Stanley Kubrick

Discussion and info on people in film, ranging from directors to actors to cinematographers to writers.
Post Reply
Message
Author
razumovsky
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 3:52 pm

Re: Stanley Kubrick

#301 Post by razumovsky » Tue Sep 14, 2010 3:14 pm

HMV claim that they are releasing Fear and Desire as an "exclusive" in December. They also claim to be releasing Chimes at Midnight next month, so how likely this is to come to pass I don't know. F & D wasn't included in the recent BFI Kubrick retrospective - perhaps his estate requested it be excluded? I'm certainly very curious to see it.

Numero Trois
Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2009 5:23 am
Location: Florida

Re: Stanley Kubrick

#302 Post by Numero Trois » Tue Sep 14, 2010 6:45 pm

It can be seen here. Although that print is in terrible shape....

User avatar
movielocke
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:44 am

Re: Stanley Kubrick

#303 Post by movielocke » Tue Sep 14, 2010 8:33 pm

honestly Fear and Desire reminds me of a Roger Corman film.

But not as good because the writing is worse.

User avatar
Fiery Angel
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 1:59 pm

Re: Stanley Kubrick

#304 Post by Fiery Angel » Wed Sep 15, 2010 12:36 am

Stephen Colbert did a bizarre impression of/homage to Dr. Strangelove tonight during his "The Word" segment on the "ground zero" "mosque" "controversy."

User avatar
MyNameCriterionForum
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 5:27 am

Re: Stanley Kubrick

#305 Post by MyNameCriterionForum » Fri Sep 17, 2010 8:21 am

I could have sworn I saw this posted here, but for the life of me I couldn't find anything. Please delete/move accordingly.

Doug Trumbull is (or was- comments at the link seem to indicate the project is cancelled?) making a companion doc for a long-in-progress book on 2001:

2001: Beyond the infinite

That in itself is interesting, but even more frustrating is he begins to talk Malick's new film at the end... just as the vid ends.

User avatar
Alphonse Doinel
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 12:42 pm

Re: Stanley Kubrick

#306 Post by Alphonse Doinel » Fri Sep 17, 2010 11:06 am

It was posted in the Stanley Kubrick Collection thread, and yes, most sources are saying its cancelled.

razumovsky
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 3:52 pm

Re: Stanley Kubrick

#307 Post by razumovsky » Fri Sep 17, 2010 4:02 pm

I did post back in July about the Douglas Trumbull film, but it seems to have vanished. Trumbull introduced a screening of 2001 at the BFI, and afterwards he mentioned the documentary project. If I am remembering what he said clearly, Warners had initially been enthusiastic about the project, but then pulled the plug. He said he had no idea why they had suddenly gone cold on it, but intimated that it could have been because during his research he found outtakes from Kubrick's original cut, as well as the documentary prologue about extra-terrestrial intelligence that had been filmed but then abandoned. The implication was that Warners will re-release a "reconstructed" version of 2001 based on this, and they decided to put their resources into this rather than the Trumbull film. Shame we can't have both. I have to add that Douglas Trumbull's presentation was fascinating, and he was thoroughly charming when fielding questions after the screening.

User avatar
Alphonse Doinel
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 12:42 pm

Re: Stanley Kubrick

#308 Post by Alphonse Doinel » Fri Sep 17, 2010 4:21 pm

I'd heard the rumors of WB working on an 'extended' cut, so its interesting to see that there's some truth to them.

I'm not sure why Christiane would allow them to do this though. Wasn't Kubrick very adamant about cut scenes not being seen, to the point of destroying them?

User avatar
aox
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 12:02 pm
Location: nYc

Re: Stanley Kubrick

#309 Post by aox » Fri Sep 17, 2010 4:25 pm

Yeah, I thought he destroyed everything that didn't make it into the final cuts of all of his films.

User avatar
Matt
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Stanley Kubrick

#310 Post by Matt » Fri Sep 17, 2010 4:37 pm

If they proceed with this, I fully expect Kubrick to rise from the grave, Mummy/Dr. Phibes-style, and kill every executive involved.

User avatar
MyNameCriterionForum
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 5:27 am

Re: Stanley Kubrick

#311 Post by MyNameCriterionForum » Fri Sep 17, 2010 6:25 pm

Haven't Trumbull and the Kubricks been at odds for decades now? Perhaps that might explain why WB pulled the plug?

And yes, I imagine all of this would have embarrassed and infuriated Kubrick were he still alive. Frankly I haven't been impressed with the way his family have handled the DVD releases and his general image, etc.

User avatar
Roger Ryan
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: A Midland town spread and darkened into a city

Re: Stanley Kubrick

#312 Post by Roger Ryan » Sat Sep 18, 2010 2:50 pm

I'm thinking that any extended version of 2001 would have to be presented as a Blu-ray "extra" packaged with Kubrick's final cut to get the family's approval, although I can't imagine they would allow the scenes to be inserted back into the film at all.

I would definitely want to see the initial preview version (or something that approximates it), but given the content of the cut footage I don't think I would be returning to it regularly.

User avatar
The Fanciful Norwegian
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:24 pm
Location: Teegeeack

Re: Stanley Kubrick

#313 Post by The Fanciful Norwegian » Sun Sep 19, 2010 7:56 am

aox wrote:Yeah, I thought he destroyed everything that didn't make it into the final cuts of all of his films.
Leon Vitali has said he destroyed outtake negatives from 2001, ACO, Barry Lyndon and The Shining, but it's perfectly likely some of the footage survives elsewhere. If something makes it into the premiere version, then there's obviously going to be multiple copies, and even Kubrick might've been unable to track them all down. Maybe Trumbull himself has some outtakes in his possession.

razumovsky
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 3:52 pm

Re: Stanley Kubrick

#314 Post by razumovsky » Sun Sep 19, 2010 8:47 am

My understanding is that the footage excised from the premiere version of 2001, and the documentary prelude, were in the Warners archive. Trumbull implied that it wasn't hidden exactly - it was more the case that before he began researching his 2001 project nobody had really looked for it. He also said that, apart from the prelude, the extra footage was simply odds and sods from throughout the film, rather than complete sequences. Given his apparently rigorous efforts to ensure only definitive versions of his films to circulate, I wonder why Kubrick allowed different versions of The Shining to co-exist? Did he not have the authority to replace the US version with the international version? Did he think that US audiences wanted the extra plot scaffolding that the version released there provides? Perhaps he was undecided as to which version should be considered definitive? In any case, comparing the two is fascinating. I have to say I think it gains complexity from the cuts he made, but having the two versions gives a precious insight into his conception of the film.

User avatar
MyNameCriterionForum
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 5:27 am

Re: Stanley Kubrick

#315 Post by MyNameCriterionForum » Sun Sep 19, 2010 9:08 am

What Kubrick said about outtakes may not necessarily be taken as the truth or fact -- even if his estate believe it to be so.

Everyone thought there weren't any tapes of the Beach Boys' SMiLE for years either, and now there are about a dozen discs worth of those very recordings in circulation.

User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

Re: Stanley Kubrick

#316 Post by zedz » Sun Sep 19, 2010 3:59 pm

Matt wrote:If they proceed with this, I fully expect Kubrick to rise from the grave, Mummy/Dr. Phibes-style, and kill every executive involved.
one by one, in the manner of scenes from Kubrick films. I'd rather see that than a longer 2001 any day.

User avatar
The Fanciful Norwegian
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:24 pm
Location: Teegeeack

Re: Stanley Kubrick

#317 Post by The Fanciful Norwegian » Mon Sep 20, 2010 1:32 am

MyNameCriterionForum wrote:What Kubrick said about outtakes may not necessarily be taken as the truth or fact -- even if his estate believe it to be so.
Well, Vitali says he did it personally. In other words one of his jobs for Kubrick was to take the outtakes out to a lot somewhere and torch them, which must be an interesting way to earn your paycheck. Of course Vitali has said some dubious things (e.g. on the aspect ratio issue) so make of this what you will.

User avatar
MyNameCriterionForum
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 5:27 am

Re: Stanley Kubrick

#318 Post by MyNameCriterionForum » Mon Sep 20, 2010 4:25 am

I do trust Vitali more than Jan Harlan or the Mrs. (with all due respect otherwise).

User avatar
Roger Ryan
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: A Midland town spread and darkened into a city

Re: Stanley Kubrick

#319 Post by Roger Ryan » Mon Sep 20, 2010 10:49 am

This information is from a decade ago, but I think this is fairly accurate regarding the footage cut from 2001.

Some intriguing stuff to be sure (I like the robe and slippers bit at the end - cutting this resulted in a slight continuity issue in the final version), but nothing revelatory.

User avatar
aox
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 12:02 pm
Location: nYc

Re: Stanley Kubrick

#320 Post by aox » Mon Sep 20, 2010 11:15 am

Roger Ryan wrote:This information is from a decade ago, but I think this is fairly accurate regarding the footage cut from 2001.

Some intriguing stuff to be sure (I like the robe and slippers bit at the end - cutting this resulted in a slight continuity issue in the final version), but nothing revelatory.
Excellent read.

User avatar
djproject
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 3:41 pm
Location: Framingham, MA
Contact:

Re: Stanley Kubrick

#321 Post by djproject » Sat Oct 09, 2010 4:39 pm

I'm just going to add some of my own thoughts about Stanley Kubrick as a relatively new contributor to the forum.

I admit that I'm one of those people who used Kubrick as a transition from "film as entertainment" to "film as art." However it's not in the sense that "oh film can do more than just blow things up." It was more in the sense that film *should* have an artistic/higher aim than just mere entertainment. Furthermore, that making film is not something that just happens but rather it acquires an attention to detail, technical acumen and a passionate dedication. In that sense, I think of him as a personal cinematic father figure, which I hope to explain in more detail later.

(Once again, I apologize for redundancies but I hope I can either add some new things or make old things seem new.)

The more I think about Kubrick as a filmmaker, I less convinced I am of him being "cold" or "detached." You can pick up some "coldness" to his work but I don't think it's due to lack of emotions. On the contrary, his most memorable moments are where emotion and passion are ever present: Col. Dax and Gen. Mireau arguing in Paths of Glory, Major Kong riding the bomb in Dr. Strangelove, Alex ... in his entirety in A Clockwork Orange, Jack Torrance past the brink in The Shining, the Parris Island training in Full Metal Jacket, to name a few. What can be perceived as "coldness" is more of Kubrick's photographic approach to filmmaking. (Interestingly enough, Antonioni strikes me in the same way.)

Continuing on the photograph idea, it's interesting to note that even if you could use that as a basis of his "coldness", it still doesn't account for everything. For an example, when you think "photograph," you think deliberate and precise compositions where actors are exactly where they need to be in the frame in order to complete the image. This formality gives the feeling of "coldness." Yet in Kubrick's oeuvre, you have plenty of moments where the image is dynamic: the tracking shot through the trenches in Paths of Glory, the base infiltration in Dr. Strangelove, Alex murdering the "cat lady" in A Clockwork Orange, also to name a few. And even with the smooth glides of the Steadicam in his later work, there is still the sense of motion and dynamism that suited for the shot.

Something I admire about him is seeing a relentless pursuit to play with cinematic conventions. This was not someone who wanted to do the "same old, same old." While I think he would have found some worthwhile pieces to take note, he would not be pleased with the slew of remakes and reboots of various films either films themselves or adapting other works. He never thought small about a film project; it was always big and epic. But interestingly epic in the *right* way where it was about ideas and bigger questions rather than about stars and budgets (although paradoxically he could attract both). And I think in this way, he was able to make the films he's remembered for now and why there isn't really an equal to him since his death in 1999.

In conclusion, I return to a statement I made earlier where I call Kubrick my personal cinematic father figure. For myself, I am a very very very young filmmaker (written scripts, working on the pre-production and only now I'm starting to do some very short films). The only art medium where I have had training and a certain degree of experience is music. However, Kubrick - both his life and his work - have provided an important foundation of how to approach films and especially the necessity of dedication, persistence and the aspiration to go as far and as high as you can. And because he was my initial window into what it truly means to be a filmmaker, I think of him as a father figure.

(This won't be the last time I talk about him or his work ... and this won't be the only filmmaker I would like to discuss =] )

User avatar
Markson
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 5:50 am

Re: Stanley Kubrick

#322 Post by Markson » Thu Dec 02, 2010 6:28 pm


User avatar
MyNameCriterionForum
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 5:27 am

Re: Stanley Kubrick

#323 Post by MyNameCriterionForum » Fri Dec 03, 2010 2:13 am

Actors are morons

User avatar
Alphonse Doinel
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 12:42 pm

Re: Stanley Kubrick

#324 Post by Alphonse Doinel » Fri Dec 03, 2010 2:50 am

I guess he doesn't get the sci-fi channel.

User avatar
ArchCarrier
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 3:08 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Stanley Kubrick

#325 Post by ArchCarrier » Fri Dec 17, 2010 7:51 am

Another report on the found lost footage of 2001:
Great presentation from Mr. Trumbull tonight. He showed many behind the scenes photos recently unearthed from the Kubrick archive that I'd never seen before (no photography at the presentation were allowed but it was recorded for posterity) - the Orion receiving final tweaks from a modeller with the "collar" of the 15' Discovery on a shelf above his right shoulder. The Moonbus on its TMA landing pad with the support stand visible. A couple of shots of the Aries 1B with three model makers standing around - it looks almost finished but un-painted. Several shots of the 15' Discovery in an earlier incarnation getting kit parts attached - Trumbull said that a bunch of art students were employed in shifts running around the clock detailing the models.

I got the feeling that many of these shots will appear in the upcoming book being put together by Dave Larson. Unfortunately, he informed us that Warners have pulled the plug on the 2001 documentary the he was planning - both financially and from a rights standpoint.

He also informed us that the 17 minutes that Kubrick cut from 2001 shortly after the film's release have been found by Warners in their vault in a salt mine in Kansas. These cut scenes are perfectly preserved in CMY component negatives. Trumbull has no idea of what Warners plans to do with them.

Post Reply