Do you know any talented newcomer directors? I've seen a lot of fascinating stuff in the last few months.Really liked: Wong-Kar-Wei FALLEN ANGELS/CHUNKIN EXPRESS Richard Linklater TAPE/WAKING LIFE Paul Thomas Anderson BOOGIE NIGHTS/MAGNOLIA/PUNCH DRUNK LOVE Spike Jonze BEING JOHN MALKOVICH/ADAPTATION David Fincher SEVEN/FIGHT CLUB Terry Gilliam FEAR AND LOATHING IN VEGAS/12 MONKEYS Takeshi Kitano BROTHER/SONATINO/HANA BI Fernando Meirelles CITY OF GOD Alejandro Gonzalez Inarrito 21 GRAMS/AMORES PERROS Quite visionary and philosophic movies,I think these guys are gonna make history!
In that his films were utterly beautiful in their cinematography, conception, acting...everything. To say that Kubrick "wasn't unique" is ridiculous. Can you think of any other mainstream, Hollywood directors who created films as bizarre and unpredictable as Kubrick? Or better yet, directors who made films with subjects as diverse as Kubrick? I have only seen four films from the man so far, and that is enough for me to know that he isn't afraid to try anything. Dr. Strangelove is a brilliant satire about the government, 2001 is a majestic, gorgeous portrait of space and the human condition (and is my favorite film of all-time), The Shining is a dark horror story, but different from most films of its kind, and Full Metal Jacket is a harrowing take on the Vietnam War, and also is very individual for the genre it represents. I don't see how anyone couldn't enjoy Kubrick's films. He was a fucking genius! Watch what you say, CUtheRE.
why do we need another kubrick...? art should be able to stand on it's own and not have to be compared to other things...directors/artists should be the same...
This is also ludicrous. What are you thinking?? Look at 95% of directors in Hollywood today, and they have far more money and connections than Kubrick ever had, yet are making trite, predictable films for the masses. I'm not saying that Kubrick didn't have money or time - don't get me wrong - but he was after something different from the usual Hollywood formula. Kubrick used only the best actors/actresses, the best use of music, cinematography, plot, screenplay...every single fucking thing. The spirit that he had for filmmaking has much more in common with an independent filmmaker than a Hollywood one. Kubrick was far ahead of his time in terms of special effects, particularly with 2001: A Space Odyssey. You might look at some popular films today, like The Lord of the Rings, and scoff at Kubrick's work. But unlike The Lord of the Rings, 2001 has substance as a film and as an artistic statement, not as a $900 million blockbuster which doesn't set any new, revolutionary standards for film. The magic of Kubrick's films still resonates today, which is far more than can be said about virtually any current Hollywood film. Keep on being blinded by the mainstream's lure, if you wish. It won't get you anywhere in this day and age.
nowadays he is seen as mainstream. For his time he was completely out there. Now people just accept that he was a "genius" and sit and discuss his movies and how amazing they are...in years to come people will do the same with someone that people think is complete crap at the moment... until you have seen every film ever made you can't say that kubrick is the best director ever. Fair enough he may be your favourite...but that doesn't automatically make him better than my favourite director...whoever that may be...i don't know... it's an opinion. Personally i think kubrick was alright...but he wasn't anything spectacular. It's a matter of all the pieces coming together at the right time...the script...the cinematographer...the cast...clockwork orange for example...could have been *so* much better...it was all for shock and had none of the subtlety of the book...in my opinion... just because you think he's a genius doesn't make it official...everyone is entitled to their opinions...whether or not you agree...
if you're only going to look in the mainstream cinema for good films then you don't deserve to see the good stuff...there are people making amazing films with less than kubrick had...amazing scriptwriters making their own films with a digital camera and their friends playing the parts...it's nothing to do with having the right contacts or money...
Yes, that was my point. I don't like the current popular American film industry, and it seems like independent filmmakers would create more intriguing films. I can't say that for sure really, because I don't know much about the independent film market, or foreign films, for that matter, but what I do know is that I am very dissatisfied with American films today. I haven't been paying much credence to the mainstream today - that's for sure. I do agree with you that I should look more into the independent market, though. Lately, I've been renting older American films as opposed to anything coming out recently, and not just Kubrick. In general, older films seemed to be much more inclined to an artistic statement, or at least something revolutionary, whether they were low-budget, like Monty Python and the Holy Grail, or something larger. Almost all of my favorite films were released more than fifteen years ago, at the very least. Have you ever seen or heard of David Lynch's Eraserhead? I just rented this film a couple of months ago and was absolutely astounded by the minimalism of it. It was released in 1977, and was filmed on an extremely low budget. I read that the director was literally living on the set at some point during filming, because he couldn't afford to live anywhere else. It's an incredibly bizarre film - you basically are forced to form your own conclusions as to the meaning of it - but the cinematography and general effect are nothing less than incredible.
Well, if you mean mainstream in terms of his ideas, I would agree with you that Kubrick was "out there", but if you're using the word 'mainstream' to describe whether his films received high praise and commercial success, I don't think he was obscure in any sense. Kubrick's films were made on a high-budget, which was most likely as a result of his films being so well received. A Clockwork Orange and 2001 were both nominated for Academy Awards when they were first released, which is one of the most well-known honors that one can receive for a film. And I don't think that everyone regarded Kubrick's films as being "complete crap" when they first came out. Once again, how else would they have been so well received and recognized? Of course, there are definitely people who will never warm up to Kubrick's style of filming, and that is certainly reasonable. As you said, it's all a matter of opinion. But Kubrick definitely wasn't a stranger to success. Yes, I know that. I'm sorry, I tend to be very blunt in my opinions sometimes. Kubrick is my favorite director, out of all of the films that I have seen thus far. Whether he is your favorite director or not is irrelevant to me - I agree with you on that position.
That's just dumb. Many big-name movies today are made with shitloads of cash, and suck. You need a vision to give the movie life. Right on. Quite a few of Kubrick's films had to age before they were critically lauded as classics. Many critics were frothing at the mouth and piss-mad at Dr. Strangelove, for instance, being too wrapped up in Cold War paranoia they labelled the movie subversive and dangerous.
yeah but these big name movies dont take 3049372089472908374982734 takes for one weak scene that the general public will look past and then focus more on the shocking scenes of the movie. today's big budget films just go overboard on explosions and sfx. but i do admire the freedom he has to be able to take as many takes till perfection, but someone so overrated shouldn't receive such privilege. i agree with you that a great director should have vision, but he/she should also have ingenuity and creativity. some of the most creative moments ever have come from error or by accident. other great american directors like lynch and (of all people) even welles advocate this. with kubrick there was no room for improvisation or anything sporadic. and personally that just turns me off, knowing he has all the time in the world and money (time is money and it's one of the reasons why his movies were so high budget). that's why i said what i said.
