Knocked it out of the park once again. Finding valid critiques of a venerated auteur like Kubrick, while also drawing attention to international cinema *and* underlining often overlooked artistic merits of mainstream works - all in one video; Masterful. Keep it up!
Beautifully made and bringing up important valuable points, but coming from the kindest place possible, you needed another paragraph in the script to cap it off, or to restructure the script, putting the - why Kubrick's use of classical music as a film score doesnt work conclusion - bit after the - example of classical music done right -. As it is the ending is abrupt, and even a little confusing. I promise this isnt coming from a place of wanting to tear this essay down.
Sound argument but I do disagree with this notion that if all six aspects you pointed out were to be as good as separate art pieces in itself that a movie would be unwatchable. If there were such a film that it was like six different art pieces, that would make the film simply more rewatchable and so audiences could and would have to look deeply at each part in order to grasp the whole complexity of the piece, and I feel like that would actually elevate the movie.
true, but the six aspects would all be competing for your attention so, you'll probably get distracted by them, and thus you won't be experiencing the film probably, the aspects need to work together and tie into one another symbolically or thematically, but fair point none the less
No, that is not the point. Kubrick's films are boring garbage and so overrated. Soundtracks are supposed to compliment the movie and to be made especially for the film. Using the famous classic music pieces instead of a special soundtrack only proves Kubrick's lack of talent and originality. Cinema died at the start of the 60s at the end of the golden era (1929-30s-40s..) when cinema peaked in the 30s. A movie isn't a painting or a piece of music like those pretentious directors say - it is a different form of art. Kubrick's films are BORING
@@EasternRomeOrthodoxya movie isn't a painting or a piece of music like those pretentious directors say. It is a different form of art? So a movie is a movie not and painting or song. But movies have paintings and music in them. Or are you suggesting storytelling is the key difference?
@@artistaccount Story telling is the basis, yes, but that's exactly your mistake - movies are moving pictures, and don't have paintings in them, as you said, and film music also is not the same as regular music, but it is music written especially for the moving pictures on screen (unless it's a Kubrick film - meaning "uncinematic")
Your theory whilst understandable and justifiable is completely wrong. All depends on how you assemble the music with the edit, doesn't matter whether it is soundtrack zimmer or mozart.
I agree. There are some pieces of classical music (ie: Schubert’ Piano Trio No. 2 in Barry Lyndon, Dies Irae [Symphonie Fantastique by Hector Berlioz] in The Shining, and Also Sprach Zarathustra in 2001: A Space Odyssey) that are completely iconic because of their usage in their film. They definitely compliment the painting-like quality of Kubrick’s work. It’s like when you hear classical music in an art museum.
I completely agree! And he even says it in his own video with the cake metaphor. In his point of view I guess all parts of the cake are put together in only one scene. But Kubrick was a master at having a great balance and using the music only in the perfect moments when there is enough space for the music part of the cake.
🤺☦🇷🇺It does matter. Music for film is not equal to regular piece of music, just as images on films aren't equal to still images and paintings- its a different medium, and anyone who tries to make films look like a paintings or a piece of music is simply boring and PRETENTIOUS. Kubrick's films are boring garbage and so overrated. Soundtracks are supposed to compliment the movie and to be made especially for the film. Using the famous classic music pieces instead of a special soundtrack only proves Kubrick's lack of talent and originality. Cinema died at the start of the 60s at the end of the golden era (1929-30s-40s..) when cinema peaked in the 30s. A movie isn't a painting or a piece of music like those pretentious directors say - it is a different form of art. Kubrick's films are BORING
I don't know how you can say this after watching barry lyndon and a clockwork orange. Those soundtracks are simply the best of all time. You are basically saying that scores shouldn't be noticed, the same ideology that causes these generic MCU scores of today. Soundtracks should be noticed, and most can focus on the music and everything else at the same time.
he isn't saying film scores shouldn't be noticed, he's saying that they shouldn't fight with other aspects of the movie for your attention but rather should compliment the other aspects of a movie.
I agree with you that Hans Zimmer could never outwrite Beethoven but there are FAR better film composers than Zimmer. Alexandre Desplat or Bear McCreary to name a couple.
You have just coherently explained to me why I keep zoning out during 2001. I can't for the life of me make it all the way through that movie and this totally explains why
Really interesting thoghts. Found this through the good ol tok and was plesantly surprised to find one of my favorite types of content. Looking forward to watching more. :)
SHORT ANSWER I disagree that it would be impossible to overlap the 6 aspects of a piece in each of its greatness. If the writing is good enough - meaning the writers understand whom they are writing for - there's not much room for complexity LONG ANSWER I disagree with you in terms of all the 6 aspects of a piece being impossible to overlap in greatness, meaning there could not be a movie that could express those 6 aspects in each of its fullness. I think the word impossible is counterintuitive in this context. The impossible in art is the drive to its ambitious being, so looking by this lens we could say that something being "impossible" would be the ruler for its drive to became real. By this, the movie being a full expression of all the 6 arts would be a goal to a masterpiece made real, having all the aspects of the 6 arts being presented. The "impossible" comes in terms of skills to pull that act, being able to overlap and connect all the 6 aspects correctly But, you also said it would be unwatchable, what I agree if you think about it being complex to grasp, but why would be complex at all? Doesn't the art involve more feelings than reasoning? If so, there's no much room for complexity if the writing good enough (Shutter Island), which I think it's only good when the writers understand who they are writing for.
You and him completely misunderstand what movie is- Kubrick's films are boring garbage and so overrated. Soundtracks are supposed to compliment the movie and to be made especially for the film. Using the famous classic music pieces instead of a special soundtrack only proves Kubrick's lack of talent and originality. Cinema died at the start of the 60s at the end of the golden era (1929-30s-40s..) when cinema peaked in the 30s. A movie isn't a painting or a piece of music like those pretentious directors say - it is a different form of art. Kubrick's films are BORING
You probably already know, but this video definitely needs a conclusion. It didn't end, it just stopped. Which is a shame because the rest of it seems really good, so the context exacerbates the situation.
I have to agree. Musical masterpieces evoke their own story, sensations, and emotions. While the tone of them can be used to add texture to a scene or provide depth to a character based on their preference, the movie should spend less time using already produced artforms to fill in the blank or carry a scene. It feels disingenuous and often takes me out of the scene and focusing on how much I enjoy the music.
😂😂😅Music for film is not equal to regular piece of music, just as images on films aren't equal to still images and paintings- its a different medium, and anyone who tries to make films look like a paintings or a piece of music is simply boring and PRETENTIOUS. Kubrick's films are boring garbage and so overrated. Soundtracks are supposed to compliment the movie and to be made especially for the film. Using the famous classic music pieces instead of a special soundtrack only proves Kubrick's lack of talent and originality. Cinema died at the start of the 60s at the end of the golden era (1929-30s-40s..) when cinema peaked in the 30s. A movie isn't a painting or a piece of music like those pretentious directors say - it is a different form of art. Kubrick's films are BORING🤣🤣
@@EasternRomeOrthodoxy Music in films have more uses than that. Music can help establish the time and place of a film, creating a sense of setting and context for the audience. Such as A Clockwork Orange, which is set in a futuristic dystopia, and modern music in 2001: A Space Odyssey, which is set in the future. Music can provide subtext to a scene, highlighting elements that might not be immediately apparent on-screen. For example, the use of "Singing in the Rain" in A Clockwork Orange creates a stark contrast between the cheerful lyrics of the song and the violent actions taking place on screen, highlighting the dystopian and satirical nature of the film. For example, a happy song played over a tense scene can suggest irony or foreshadowing. Music can help maintain the pacing and rhythm of a film, particularly during action sequences. It can also create tension and anticipation, enhancing the overall viewing experience. Like in The music in "The Shining" is often accompanied by sound effects, such as the eerie chanting that accompanies the appearance of the Grady twins. These sound effects help to create a sense of rhythm and continuity throughout the film, tying the music to the visuals on screen.
@@EasternRomeOrthodoxy Self-made soundtracks and Classical soundtracks provide the same amount of meaning for each other. Classical music has a rich and diverse history that spans centuries, and many pieces have become cultural touchstones that audiences are familiar with. By incorporating classical music into a film, filmmakers can tap into this familiarity and use it to create emotional resonance and connection with the audience. Self-made soundtracks allow filmmakers to experiment with different musical styles and genres, and to adapt the music to the specific needs of each scene. Using either or doesn’t take away from a film. As Both types of music can be effective in creating a powerful cinematic experience, depending on the specific needs of the film.
Kubrick's films are boring garbage and so overrated. Soundtracks are supposed to compliment the movie and to be made especially for the film. Using the famous classic music pieces instead of a special soundtrack only proves Kubrick's lack of talent and originality. Cinema died at the start of the 60s at the end of the golden era (1929-30s-40s..) when cinema peaked in the 30s. A movie isn't a painting or a piece of music like those pretentious directors say - it is a different form of art. Kubrick's films are BORING
🤺☦🇷🇺Yes. Music for film is not equal to regular piece of music, just as images on films aren't equal to still images and paintings- its a different medium, and anyone who tries to make films look like a paintings or a piece of music is simply boring and PRETENTIOUS. Kubrick's films are boring garbage and so overrated. Soundtracks are supposed to compliment the movie and to be made especially for the film. Using the famous classic music pieces instead of a special soundtrack only proves Kubrick's lack of talent and originality. Until sound came, cinema wasn't a complete art form, only moving images mixed with literature, and Cinema peaked in the early 30s and died at the start of the 60s at the end of the golden era. A movie isn't a painting or a piece of music like those pretentious directors say - it is a different form of art. Kubrick's films are BORING. The only 2 stand out movies who are the swan song of cinema are Blade Runner (directors cut) and Siesta (1987)
Knocked it out of the park once again. Finding valid critiques of a venerated auteur like Kubrick, while also drawing attention to international cinema *and* underlining often overlooked artistic merits of mainstream works - all in one video; Masterful. Keep it up!
Keane with more than 60 seconds is unstoppable!
we absolutely love to see it
The background music is too loud and distracting, I couldn't get through the whole video
Beautifully made and bringing up important valuable points, but coming from the kindest place possible, you needed another paragraph in the script to cap it off, or to restructure the script, putting the - why Kubrick's use of classical music as a film score doesnt work conclusion - bit after the - example of classical music done right -. As it is the ending is abrupt, and even a little confusing. I promise this isnt coming from a place of wanting to tear this essay down.
Sound argument but I do disagree with this notion that if all six aspects you pointed out were to be as good as separate art pieces in itself that a movie would be unwatchable. If there were such a film that it was like six different art pieces, that would make the film simply more rewatchable and so audiences could and would have to look deeply at each part in order to grasp the whole complexity of the piece, and I feel like that would actually elevate the movie.
true, but the six aspects would all be competing for your attention so, you'll probably get distracted by them, and thus you won't be experiencing the film probably, the aspects need to work together and tie into one another symbolically or thematically, but fair point none the less
No, that is not the point. Kubrick's films are boring garbage and so overrated. Soundtracks are supposed to compliment the movie and to be made especially for the film. Using the famous classic music pieces instead of a special soundtrack only proves Kubrick's lack of talent and originality. Cinema died at the start of the 60s at the end of the golden era (1929-30s-40s..) when cinema peaked in the 30s. A movie isn't a painting or a piece of music like those pretentious directors say - it is a different form of art. Kubrick's films are BORING
@@EasternRomeOrthodoxya movie isn't a painting or a piece of music like those pretentious directors say. It is a different form of art?
So a movie is a movie not and painting or song. But movies have paintings and music in them. Or are you suggesting storytelling is the key difference?
@@artistaccount Story telling is the basis, yes, but that's exactly your mistake - movies are moving pictures, and don't have paintings in them, as you said, and film music also is not the same as regular music, but it is music written especially for the moving pictures on screen (unless it's a Kubrick film - meaning "uncinematic")
its a flawed perspective on cinema, movies arent the composition of different arts together, its an art form on itself
Your theory whilst understandable and justifiable is completely wrong. All depends on how you assemble the music with the edit, doesn't matter whether it is soundtrack zimmer or mozart.
I agree. There are some pieces of classical music (ie: Schubert’ Piano Trio No. 2 in Barry Lyndon, Dies Irae [Symphonie Fantastique by Hector Berlioz] in The Shining, and Also Sprach Zarathustra in 2001: A Space Odyssey) that are completely iconic because of their usage in their film. They definitely compliment the painting-like quality of Kubrick’s work. It’s like when you hear classical music in an art museum.
I completely agree! And he even says it in his own video with the cake metaphor. In his point of view I guess all parts of the cake are put together in only one scene. But Kubrick was a master at having a great balance and using the music only in the perfect moments when there is enough space for the music part of the cake.
🤺☦🇷🇺It does matter. Music for film is not equal to regular piece of music, just as images on films aren't equal to still images and paintings- its a different medium, and anyone who tries to make films look like a paintings or a piece of music is simply boring and PRETENTIOUS. Kubrick's films are boring garbage and so overrated. Soundtracks are supposed to compliment the movie and to be made especially for the film. Using the famous classic music pieces instead of a special soundtrack only proves Kubrick's lack of talent and originality. Cinema died at the start of the 60s at the end of the golden era (1929-30s-40s..) when cinema peaked in the 30s. A movie isn't a painting or a piece of music like those pretentious directors say - it is a different form of art. Kubrick's films are BORING
I don't know how you can say this after watching barry lyndon and a clockwork orange. Those soundtracks are simply the best of all time. You are basically saying that scores shouldn't be noticed, the same ideology that causes these generic MCU scores of today. Soundtracks should be noticed, and most can focus on the music and everything else at the same time.
agree, kubricks films demand your attention
You’re absolutely right about that
he isn't saying film scores shouldn't be noticed, he's saying that they shouldn't fight with other aspects of the movie for your attention but rather should compliment the other aspects of a movie.
@foodisscarce which kubricks scores do. I don't know why we are pretending that classical music demands our attention more than other genres of music?
I agree with you that Hans Zimmer could never outwrite Beethoven but there are FAR better film composers than Zimmer. Alexandre Desplat or Bear McCreary to name a couple.
You have just coherently explained to me why I keep zoning out during 2001. I can't for the life of me make it all the way through that movie and this totally explains why
Really interesting thoghts. Found this through the good ol tok and was plesantly surprised to find one of my favorite types of content. Looking forward to watching more. :)
But that is the way Kubrick used classical music.
SHORT ANSWER
I disagree that it would be impossible to overlap the 6 aspects of a piece in each of its greatness. If the writing is good enough - meaning the writers understand whom they are writing for - there's not much room for complexity
LONG ANSWER
I disagree with you in terms of all the 6 aspects of a piece being impossible to overlap in greatness, meaning there could not be a movie that could express those 6 aspects in each of its fullness.
I think the word impossible is counterintuitive in this context. The impossible in art is the drive to its ambitious being, so looking by this lens we could say that something being "impossible" would be the ruler for its drive to became real. By this, the movie being a full expression of all the 6 arts would be a goal to a masterpiece made real, having all the aspects of the 6 arts being presented.
The "impossible" comes in terms of skills to pull that act, being able to overlap and connect all the 6 aspects correctly
But, you also said it would be unwatchable, what I agree if you think about it being complex to grasp, but why would be complex at all? Doesn't the art involve more feelings than reasoning? If so, there's no much room for complexity if the writing good enough (Shutter Island), which I think it's only good when the writers understand who they are writing for.
You and him completely misunderstand what movie is- Kubrick's films are boring garbage and so overrated. Soundtracks are supposed to compliment the movie and to be made especially for the film. Using the famous classic music pieces instead of a special soundtrack only proves Kubrick's lack of talent and originality. Cinema died at the start of the 60s at the end of the golden era (1929-30s-40s..) when cinema peaked in the 30s. A movie isn't a painting or a piece of music like those pretentious directors say - it is a different form of art. Kubrick's films are BORING
@@EasternRomeOrthodoxyNo words…
@@fh854 Yes, no words to describe how boring his films are..
You probably already know, but this video definitely needs a conclusion. It didn't end, it just stopped. Which is a shame because the rest of it seems really good, so the context exacerbates the situation.
This was a very well made video however I still beg to differ
The bg musics you've chosen for the video annoyed me.
Who cares, fact of the matter is that Kubrick is boring and pretentious lol
I have to agree. Musical masterpieces evoke their own story, sensations, and emotions. While the tone of them can be used to add texture to a scene or provide depth to a character based on their preference, the movie should spend less time using already produced artforms to fill in the blank or carry a scene. It feels disingenuous and often takes me out of the scene and focusing on how much I enjoy the music.
Your opinion is wrong and you should be ashamed.
Lol
hahah
😂😂😅Music for film is not equal to regular piece of music, just as images on films aren't equal to still images and paintings- its a different medium, and anyone who tries to make films look like a paintings or a piece of music is simply boring and PRETENTIOUS. Kubrick's films are boring garbage and so overrated. Soundtracks are supposed to compliment the movie and to be made especially for the film. Using the famous classic music pieces instead of a special soundtrack only proves Kubrick's lack of talent and originality. Cinema died at the start of the 60s at the end of the golden era (1929-30s-40s..) when cinema peaked in the 30s. A movie isn't a painting or a piece of music like those pretentious directors say - it is a different form of art. Kubrick's films are BORING🤣🤣
@@EasternRomeOrthodoxy Music in films have more uses than that. Music can help establish the time and place of a film, creating a sense of setting and context for the audience. Such as A Clockwork Orange, which is set in a futuristic dystopia, and modern music in 2001: A Space Odyssey, which is set in the future.
Music can provide subtext to a scene, highlighting elements that might not be immediately apparent on-screen. For example, the use of "Singing in the Rain" in A Clockwork Orange creates a stark contrast between the cheerful lyrics of the song and the violent actions taking place on screen, highlighting the dystopian and satirical nature of the film. For example, a happy song played over a tense scene can suggest irony or foreshadowing.
Music can help maintain the pacing and rhythm of a film, particularly during action sequences. It can also create tension and anticipation, enhancing the overall viewing experience. Like in The music in "The Shining" is often accompanied by sound effects, such as the eerie chanting that accompanies the appearance of the Grady twins. These sound effects help to create a sense of rhythm and continuity throughout the film, tying the music to the visuals on screen.
@@EasternRomeOrthodoxy Self-made soundtracks and Classical soundtracks provide the same amount of meaning for each other. Classical music has a rich and diverse history that spans centuries, and many pieces have become cultural touchstones that audiences are familiar with. By incorporating classical music into a film, filmmakers can tap into this familiarity and use it to create emotional resonance and connection with the audience. Self-made soundtracks allow filmmakers to experiment with different musical styles and genres, and to adapt the music to the specific needs of each scene.
Using either or doesn’t take away from a film. As Both types of music can be effective in creating a powerful cinematic experience, depending on the specific needs of the film.
Kubrick's films are boring garbage and so overrated. Soundtracks are supposed to compliment the movie and to be made especially for the film. Using the famous classic music pieces instead of a special soundtrack only proves Kubrick's lack of talent and originality. Cinema died at the start of the 60s at the end of the golden era (1929-30s-40s..) when cinema peaked in the 30s. A movie isn't a painting or a piece of music like those pretentious directors say - it is a different form of art. Kubrick's films are BORING
🤺☦🇷🇺Yes. Music for film is not equal to regular piece of music, just as images on films aren't equal to still images and paintings- its a different medium, and anyone who tries to make films look like a paintings or a piece of music is simply boring and PRETENTIOUS. Kubrick's films are boring garbage and so overrated. Soundtracks are supposed to compliment the movie and to be made especially for the film. Using the famous classic music pieces instead of a special soundtrack only proves Kubrick's lack of talent and originality. Until sound came, cinema wasn't a complete art form, only moving images mixed with literature, and Cinema peaked in the early 30s and died at the start of the 60s at the end of the golden era. A movie isn't a painting or a piece of music like those pretentious directors say - it is a different form of art. Kubrick's films are BORING. The only 2 stand out movies who are the swan song of cinema are Blade Runner (directors cut) and Siesta (1987)