Just thought I would mention this doco I watched last night. It highlighted to me what a complete and utter nutjob Kubrick must have been.

It is about a filmmaker who has been given access to Kubrick's thousands and thousands of boxes where we collected and saved everything to do with his movies. For instance he had a box full of nothing else but photographs of every doorway in West London just for inspiration for a single scene in Eyes Wide Shut.

It was fascinating to watch, really interesting. The line between genius and madman is very thin and Kubrick appears to have walked it often. Well worth a view.

I think it was on UK TV a while ago, but I only found it last night. For anyone in Australia is is currently on ABC iView to watch now. I think it is also on Youtube.

You've neglected to mention the name of the documentary. I'd like to check it out.

While not my favorite director, I do think he's the best. In history. The guy meets all the criteria of what a director should strive to be. The fact that he was borderline nuts is just icing on the cake. All my favorite directors are either totally nuts or too normal for words.

James,

The title of the film is "Stanley Kubrick's Boxes"

I thought it was a really interesting little documentary.  Makes it very clear-cut how much effort -- and not just inspiration -- goes into making Kubrick caliber films.

Really... I'm an idiot. Bad title but... idiot.

I'll check it out just the same. One of the few directors who is fully deserved of his praise.

haha, sorry James. Yes, the title is the title of the thread.

And yes Heretic, I was probably being a little hard on Kubrick, while it does show someone who is extremely obsessive, it of course does go a long way to highlighting the dedication he had to his craft. He was an amazing filmmaker and the amount work he put into a film goes some way to showing us why.

It is people like Kubrick who we can only imagine what they would be able to accomplish with today's technology.

Quoted from Murphy It is people like Kubrick who we can only imagine what they would be able to accomplish with today's technology.

I think if Kubrick was able to do exactly what he dreamed of then it would probably be crap to watch.   It's improvising on a budget that makes the best art.

For example take Michael Cimino.  On a budget he makes The Deer Hunter.  With free reign he makes Heaven's Gate.  

Kubric has even done this himself.  On a budget he makes Clockwork Orange with free reign he makes Barry Lyndon or Eyes Wide Shut.  

And that isn't to say that those films don't have some merit, just that they were bloated.

Quoted from mcornetto I think if Kubrick was able to do exactly what he dreamed of then it would probably be crap to watch.   It's improvising on a budget that makes the best art. For example take Michael Cimino.  On a budget he makes The Deer Hunter.  With free reign he makes Heaven's Gate.   Kubric has even done this himself.  On a budget he makes Clockwork Orange with free reign he makes Barry Lyndon or Eyes Wide Shut.   And that isn't to say that those films don't have some merit, just that they were bloated.

You had me at Heaven's Gate.

You had me long ago. As did Jon Ronson.

SK's boxes was fascinating to me, as good documentaries should be.

Kubrick was far from mad, his output proved it. Fincher and Spielberg and Scorcese still marvel. As do the rest of us. Why? You already know, and if you don't, just watch his stuff.

You can say what you like about SK, him and me do not give a shite.

The best. And that is that.

R ox

Stanley was pretty good, but all his stuff was adaptation.

Anybody can do that.

I disagree. Kubrick took all his source material and made it his own. Why else would Stephen King have been so outspoken against The Shining? Also, keep in mind that both the novel and film, 2001, were written/produced simultaneously.

Quoted from James McClung I disagree. Kubrick took all his source material and made it his own. Why else would Stephen King have been so outspoken against The Shining? Also, keep in mind that both the novel and film, 2001, were written/produced simultaneously.

I was being facetious...although there is a kernel of truth in what I said, from a personal point of view.

I'm with King regards the Shining for a start...I thought it was largely lame.

Quoted Text Parts of the film are chilling, charged with a relentlessly claustrophobic terror, but others fall flat. Not that religion has to be involved in horror, but a visceral skeptic such as Kubrick just couldn't grasp the sheer inhuman evil of The Overlook Hotel. So he looked, instead, for evil in the characters and made the film into a domestic tragedy with only vaguely supernatural overtones. That was the basic flaw: because he couldn't believe, he couldn't make the film believable to others. What's basically wrong with Kubrick's version of The Shining is that it's a film by a man who thinks too much and feels too little; and that's why, for all its virtuoso effects, it never gets you by the throat and hangs on the way real horror should

That's King's quote on the film and I agree with it completely.

I think his films are well worth watching. Like a lot of the "great" Directors though, his films aren't generally that well liked by anyone who isn't told they are great in film school.

Not sure how I feel about King's quote. On the one hand, I think the notion that the film doesn't have supernatural elements is a stretch at best. I know those aren't his exact words but it's a theory many subscribe to and what King is getting at in any case. On the other hand, if King hadn't created that awful miniseries, I'd have to wonder what a truer adaptation would've been like, in which the hotel was the true antagonist. Of course, that's lost what with King's and Mick Garris's collaboration.

In any case, I liked Kubrick's take on the story and I think the film in and of itself is terrific. Maybe if I'd read the novel, I would've had a slightly different opinion. I tend to prefer films to stay true to their source material.

Don't think Kubrick was even mentioned in my film school. We generally had to watch a lot of boring Italian films and bad experimental films.

Strange how King looks at all his work through Rose colored glasses too.  Here's the deal, Kubrick made "The Shining" his own and he did it better than King wrote it or invisioned it.  What King did cannot be discredited, I'm not trying to do so, but Kubrick's version of "The Shining" is above and beyond what King aspired to do with it.

The music
The setting
The tones
The mood
The colors
The vague nature of what is and isn't happening
The audiences power to discern fact from fiction

All of those elements helped make Kubrick's version better than what King set out to do with it.  King is obviously hurt, as we all probably would be, that someone took his concept and made it better.  That doesn't happen a lot in Hollywood remakes or reinvisions or reboots or whatever...  It stings when it does.

I read Kings Shining and watched the Tv-mini-series based off it -- They're tame.  Kubrick's vision is more real.  It's more viceral.  It's more raw.  It's more honest.  It's more true to life.  Kings version is a fairytale... Kubrick's version is a graphic realization of something that could happen.

We don't know if Jack was seeing these ghost.  We don't know if anything that was going on inside the Overlook was really truly going on.  What we do know is Jack is going crazy and we're along for the ride.  There are elements and lore in everyday life and those people in the movie helped carry a creepy overtone of truth to the place being haunted -- But was it really?

We know 2 girls were murdered
We know Grady killed them, his wife and himself
We know Jack has a history of alcohol abuse and physical abuse
We know he's crazy and anything is liable to happen and be dreamed up

Kubrick's version allows me, right or wrong in my thinking, to form my own opinions and outlooks on what is going on in the movie.  King's version never did this.

P.S. Oh, this is a Murphy thread... That null and voids any relevance or importance.

That's fair enough Balt.

For me the film, give or take a few interesting visuals, did nothing for me and Kubrick's inability to work with actors shone out like a beacon...don't believe the actors, you can't believe a dramatic tragedy.

There's a lot of revisionism that goes on with Kubrick. His films come out to mediocre receptions..the Shining included, then his fans over time tell everyone how great they are and it becomes common opinion.

But it wasn't my intention to turn the thread into a critique of Kubrick, so I'll back out now. Oh and I agree that I'd have more sympathy for King if the version he made was any good at all...not that I've seen it.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films That's fair enough Balt. For me the film, give or take a few interesting visuals, did nothing for me and Kubrick's inability to work with actors shone out like a beacon...don't believe the actors, you can't believe a dramatic tragedy. There's a lot of revisionism that goes on with Kubrick. His films come out to mediocre receptions..the Shining included, then his fans over time tell everyone how great they are and it becomes common opinion. But it wasn't my intention to turn the thread into a critique of Kubrick, so I'll back out now. Oh and I agree that I'd have more sympathy for King if the version he made was any good at all...not that I've seen it.

Well, to be fair, I'm not a huge Kubrick fan.  I hate much of his body of work, really.  I think I've really cared and felt passionate about only two of his films in my life.

The Shining
Eyes Wide Shut

The rest, Full Metal Jacket more than any of them, you can have...  But I feel he really hit the nail on the head with both the above films.  And, on a side note, you don't think Mr. Ullman (Barry Nelson) and Jack's banter was classically delivered?  I felt it was the most real and brilliantly acted piece in the whole film.  I loved how Nelson crafted and created the entire lore of the overlook to Jack.  It was such a real moment, the way he delivered it, it was flawless.

I think the scene with Grady and Jack in the bathroom was another incredibly acted scene.  Even though his English accent didn't really fit the bill of back-story.  The Shining is timeless.  It's one of those movies, like Labamba & The Karate Kid, that simply doesn't need to be mucked with.

Vanilla Sky
The Shining
Labamba
The Ice Harvest
Employee Of the Month (Dillon Version)
The Karate Kid (sadly shouldn't have ever been touched)
Magnolia
Scarecrows
Once Upon A Time In The West
Fulci's House By The Cemetery (which is an homage to the shining, shocking as that may sound)
Easy Rider
Wizard Of Oz

Those are some of the best films I've ever seen.  Movies that are so good they simply don't need remakes because they were done so flawless, captured so beautifully the 1st time out.