After Death, My Sweet: From an Idea by Kubrick, a New Film May Be Born

5 visualizzazioni
Passa al primo messaggio da leggere

Boaz

da leggere,
31 ott 2006, 11:44:3031/10/06
a
Just saw this in today's New York Times.

Boaz
("Our source was the New York Times.")
--------------------------------------------------------------

October 31, 2006

After Death, My Sweet: From an Idea by Kubrick, a New Film May Be Born

By CHARLES McGRATH

Stanley Kubrick never threw anything away. On the other hand, he
didn't have much of a filing system, and when he moved -
permanently, it turned out - from Hollywood to London in 1962, a
great many things went astray. Among them was the sole copy of a film
treatment called "Lunatic at Large," which Mr. Kubrick had
commissioned in the late '50s from the noir pulp novelist Jim
Thompson, with whom he had worked on "The Killing," a 1956
bank-heist story that became his first successful feature, and then on
1957's "Paths of Glory."

The manuscript remained lost until after Mr. Kubrick's death, in
1999, when his son-in-law, Philip Hobbs, working with an archivist,
turned it up, along with a couple of other scripts, and set about
trying to make it into a movie.

There were a couple of false starts. Mr. Hobbs originally approached
the French company Pathé - partly because the French hold Jim
Thompson in the same esteem as Edgar Allan Poe and Mickey Rourke -
and after that arrangement fell through, he formed a partnership with
Edward R. Pressman, a New York-based producer, and the London producers
Finch & Partners. Mr. Pressman, who is expected to announce the
completion of the deal today, said the film would be directed by Chris
Palmer, from a finished script by Stephen R. Clarke.

"When Stanley died, he left behind lots of paperwork," Mr. Hobbs
said in a telephone interview. "We ended up going through trunks of
it, and one day we came across 'Lunatic at Large.' I knew what it
was right away, because I remember Stanley talking about 'Lunatic.'
He was always saying he wished he knew where it was, because it was
such a great idea."

Speaking from her home in Britain, Mr. Kubrick's widow, Christiane,
said: "My husband always had a drawerful of ideas. There were always
a lot of stories on the go, things he started, things he left lying
around. It was like being in a waterfall. I remember he was very
excited at the time about 'Lunatic at Large,' but then other things
happened." First, she explained, Mr. Kubrick was forced off
"One-Eyed Jacks," with Marlon Brando, and then he was hired to
replace Anthony Mann on "Spartacus."

" 'Spartacus' changed his life," she said. "And after that
his imagination was held by 'Lolita,' which gave him the
opportunity to film in England, where making movies cost so much
less."

The loss of his manuscript was a bitter disappointment to Mr. Thompson,
who had a long and mostly hard-luck relationship with Hollywood. Like a
lot of writers who seek their fortune there, he eventually drank too
much and became his own worst enemy. He died in 1977, much too soon for
the revival of interest that made him a cult writer in the '90s, when
four of his novels were made into films: "The Grifters," "The
Getaway," "Hit Me" and "After Dark, My Sweet."

Despite its title, "Lunatic at Large" is not a horror story. It's
a dark and surprising mystery of sorts, in which the greatest puzzle is
who, among several plausible candidates, is the true escapee from a
nearby mental hospital. Mr. Clarke, the screenwriter, said that the
recovered treatment (a prose narrative dramatizing an idea by Mr.
Kubrick) was a "gem" but also "pretty basic," and that he
expanded it a bit, adding a new subplot, among other things, to make
the solution less obvious. Mr. Clarke's experience consists mostly of
writing for British television, so he prepared for his new task by
rereading Mr. Thompson and studying old Bogart films.

His finished screenplay has the feel of authentic Thompsonian
pulpiness. Set in New York in 1956, it tells the story of Johnnie
Sheppard, an ex-carnival worker with serious anger-management issues,
and Joyce, a nervous, attractive barfly he picks up in a Hopperesque
tavern scene. There's a newsboy who flashes a portentous headline, a
car chase over a railroad crossing with a train bearing down, and a
romantic interlude in a spooky, deserted mountain lodge.

The great set piece is a nighttime carnival sequence in which Joyce,
lost and afraid, wanders among the tents and encounters a sideshow's
worth of familiar carnie types: the Alligator Man, the Mule-Faced
Woman, the Midget Monkey Girl, the Human Blockhead, with the inevitable
noggin full of nails.

Back when Mr. Kubrick and Mr. Thompson were working on it, this was
probably cutting-edge stuff, and you can imagine that Mr. Kubrick might
even have been tempted to film "Lunatic at Large" in noirish black
and white. Today it feels like a period piece, but the filmmaking team
has resisted the temptation to update it. "That's the beauty of it
- that it is such a period piece," Mr. Clarke said.

Mr. Pressman agreed. "You just couldn't make it any other way,"
he said. "It wouldn't work."

"Post-Tarantino," he added, "this kind of film has become new in
a way. Things go in cycles."

The director hired for "Lunatic at Large," Mr. Palmer, is in
roughly the position Ridley Scott was in before "The Duellists."
He's an acclaimed London director of commercials, that is, who has
never made a feature film.

But Mr. Hobbs is untroubled. "You have to remember that before he got
his big chance, Stanley had only made one or two films," he said.
"And you can't go to just anyone with a Kubrick idea; it does have
a bit of provenance. A lot of people would be frightened to take it
on."

porti...@yahoo.com

da leggere,
31 ott 2006, 14:30:3931/10/06
a
Boaz wrote:
> Just saw this in today's New York Times.

Very interesting, Boaz. Thanks for posting this. Kubrick's 2nd wife had
a draft script in 1956 of Stefan Zweig's "The Burning Secret." Like
Schnitzler's "Traumnovelle" Kubrick wanted to film this one for years -
I think it was an either/or decision b/c Zweig's short story deals with
infidelity too.

Sourcing my own research it can be surmised that Kubrick read Zweig's
"The Royal Game." (From http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/szweig.htm). The
theme of mental illnesses is also illustrated here. Interesting that
Nabokov wrote a short story about chess which seems to sum up Kubrick's
visions very nicely ~ Genevieve

"[This story] used two games of chess to illustrate the psychology of
Nazism. Mirko Czentovic, a semiliterate son of a Danube boatman,
"incapable of writing any sentence in any language without making
spelling mistakes", travels on a ship from Europe to South America.
However, he is the world chess champion. He wins the first game, but
the second against Dr. B., a Viennese lawyer and refuge, occupies the
central part of the story. Dr. B. has started to play chess with
himself in solitary confinement, when he was arrested by Gestapo.
During his game against Czentovic he breaks down. "But are we not
already guilty of an insulting limitation in calling chess a game?
Isn't it also a science, and art, hovering between these two categories
like Muhammad's coffin hovered between heaven and earth?" As in
Vladimir Nabokov's novel The Defense (1930), chess becomes an allegory
of alienation, in which people, estranged from life, move like
characters on a giant chessboard."

Gen's disclaimer on quote: In no way do I mean to insult the prophet
Muhammad or Islam!

porti...@yahoo.com

da leggere,
31 ott 2006, 17:27:4031/10/06
a
P.S. Me [Genevieve] again. I am a little confused by Hobb's project.
When was the Thompson script completed? Late 1950s?
In late 1957 Kubrick with producer James Harris were planning to film
"I Stole $16,000,000." Kirk Douglas was supposed to star in this
"autobiographical book by a safe cracker, who operated in California in
the 1920s and served 12 years in San Quentin Prison...[This film] has
beem scheduled for filming by Bryna Productions. The independent
company is owned by Kirk Douglas. The book, published last year, was
written by Herbert Emerson Wilson, in collaboration with Thomas P.
Kelley, a writer. The film will be made by James B. Harris, producer,
and his director partner, Stanley Kubrick...'"I Stole $16,000,000" is
expected to go before the camera in the spring, but it is not known
whether Mr. Douglas will act in it..."

Quotes/Source: The New York Times, October 28, 1957

So, as usual, Kubrick was considering a number of scripts including a
Civil War epic?

Boaz

da leggere,
31 ott 2006, 20:18:1731/10/06
a
porti...@yahoo.com wrote:
> P.S. Me [Genevieve] again. I am a little confused by Hobb's project.
> When was the Thompson script completed? Late 1950s?

It was only a treatment, and it was in the late '50s, probably either
after "The Killing" or "Paths of Glory." The article didn't go into
those specifics, unfortunately. I remember reading about this somewhere
before, maybe a year ago. I can't recall the details, but I do remember
Hobbs' name being attached to it. I guess he was looking for another
credit besides his "co-producer" one for FMJ.

> In late 1957 Kubrick with producer James Harris were planning to film
> "I Stole $16,000,000." Kirk Douglas was supposed to star in this
> "autobiographical book by a safe cracker, who operated in California in
> the 1920s and served 12 years in San Quentin Prison...[This film] has
> beem scheduled for filming by Bryna Productions. The independent
> company is owned by Kirk Douglas. The book, published last year, was
> written by Herbert Emerson Wilson, in collaboration with Thomas P.
> Kelley, a writer. The film will be made by James B. Harris, producer,
> and his director partner, Stanley Kubrick...'"I Stole $16,000,000" is
> expected to go before the camera in the spring, but it is not known
> whether Mr. Douglas will act in it..."
>
> Quotes/Source: The New York Times, October 28, 1957

Right. I remember Kubrick talking about this in one of his interviews
with Michel Ciment.

> So, as usual, Kubrick was considering a number of scripts including a
> Civil War epic?

Yes, that too. Apparently, Kubrick had Shelby Foote work on that one
with him. It isn't unusual for a filmmaker to try to has as many
different projects in development if they are on a roll (and Kubrick
and Harris were after POG). I don't know the specifics of the
Kubrick-Harris deal with MGM, but the two probably wanted to cover
themselves by having more than one project in development; there was
always the chance somebody would like one of them. There was also
always the chance that all of them would be rejected.

Another project Kubrick had in development was "The German Lieutenant,"
which he worked on a screenplay with the book's author, Richard Adams.
That was in 1958. I believe a draft can still be found on-line.

But, as Christiane said in the NY Times article, "Spartacus" changed
all of that. He now had the status of an A-list director, having
directed a massive $12 million epic studio film; he had the financial
freedom to be more choosy; and no doubt he and Harris felt the best way
to follow up on the success of "Spartacus" was to option the
controversial novel "Lolita."

In any case, I am anxious to see the end result. Any new film with
Kubrick's name on it -- even if it is just "based on a treatment by..."
is still worth looking forward to.

Which reminds me, what has become of the film "Colour Me Kubrick"?

Boaz
("I must say you guys have really come up with something.")

Mike Jackson

da leggere,
1 nov 2006, 06:44:5801/11/06
a
Boaz wrote:

<snip>

> In any case, I am anxious to see the end result. Any new film with
> Kubrick's name on it -- even if it is just "based on a treatment by..."
> is still worth looking forward to.

I hear that Tarantino is MAD to get the rights to "Napoleon".
Oy, I wonder what they call a 'fuck' in France? You know, cause of the
metric system?

Would it still be worth looking forward to?
I learnt my lesson with "A.I."


> Which reminds me, what has become of the film "Colour Me Kubrick"?

I've seen it. It's rubbish. I was very disappointed.

It starts off amusingly enough with Burn Gorman getting a funny turn as
a droogish fan but it never tells the story of Conway as the creep he
was in real life and it's not really all that funny either, though some
gags have their moments.

All the allusions to Kubrick films get a little too cute after a while.
I suppose you might enjoy it more if you never saw the documentary about
the real Conway, but Malkovich plays it so creepy that it's hard to even
laugh at anything.

I wonder if Frewin was happy with this result?

Unless you really know Kubrick films inside out I doubt the average
audience member would get most of the allusions to his films that are in
it, and hence most of the jokes. I don't think this thing is getting
anywhere near American distribution.

About the nicest thing I can say is that it doesn't suck as hard as that
cable bio-pic of Peter Sellers. Stanley Tucci should be SO ashamed.

I did like the Overlook-ish allusion with the asylum part though. Pity
as I don't think Conway in real life got that punishment did he?
--
"I want to be remembered when I'm dead. I want books written about me. I
want songs sung about me. And hundreds of years from now, I want
episodes from my life played out weekly at half past nine by some great
actor of the age."
-- Blackadder

Yelps

da leggere,
1 nov 2006, 12:04:4701/11/06
a

"Mike Jackson" <mental...@SPAM.fastmail.us> wrote in message
news:IN%1h.44874$Zn1....@bignews2.bellsouth.net...

> Boaz wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> In any case, I am anxious to see the end result. Any new film with
>> Kubrick's name on it -- even if it is just "based on a treatment by..."
>> is still worth looking forward to.
>
> I hear that Tarantino is MAD to get the rights to "Napoleon".

It would all be done as a Vincent Vega reincarnation flashback

There will be a scene where they are all standing there aiming swords at
each others heads.

Tim Roth will be Napoleon (he looks a little like Napoleon) , Bruce Willis
would be in there. Uma Thurman and John Travolta would be doing Minuets.
Harvey Keitel would be in there somewhere. Robert Rodriguez would have to
bring in Jessica Alba who play Josephine. No doubt Antonio Banderas would
make an appearance.

Sounds wonderful.

Actually Tarentino had made some good films. If he is so "mad' to get the
script then it might be a good thing, He is freak enough to actually try
to emulate how SK would have made the film. I think that would be
interesting to see if he could pull it off.

dc


Boaz

da leggere,
1 nov 2006, 12:41:4201/11/06
a
Yelps wrote:
> "Mike Jackson" <mental...@SPAM.fastmail.us> wrote in message
> news:IN%1h.44874$Zn1....@bignews2.bellsouth.net...

> > I hear that Tarantino is MAD to get the rights to "Napoleon".

<snip>

> Sounds wonderful.
>
> Actually Tarentino had made some good films. If he is so "mad' to get the
> script then it might be a good thing, He is freak enough to actually try
> to emulate how SK would have made the film. I think that would be
> interesting to see if he could pull it off.
>
> dc

Here's a no-brainer for both of you: Why should Tarantino try to get
the rights to the Kubrick script when he can write his own? Why spend
the money unnecessarily when he can talk someone into paying him to
write one himself? The life of Napoleon is in the public domain, and
since Tarantino would put his own spin on it (provided, of course, that
any of this is true), why tamper with Kubrick's vision?

Boaz
("Oh, my goodness. What language! Did you learn that from your mother,
Bonaparte?")

Yelps

da leggere,
1 nov 2006, 12:54:4301/11/06
a

"Boaz" <boa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1162402902.4...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...


Of course he could do that. The possible incorrect assumption here is that
Tarantino reveres SK, but he has already called Kubrick a "hypocrite"

About ACO Tarantino had said:
]
"That first twenty minutes is pretty fucking perfect. I always thought
Kubrick was a hypocrite, because his party line was, I'm not making a movie
about violence, I'm making a movie against violence. And it's just like, Get
the fuck off. I know and you know your dick was hard the entire time you
were shooting those first twenty minutes, you couldn't keep it in your pants
the entire time you were editing it and scoring it. You liked the rest of
the movie, but you put up with the rest of the movie. You did it for those
first twenty minutes. And if you don't say you did you're a fucking liar."

On the other hand that quote is old and he may have a different take on SK
today.

dc


Mintyblonde

da leggere,
1 nov 2006, 13:03:1801/11/06
a
The thought of Tarantino getting his claws on the Napoleon project
fills me with revulsion, let him stick to De Palma and 70's asian rip
offs - sorry, homages. What ever happened to the rights to Aryan
Papers? I'm sure I read somewhere that someone was planning to make
it...

Yelps

da leggere,
1 nov 2006, 13:24:5401/11/06
a

"Yelps" <birdsnest...@worldyeti.net> wrote in message
news:YcOdnUjs5s7CQtXY...@adelphia.com...


Clearly Tarantino must really revere SK regardless of what he has ever
arrogantly said. Resevoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction is so derived from and
building on "The Killing" its obvious, but Tarantino uses the "I love
B-movies" excuse to excuse the imperfections. He is the hypocrite. Lets see
him do a SERIOUS film noir or drama, where he doesn't hide behind hipness
and B-movie reverence.

Napoleon--could be his first step out of permanent campness and put his
supposed love of film to a test.

dc


porti...@yahoo.com

da leggere,
1 nov 2006, 13:51:5401/11/06
a

Boaz wrote:
> porti...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > P.S. Me [Genevieve] again. I am a little confused by Hobb's project.
> > When was the Thompson script completed? Late 1950s?
>
> It was only a treatment, and it was in the late '50s, probably either
> after "The Killing" or "Paths of Glory." The article didn't go into
> those specifics, unfortunately. I remember reading about this somewhere
> before, maybe a year ago. I can't recall the details, but I do remember
> Hobbs' name being attached to it. I guess he was looking for another
> credit besides his "co-producer" one for FMJ.

Perhaps you remember my October 2002 post:

>From the Daily Mail, October 15: [Author unknown].

...AFTER THE shocking film A Clockwork Orange got its first showing on
terrestrial television at the weekend, I can reveal there is about to
be a new Stanley Kubrick movie -- from beyond the grave.

Film producer Philip Hobbs, who made Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket and
was formerly married to the director's eldest daughter, tells me he
has discovered a script that Kubrick commissioned in 1957.

'I was helping turn out some of Stanley's old papers when I came
across it,' says Hobbs. 'It is a really good thriller, but for some
reason Stanley didn't use it. Now, I am going to make the film next
year.'

I guess it took Hobbs a few years to work out.


> > In late 1957 Kubrick with producer James Harris were planning to film
> > "I Stole $16,000,000." Kirk Douglas was supposed to star in this
> > "autobiographical book by a safe cracker, who operated in California in
> > the 1920s and served 12 years in San Quentin Prison...[This film] has
> > beem scheduled for filming by Bryna Productions. The independent
> > company is owned by Kirk Douglas. The book, published last year, was
> > written by Herbert Emerson Wilson, in collaboration with Thomas P.
> > Kelley, a writer. The film will be made by James B. Harris, producer,
> > and his director partner, Stanley Kubrick...'"I Stole $16,000,000" is
> > expected to go before the camera in the spring, but it is not known
> > whether Mr. Douglas will act in it..."
> >
> > Quotes/Source: The New York Times, October 28, 1957
>
> Right. I remember Kubrick talking about this in one of his interviews
> with Michel Ciment.

I need to reread Ciment and return to the Archives book.

> > So, as usual, Kubrick was considering a number of scripts including a
> > Civil War epic?
>
> Yes, that too. Apparently, Kubrick had Shelby Foote work on that one
> with him. It isn't unusual for a filmmaker to try to has as many
> different projects in development if they are on a roll (and Kubrick
> and Harris were after POG). I don't know the specifics of the
> Kubrick-Harris deal with MGM, but the two probably wanted to cover
> themselves by having more than one project in development; there was
> always the chance somebody would like one of them. There was also
> always the chance that all of them would be rejected.

I read somewhere that Gregory Peck was considered for the Civil War
project.

> Another project Kubrick had in development was "The German Lieutenant,"
> which he worked on a screenplay with the book's author, Richard Adams.
> That was in 1958. I believe a draft can still be found on-line.

Will need to reread this script too.

>
> But, as Christiane said in the NY Times article, "Spartacus" changed
> all of that. He now had the status of an A-list director, having
> directed a massive $12 million epic studio film; he had the financial
> freedom to be more choosy; and no doubt he and Harris felt the best way
> to follow up on the success of "Spartacus" was to option the
> controversial novel "Lolita."

These years were not so easy for Kubrick - but it was worth it to make
Lolita. I have a soft spot for this film. I only wish that Kubrick
would have concentrated less on Peter Sellers and a bit more on James
Mason.

> In any case, I am anxious to see the end result. Any new film with
> Kubrick's name on it -- even if it is just "based on a treatment by..."
> is still worth looking forward to.

I guess. It is similar to a situation where a choreographer updates a
ballet or makes a ballet in the style of another choreographer. It may
be a no-win situation for Hobbs like it was for Spielberg. Who knows?

> Which reminds me, what has become of the film "Colour Me Kubrick"?

I read (somewhere) that it will become available on DVD soon...?

Gen

Yelps

da leggere,
1 nov 2006, 14:07:4101/11/06
a

<porti...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1162407114.7...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...

> These years were not so easy for Kubrick - but it was worth it to make
> Lolita. I have a soft spot for this film. I only wish that Kubrick
> would have concentrated less on Peter Sellers and a bit more on James
> Mason.

I don't get that feeling about any lack of focus on James Mason at all. I
think Lolita is SK's most perfect film overall. Spartacus, 2001 Clockwork
Orange and EWS are my favorites--but to me, Lolita is his most perfect film
overall and Mason and Sellars are equally as great. The clash between the
two characters is----just amazing.

dc


Gunther Gloop

da leggere,
1 nov 2006, 14:52:4901/11/06
a
Yelps wrote:
> Clearly Tarantino must really revere SK regardless of what he has ever
> arrogantly said. Resevoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction is so derived from and
> building on "The Killing" its obvious, but Tarantino uses the "I love
> B-movies" excuse to excuse the imperfections. He is the hypocrite. Lets
> see him do a SERIOUS film noir or drama, where he doesn't hide
> behind hipness and B-movie reverence.
>

I'd consider Jackie Brown a serious drama (film noir even?) -and his best
film by far to date. And (lest there be any doubt) a great film also.
It doesn't rest on hipness or flash/cool dialogue. ...Which is why it's now
almost discounted as 'not a real Tarantino movie' by a large section of his
fanbase. ...Which is a pity, because he showed great strengths and promise
with that film.

-Kevin.


--
Email replies to: ne...@SPAMBEGONEkevinforde.com


Boaz

da leggere,
1 nov 2006, 15:39:5101/11/06
a
porti...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Boaz wrote:
> > porti...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > P.S. Me [Genevieve] again. I am a little confused by Hobb's project.
> > > When was the Thompson script completed? Late 1950s?
> >
> > It was only a treatment, and it was in the late '50s, probably either
> > after "The Killing" or "Paths of Glory." The article didn't go into
> > those specifics, unfortunately. I remember reading about this somewhere
> > before, maybe a year ago. I can't recall the details, but I do remember
> > Hobbs' name being attached to it. I guess he was looking for another
> > credit besides his "co-producer" one for FMJ.
>
> Perhaps you remember my October 2002 post:
>
> >From the Daily Mail, October 15: [Author unknown].
>
> ...AFTER THE shocking film A Clockwork Orange got its first showing on
> terrestrial television at the weekend, I can reveal there is about to
> be a new Stanley Kubrick movie -- from beyond the grave.
>
> Film producer Philip Hobbs, who made Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket and
> was formerly married to the director's eldest daughter, tells me he
> has discovered a script that Kubrick commissioned in 1957.
>
> 'I was helping turn out some of Stanley's old papers when I came
> across it,' says Hobbs. 'It is a really good thriller, but for some
> reason Stanley didn't use it. Now, I am going to make the film next
> year.'

Yes, that's where I first read this. Thanks, Gen. (Has it been THAT
long?)

> I guess it took Hobbs a few years to work out.

That's not unusual, especially when one needs a completed script and
then having to shop it around to find backing. I'm sure that even with
Kubrick's name attached it was still hard to find support.

> > > In late 1957 Kubrick with producer James Harris were planning to film
> > > "I Stole $16,000,000." Kirk Douglas was supposed to star in this
> > > "autobiographical book by a safe cracker, who operated in California in
> > > the 1920s and served 12 years in San Quentin Prison...[This film] has
> > > beem scheduled for filming by Bryna Productions. The independent
> > > company is owned by Kirk Douglas. The book, published last year, was
> > > written by Herbert Emerson Wilson, in collaboration with Thomas P.
> > > Kelley, a writer. The film will be made by James B. Harris, producer,
> > > and his director partner, Stanley Kubrick...'"I Stole $16,000,000" is
> > > expected to go before the camera in the spring, but it is not known
> > > whether Mr. Douglas will act in it..."
> > >
> > > Quotes/Source: The New York Times, October 28, 1957
> >
> > Right. I remember Kubrick talking about this in one of his interviews
> > with Michel Ciment.
>
> I need to reread Ciment and return to the Archives book.

Certainly two reliable sources of information on Kubrick and his
projects.

> > > So, as usual, Kubrick was considering a number of scripts including a
> > > Civil War epic?
> >
> > Yes, that too. Apparently, Kubrick had Shelby Foote work on that one
> > with him. It isn't unusual for a filmmaker to try to has as many
> > different projects in development if they are on a roll (and Kubrick
> > and Harris were after POG). I don't know the specifics of the
> > Kubrick-Harris deal with MGM, but the two probably wanted to cover
> > themselves by having more than one project in development; there was
> > always the chance somebody would like one of them. There was also
> > always the chance that all of them would be rejected.
>
> I read somewhere that Gregory Peck was considered for the Civil War
> project.

Yes, I read that too. I think that may have been in the LoBrutto book.
(Okay, not quite the reliable source we hoped for, but Peck's star was
on the rise in '58 and it might have been a good project for both him
and Kubrick.

> > Another project Kubrick had in development was "The German Lieutenant,"
> > which he worked on a screenplay with the book's author, Richard Adams.
> > That was in 1958. I believe a draft can still be found on-line.
>
> Will need to reread this script too.

Same here.

> > But, as Christiane said in the NY Times article, "Spartacus" changed
> > all of that. He now had the status of an A-list director, having
> > directed a massive $12 million epic studio film; he had the financial
> > freedom to be more choosy; and no doubt he and Harris felt the best way
> > to follow up on the success of "Spartacus" was to option the
> > controversial novel "Lolita."
>
> These years were not so easy for Kubrick - but it was worth it to make
> Lolita. I have a soft spot for this film. I only wish that Kubrick
> would have concentrated less on Peter Sellers and a bit more on James
> Mason.

My guess is that Kubrick probably did so because he had to play down
the more erotic elements of the story, as they couldn't be filmed then.

> > In any case, I am anxious to see the end result. Any new film with
> > Kubrick's name on it -- even if it is just "based on a treatment by..."
> > is still worth looking forward to.
>
> I guess. It is similar to a situation where a choreographer updates a
> ballet or makes a ballet in the style of another choreographer. It may
> be a no-win situation for Hobbs like it was for Spielberg. Who knows?

Perhaps. Hobbs isn't directing, and the director chosen has no track
record other than his commercials. I suppose David Lynch has moved past
such subject matter, as I kept thinking of him when I first read the
article. And maybe Lynch didn't want to try to reinterpret someone
else's work, given the results of "Dune."

> > Which reminds me, what has become of the film "Colour Me Kubrick"?
>
> I read (somewhere) that it will become available on DVD soon...?

Apparently it is out there, and it's been seen, though not favorably,
but that is a majority of one. Regardless of how it turned out I want
to see it anyway.

I haven't received anything in my e-mail from Taschen on the "Napoleon"
book, so it looks as though its publication will be held up a while
longer. Besides, I can't imagine the Kubrick estate being so willing to
give up the rights to the script to anyone else to film, including
Tarantino. His body of work suggests to me he doesn't have the
discipline nor intellectual curiosity to tackle such a complex subject.
I'm not saying Tarantino is not intelligent; he is smart and talented.
But his formative years seem to have been spent soaking up popular
culture and avoiding any real serious study. Like Kubrick, Tarantino
didn't go to college, but at least Kubrick spent the rest of his life
making up for that by trying to learn and grow intellectually.
Tarantino strikes me as someone who truly doesn't give a shit; he'd
rather stick to his B-pictures and comic books. And, anyway, all this
is hearsay; I doubt it is anything more than a rumor, a rumor without
any substantial proof to back it up.

Boaz
("We-he-ell, uh, I'd like to hold off judgment on a thing like that,
sir, until all the facts are in.")

Mike Jackson

da leggere,
1 nov 2006, 19:48:1601/11/06
a
Boaz wrote:
> Yelps wrote:
>> "Mike Jackson" <mental...@SPAM.fastmail.us> wrote in message
>> news:IN%1h.44874$Zn1....@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>
>>> I hear that Tarantino is MAD to get the rights to "Napoleon".
>
> <snip>
>
>> Sounds wonderful.
>>
>> Actually Tarentino had made some good films. If he is so "mad' to get the
>> script then it might be a good thing, He is freak enough to actually try
>> to emulate how SK would have made the film. I think that would be
>> interesting to see if he could pull it off.
>>
>> dc
>
> Here's a no-brainer for both of you: Why should Tarantino try to get
> the rights to the Kubrick script when he can write his own?

I dunno, maybe he just wanted me to wind you idiots up with the most
preposterous hypo-typo-antithetical situation I could pull your leg
with? As Bugs would say, "What a bunch of ultra-maroons!"


> Why spend the money unnecessarily when he can talk someone into
> paying him to write one himself? The life of Napoleon is in the
> public domain, and since Tarantino would put his own spin on it
> (provided, of course, that any of this is true), why tamper with
> Kubrick's vision?

I dunno why Tarantino might fancy it, he was just the most absurd film
maker that popped into my head. I never read the bootleg script that
Lord Turdingdon was pissing around. But then why does Tarantino do anything?

The better question was why did you two spend so many posts debating a
nonexistent project? And you keep stomping my dick about the drivel I
post? Do you ever listen to yourself pontificate?


> Boaz
> ("Oh, my goodness. What language! Did you learn that from your mother,
> Bonaparte?")

"I can't read, mister. I never did none of that there book learning, you
know. "

Yelps

da leggere,
1 nov 2006, 20:56:5801/11/06
a

"Mike Jackson" <mental...@SPAM.fastmail.us> wrote in message
news:kfb2h.51114$vi3....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...

> Boaz wrote:
> I dunno why Tarantino might fancy it, he was just the most absurd film
> maker that popped into my head. I never read the bootleg script that Lord
> Turdingdon was pissing around. But then why does Tarantino do anything?
>
> The better question was why did you two spend so many posts debating a
> nonexistent project? And you keep stomping my dick about the drivel I
> post? Do you ever listen to yourself pontificate?
>

So you admit you are trying to get some buzz going, about your inactive
penis.

dc


Mike Jackson

da leggere,
1 nov 2006, 21:42:2801/11/06
a

Penis? What are you? A CLINICIAN?
--
"A device is yet to be invented that will measure my indifference to
this remark."
-- Hawkeye, "M*A*S*H"

Yelps

da leggere,
1 nov 2006, 22:37:2101/11/06
a

"Mike Jackson" <mental...@SPAM.fastmail.us> wrote in message
news:rWc2h.51312$vi3....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...

> Yelps wrote:
>> "Mike Jackson" <mental...@SPAM.fastmail.us> wrote in message
>> news:kfb2h.51114$vi3....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>>> Boaz wrote:
>>> I dunno why Tarantino might fancy it, he was just the most absurd film
>>> maker that popped into my head. I never read the bootleg script that
>>> Lord Turdingdon was pissing around. But then why does Tarantino do
>>> anything?
>
>
>>> The better question was why did you two spend so many posts debating a
>>> nonexistent project? And you keep stomping my dick about the drivel I
>>> post? Do you ever listen to yourself pontificate?
>
>
>> So you admit you are trying to get some buzz going, about your inactive
>> penis.
>>
>> dc
>
> Penis? What are you? A CLINICIAN?<<<


If your penis is flopping on the floor to be stomped on, then you need a
clinician.

dc


ichorwhip

da leggere,
1 nov 2006, 23:15:5701/11/06
a

Mike Jackson wrote:
> Boaz wrote:
> > Yelps wrote:
> >> "Mike Jackson" <mental...@SPAM.fastmail.us> wrote in message
> >> news:IN%1h.44874$Zn1....@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
> >
> >>> I hear that Tarantino is MAD to get the rights to "Napoleon".
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> Sounds wonderful.
> >>
> >> Actually Tarentino had made some good films. If he is so "mad' to get the
> >> script then it might be a good thing, He is freak enough to actually try
> >> to emulate how SK would have made the film. I think that would be
> >> interesting to see if he could pull it off.
> >>
> >> dc
> >
> > Here's a no-brainer for both of you: Why should Tarantino try to get
> > the rights to the Kubrick script when he can write his own?
>
> I dunno, maybe he just wanted me to wind you idiots up with the most
> preposterous hypo-typo-antithetical situation I could pull your leg
> with? As Bugs would say, "What a bunch of ultra-maroons!"

Bugs never would have added the "ultra." What's your deal anyway
Jacky-boy? I came late to this thread, which was pretty good and
informative, and then I find that you've fucked it all up on purpose
with silly false talk of Tarantino, a fucking douchehole who reviles
Kubrick with much disrespect. What the fuck did you do that for? If you
don't mind me asking.

"So you did that on purpose!"
i
"piop"

Mike Jackson

da leggere,
2 nov 2006, 09:23:5202/11/06
a
ichorwhip wrote:
> Mike Jackson wrote:
>> Boaz wrote:
>>> Yelps wrote:
>>>> "Mike Jackson" <mental...@SPAM.fastmail.us> wrote in message
>>>> news:IN%1h.44874$Zn1....@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>>>>> I hear that Tarantino is MAD to get the rights to "Napoleon".
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> Sounds wonderful.
>>>>
>>>> Actually Tarentino had made some good films. If he is so "mad' to get the
>>>> script then it might be a good thing, He is freak enough to actually try
>>>> to emulate how SK would have made the film. I think that would be
>>>> interesting to see if he could pull it off.
>>>>
>>>> dc
>>> Here's a no-brainer for both of you: Why should Tarantino try to get
>>> the rights to the Kubrick script when he can write his own?

>> I dunno, maybe he just wanted me to wind you idiots up with the most
>> preposterous hypo-typo-antithetical situation I could pull your leg
>> with? As Bugs would say, "What a bunch of ultra-maroons!"


> Bugs never would have added the "ultra."

Oh?
http://tinyurl.com/ycndm9


> What's your deal anyway Jacky-boy? I came late to this thread, which
> was pretty good and informative, and then I find that you've fucked
> it all up on purpose with silly false talk of Tarantino, a fucking
> douchehole who reviles Kubrick with much disrespect. What the fuck
> did you do that for? If you don't mind me asking.
>
> "So you did that on purpose!"
> i
> "piop"

Gosh, I sure am sorry I fucked up your purdy and informative thread!
Maybe I can get Google to delete it all like it never happened?

I dunno, I just get weary of the inane amount of pontificating around
here. And look at how my favorite assholes didn't even bother to show a
scintilla of skepticism at such obvious mocking sarcasm!

And I also find it funny that Mr Film Career Rob in LA still hasn't seen
"Color Me Kubrick" yet this here bumpkin living in Mississippi HAS!

I'm sure his review won't be gauche like mine, but far more insightful
and erudite than I could ever hope to be. After all he is from Michigan
where I hear you get the upper hand, or a purple rose or something.

I can't really relate to the prattle here anymore. If it's not
know-it-all esoteric pap it's some loon bombing the place with
antisemitism or schizophrenia or the usual critic-doesn't-get-Kubrick
non-news piece.

Sometimes I almost miss Leonard Wheats' fruity treatises, but only almost.

Now if you'll excuse me it's time to make the donuts.
--
November, n.:
The eleventh twelfth of a weariness.
-- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"

Boaz

da leggere,
2 nov 2006, 11:50:5202/11/06
a
Mike, if your posts are only going to be full of bitterness and rancour
then you may as well not post at all. No one is forcing you to check
out AMK. I don't even know why you bother. You contribute nothing of
value. If you don't like my posts, fine. I don't care. You don't have
to read them.

You attack me and others for posting topics that are about Stanley
Kubrick, or material related to him, which is astonishing in itself, if
one thinks about it. There are plenty of new books, magazine articles
and on-line material about Kubrick worth sharing and to keep this
newsgroup going.

Boaz

porti...@yahoo.com

da leggere,
2 nov 2006, 13:22:2102/11/06
a

Agreed. Also, I think the obvious should be pointed out. The Kubrick
Estate is also focused on SK's might-have-been projects (remember the
original post?!); otherwise, they would not have devoted sections of
the Kubrick Archives book to Ayran Papers, A.I., and Napoleon, etc. In
fact, there is a section in the Archives book that illuminates
Kubrick's other interests (for example, a Norse epic). Then there is
the forthcoming Taschen book on Kubrick's Napoleon project. Such
material is relevant because it concerns Kubrick's evolving interests
and how how they affected his choices and career.

G.

blue

da leggere,
2 nov 2006, 15:09:4302/11/06
a


1) Tarantino would have to do all the research.
2) Kubricks script is pretty damn good.
3) Tarantino can't actually write that well. He understands structure
that's for sure but most of the scenes in his films are lifted wholesale
from other movies or pulled from novels. He then joins the gaps with some
snappy dialogue (which is definetly where his strength lies). If he were to
do Napoleon, he'd use Kubricks script as a structural base and do the same
there.


ichorwhip

da leggere,
2 nov 2006, 18:19:5402/11/06
a

Mike Jackson wrote:
<snip>

> >> I dunno, maybe he just wanted me to wind you idiots up with the most
> >> preposterous hypo-typo-antithetical situation I could pull your leg
> >> with? As Bugs would say, "What a bunch of ultra-maroons!"
>
>
> > Bugs never would have added the "ultra."
>
> Oh?
> http://tinyurl.com/ycndm9

Oops, my bad... I guess I'm not as up on my Looney Tunes as I thought
I was....I stand ashamed.

<snip>

> Gosh, I sure am sorry I fucked up your purdy and informative thread!
> Maybe I can get Google to delete it all like it never happened?

Only you can do that...

> I dunno, I just get weary of the inane amount of pontificating around
> here.

Using the words "inane" and "pontificating" is sort of pompous within
in itself, but I folla....

> And look at how my favorite assholes didn't even bother to show a
> scintilla of skepticism at such obvious mocking sarcasm!

A "scintilla?" LOL! Well you sho' remedddied thet sitchy-ation dinja?

><snip> LA still hasn't seen


> "Color Me Kubrick" yet this here bumpkin living in Mississippi HAS!

Where did you see it?

> I'm sure his review won't be gauche like mine, but far more insightful
> and erudite than I could ever hope to be.

prolly, praps... nobody's forcing you to read it or anything of
course...

<snip>

> I can't really relate to the prattle here anymore.

When was the last time you could? You got all pissed off and huffed
out of here for a couple months over that Lard Boilingturd nonsense,
and now that she's gone, per your mildest wishes, you come back looking
for what?

> If it's not
> know-it-all esoteric pap it's some loon bombing the place with
> antisemitism or schizophrenia or the usual critic-doesn't-get-Kubrick
> non-news piece.

I don't understand. Tell me then in no uncertain terms what it is you
want and expect from AMK, and why aren't you doing that yourself
whatever it is?

>
> Sometimes I almost miss Leonard Wheats' fruity treatises, but only almost.

Sheeeeeeshh.... He was one of the worst "pontificators" and
proprietors of the pompous and superfluous that ever grazed the balls
of AMK... Are you saying that he's better than those you are currently
fucking with? I don't get it Jackson, not one iota...

> Now if you'll excuse me it's time to make the donuts.

Those the kind that fit under the toilet? BWAHAHAHA!!! Oh sorry, I
was jest poshesh by some evil spurt... What in the hell is that
Bavarian creme stuff made of anyway?

"You owe me for one jelly donut!"
i
"piop"

Bill Reid

da leggere,
3 nov 2006, 09:55:1603/11/06
a

<porti...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1162491741.3...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Boaz wrote:

> > Mike, if your posts are only going to be full of bitterness and rancour
> > then you may as well not post at all. No one is forcing you to check
> > out AMK. I don't even know why you bother. You contribute nothing of
> > value. If you don't like my posts, fine. I don't care. You don't have
> > to read them.
> >
> > You attack me and others for posting topics that are about Stanley
> > Kubrick, or material related to him, which is astonishing in itself, if
> > one thinks about it. There are plenty of new books, magazine articles
> > and on-line material about Kubrick worth sharing and to keep this
> > newsgroup going.
>

> Agreed. Also, I think the obvious should be pointed out. The Kubrick
> Estate is also focused on SK's might-have-been projects (remember the
> original post?!); otherwise, they would not have devoted sections of
> the Kubrick Archives book to Ayran Papers, A.I., and Napoleon, etc. In
> fact, there is a section in the Archives book that illuminates
> Kubrick's other interests (for example, a Norse epic). Then there is
> the forthcoming Taschen book on Kubrick's Napoleon project. Such
> material is relevant because it concerns Kubrick's evolving interests
> and how how they affected his choices and career.
>

That's all true, but let's be reasonable about a "new Kubrick film"
in light of "AI".

There was only one Stanley Kubrick. His movies, for better or worse,
were "unique". Steven Speilberg is no Stanley Kubrick, and clearly
didn't even "get" Stanley Kubrick, as he demonstrated when he delivered
his "eulogy" at the Academy Awards(TM) after Kubrick died.

A script, or a "script treatment", or just "an idea for a movie", is not
and will not be anything like a "Stanley Kubrick" movie, any more than
any random guy who paints a picture of a wheat field has painted
a "Van Gogh"...

---
William Ernest "I Hear Chris Columbus Is Doing 'Aryan Papers'" Reid

Rispondi a tutti
Rispondi all'autore
Inoltra
0 nuovi messaggi