Stanley Kubrick

[beamish14]

Thank you for this information. I’m always eager to learn more about this film and its fascinating genesis/production. I saw the film on its second day of release in North America, and this information about a hitherto unremarked upon lost scene is really tantalizing

[hearthesilence]

The film's grown on me exponentially - I never would've guessed it, but I saw it in 35mm at Metrograph in 2021, maybe the first time I've seen it in over a decade (even though Metrograph screens it every year around the holidays), and it really seemed like a masterpiece. Everything carried a lot more weight and seemed far more complex in terms of what it had to say or explore about real-life social aspirations. Amazingly in terms of craft, I didn't find fault with it - and this is acknowledging that I once thought the score could be pedestrian and that Sydney Pollack's explanation rambled on forever among many other flaws. For whatever reason, all of these moments played out fine now. So with those two perspectives in mind, I can definitely understand how the film is unfinished - especially given Kubrick's working methods, at minimum I don't doubt it would've been subject to more fine-tuning. But at the same time, I don't lament that possibility anymore because as-is, it now feels fully-realized to me, and I can't see how it could be improved, much less transformed, by any further changes. I do look forward to finding out what that missing shot could be - who knows, maybe I'll change my mind again.

[oh yeah]

Yeah, it's weird because as much as I realize the film is probably only ~95 percent "finished" (considering Kubrick often edited up to/beyond opening day, c.f. 2001 and The Shining), somehow I struggle to think of any full scene that could be cut out without losing something. Especially seeing as virtually every scene is kind of doubled/mirrored by a corresponding scene elsewhere in the film - using a "sonata" structure overall sort of similar to that of Clockwork Orange. Perhaps some of the transition/second-unit shots of NY could be polished up, and we do know for sure that the sound editing was unfinished enough when Kubrick died that the precise performance of the Ligeti piece eventually utilized was either not yet chosen or not yet recorded for the film IIRC. That had to be decided by Jan Harlan or Vitali perhaps, just by looking at K's notes. Additionally, I've read Kubrick wanted to edit it down closer to 140 minutes (again, like 2001 and The Shining), but I'm not certain who said that. And yet, again, the film seems so marvelously full and rich and certainly visually astonishing. I've seen it dozens of times and its depth continues to amaze me. Zierra also added that he wanted to use the doc to dispel the usual rumors from detractors that say how Kubrick disliked the film, or Kubrick was somehow taken advantage of/bested by Cruise and Kidman (as R. Lee Ermey claimed).

So it's a strange paradox - I don't think WB was truthful about the state of completion of the film when Kubrick died, and about any changes that may have been made between then and theatrical release. And we know that they had no issue inserting those absurd robed figures in the US cut to pacify the MPAA. On a less well-known note, the studio even removed a bit of music/chanting during the same ritual sequence simply because it contained a passage from the Bhagavad Gita and Hindu groups were upset over this. Knowing all this, it's not surprising there might be more shots or even scenes that were cut at some stage. And yet despite all the alterations and controversy, I still think EWS is a masterpiece and probably the greatest of all such "unfinished" films. Hopefully Zierra's doc will do what he's aiming for in setting the historical record straight and arguing against the view that the film is Kubrick's lone turkey, or whatever (anyone who says that clearly hasn't seen his first feature).

[beamish14]

The R. Lee Ermey/Todd Field flack over this was so bizarre. I get that Field felt defensive over the final product, but to subsequently insinuate that Kubrick told him to never cast Ermey in what became In the Bedroom was petty and immature as well

[oh yeah]

The R. Lee Ermey/Todd Field flack over this was so bizarre. I get that Field felt defensive over the final product, but to subsequently insinuate that Kubrick told him to never cast Ermey in what became In the Bedroom was petty and immature as well

I always had a visceral reaction of "bullshit!" to the Ermey quote just because of my own love for the film. But honestly looking back now, I wonder why Ermey would fabricate such a story. Field and many others, including now Zierra it seems, have refuted Ermey's claims -- and Kubrick did also tell Jan Harlan that EWS was his finest work. But Ermey claims Kubrick called him up in a panic, said he thought the movie was "a piece of shit" and that Tom and Nicole had "had their way with him." I'm not sure why Ermey would put that out there, some five years after the movie came out, if it was all a lie. Just to get a moment in the limelight? I suppose it's possible. But what if Kubrick, the notorious perfectionist, vacillated between being proud of the film and worrying that it wasn't yet ready to show to the execs or that he'd be seen as a fraud? Especially after the infamous 2-year shoot and all the hype and anticipation. I'm just speculating of course, but I could almost imagine Kubrick saying such things in a moment of anxiety. After all, according to Michael Herr, on the day of that private screening for Tom & Nicole and the Warner execs, Kubrick told Herr it "pained him" to show the unfinished cut to "these people." I doubt he truly hated the film or the experience of making it, though, and he seemed to get along well with Tom and Nicole. (Although many analyses act as if the film is some kind of elaborate joke at Cruise and Scientology's expense, which seems a bit silly to me). Hopefully the doc will shed light on all of this.

[hearthesilence]

I got the impression Ermey turned out to be more and more of a nut as he grew older, so it's tough to take his word on anything.

[beamish14]

Kubrick was many things to different people. A lot of those in his inner circle were infuriated by what Frederic Raphael wrote about their collaborative relationship, but I don’t think he was deliberately trying to disparage him and create specious claims. His working methods weren’t the same with Diane Johnson or Michael Herr.

There is a fantastic anecdote in Kolker and Abrams’ amazing book on Eyes Wide Shut when Kubrick, on his seemingly endless search for a co-writer on the project, went on a long walk with John le Carre(!), who pitched a very detailed and elaborate scenario. Kubrick listened patiently and at the end of their walk, merely reiterated that he thought he would continue to go with his own initial instincts.

I just finished reading James Fenwick’s Stanley Kubrick Produces, and it adds even more amazing layers to the boundlessly complicated man

[Stefan Andersson]

Tom Cruise and Terry Semel, moderated by Annette Insdorf, on Eyes Wide Shut + more:
https://cinephiliabeyond.org/eyes-wide- ... mate-film/

[copen]

i've not seen a reference to this audio in this thread.
2-Hour Interview with Stanley Kubrick (1987) audio.
intv with rolling stone magazine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehQf0LJVOHQ

as far as non-films-kubrick, this is probably the greatest thing available. and the interviewer doesn't talk more than needed. as you can imagine, dozens of topics are covered.
my favorite kubrick is the 75min vietnam portion of full metal jacket, so this was a welcome item in more than one way.

and then there's this:
"" The Making of Stanley Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket (best version) "" 22 minutes. includes footage from a new source - from some exhibition.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x4ax8pi3sI

[The Elegant Dandy Fop]

Seeing as there’s endless scholarship on Stanley Kubrick and numerous books on the specifics of his career, is there any value in the new Kubrick: An Odyssey book? I’m curious, but want to hear thoughts by people who are well informed rather than web reviews.

[Stefan Andersson]

Aryan Papers:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10 ... 286#d1e425
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10 ... src=recsys
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/898140
https://www.academia.edu/49604278/Aryan ... Connection
https://www.sensesofcinema.com/2022/fea ... an-papers/

Very interesting reading.
AFAIK downloading from academia.edu means you will get unsolicited emails from the site.

[Stefan Andersson]

Matthew Modine on Full Metal Jacket:
"Stanley didn’t ask me how to end Full Metal Jacket. He asked me what I thought of the ending, which was very different from the way the final movie was scripted and to be photographed. I defended the scripted movie until one day, after he’d asked me dozens of times over weeks and weeks, I said: “Joker should live.” He said: “What?”

In the original draft, Joker – my character – was shot and killed. I said Joker should live, because that’s the real tragedy of war – going on to see your drill instructor shot and killed in a latrine and the guy you’re trying to help get through boot camp stick an M14 in his mouth and blow his brains out. Joker should live and have to hold his one friend from boot camp in his arms as he dies. Joker should have to decide whether or not he should end the life of a young Vietnamese girl who’s bleeding to death. So that’s why I said: “He should live, Stanley, because that’s the real horror of war – having to spend the rest of your fucking life with that in your head.” And Stanley said: “That’s the end of the picture.”

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2024/o ... s-them-out

[Maladroit Aggregator]

Filmworker director Tony Zierra's newest doc, SK13, about Eyes Wide Shut, is suddenly available to watch.

https://docaddicts.vhx.tv/

I thought Filmworker was... fine... but I while I found Vitali's insider information about Kubrick interesting, his lifelong deference to The Great Man became a little off-putting after a while. I guess the title was apt - it wasn't called Filmartist, after all.

SK13 sounds more fascinating, but not having watched it yet, and not gleaning much from the trailer, I wonder what direction it will take. I fear it will lean into the more absurd theories about the flick (like the moronic subjects of Room 237) but that remains to be seen.

[Oedipax]

I still have about 40 minutes to go but I've found SK13 so far to be rather tedious and not very illuminating at all. A lot of continuity errors are pointed out that I'd never picked up on, which is interesting as a novelty, but I don't see any solid theory about the film's meaning to be gleaned from it. As far as I can tell, the previously unseen shot Zierra has been cagily referencing was indeed the crewmember's reflection in the bathroom mirror at Ziegler's, which... what a pointless tease, and who gives a shit.

I do think it's perfectly plausible (and a near certainty) that there were certain technical and editorial decisions made by others at WB after Kubrick's death that were deemed necessary in order to finish the film. As has been stated many times, even if Kubrick had presented a 100% picture locked version before dying, we all know he continued to tinker with things even after theatrical release, so who knows what might have been. I do think the film as it exists represents substantively Kubrick's vision, and it's one of my favorites of his.

While entertaining, I don't put much stock in the theory (recently articulated by Roger Avary on Joe Rogan's podcast) that the ultimate message of the film, about elite sex trafficking circles and so on, was deliberately reduced and obscured by the studio after Kubrick's death. Avary does mention having a copy of an earlier draft of the screenplay (or perhaps it's even the shooting script, I forget) wherein the text in the insert shots for the note outside the mansion gates is different than what's in the film now. I'd obviously love to know what they were meant to say initially and whether it is so different from what we see now.

I do think there is something to the idea of the Harfords giving up/sacrificing their daughter in some sense at the end, but I doubt Kubrick intended there to be extra coverage or further sequences underlining this idea - the way it plays out in the background in a blink-and-you'll-miss-it fashion seems perfectly in line with how the film functions, playfully hiding certain things in broad daylight for an audience expecting a traditional relationship drama / erotic thriller / etc.

Anyway, the doc for me was a letdown but it was, I suppose, still worth watching to hear from the actors/crewmembers in some new interviews and also gleaning a few new factoids here and there, but it's pretty thin. It certainly doesn't turn my perception of the film upside down the way it's been hyped up for ages.

[ianthemovie]

I do think there is something to the idea of the Harfords giving up/sacrificing their daughter in some sense at the end, but I doubt Kubrick intended there to be extra coverage or further sequences underlining this idea - the way it plays out in the background in a blink-and-you'll-miss-it fashion seems perfectly in line with how the film functions, playfully hiding certain things in broad daylight for an audience expecting a traditional relationship drama / erotic thriller / etc.

Interesting; can you say more about this theory for those of us who don't intend to watch the Zierra film?

[Oedipax]

Interesting; can you say more about this theory for those of us who don't intend to watch the Zierra film?

It essentially has to do with two men who are (possibly) seen earlier in the film at Ziegler's party, and then appear at the very end in the toy store. In one shot it appears that Helena, the daughter, walks away from her parents and follows the two men. You can read more and see some stills from the film here. I wouldn't go as far as to say that the film intends us to think she's been literally abducted, but it does seem like a note/suggestion/red herring Kubrick could very well have been conscious of.

[Stefan Andersson]

Podcast with over 60 Kubrick-related interviews:
https://www.moviegeeksunited.com/thekubrickseries

[Stefan Andersson]

Differences between two versions of Fear and Desire detailed:
https://www.schnittberichte.com/schnitt ... ?ID=695181

[Stefan Andersson]

New book - Kubrick's Mitteleuropa: The Central European Imaginary in the Films of Stanley Kubrick:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/jj.12166956

[Stefan Andersson]

Details of cameras and lenses used across Kubrick’s filmography:
https://shotonwhat.com/o/378188/stanley-kubrick

[Stefan Andersson]

Kubrick resources:
https://www.youtube.com/@stanleykubrickappreciation
https://www.facebook.com/groups/19297514600/
https://www.facebook.com/groups/TSKAS/
https://skas.podbean.com/
https://nofilmschool.com/2013/05/seriou ... ng-kubrick
https://idyllopuspress.com/idyllopus/film/index.htm

[Yakushima]

Kubrick's Retrospective is currently underway at Yale Film Archive. All films are projected from 35mm copies. All screenings are free and open to the public.