly would not have wanted his Vietnam picture to be
anything but original. It would be interesting to look into all of
this stuff further I suppose, but I still don't see much of a point in
if Kubrick himself ever hit a blunt or not.
"Let's break the law first."
i
"piop"
Philip S.
at icho...@netzero.net wrote on 1/28/06 3:28 PM:
There is one scene, in the barracks just prior to the Tet Offensive, where
the character "Payback" (the one who talks about the thousand-yard stare)
looks as if he might be smoking a joint. Or maybe he's just holding a
cigarette like a joint, I can't tell.
That aside, Kubrick did address the issue in his Rolling Stone interview,
saying that drugs "didn't seem relevant" to the overall experience of
Marines in Vietnam.
Your Pal Brian
> It did occur to me that I can't think of a single instance of drug use
> in FMJ. That's odd because according to the lore, Vietnam was one big
> Thai stick. Michael Herr certainly contributed a few drug vignettes in
> "Dispatches" and "Apocalypse Now!" is full of drug use, so it seems
> like it was Kubrick's specific call not to show even a joint being
> smoked, correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> Was it approach/avoidance on Kubrick's part? I doubt it. I think it's
> likely that Kubrick didn't want to cloud the issues he was tackling in
> FMJ with a nimbus of pot smoke.
The guy from Rolling Stone asked him that very same question, and got that very
same answer:
Q: You seem to have skirted the issue of drugs in Full Metal Jacket.
A: It didn't seem relevant. Undoubtedly, Marines took drugs in Vietnam. But this
drug thing, it seems to suggest that all marines were out of control, when in fact
they weren't. It's a little thing, but check out the pictures taken during the
battle of Hue: you see marines in fully fastened flak jackets. Well, people hated
wearing them. They were heavy and hot, and sometimes people wore them but didn't
fasten them. Disciplined troops wore them, and they wore them fastened.
http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0077.html
Brian
ichorwhip
Yeah, thanks for the refresher. I read this back when it was new and
forgot all about it, or did I? I'll play off my memory lapse saying
that it was caused by second-hand smoke. :)
i
"piop"
ichorwhip
surreal considering the recent thread that petered out in an
unfortunate display of indignation, or something....:
Anyway, what does this bring to mind?:
"The difficult and exacting director returned from the bathroom looking
a little perplexed.
"I think you're right," he said. "I think this is a place where people
stay. I looked around a little, opened a door, and there was this guy
sitting on the edge of a bed"
"Who was he?" I asked.
"I don't know," he replied.
"What did he say?"
"Nothing. He just looked at me, and I left." There was a long silence
while we pondered the inevitable ambiguity of reality, specifically in
relation to some guy sitting on a bed across the hall. Then Stanley
Kubrick began the interview:"
<cue theremin>
i
"piop"
Matthew Dickinson
I think that part you just quoted was one of the little things that
hooked me on Kubrick many years ago. Of course, it was written to add
to his mystique, and I fell for it foursquare.
ichorwhip
Right, and how odd that such a thing should happen right on "the heels"
of the movie before FMJ where a similar scene played out (although the
latest "incarnation" was sans bear.) Coincidences.... Kubrick loved
them.
"Boy, we must be really high up. The air feels so different."
i
"piop"
Sandoz
"ichorwhip" <icho...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:1138506635....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
I remember this from the interview and at the time I think I laughed out
loud while reading it. It struck me later as eerily appropriate that an
interview with Kubrick should start out with him on an odyssey to find a
bathroom that included a weird encounter when nearly all his films have
either a scene or a shot in the potty-room...
The interviewer must have been at least sub-consciously aware of what a
great opening this made for his piece and how it tied into Kubrick's body of
work (I think K's fondness for using bathrooms as a set had been mentioned
in one of the Kubrick books published before FMJ--I'm not entirely sure).
For any non-US readers, please substitute "toilet" for any occurrence of the
word "bathroom" above. Just trying to be helpful.
Sandoz