Love how this retrospective really gets down how a film adaptation of a novel differs from its original source material. It gives an idea of what Kubrick saw in the ideas and concepts presented and using them as a launch pad to tell his own take (Spartacus and 2001 aside-though both for different). If this is the 100th Episode of Eyebrow Cinema, then a big congrats on the milestone Dan. If not, then I’m sure whatever it will be it’s going to be another certified banger.
I took a Films of Stanley Kubrick course back in 2006 at my alma mater as a summer elective for my minor in Mass Communications as an undergrad (for the record, Kubrick passed away months before I turned 14, during which up to that point I had only seen 2001 and Spartacus) and this entire video is like all days of that course rolled and compressed into just over 3 hours!!! There's so much detail here that we still missed throughout that entire course, even using the assigned textbook, Thomas Allen Nelson's brilliant KUBRICK: INSIDE A FILM ARTIST'S MAZE!!! If only we had YT videos like this back then!!!
I've read three of the novels that Kubrick made into films: Lolita, A Clockwork Orange, and Traumnovelle (Dream Story). These are all great books and Kubrick's adaptations are all great films but you are so right that Eyes Wide Shut is especially faithful to Schnitzler's Dream Story. Unlike just about everyone else, Eyes Wide Shut is my favorite Kubrick film, even though I love them all. Thanks for doing this. I wish more people would read more, quite frankly. Thank you, too, for being one of the few who actually understand what Eyes Wide Shut is about. I've never seen more ridiculous criticism of a film than I have of this one by just about everybody.
Eh I think Lolita is Kubrick's weakest film. It's not...exploitative like the 97' one feels at times but the tone is all over the place and doesn't quite get the point. Though it's not a bad film either.
@@Ranixo286 It may be his weakest film but possibly also his boldest attempt. I don't know how any director could have made a movie of that subject back when he did. Translating the work to a visual medium automatically makes it exploitative, but censoring it as was (is) necessary robs it of its impact. James Mason is what saves the picture to any degree -- my God he's good. Edit: I just reached the end of the video, and he said it better than I did - that translating Lolita for film is an exercise in futility.
The Luck of Barry Lyndon is actually a really fun read! Thackery is a total smartass; if you're expecting a slog through a boring old novel, it's not like that at all. Plus it really is fun to read something after you've seen the film adaptation. Highly recommended, Alao, Dispatches is just phenomenal
I think the casting of Cruise is what I have issues with in that film. Sure, he does a serviceable job. But it seems more like the only way Kubrick could get his financing or something was to cast him. I can't imagine he was a first choice. And by casting Cruise, of course he gets Kidman who I think is one of the finest actors there is. Imagine Fassbinder or Phoenix or Penn or any number of actors who could have injected more depth. In my opinion, Cruise's vapidity leaves us unmoored in an uncertain land where an anchor is needed. Also, the censorship didn't do the climactic ( pun intended) scene any favors. The overall effect was one of sterility. A sterility that even 2001 with all it's machinery never had. Don't get me wrong, I still find it a fascinating film. I just can't buy into Cruise. Thanks for your comment!
It's ironic that many of these novels are very hard to find today and practically forgotten (The Shining being the main exception and possibly 2001 and ACwO). Barry Lyndon is a great read if you can find it (try a library).
Watching one of your video essays is like taking a class in college, the attention to detail and the way you explore every aspect of filmmaking, from the themes to the craft, is inspiring, you are one of the best at the platform without a doubt
thx for this spectacular vid Kubrick is my favourite director and his method of applying his distinctive artistic voice to pre existing material has fascinated me for a few years
This was absolutely fantastic. Really well written and put together. I genuinely think you make some of the most thoughtful and interesting videos on this platform and with this video your work has reached a whole new level of quality. You knocked it out of the park, congratulations.
Outstanding overview!!! The insight and knowledge you have of Literature & Film is simply astonishing. The significance relative to the Psychological and Social issues that usually go over my head, that you pointed out were all fascinating and loved how you broke it down. The best part was that after spending all morning working here on a painting and hearing your voice, I imagined a person in my head. After all that masterfully articulated explanation of the deeper nature of the primary to the adaptation, along with the metaphorical meanings , which had me riveted to my chair was to actually see the man behind the voice and your soo young and not the older Cinematique bookworm type, like I had imagined, rather a cool looking guy in a local rock band , playing on a men's softball team and having a rock collection. Thank You, you're truly Brilliant !!! Randy Chavez
I always feel like it’s a totally worthwhile use of my time, and not just “starting into the void of a screen” when I’m watching the result of often just one or two people’s hard won completed passion projects. Wether it’s a self reflective meditation on life in the 2020’s, an interesting thematic analysis on common themes of some great artists finest works, or even a personal narrative of the creators personal struggles and how they were able to gain perspective through some form of narrative in a work or works of fiction in whatever media. I’m a cynical person but when it comes to many (clearly genuine) video essays on Yt, I can’t help but feel like we are sharing our thoughts the same way some great minds of late 19th century Paris would have when they met a certain few cafes. Even if these works are mainly one way communication, it of course, is not. This IS a dialogue, not meaningless spectacle. In fact, this form of presentation would have been nothing less than exhilarating to those French artists to be able to show and compare and analyze and inspire one another, maybe even help them to shed a tear or moments of unsettling quiet in certain moments. I just wanted to say I think we need to understand this material isn’t the analogue of fast food, it’s the analogue of the greatest convos at those cafes. Although less direct, they are not truly para-social, they are dynamic even if a bit separate from the creator (it’s not a QA as we watch) but it’s a very very good thing and maybe the most important concern of Internet “content” consumption is to have a better idea of what is junk food, what has zero calories and what is a healthy robust meal. we all know it when we see it. Blah! Sorry for that! Been reflecting on content and its influence on 7 year old daughter so I’m glad to find some optimism and thought I’d share! Great job on this one btw Eyebrow!
I thought the creepiest implication about the ending of Clockwork was that Alex would return to ultra-violence, but this time with tacit approval of if not outright service to the state.
The film version of 2001 made little sense to me until I read the book. I was in my teens when I first saw it, which may partially explain my lack of comprehension, but I had no idea what was going on with the monoliths, and I don't think Kubrick did an effective job of conveying that the monolith was exerting control over the ape-men. I still enjoyed the film because it looked so great, but I don't see how anyone can comprehend the film without reading the book (or having someone else explain the plot elements).
Full Metal Jacket is also based on the book "Dispatches" by Michael Herr. I wish you could have discussed that book, as well. It's about the foreign correspondents covering the Vietnam War.
Kubrick identified with Danny, not Jack. I still believe King is jealous. I don’t believe it’s as simple as the movie being better than the book, Is it possible that King is also upset by the fact that King sympathises with the alcoholic, but the violent alcoholic IS just a monster to other people? Even reading the book, I also worried for Danny primarily. Addiction is sad. Being a child victim to an addict is worse. You are right, some of Stephen King’s books have been developed into some horrible low quality films. That doesn’t seem to bother him. Some films have done quite good renditions of his stories. Not only is “the shining”better than anything he ever wrote, it also calls him a monster. That’s got to hurt the ego of even the most successful writer.
I think it's really ironic to place so much of your defense of Kubrick's The Shining on it being a more real and "Challenging" depiction of Abuse when Kubrick's own abusing treatment of his leading Actress. Perhaps you feel that criticism of how the movie was made has no connection to King's criticism of the finished product, but I think it is, King's Novel was the product of a man recognizing the potential for abusing behavior in himself and dealing with it, Kubrick's movie is the product of an Abusive Man who can't see it in himself because he thinks abusive men always act a certain obviously Toxic way, and the rest of his filmography verifies that. And then your accusation that King's criticism of Wendy is what's actually Misogynist misses the actual point of Misogyny and falls into a Trap we third or 4th wave Feminists often fall into when trying to overcorrect the errors of 2nd wave feminism. The point is that Wendy should be condemned for her passivity at all, it's that she serves a reassuring male fantasy. You have a more unstated criticism of King's characterization of Wendy when you call her a "Bombshell" as if just her being more conventionally attractive makes her the more misogynist characterization. It also reminds me of earlier in the video when you described The Killing's source material as misogynist because of how much more it revolved around the Femme Fatale. Thinking the Femme Fatale is inherently Misogynist is a product of taking the word too literally, the actually most Patriarchal men on earth love to present themselves a Worshippers of Women, but Internet Leftists have gotten too distract by the increased visible of living caricatures like Andrew Tate. The Femme Fatale is an empowering archetype to many women including possible Trans Women like me because of how agency she has. Directors like Kubrick and Tarantino love to take Agency away form women under the guise of demonizing their caricatured understanding of Misogyny, but it doesn't change that in the real world they're the ones disempowering women to serve their ends. In the case of Eyes Wide Shut I think it's really dangerous to separate the discussion of the Dejudaizing of the Product from discussion of the Secret Society subplot. The original Author I suspect included largely to say that if the the Super Rich are doing such quasi Satanic stuff behind closed doors no The Jews are not part of it no matter wealthy they've become. But Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut has become something actual Conspiracy Theorists see as a vindication of their world view.
Great video. This is a valuable for the study of these films. Looking at the source material and the context of the time is interesting in itself, but studying the changes made does provide more insight into the actual filmmaking. An interesting comparison would be something like the novel THE WARRIORS which was based on an Ancient Greek text and written by a socialist author and the adaptation which eliminated a lot of the historical and political insights of both but was still very successful as a film and a story. The way you describe the novel RED ALERT reminds me of the way I felt reading THE HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER or pretty much anything Tom Clancy. I recall getting through about five pages of technical and military jargon feeling like I may have had a stroke and lost the ability to understand the written word.
1:40:12 Clockwork Orange in the only Kubrick film [unless I'm mistaken] where he is the only credited writer. Allegedly some days he'd arrive to set with a copy of the book rather than a script as it was that close an adaption.
A Hint of Lace would never be a store sign in America. Yet there it is in your excellent film. This tells me that despite his incredible genius, Stanley Kubrick simply wasn’t a word wrangler. I noticed it like a glaring English lightbulb, and I know that Kubrick saw his own footage, so it is still odd. America fancies itself a hammer and doesn’t know how to hint. America is the eff bomb. Yet as far as the fact that Kubrick settled in England and used studios is a testament to his determination to win, and he explained that he chose between Los Angeles, New York and London, and why. He chose his wife, children and home 🏠 and he won. While Eyes Wide Shut disappointed many initially, now that the Epstein revelations have oozed out, I wish he were here. I highly recommend A Conversation with Stanley Kubrick, and I think it’s a good thing that he won, and that we had him. Thanks for the film. Well done.
While the operation paperclip connection is true it is worth mentioning that the Soviets used far more German expertise on their ballistics projects than the Americans had in total, and so it can be argued that both groups benefitted from German and in many cases Nazi scientists however to say one without mentioning that this was happening on both sides.
1:22:36 I don't think the film is less forthcoming. It's completely obvious on all fronts that the monolith is there as an observational post, and placed in an obvious place to illicit reactions. The only thing the that differs, I think, is that the book also describes directly what the 'aliens' are dryly doing. With or without that perspective, we still know there is something smarter out there doing something we can't really comprehend the meaning behind.
A 3.5 hour video essay to which Daniel had to read thousands of pages of literature for research? Give this man a medal! Hope you finally get the recognition you deserve with this one
@yourt00bzYou're right but to his defense reading takes up time and in this day and age ppl use that time on the many distractions available to them. I personally do audio books since I drive for work.
Seriously. It started playing in the background while I was doing something else, and I began to wonder around Spartacus how long the video was given the amount of depth into each film and text. This is a graduate-level literary dissertation.
I've always loved this quote in a book about the Stanley Kubrick Archives which I'm going to summarise. He talks about how the best part of adapting books is that when you adapt you have the opportunity to experience the story for the first time and know the emotions, which you can never get from an original script. I love this idea, and I imagine it also influences a director like David Fincher
The irony considering his take on The Shining is an absolute prime example of soulless hack writing where he literally ripped every bit of depth, nuance and emotion out of it 😂
@@DartagnanMagicsorry I should've worded it better. I meant you can't experience the emotions of the story firsthand if you're written that story. You already know where it goes, how it ends, who the characters are etc. If you're reading someone's else's work the first time you get to experience the story as a story before a script
I’ve always loved the quiet strength Duvall gives Wendy. It reminds me of the old adage that courage isn’t being unafraid, but being afraid and pushing on anyway. Far more empowering than King’s Wendy. Great video as always!
I agree with you except for what you said about King's Wendy. Both are strong but in their own way. Kubrick's Wendy is strong because of desperation, King's Wendy is strong by finding power within herself. Both have to overcome an abusive and insane husband and a child who possess powers they don't understand.
The Shining is the Kubrick movie I've watched most the past several years. Its dark and unique examination of patriarchy, masculinity, and 'white man's burden' is chilling.
Indeed. Quiet strength tends to be far more resilient than aggressive outbursts of energy. Which is why Wendy remains resourceful and eventually survives her ordeal, whereas Jack's troubled mind is the very reason he's easily manipulated by the forces at the hotel, which ultimately dooms him.
How? The film Wendy screams and cries and has no depth to her character. The book Wendy is enduring both her husband's fundamental problems, and the judgement of her mother that pushed her into the impulsive decision to marry him, and will destroy her if she is proven right that she should've stayed with her and shouldn't have found her own way, which is why she denies the horrible things jack did and is trying not to do anymore.
You always put the essay in video essay, seriously. This feels like the type of well-researched and important film analysis that you’d have to pay 1000s to get on a college campus. Genuinely cannot say enough great things about your work, I’m barely 1/6th of the way through the video and already loving every second!
I was once a film student, and I went thru this kind of phase with not only Kubrick, but Hitchcock. Like Kubrick, Hitchcock adapted material for his films, but only for the core of the plot. He dispensed with most of the original elements in order to build up his own themes, tropes, and humor. And like Kubrick, Hitchcock usually bought the properties out of his own pocket.
I'm not a film student, but I also went through a Kubrick and Hitchcock phase, still haven't recovered from that, my favorite filmmakers, the ones that changed my perception on cinema.
@@jesustovar2549 They're mine too. What's intriguing is that Kubrick & Hitchcock were opposites - in almost every way. Hitch was the subjective eye, Kubrick the objective. Hitch liked to plan every detail, every shot all in advance, much the way an engineer does a building at the drafting table; so that most of the directing was effectively done by the time he was shooting. Kubrick was constantly experimenting as he went along, and pressing his actors to do likewise - often letting his stars like Malcolm McDowell and Jack Nicholson and Peter Sellers to go wild. Hitchcock's themes were self-exploratory, self-parodying; Kubrick's, always about human nature, in terms of its own fatality. And yet, they are my 2 top favorite film artists. (Luis Bunuel is my 3rd favorite).
For me, the key change Kubrick made in A Clockwork Orange is how Alex winds up in the Ludovico experiment. It's been a while since I read the book, but if I'm not mistaken, Alex kills a couple of guys in prison and is selected to be the test subject on that basis. In the film, Kubrick has Alex volunteer to be part of the experiment. Not only does the change fit perfectly within the theme of free will versus control, it adds a layer of mystery to Alex that didn't previously exist: why *does* Alex volunteer? Was he influenced by his companionship with the priest? Did he do it simply as a means of being released from prison sooner? Did he have any change of heart at all? Was the fleeting moment of volunteering himself evidence of a genuine desire to reform that gets completely undone by his involvement in the treatment? I love that such a simple change allows my mind to wander and ask more questions, and I can't help but feel that Kubrick made that change in order to provoke more questions. **Correction: in the book, Alex doesn't murder anyone in prison but is blamed for beating someone, and then is selected. In any case, I don't think this detracts too much from my point.
I think Alex volunteers because he thinks himself impervious to rehabilitation, so it will simply mean a shorter sentence. He exemplifies that kind of brash, arrogant, youthful invincibility throughout the novel. Even the maligned epilogue can be read as a continuation of Alex's belief that he can do whatever he wants, and if now he wants to be a simple family man than he can just do that. He doesn't express any desire to find love or raise a child in ways to be a better man than himself. He views it as a fantasy wherein he is the perfect man. No doubt he would be an abusive and domineering husband that blames his wife/child for any lack of perfection in that image.
I think Alex volunteers like I volunteered for the Draft and ended up fighting for my life in Vietnam. The astute existentialist is only in it for what feelings he gets out of it, thinking he controls his own destiny. At the end, Alex is "cured, all right": cured of any vestiges of conscience.
It's been a long time since I read Clockwork Orange but, if I remember correctly, like "Lolita", Alex was "aged up". I believe in the novel he's 16, a child himself, which underscored the themes Burgess was going for. Obviously they were as likely to do an age-faithful Alex as they were Dolores on film, even in the "maverick-auteur" cinema era. It def changed affected my reception of both films with the knowledge if the films were faithful I'd be watching children.
Admittedly I've only watched The Shining and 2001: A Space Odyssey, and maybe I'll be banned from being a film person, but I really didn't enjoy either of the movies. They were great from a technical stand point and I can appreciate that, but I really just don't like them all that much. I've been meaning to watch his other movies, I feel I'll probably like Barry Lindon, Dr. Strangelove and Full Metal Jacket more.
7:45 I haven’t watched the entire video yet, but just a correction here. Jim Thompson wrote and contributed much more to the script than just dialogue. Kubrick instead just credited Thompson for dialogue, something that hurt Thompson when he saw The Killing (with his family btw), especially since he considered Kubrick a friend. I’m not trying to accuse you of anything, but I do get annoyed so many critics, filmmakers, and fans praise Kubrick as a genius when he still had a lot of help from other people and they don’t receive the credit they deserve.
As a massive fan of the novel ‘Lolita, and as someone who really doesn’t like Kubrick’s adaptation of the novel, I really enjoyed hearing your differing perspective on the movie. It really helped me see the movie in a slightly different way, and though I still don’t think it is a very strong adaptation of the source material, and I think it has had some problematic ways on the way the character of Dolores is viewed in the public consciousness, I now see how it can be seen with greater merit as a film. Great video!
Thanks for that video, Eyebrow, it was really interesting. I thought your examination of "The Shining" was particularly good, though I think you made too many excuses for Nicholson's performance and I definitely side with King on that one. He overplays the role right from the start, relying on all his trademark tics, grins and mannerisms, which undoubtedly hurts the film. For what it's worth, I think "Barry Lyndon" and "Eyes Wide Shut" are his worst films by a mile- badly directed, stilted and way too long. My personal favourite is "Full Metal Jacket".
“Full Metal Jacket” ends with nothing having been accomplished and everyone being worse off for it… I could be wrong but that to me sounds like a decent metaphor for the Vietnam War itself
The idea of bifurcating the world of the leadership and the infantry in Paths to Glory is great. I've never seen Paths to Glory, but Pasolini did something similar in Porcile. I wonder if he got the idea from Kubrick. In Porcile, there are two films going on simultaneously that seem to be happening in different time periods. One is about rich kids in Italy in the 60s and their parents getting involved with a Nazi war fugitives' business ventures, and the other seems to take place in the middle ages and is about a peasant revolt where starving peasants turn to cannibalism. The latter is clearly meant to be a symbolic representation of Vietnam, the former is about the crypto fascism of the American Cold War pax in Europe where the bourgeois right wing and conservatives pretended they weren't supporters of the fascists during the WW II and everybody went along with this, as well as the war in Vietnam, because the Americans seemed to have bought everybody off with post war consumer affluence. If I remember right, both films are totally separate from one another except for a single peasant character which appears in both timelines.
I didnt want to see this at first as i was scared of the runtime but 20 minutes in and it was imposible for me to not finish the video, almost as an obsession to the analysis. One of your best videos certainly, loved it from start to finish
Your video essays never fail to inspire me creatively. Whenever I come upon my own writing block, I put one of your essays on and the in depth analysis of whatever topic you’re discussing helps me work through my own storytelling process. This is one of your best videos yet!
Good job. But I feel you missed the point of Kubrick's films. I have been obsessed with Kubrick since I was a child in the seventies. While his films are largely cold and serious, Kubrick himself was a joker. Take for instance, FMJ. Watch it again with the idea in your mind that it is about the importance of not being too serious, of keeping your sense of humor. Once you see this, you'll see the theme plain as day in every single one of his films, even EWS, 2001, Lolita, PoG, BL, Orange, even the killing. So the irony is that he makes serious movies about keeping your sense of humor.
Full Metal Jacket - is Kubrick's Holocaust movie, He wanted to make a film about the Holocaust but it kept falling through, I suspect Full Metal Jacket is his hidden comment on the Holocaust because the sets look more like Europe than Vietnam; the shaven heads of the marines redolent of concentration camps; the bodies piled in pits as photographers and generals look on, the necrophile and sexualized black humour - all feels very German and very WW2. Even the song at the end seems a nod to the Holocaust - the black uniforms of the SS, the black cars of avid Nazi supporter - Henry Ford. In fact, you could easily remake this movie in WW2 Germany and the meaning would be obvious to everyone, Kubrick asking the questions how could the Holocaust happen? and telling us it will probably happen again, Brutalization and brainwashing being the key to Kubrick's thesis. He seems to be saying that terrible crimes against humanity happen when individuality is eradicated, the individuality of the criminal as well as the victim. And Joker had got out of the action, had a job in the rear with the gear, but still wanted to prove himself. In spite of his jaundiced Brechtian sarcasm, he still felt weak. Felt cowardly - and was compelled to see some action. So even worldly Private Joker finds himself slaughtering a little girl, Probably on the grounds of mercy, but many made the same reasoning for killing Jews, quickly and humanely to save them from the camps. Often in the Holocaust, soldiers would be given the choice to take part in mass executions of Jews, the C.O. would say something to the effect of 'this is going to be a very hard task, and many of you will understandably not have the metal to execute old people, women and children, so if you don't want to take part in today's difficult but nonetheless vital operation, by all means go back to camp and wait for further orders". After which, all soldiers reportedly volunteered to take part in the mass slaughter. But you know what, Kubrick probably couldn't have placed this film in Germany, having sympathy for German soldiers for being victims of brainwashing and dehumanization. So Kubrick probably had to be oblique on his comments on the Holocaust. That film that may have sympathy for the German soldier committing mass murder under brain washing and dehumanization - probably still can't be made, Even though it would hold valuable historic lessons, opposed to the usual Manichean cliches that are dished up.
2:21:54 Hey! Don't you go shit on Children of the Corn! Not because it's secretly good, but because I have taken a "No one gets to pick on my little brother except me" kind of attitude towards this movie. It's a bit of a guilty pleasure so to say xD
I can understand King’s frustration with Kubrick’s adaption of The Shining. King wrote the source material, watched Kubrick fundamentally change it, and then have the work’s legacy by defined by that film (since more people have watched the film than read the novel). I think without even comparing the merits of each, that’s a hard pill to swallow for any author, and I can understand the brute feeling of “You took something I made, changed it, and then got all the credit.” I haven’t read the novel but it almost seems like you could interpret it as a different work entirely (at least if you go by themes).
It certainly doesn't help with King's displeasure that 'The Shinning' film is seen by so many as a 'flawless masterpiece' when his grievances are quite understandable and the novel has a lot of autobiographical elements [as King was struggling with a family at the time]. The many 'fan theories' also annoy him [understandably as I agree a lot are reaching for things that are not there].
Honestly, the novel is rather dull and forgettable. Since it was so cathartic for King to write, perhaps it would have been better left as an overlong diary entry? Ok, it's not that bad or unrelatable, certainly light-years away from King's worst writing, but also near equidistant from his best.
The reality is that King (though a nice bloke) is a poor, limited writer, who disdains any complexity or nuance, everything has to be literal. His books are shallow populist pap. Kubrick, on the other hand, thinks deeply and brings out the subtleties and complexities of human psychology in his films; they are cerebral and artistic.
@@dylanwolfit sounds like you haven't read many of his novels; this criticism is honestly ridiculous. king can't write a screenplay, because when putting things on screen he *does* feel the need to make everything clear cut, but his novels are not the same as his screenplays. kubrick and king can both be good artists without you needlessly and wrongly lampooning king
Stanley Kubrick is one of those directors whos talent is impossible to overstate. Hes made a half dozen of the greatest and most iconic films ever made, and he always gets praised for his directing style, his use of droning music, camera work, spund design etc. But I always felt like he was an underrated screen writer. You never hear his name brought up with other Writer/Director guys like Nolan or Tarantino, and I think that is precisely because he favored adaptations so much. Which is really unfair honestly. I mean Nolan debabtably did his best work with his brother John, and Tarantino wears his sleeve(really his whole damn jacket) so I dont get why he gets knocked for that.
Btw: AI, which Kubrick had started developing but Spielberg had to unfortunately finish, was also an adaptation of a short story: "Supertoys Last All Summer Long" by Brian Aldiss.
I want to make a case for Burgess' ending. As I think Alex doesn't really rehabilitates, he only gets bored. There's this common argument that young people become rebels, but as they start to grow up they loose their vivacity and become jaded and tired, leaving them vulnerable to be assimilated by the system. Alex, I believe Is assimilated by the system and settles in, he remains a sociopath, but one that works according to the system, his desire to become a family man and having a happy domestic life are mere sarcasm, as he only Is entering the stage of being part of the system, where he can take a patriarchal role, having a family submited at the will of this sociopath.
yes, i don't really believe in rehabilitation often - we live and change due to circumstances, and often revert again. sometimes we make a pledge of sorts as we get older, for our legacy, etc., under the prospects of our mortality. but conversions that don't come from the heart, inward, they don't stick. kubrick questions both edges of society - the brutality of pure 'freedom' and the brutality of suppression.
I enjoyed the vid overall, some insightful points, but also some analysis and conclusions that i would consider incorrect or biased. Political themes are of course crucial to many Kubrick films and must be discussed, and our own perspectives will of course color our analysis of these themes, but it's best to try to mitigate this instinct when analyzing a creator's work. I don't think it is your intent, any i say this with respect, but your own political biases are evident at some points, which has clouded or led to some distortions. mistaken conclusions or misinterpretations on your part. Lets consider Strangelove. When Kubrick is criticizing the Cold war and related issues you pick up on the themes of American paranoia and aggression, but you portray this as almost one-sided, with the Reds as essentially scapegoats for the hegemony. This is not the whole intention of Kubrick, the Soviets aren't just a harmless boogeyman as you seem to imply (remember that THEY were the ones that actually made the doomsday device in Strangelove, etc), they are portrayed by Kubrick as a genuinely monstrous (though equally ludicrous) force that the Westerners are reacting to in an inappropriate way, more of a "he who fight monsters" theme than an "anticommunism bad" theme. You say "fascism" when you really mean "totalitarianism". In those instances where Kubrick is actually directly criticizing socialism, you miss the mark and claim he is ambiguously lampooning "the State", not identifying that it is specifically the Socialist state, especially in Clockwork Orange, a film i think you misunderstand. In Clockwork, you conclude that the film (and novel) are criticizing punishment and fear of punishment as a means of crime deterrence, when in fact, the exact opposite is the case. Its criticizing "rehabilitation" as a part of criminal justice as essentially insincere, and ADVOCATING for punishment as the only thing that is effective. This is best exemplified by the priest character, who believes that it is better for the guilty to accept their punishment and pay their debt to society and that true rehabilitation is a personal matter in the hands of the sinner and the Lord, not to be artificially imposed by the socially engineered state. These works clearly contend that when rehabilitation is used in criminal justice, especially as a cause for early release, both parties are insincere, the convict to avoid punishment, and the state to advance its agenda and free up prison space, and the public pays the price. In essence, the fictional Ludivico Technique and real life sentencing and parole "reforms" in some fundamental way "rob" the criminal of his punishment, which he needs as a component of *actual* reform. It is a work about crime and punishment and politics, yes, but moreso about free will, morality, and the human soul. I have more to add but this comment is turning into an essay lol. I dont mean to focus on what i disagreed with, because agreed with many or even most of your points and appreciated the video and its depth, thoughtfulness, and scope and i will be looking forward to seeing more of your work.
What is it about film snobs and their pretentious analysis of Kubrick's movies? They invent motivations and interpretations for Kubrick and create outright fabrications about every possible detail. Everything has double or triple meanings, the camera work contains hidden narrative, and the writer suggests Kubrick's inner thoughts that they somehow are privy to. Such bullshit. Barry Lyndon was basically a tale with a unreliable narrator, which is rare for movies, especially then. That's more likely what Kubrick was drawn by. Kubrick was actually drawn to realism, which is why he labored so much over making the movie appear accurate in every detail. He was not pretentious, unlike the film critic pretending to interpret his work. With Eyes Wide Shut, the main idea was having a main character being the central character in a story that wasn't what thought it was. It was all bullshit, a ruse to get him to stop looking into the orgy he took part in. Critic's who have never written a screenplay wax poetic with Freudian double meanings about the story ever contemplated.
I think you hit the nail on the head with your analysis of The Shining, but I would like to acknowledge, the novel does also have an interesting take on the patriarchy, less how it pressures men, more how it excuses the actions of violent men. One criticism I will make of King’s writing is that he is a very literal writer, and there are very literal passages where Jack, in his own head, excuses all of his own actions, and the actions of his abusive father, inspired by the Overlook. I think the best way to describe the book to film process of The Shining came from Brad Jones of the Cinema Snob. Kubrick’s novel isn’t so much King’s novel on screen, but more an adaptation of the fever dream you’d have after reading the novel.
Not to mention the references to Native Americans in The Shining. It's a history of violence. An America built on violence and abuse. And yeah the movie's Wendy, rocks.
I thought Kubrick used WASP-y looking actors very specifically because he wanted the characters to be the sort of classic American perfect, beautiful people couple, which-at that time-literally •was• Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman to Americans. I may be wrong, but I had been under the impression that he had wanted Cruise and Kidman specifically for the roles, and for that reason.
Having not read Thackery, I interpreted Barry Lyndon differently. I interpreted it as Kubrick's cynical interpretation of the movie Tom Jones. Like Tom Jones, the first half of the movie (There was an intermission) pictured the adventures of a lovable rogue. It mainly emphasized his more positive traits. - His courage and ambition as well as his innocence and occasional moments of sincerity and generosity. As with Tom Jones there was a comedic bumbling aspect to this part of the story. As soon as the second half begins, the film immediately takes a more serious, tragic tone. The adventures and fun are over as Kubrick explores some of the darker aspects of Tom Jones's and Barry Lyndon's character and how the same traits and behavior that made him successful and appealing ultimately brought him down. In the second half everything goes wrong. The spirited nature of his son that causes his son to sneak and ride his horse ends with his son's death. Lyndon's carefree, reckless attitude leads to him waste his wife's fortune. His violence and pride become directed at his stepson. Even his act of mercy in sparing his stepson in the duel ends badly for him. Also in Tom Jones, Tom eventually discovers that he is not a bastard but nobility. In contrast, in Barry Lyndon, Barry remains a commoner and his ambitions are thwarted by his class. This interpretation echoes statements Kubrick made about Napoleon (One of his obsessions) that it was ironic that a man as gifted as Napoleon could be brought down by simple human flaws and mistakes.
I can imagine a Kubrick-helmed from the beginning adaptation of Spartacus being phenomenal, sad that it couldnt happen. As is I find Spartacus my least favorite of his films, even over the first two, because I dont think you get almost any of his personality in the filmmaking.
Oh wow. Time to spend 3 hrs and 21 mins in The Kubrick Zone. I love that Jack talks about Wendy being a horror movie fan at the beginning of the movie. Well, towards the end, she gets the horror movie of her life.
I think Jack just uttered that to get the job. The movies Wendy actually watches at the hotel are more coming of age type films and her books are also more so the same thing too - the camera standing still on her reading catcher in the rye (coming of age story). So that might be more of implication rather than something true otherwise kubrick would’ve shown us that, not tell it. Which is what he’s a master at.
@@tacosarethebest7377I tried to read CatcherITR a good 5 years before puberty, and thought, "Whoa!! Why is this guy over the top and makes my skin crawl, and WHY does the Author keep showing us his every little inner-thought!!" I had no idea what the fuss was until a re-read in my early 20s, and even then I didn't care much for it, but I was no longer mystified. No purpose here, other than I read your previous comment.
Everything the aliens did in 2001 had a purpose with meaning behind it. The first monolith was placed on earth so it teach the ape men how to become man. The second monolith was both a test and also a beacon, for when man became advanced enough to trigger it, the aliens would know to return. That plot point is where the short story, The Sentinel, ends
During the A Clockwork Orange segment I was surprised that there was so much talk of whether Kubrick is sympathetic to MacDowell's character and tries to make him the hero, and seemingly literally no talk about the actual point of the book and movie, the question of whether it is worth it to remove our free will (and all the beauty inherent in that freedom) if it means no more crime. It's not about whether he's exalted or glorified, it's about that question. I guess eventually that is gotten across here, but in a more vague way.
Holy shit I'm barely on Paths of Glory (my favorite Kubrick picture), but you're already making me appreciate The Killing. This is gonna be an all-timer...
The ending of The Killing is a 'killer'! One of the greatest endings of any movie, imo. Hilarious and frustrating at the same time. You share Sterling Hayden's shock reaction completely.
There is one inaccuracy in your essay: the book 2001: A space odyssey was written AFTER the movie! First Arthur C Clarke and Stanley Kubrick wrote together the screenplay for this movie, (they were inspired by the novel The Sentinel, written by Clarke), and after a few years Clarke wrote the book 2001..! So when you say that Kubrick didn't follow Clarke's vision you are wrong, the book didn't even exist at the time
Lolita’s dynamics and Kubricks presentation still exist today. East Asian cultures insist girls grow long hair when young. Then when older cut it, then when older grow it. Teaching them that they are there for men
I often wonder why so many male futurists like Clarke also seemed to be wholly disinterested in adult women. He was reportedly a peedough and that's why he moved to Ceylon, I think. A beautiful and liberal sexually speaking country. I don't know if that's true but I've read it in many bios of Clarke.
It’s kinda ironic that Kubrick’s was generating horror in the Shining through the dynamic of a weak woman and a dominating and abusive man, in order to tell us something about patriarchy, all while emotionally abusing Shelly Duvall… I love all Kubrick’s films, and the Shining specifically, but can’t help to think that King may have had a point in saying that the lack of emotional weight in the Shining misses a big part of the story.
In 2001 it's not just man transending weapons but machines. HAL is a direct referrence to man's dependence on computers and the dangers of getting overly dependent on them (the term IT didn't exist yet) Why else call it HAL ? If you move every letter up by one in the alphabet you get ? H becomes I, A becomes B, and L becomes M... IBM. The monolith of computing back then.
The most informative and Probably the best video I’ve seen on YT regarding Kubrick’s filmography. Your dedication and research should be commended, and your observations appreciated. I congratulate you.
wow dude, this is pretty intense and deep ... fascinating subject,,, i'm just starting the video but kudos to you for all your work! i'm a fairly hardcore kubrick fan. it's gratifying cause 'back in my day', pre-internet let's say, it was hard to find anyone talking about kubrick. so the way his work is resonating maybe now more than ever is pretty cool.
I haven't seen in a long time, but wasn't the line, "You're like a bad joke...without a punchline," in there? If so, I have always remembered that line. If not, I still remember enjoying the movie.
In Barry Lyndon, I think it's very clear why Barry throws his shot away: he *is* broken in spirit, and he knows he has lost everything, through his own actions. We see from the beginning that Barry's ambition is tied to being recognized as a true gentleman (to paraphrase Tony Montata, first you get the money, then you get the girl (and implied is also the social acceptance--but, like Tony Montana, he's never going to fit into the world he wants to be a part of). He has finally figured out that it's impossible. I think Ryan O'Neal's performance really conveys this: you can see that he identifies with his stepson, maybe for the first time, especially as the gun misfires. I think he recognizes that they're both fatherless boys, and he doesn't want to do even more damage to his soon to be ex-family.
What is your favourite Stanley Kubrick movie? Bonus points if you can name a favourite novel Kubrick adapted.
Dr. Strangelove is my favorite Kubrick, but Barry Lyndon comes as a close second.
+my favorite novel of the Kubrick adaptations is A Clockwork Orange
2001 a space odyssey
Eyes Wide Shut. Not read any of the novels tho.
Dr. Strangelove, The Shining
2001, comic is better though.
Love how this retrospective really gets down how a film adaptation of a novel differs from its original source material. It gives an idea of what Kubrick saw in the ideas and concepts presented and using them as a launch pad to tell his own take (Spartacus and 2001 aside-though both for different). If this is the 100th Episode of Eyebrow Cinema, then a big congrats on the milestone Dan. If not, then I’m sure whatever it will be it’s going to be another certified banger.
I took a Films of Stanley Kubrick course back in 2006 at my alma mater as a summer elective for my minor in Mass Communications as an undergrad (for the record, Kubrick passed away months before I turned 14, during which up to that point I had only seen 2001 and Spartacus) and this entire video is like all days of that course rolled and compressed into just over 3 hours!!! There's so much detail here that we still missed throughout that entire course, even using the assigned textbook, Thomas Allen Nelson's brilliant KUBRICK: INSIDE A FILM ARTIST'S MAZE!!! If only we had YT videos like this back then!!!
"Paths of Glory" and "Full Metal Jacket" both end with soldiers singing a song to confort themselves after all the horror they've experienced.
M.I.C.K.E.Y
M.O.U.S.E
Brilliant catch.
I used to sing this song to the biker girls in rehab. They told me I was an old soul
War is crazy and sadly is humorous if it wasn't so tragically sad.
That explains a lot, I was so confused why the ending of Paths of Glory was so familiar in this video despite never seeing it.
My wife is having our baby any minute but this epic essay is screaming louder to be watched first
Glad I could make a special day even more special.
Part of the "Famous Birth Stories" documentary, featuring the hilarious section, "I missed the birth of my son/ daughter because...."
this level of dedication is unmatched. Both by eyebrow cinema and Kubrick
I've read three of the novels that Kubrick made into films: Lolita, A Clockwork Orange, and Traumnovelle (Dream Story). These are all great books and Kubrick's adaptations are all great films but you are so right that Eyes Wide Shut is especially faithful to Schnitzler's Dream Story. Unlike just about everyone else, Eyes Wide Shut is my favorite Kubrick film, even though I love them all. Thanks for doing this. I wish more people would read more, quite frankly. Thank you, too, for being one of the few who actually understand what Eyes Wide Shut is about. I've never seen more ridiculous criticism of a film than I have of this one by just about everybody.
I feel you. I too love Eyes Wide Shut, and understand what Kubrick meant when he said that with this film he really gave the most to cinema
Eh I think Lolita is Kubrick's weakest film. It's not...exploitative like the 97' one feels at times but the tone is all over the place and doesn't quite get the point. Though it's not a bad film either.
@@Ranixo286 It may be his weakest film but possibly also his boldest attempt. I don't know how any director could have made a movie of that subject back when he did. Translating the work to a visual medium automatically makes it exploitative, but censoring it as was (is) necessary robs it of its impact. James Mason is what saves the picture to any degree -- my God he's good.
Edit: I just reached the end of the video, and he said it better than I did - that translating Lolita for film is an exercise in futility.
The Luck of Barry Lyndon is actually a really fun read! Thackery is a total smartass; if you're expecting a slog through a boring old novel, it's not like that at all. Plus it really is fun to read something after you've seen the film adaptation. Highly recommended, Alao, Dispatches is just phenomenal
I think the casting of Cruise is what I have issues with in that film. Sure, he does a serviceable job. But it seems more like the only way Kubrick could get his financing or something was to cast him. I can't imagine he was a first choice. And by casting Cruise, of course he gets Kidman who I think is one of the finest actors there is. Imagine Fassbinder or Phoenix or Penn or any number of actors who could have injected more depth. In my opinion, Cruise's vapidity leaves us unmoored in an uncertain land where an anchor is needed. Also, the censorship didn't do the climactic ( pun intended) scene any favors. The overall effect was one of sterility. A sterility that even 2001 with all it's machinery never had. Don't get me wrong, I still find it a fascinating film. I just can't buy into Cruise. Thanks for your comment!
It's ironic that many of these novels are very hard to find today and practically forgotten (The Shining being the main exception and possibly 2001 and ACwO).
Barry Lyndon is a great read if you can find it (try a library).
Lolita also being an exception
Watching one of your video essays is like taking a class in college, the attention to detail and the way you explore every aspect of filmmaking, from the themes to the craft, is inspiring, you are one of the best at the platform without a doubt
thx for this spectacular vid
Kubrick is my favourite director and his method of applying his distinctive artistic voice to pre existing material has fascinated me for a few years
I enjoyed every minute of this insightful overview of Kubrik's entire filmography. Outstanding work.
This was absolutely fantastic. Really well written and put together. I genuinely think you make some of the most thoughtful and interesting videos on this platform and with this video your work has reached a whole new level of quality. You knocked it out of the park, congratulations.
Outstanding overview!!! The insight and knowledge you have of Literature & Film is simply astonishing.
The significance relative to the Psychological and Social issues that usually go over my head, that you pointed out were all fascinating and loved how you broke it down.
The best part was that after spending all morning working here on a painting and hearing your voice, I imagined a person in my head.
After all that masterfully articulated explanation of the deeper nature of the primary to the adaptation, along with the metaphorical meanings , which had me riveted to my chair was to actually see the man behind the voice and your soo young and not the older Cinematique bookworm type, like I had imagined, rather a cool looking guy in a local rock band , playing on a men's softball team and having a rock collection.
Thank You, you're truly Brilliant !!!
Randy Chavez
I always feel like it’s a totally worthwhile use of my time, and not just “starting into the void of a screen” when I’m watching the result of often just one or two people’s hard won completed passion projects. Wether it’s a self reflective meditation on life in the 2020’s, an interesting thematic analysis on common themes of some great artists finest works, or even a personal narrative of the creators personal struggles and how they were able to gain perspective through some form of narrative in a work or works of fiction in whatever media.
I’m a cynical person but when it comes to many (clearly genuine) video essays on Yt, I can’t help but feel like we are sharing our thoughts the same way some great minds of late 19th century Paris would have when they met a certain few cafes. Even if these works are mainly one way communication, it of course, is not. This IS a dialogue, not meaningless spectacle.
In fact, this form of presentation would have been nothing less than exhilarating to those French artists to be able to show and compare and analyze and inspire one another, maybe even help them to shed a tear or moments of unsettling quiet in certain moments.
I just wanted to say I think we need to understand this material isn’t the analogue of fast food, it’s the analogue of the greatest convos at those cafes. Although less direct, they are not truly para-social, they are dynamic even if a bit separate from the creator (it’s not a QA as we watch) but it’s a very very good thing and maybe the most important concern of Internet “content” consumption is to have a better idea of what is junk food, what has zero calories and what is a healthy robust meal. we all know it when we see it.
Blah! Sorry for that! Been reflecting on content and its influence on 7 year old daughter so I’m glad to find some optimism and thought I’d share! Great job on this one btw Eyebrow!
"I'll make my own Roman epic and it'll have black jack and hookers." - Kirk Douglas
I thought the creepiest implication about the ending of Clockwork was that Alex would return to ultra-violence, but this time with tacit approval of if not outright service to the state.
thank you for this video brilliant is a understatement
Perfect, an even longer video than my favorite film, eyes wide shut.
you've really accomplished something so comprehensive here. thank you so much for this!
Wow, the amount of work you put into this is evident!
The film version of 2001 made little sense to me until I read the book. I was in my teens when I first saw it, which may partially explain my lack of comprehension, but I had no idea what was going on with the monoliths, and I don't think Kubrick did an effective job of conveying that the monolith was exerting control over the ape-men. I still enjoyed the film because it looked so great, but I don't see how anyone can comprehend the film without reading the book (or having someone else explain the plot elements).
This is definitely the correct video to want to watch at 3 am
Full Metal Jacket is also based on the book "Dispatches" by Michael Herr. I wish you could have discussed that book, as well. It's about the foreign correspondents covering the Vietnam War.
Of course Herr was a co-writer and producer on the film. He also was involved in 'Apocalypse Now'.
Kubrick identified with Danny, not Jack. I still believe King is jealous. I don’t believe it’s as simple as the movie being better than the book, Is it possible that King is also upset by the fact that King sympathises with the alcoholic, but the violent alcoholic IS just a monster to other people? Even reading the book, I also worried for Danny primarily. Addiction is sad. Being a child victim to an addict is worse.
You are right, some of Stephen King’s books have been developed into some horrible low quality films. That doesn’t seem to bother him. Some films have done quite good renditions of his stories. Not only is “the shining”better than anything he ever wrote, it also calls him a monster. That’s got to hurt the ego of even the most successful writer.
I think it's really ironic to place so much of your defense of Kubrick's The Shining on it being a more real and "Challenging" depiction of Abuse when Kubrick's own abusing treatment of his leading Actress. Perhaps you feel that criticism of how the movie was made has no connection to King's criticism of the finished product, but I think it is, King's Novel was the product of a man recognizing the potential for abusing behavior in himself and dealing with it, Kubrick's movie is the product of an Abusive Man who can't see it in himself because he thinks abusive men always act a certain obviously Toxic way, and the rest of his filmography verifies that.
And then your accusation that King's criticism of Wendy is what's actually Misogynist misses the actual point of Misogyny and falls into a Trap we third or 4th wave Feminists often fall into when trying to overcorrect the errors of 2nd wave feminism. The point is that Wendy should be condemned for her passivity at all, it's that she serves a reassuring male fantasy. You have a more unstated criticism of King's characterization of Wendy when you call her a "Bombshell" as if just her being more conventionally attractive makes her the more misogynist characterization. It also reminds me of earlier in the video when you described The Killing's source material as misogynist because of how much more it revolved around the Femme Fatale. Thinking the Femme Fatale is inherently Misogynist is a product of taking the word too literally, the actually most Patriarchal men on earth love to present themselves a Worshippers of Women, but Internet Leftists have gotten too distract by the increased visible of living caricatures like Andrew Tate. The Femme Fatale is an empowering archetype to many women including possible Trans Women like me because of how agency she has. Directors like Kubrick and Tarantino love to take Agency away form women under the guise of demonizing their caricatured understanding of Misogyny, but it doesn't change that in the real world they're the ones disempowering women to serve their ends.
In the case of Eyes Wide Shut I think it's really dangerous to separate the discussion of the Dejudaizing of the Product from discussion of the Secret Society subplot. The original Author I suspect included largely to say that if the the Super Rich are doing such quasi Satanic stuff behind closed doors no The Jews are not part of it no matter wealthy they've become. But Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut has become something actual Conspiracy Theorists see as a vindication of their world view.
This is the saddest thing I read all day so far. And I'm also reading The Road at the moment.
Absolutely fantastic video!
Thanks Cameron!
I think this is pretty much the pinnacle of the film video essay
Bad ass video! Really enjoyed it while at work , super fascinating !
Great video. This is a valuable for the study of these films. Looking at the source material and the context of the time is interesting in itself, but studying the changes made does provide more insight into the actual filmmaking.
An interesting comparison would be something like the novel THE WARRIORS which was based on an Ancient Greek text and written by a socialist author and the adaptation which eliminated a lot of the historical and political insights of both but was still very successful as a film and a story.
The way you describe the novel RED ALERT reminds me of the way I felt reading THE HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER or pretty much anything Tom Clancy. I recall getting through about five pages of technical and military jargon feeling like I may have had a stroke and lost the ability to understand the written word.
100% agree
1:40:12 Clockwork Orange in the only Kubrick film [unless I'm mistaken] where he is the only credited writer. Allegedly some days he'd arrive to set with a copy of the book rather than a script as it was that close an adaption.
A Hint of Lace would never be a store sign in America. Yet there it is in your excellent film. This tells me that despite his incredible genius, Stanley Kubrick simply wasn’t a word wrangler. I noticed it like a glaring English lightbulb, and I know that Kubrick saw his own footage, so it is still odd. America fancies itself a hammer and doesn’t know how to hint. America is the eff bomb. Yet as far as the fact that Kubrick settled in England and used studios is a testament to his determination to win, and he explained that he chose between Los Angeles, New York and London, and why. He chose his wife, children and home 🏠 and he won. While Eyes Wide Shut disappointed many initially, now that the Epstein revelations have oozed out, I wish he were here. I highly recommend A Conversation with Stanley Kubrick, and I think it’s a good thing that he won, and that we had him. Thanks for the film. Well done.
Bruh that music at the beginning 🔥🔥🔥
the thumbnail and title makes this video look like it's a podcast episode, nearly didn't click it.
While the operation paperclip connection is true it is worth mentioning that the Soviets used far more German expertise on their ballistics projects than the Americans had in total, and so it can be argued that both groups benefitted from German and in many cases Nazi scientists however to say one without mentioning that this was happening on both sides.
Amazing video dude!!! got a new sub
I like Jessica Alba and some straight to video action movies. People forget that she started out as an action star(Sort of) with dark Angel.
1:22:36 I don't think the film is less forthcoming. It's completely obvious on all fronts that the monolith is there as an observational post, and placed in an obvious place to illicit reactions. The only thing the that differs, I think, is that the book also describes directly what the 'aliens' are dryly doing. With or without that perspective, we still know there is something smarter out there doing something we can't really comprehend the meaning behind.
Excellent video, so engaging 👏👏👏👏👏
This was really awesome!
Worth the investment of time.
Thank you.
JT
Excellent job!!!
Just incredible work. Thank you!
3 hours and 21 minutes of Dan talking about Kubrick. My body is ready.
Damn didn't expect to see you here!
A 3.5 hour video essay to which Daniel had to read thousands of pages of literature for research? Give this man a medal! Hope you finally get the recognition you deserve with this one
@yourt00bzYou're right but to his defense reading takes up time and in this day and age ppl use that time on the many distractions available to them. I personally do audio books since I drive for work.
@yourt00bzlol. Your honesty is both humorous and commendable.
Seriously. It started playing in the background while I was doing something else, and I began to wonder around Spartacus how long the video was given the amount of depth into each film and text. This is a graduate-level literary dissertation.
I've always loved this quote in a book about the Stanley Kubrick Archives which I'm going to summarise. He talks about how the best part of adapting books is that when you adapt you have the opportunity to experience the story for the first time and know the emotions, which you can never get from an original script. I love this idea, and I imagine it also influences a director like David Fincher
Great quote. Helps put into perspective why he gravitated to adaptations.
That's what Alex Garland did with Annihilation.
The irony considering his take on The Shining is an absolute prime example of soulless hack writing where he literally ripped every bit of depth, nuance and emotion out of it 😂
Why can't you get it from an original script?
@@DartagnanMagicsorry I should've worded it better. I meant you can't experience the emotions of the story firsthand if you're written that story. You already know where it goes, how it ends, who the characters are etc. If you're reading someone's else's work the first time you get to experience the story as a story before a script
I’ve always loved the quiet strength Duvall gives Wendy. It reminds me of the old adage that courage isn’t being unafraid, but being afraid and pushing on anyway. Far more empowering than King’s Wendy.
Great video as always!
Thanks for the kind words, Karl. With you all the way on Wendy.
I agree with you except for what you said about King's Wendy. Both are strong but in their own way. Kubrick's Wendy is strong because of desperation, King's Wendy is strong by finding power within herself. Both have to overcome an abusive and insane husband and a child who possess powers they don't understand.
The Shining is the Kubrick movie I've watched most the past several years. Its dark and unique examination of patriarchy, masculinity, and 'white man's burden' is chilling.
Indeed. Quiet strength tends to be far more resilient than aggressive outbursts of energy. Which is why Wendy remains resourceful and eventually
survives her ordeal, whereas Jack's troubled mind is the very reason he's easily manipulated by the forces at the hotel, which ultimately dooms him.
How? The film Wendy screams and cries and has no depth to her character. The book Wendy is enduring both her husband's fundamental problems, and the judgement of her mother that pushed her into the impulsive decision to marry him, and will destroy her if she is proven right that she should've stayed with her and shouldn't have found her own way, which is why she denies the horrible things jack did and is trying not to do anymore.
There's no such thing as a new Eyebrow Cinema video. Your research and dedication is insane, and your passion shines through.
Thank you very much, William. You're very kind.
How does that not make this a new video?
@@zapazapI'm assuming they meant to say bad instead of new
@@sethrussell6393 Or they meant there's nothing like a new Eyebrow Cinema video?
@@Taschenschieberthis
being ashamed you have a whore for a daughter is not misogyny, It's common sense.
You always put the essay in video essay, seriously.
This feels like the type of well-researched and important film analysis that you’d have to pay 1000s to get on a college campus.
Genuinely cannot say enough great things about your work, I’m barely 1/6th of the way through the video and already loving every second!
I was once a film student, and I went thru this kind of phase with not only Kubrick, but Hitchcock. Like Kubrick, Hitchcock adapted material for his films, but only for the core of the plot. He dispensed with most of the original elements in order to build up his own themes, tropes, and humor. And like Kubrick, Hitchcock usually bought the properties out of his own pocket.
I'm not a film student, but I also went through a Kubrick and Hitchcock phase, still haven't recovered from that, my favorite filmmakers, the ones that changed my perception on cinema.
@@jesustovar2549 They're mine too. What's intriguing is that Kubrick & Hitchcock were opposites - in almost every way. Hitch was the subjective eye, Kubrick the objective. Hitch liked to plan every detail, every shot all in advance, much the way an engineer does a building at the drafting table; so that most of the directing was effectively done by the time he was shooting. Kubrick was constantly experimenting as he went along, and pressing his actors to do likewise - often letting his stars like Malcolm McDowell and Jack Nicholson and Peter Sellers to go wild. Hitchcock's themes were self-exploratory, self-parodying; Kubrick's, always about human nature, in terms of its own fatality. And yet, they are my 2 top favorite film artists. (Luis Bunuel is my 3rd favorite).
For me it was Bergman, Feññini, Antonioni and that whole Euro era. Later Lindsey Anderson. Best part of too much education.
-Matt’s dad
“Sorry boss I can’t come to work today, Eyebrow Cinema dropped a new 3 and a half hour long video.”
I feel like I’m about to watch an epic.
I'm sure all bosses would have a chill and cool attitude given the circumstances.
For me, the key change Kubrick made in A Clockwork Orange is how Alex winds up in the Ludovico experiment. It's been a while since I read the book, but if I'm not mistaken, Alex kills a couple of guys in prison and is selected to be the test subject on that basis. In the film, Kubrick has Alex volunteer to be part of the experiment. Not only does the change fit perfectly within the theme of free will versus control, it adds a layer of mystery to Alex that didn't previously exist: why *does* Alex volunteer? Was he influenced by his companionship with the priest? Did he do it simply as a means of being released from prison sooner? Did he have any change of heart at all? Was the fleeting moment of volunteering himself evidence of a genuine desire to reform that gets completely undone by his involvement in the treatment?
I love that such a simple change allows my mind to wander and ask more questions, and I can't help but feel that Kubrick made that change in order to provoke more questions.
**Correction: in the book, Alex doesn't murder anyone in prison but is blamed for beating someone, and then is selected. In any case, I don't think this detracts too much from my point.
Very good catch, Corbin. Love the questions you raise too.
I think Alex volunteers because he thinks himself impervious to rehabilitation, so it will simply mean a shorter sentence. He exemplifies that kind of brash, arrogant, youthful invincibility throughout the novel.
Even the maligned epilogue can be read as a continuation of Alex's belief that he can do whatever he wants, and if now he wants to be a simple family man than he can just do that. He doesn't express any desire to find love or raise a child in ways to be a better man than himself. He views it as a fantasy wherein he is the perfect man. No doubt he would be an abusive and domineering husband that blames his wife/child for any lack of perfection in that image.
I think Alex volunteers like I volunteered for the Draft and ended up fighting for my life in Vietnam. The astute existentialist is only in it for what feelings he gets out of it, thinking he controls his own destiny. At the end, Alex is "cured, all right": cured of any vestiges of conscience.
It's been a long time since I read Clockwork Orange but, if I remember correctly, like "Lolita", Alex was "aged up". I believe in the novel he's 16, a child himself, which underscored the themes Burgess was going for. Obviously they were as likely to do an age-faithful Alex as they were Dolores on film, even in the "maverick-auteur" cinema era. It def changed affected my reception of both films with the knowledge if the films were faithful I'd be watching children.
Admittedly I've only watched The Shining and 2001: A Space Odyssey, and maybe I'll be banned from being a film person, but I really didn't enjoy either of the movies. They were great from a technical stand point and I can appreciate that, but I really just don't like them all that much. I've been meaning to watch his other movies, I feel I'll probably like Barry Lindon, Dr. Strangelove and Full Metal Jacket more.
7:45 I haven’t watched the entire video yet, but just a correction here. Jim Thompson wrote and contributed much more to the script than just dialogue. Kubrick instead just credited Thompson for dialogue, something that hurt Thompson when he saw The Killing (with his family btw), especially since he considered Kubrick a friend. I’m not trying to accuse you of anything, but I do get annoyed so many critics, filmmakers, and fans praise Kubrick as a genius when he still had a lot of help from other people and they don’t receive the credit they deserve.
As a massive fan of the novel ‘Lolita, and as someone who really doesn’t like Kubrick’s adaptation of the novel, I really enjoyed hearing your differing perspective on the movie. It really helped me see the movie in a slightly different way, and though I still don’t think it is a very strong adaptation of the source material, and I think it has had some problematic ways on the way the character of Dolores is viewed in the public consciousness, I now see how it can be seen with greater merit as a film. Great video!
Thanks for that video, Eyebrow, it was really interesting. I thought your examination of "The Shining" was particularly good, though I think you made too many excuses for Nicholson's performance and I definitely side with King on that one. He overplays the role right from the start, relying on all his trademark tics, grins and mannerisms, which undoubtedly hurts the film. For what it's worth, I think "Barry Lyndon" and "Eyes Wide Shut" are his worst films by a mile- badly directed, stilted and way too long. My personal favourite is "Full Metal Jacket".
Much of the film is Jack's novel playing out as he is writing it, thus the over the top performance.
“Full Metal Jacket” ends with nothing having been accomplished and everyone being worse off for it… I could be wrong but that to me sounds like a decent metaphor for the Vietnam War itself
For god sake if he said the word "the system" one more time i will put my thumbs into his eyes then praised it.
Wow. This video is longer than Barry Lyndon. Well done.
I felt a small wave of terror when I realized the video was longer than any of Kubrick's movies.
The idea of bifurcating the world of the leadership and the infantry in Paths to Glory is great. I've never seen Paths to Glory, but Pasolini did something similar in Porcile. I wonder if he got the idea from Kubrick. In Porcile, there are two films going on simultaneously that seem to be happening in different time periods. One is about rich kids in Italy in the 60s and their parents getting involved with a Nazi war fugitives' business ventures, and the other seems to take place in the middle ages and is about a peasant revolt where starving peasants turn to cannibalism. The latter is clearly meant to be a symbolic representation of Vietnam, the former is about the crypto fascism of the American Cold War pax in Europe where the bourgeois right wing and conservatives pretended they weren't supporters of the fascists during the WW II and everybody went along with this, as well as the war in Vietnam, because the Americans seemed to have bought everybody off with post war consumer affluence. If I remember right, both films are totally separate from one another except for a single peasant character which appears in both timelines.
I didnt want to see this at first as i was scared of the runtime but 20 minutes in and it was imposible for me to not finish the video, almost as an obsession to the analysis. One of your best videos certainly, loved it from start to finish
Totally fair. Glad the material won you over.
Your video essays never fail to inspire me creatively. Whenever I come upon my own writing block, I put one of your essays on and the in depth analysis of whatever topic you’re discussing helps me work through my own storytelling process. This is one of your best videos yet!
Good job. But I feel you missed the point of Kubrick's films. I have been obsessed with Kubrick since I was a child in the seventies. While his films are largely cold and serious, Kubrick himself was a joker. Take for instance, FMJ. Watch it again with the idea in your mind that it is about the importance of not being too serious, of keeping your sense of humor. Once you see this, you'll see the theme plain as day in every single one of his films, even EWS, 2001, Lolita, PoG, BL, Orange, even the killing. So the irony is that he makes serious movies about keeping your sense of humor.
Full Metal Jacket - is Kubrick's Holocaust movie, He wanted to make a film about the Holocaust but it kept falling through, I suspect Full Metal Jacket is his hidden comment on the Holocaust because the sets look more like Europe than Vietnam; the shaven heads of the marines redolent of concentration camps; the bodies piled in pits as photographers and generals look on, the necrophile and sexualized black humour - all feels very German and very WW2. Even the song at the end seems a nod to the Holocaust - the black uniforms of the SS, the black cars of avid Nazi supporter - Henry Ford.
In fact, you could easily remake this movie in WW2 Germany and the meaning would be obvious to everyone,
Kubrick asking the questions how could the Holocaust happen? and telling us it will probably happen again, Brutalization and brainwashing being the key to Kubrick's thesis. He seems to be saying that terrible crimes against humanity happen when individuality is eradicated, the individuality of the criminal as well as the victim.
And Joker had got out of the action, had a job in the rear with the gear, but still wanted to prove himself. In spite of his jaundiced Brechtian sarcasm, he still felt weak. Felt cowardly - and was compelled to see some action. So even worldly Private Joker finds himself slaughtering a little girl, Probably on the grounds of mercy, but many made the same reasoning for killing Jews, quickly and humanely to save them from the camps.
Often in the Holocaust, soldiers would be given the choice to take part in mass executions of Jews, the C.O. would say something to the effect of 'this is going to be a very hard task, and many of you will understandably not have the metal to execute old people, women and children, so if you don't want to take part in today's difficult but nonetheless vital operation, by all means go back to camp and wait for further orders".
After which, all soldiers reportedly volunteered to take part in the mass slaughter.
But you know what, Kubrick probably couldn't have placed this film in Germany, having sympathy for German soldiers for being victims of brainwashing and dehumanization. So Kubrick probably had to be oblique on his comments on the Holocaust.
That film that may have sympathy for the German soldier committing mass murder under brain washing and dehumanization - probably still can't be made, Even though it would hold valuable historic lessons, opposed to the usual Manichean cliches that are dished up.
2:21:54 Hey! Don't you go shit on Children of the Corn! Not because it's secretly good, but because I have taken a "No one gets to pick on my little brother except me" kind of attitude towards this movie. It's a bit of a guilty pleasure so to say xD
Honestly I don't hate it.
Um. Would not an "overbearing father" have saved Lolita a lot of confusing trauma?
I can understand King’s frustration with Kubrick’s adaption of The Shining.
King wrote the source material, watched Kubrick fundamentally change it, and then have the work’s legacy by defined by that film (since more people have watched the film than read the novel).
I think without even comparing the merits of each, that’s a hard pill to swallow for any author, and I can understand the brute feeling of “You took something I made, changed it, and then got all the credit.”
I haven’t read the novel but it almost seems like you could interpret it as a different work entirely (at least if you go by themes).
It certainly doesn't help with King's displeasure that 'The Shinning' film is seen by so many as a 'flawless masterpiece' when his grievances are quite understandable and the novel has a lot of autobiographical elements [as King was struggling with a family at the time]. The many 'fan theories' also annoy him [understandably as I agree a lot are reaching for things that are not there].
Honestly, the novel is rather dull and forgettable. Since it was so cathartic for King to write, perhaps it would have been better left as an overlong diary entry?
Ok, it's not that bad or unrelatable, certainly light-years away from King's worst writing, but also near equidistant from his best.
And if it matters, I've read Lolita, 2001, The Shining, A Clockwork Orange, and.... I think that's it.
The reality is that King (though a nice bloke) is a poor, limited writer, who disdains any complexity or nuance, everything has to be literal. His books are shallow populist pap. Kubrick, on the other hand, thinks deeply and brings out the subtleties and complexities of human psychology in his films; they are cerebral and artistic.
@@dylanwolfit sounds like you haven't read many of his novels; this criticism is honestly ridiculous. king can't write a screenplay, because when putting things on screen he *does* feel the need to make everything clear cut, but his novels are not the same as his screenplays. kubrick and king can both be good artists without you needlessly and wrongly lampooning king
Kubrick was a genius. Using all the talent of the original writer and then adding his visual brilliance made for some incredible cinema!
While nearly all other directors were at the mercy of their source material, Kubrick always elevated it to become the greatest director of all time
I have to say, I find King's The Shining to be one of his weaker works. But I can't forgive Kubrick for his treatment of Duvall.
Stanley Kubrick is one of those directors whos talent is impossible to overstate. Hes made a half dozen of the greatest and most iconic films ever made, and he always gets praised for his directing style, his use of droning music, camera work, spund design etc. But I always felt like he was an underrated screen writer. You never hear his name brought up with other Writer/Director guys like Nolan or Tarantino, and I think that is precisely because he favored adaptations so much. Which is really unfair honestly. I mean Nolan debabtably did his best work with his brother John, and Tarantino wears his sleeve(really his whole damn jacket) so I dont get why he gets knocked for that.
Btw: AI, which Kubrick had started developing but Spielberg had to unfortunately finish, was also an adaptation of a short story: "Supertoys Last All Summer Long" by Brian Aldiss.
I want to make a case for Burgess' ending.
As I think Alex doesn't really rehabilitates, he only gets bored. There's this common argument that young people become rebels, but as they start to grow up they loose their vivacity and become jaded and tired, leaving them vulnerable to be assimilated by the system.
Alex, I believe Is assimilated by the system and settles in, he remains a sociopath, but one that works according to the system, his desire to become a family man and having a happy domestic life are mere sarcasm, as he only Is entering the stage of being part of the system, where he can take a patriarchal role, having a family submited at the will of this sociopath.
I like this read.
yes, i don't really believe in rehabilitation often - we live and change due to circumstances, and often revert again. sometimes we make a pledge of sorts as we get older, for our legacy, etc., under the prospects of our mortality. but conversions that don't come from the heart, inward, they don't stick. kubrick questions both edges of society - the brutality of pure 'freedom' and the brutality of suppression.
I enjoyed the vid overall, some insightful points, but also some analysis and conclusions that i would consider incorrect or biased. Political themes are of course crucial to many Kubrick films and must be discussed, and our own perspectives will of course color our analysis of these themes, but it's best to try to mitigate this instinct when analyzing a creator's work. I don't think it is your intent, any i say this with respect, but your own political biases are evident at some points, which has clouded or led to some distortions. mistaken conclusions or misinterpretations on your part. Lets consider Strangelove. When Kubrick is criticizing the Cold war and related issues you pick up on the themes of American paranoia and aggression, but you portray this as almost one-sided, with the Reds as essentially scapegoats for the hegemony. This is not the whole intention of Kubrick, the Soviets aren't just a harmless boogeyman as you seem to imply (remember that THEY were the ones that actually made the doomsday device in Strangelove, etc), they are portrayed by Kubrick as a genuinely monstrous (though equally ludicrous) force that the Westerners are reacting to in an inappropriate way, more of a "he who fight monsters" theme than an "anticommunism bad" theme. You say "fascism" when you really mean "totalitarianism". In those instances where Kubrick is actually directly criticizing socialism, you miss the mark and claim he is ambiguously lampooning "the State", not identifying that it is specifically the Socialist state, especially in Clockwork Orange, a film i think you misunderstand. In Clockwork, you conclude that the film (and novel) are criticizing punishment and fear of punishment as a means of crime deterrence, when in fact, the exact opposite is the case. Its criticizing "rehabilitation" as a part of criminal justice as essentially insincere, and ADVOCATING for punishment as the only thing that is effective. This is best exemplified by the priest character, who believes that it is better for the guilty to accept their punishment and pay their debt to society and that true rehabilitation is a personal matter in the hands of the sinner and the Lord, not to be artificially imposed by the socially engineered state. These works clearly contend that when rehabilitation is used in criminal justice, especially as a cause for early release, both parties are insincere, the convict to avoid punishment, and the state to advance its agenda and free up prison space, and the public pays the price. In essence, the fictional Ludivico Technique and real life sentencing and parole "reforms" in some fundamental way "rob" the criminal of his punishment, which he needs as a component of *actual* reform. It is a work about crime and punishment and politics, yes, but moreso about free will, morality, and the human soul. I have more to add but this comment is turning into an essay lol. I dont mean to focus on what i disagreed with, because agreed with many or even most of your points and appreciated the video and its depth, thoughtfulness, and scope and i will be looking forward to seeing more of your work.
Finally, The Eyebrow Cut is here
What is it about film snobs and their pretentious analysis of Kubrick's movies? They invent motivations and interpretations for Kubrick and create outright fabrications about every possible detail. Everything has double or triple meanings, the camera work contains hidden narrative, and the writer suggests Kubrick's inner thoughts that they somehow are privy to. Such bullshit. Barry Lyndon was basically a tale with a unreliable narrator, which is rare for movies, especially then. That's more likely what Kubrick was drawn by. Kubrick was actually drawn to realism, which is why he labored so much over making the movie appear accurate in every detail. He was not pretentious, unlike the film critic pretending to interpret his work. With Eyes Wide Shut, the main idea was having a main character being the central character in a story that wasn't what thought it was. It was all bullshit, a ruse to get him to stop looking into the orgy he took part in. Critic's who have never written a screenplay wax poetic with Freudian double meanings about the story ever contemplated.
I think you hit the nail on the head with your analysis of The Shining, but I would like to acknowledge, the novel does also have an interesting take on the patriarchy, less how it pressures men, more how it excuses the actions of violent men. One criticism I will make of King’s writing is that he is a very literal writer, and there are very literal passages where Jack, in his own head, excuses all of his own actions, and the actions of his abusive father, inspired by the Overlook.
I think the best way to describe the book to film process of The Shining came from Brad Jones of the Cinema Snob. Kubrick’s novel isn’t so much King’s novel on screen, but more an adaptation of the fever dream you’d have after reading the novel.
Alex faked being changed by the treatment
Not to mention the references to Native Americans in The Shining. It's a history of violence. An America built on violence and abuse. And yeah the movie's Wendy, rocks.
I thought Kubrick used WASP-y looking actors very specifically because he wanted the characters to be the sort of classic American perfect, beautiful people couple, which-at that time-literally •was• Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman to Americans.
I may be wrong, but I had been under the impression that he had wanted Cruise and Kidman specifically for the roles, and for that reason.
Having not read Thackery, I interpreted Barry Lyndon differently. I interpreted it as Kubrick's cynical interpretation of the movie Tom Jones. Like Tom Jones, the first half of the movie (There was an intermission) pictured the adventures of a lovable rogue. It mainly emphasized his more positive traits. - His courage and ambition as well as his innocence and occasional moments of sincerity and generosity. As with Tom Jones there was a comedic bumbling aspect to this part of the story.
As soon as the second half begins, the film immediately takes a more serious, tragic tone. The adventures and fun are over as Kubrick explores some of the darker aspects of Tom Jones's and Barry Lyndon's character and how the same traits and behavior that made him successful and appealing ultimately brought him down. In the second half everything goes wrong. The spirited nature of his son that causes his son to sneak and ride his horse ends with his son's death. Lyndon's carefree, reckless attitude leads to him waste his wife's fortune. His violence and pride become directed at his stepson. Even his act of mercy in sparing his stepson in the duel ends badly for him.
Also in Tom Jones, Tom eventually discovers that he is not a bastard but nobility. In contrast, in Barry Lyndon, Barry remains a commoner and his ambitions are thwarted by his class. This interpretation echoes statements Kubrick made about Napoleon (One of his obsessions) that it was ironic that a man as gifted as Napoleon could be brought down by simple human flaws and mistakes.
I can imagine a Kubrick-helmed from the beginning adaptation of Spartacus being phenomenal, sad that it couldnt happen. As is I find Spartacus my least favorite of his films, even over the first two, because I dont think you get almost any of his personality in the filmmaking.
I enjoy the film a lot but I definitely get your point. Kubrick himself leading the adaptation could have been very interesting.
It's the only film where he was a 'director for hire'.
Oh wow. Time to spend 3 hrs and 21 mins in The Kubrick Zone. I love that Jack talks about Wendy being a horror movie fan at the beginning of the movie. Well, towards the end, she gets the horror movie of her life.
I think Jack just uttered that to get the job. The movies Wendy actually watches at the hotel are more coming of age type films and her books are also more so the same thing too - the camera standing still on her reading catcher in the rye (coming of age story). So that might be more of implication rather than something true otherwise kubrick would’ve shown us that, not tell it. Which is what he’s a master at.
@@tacosarethebest7377I tried to read CatcherITR a good 5 years before puberty, and thought, "Whoa!! Why is this guy over the top and makes my skin crawl, and WHY does the Author keep showing us his every little inner-thought!!"
I had no idea what the fuss was until a re-read in my early 20s, and even then I didn't care much for it, but I was no longer mystified. No purpose here, other than I read your previous comment.
Everything the aliens did in 2001 had a purpose with meaning behind it. The first monolith was placed on earth so it teach the ape men how to become man. The second monolith was both a test and also a beacon, for when man became advanced enough to trigger it, the aliens would know to return. That plot point is where the short story, The Sentinel, ends
During the A Clockwork Orange segment I was surprised that there was so much talk of whether Kubrick is sympathetic to MacDowell's character and tries to make him the hero, and seemingly literally no talk about the actual point of the book and movie, the question of whether it is worth it to remove our free will (and all the beauty inherent in that freedom) if it means no more crime. It's not about whether he's exalted or glorified, it's about that question. I guess eventually that is gotten across here, but in a more vague way.
Holy shit I'm barely on Paths of Glory (my favorite Kubrick picture), but you're already making me appreciate The Killing. This is gonna be an all-timer...
Haha thanks Josh! Enjoy.
The ending of The Killing is a 'killer'! One of the greatest endings of any movie, imo. Hilarious and frustrating at the same time. You share Sterling Hayden's shock reaction completely.
Finally watched all the films, and finally watched this.
This is incredible. Such rich analysis. A behemoth, a feast of a video essay.
Thanks Marshall. Much appreciated.
There is one inaccuracy in your essay: the book 2001: A space odyssey was written AFTER the movie! First Arthur C Clarke and Stanley Kubrick wrote together the screenplay for this movie, (they were inspired by the novel The Sentinel, written by Clarke), and after a few years Clarke wrote the book 2001..! So when you say that Kubrick didn't follow Clarke's vision you are wrong, the book didn't even exist at the time
Lolita’s dynamics and Kubricks presentation still exist today. East Asian cultures insist girls grow long hair when young. Then when older cut it, then when older grow it.
Teaching them that they are there for men
This is my new favorite youtube video
Nice. Thank you.
I often wonder why so many male futurists like Clarke also seemed to be wholly disinterested in adult women. He was reportedly a peedough and that's why he moved to Ceylon, I think. A beautiful and liberal sexually speaking country. I don't know if that's true but I've read it in many bios of Clarke.
It’s kinda ironic that Kubrick’s was generating horror in the Shining through the dynamic of a weak woman and a dominating and abusive man, in order to tell us something about patriarchy, all while emotionally abusing Shelly Duvall…
I love all Kubrick’s films, and the Shining specifically, but can’t help to think that King may have had a point in saying that the lack of emotional weight in the Shining misses a big part of the story.
In 2001 it's not just man transending weapons but machines. HAL is a direct referrence to man's dependence on computers and the dangers of getting overly dependent on them (the term IT didn't exist yet) Why else call it HAL ? If you move every letter up by one in the alphabet you get ? H becomes I, A becomes B, and L becomes M... IBM. The monolith of computing back then.
Ok, now you HAVE to do a ranking of Stanley Kubrick’s movies. The time has finally come 😆
You might be right.
What's your ranking?
The most informative and Probably the best video I’ve seen on YT regarding Kubrick’s filmography. Your dedication and research should be commended, and your observations appreciated. I congratulate you.
wow dude, this is pretty intense and deep ... fascinating subject,,, i'm just starting the video but kudos to you for all your work! i'm a fairly hardcore kubrick fan. it's gratifying cause 'back in my day', pre-internet let's say, it was hard to find anyone talking about kubrick. so the way his work is resonating maybe now more than ever is pretty cool.
Thanks for the kind words. As a fellow Kubrick fan, I hope you enjoy :)
All the movie breakdowns were great expect for the full metal jacket one. I actually think you kind of got the meaning of the movie backwards.
the killing was very good especially i loved the way the dialogue was written in that movie
the insights here were fantastic, especially as probably like a lot of fans, i've overlooked his early films
I haven't seen in a long time, but wasn't the line, "You're like a bad joke...without a punchline," in there? If so, I have always remembered that line. If not, I still remember enjoying the movie.
Your longform video essays are infinitely enjoyable. Your narration and style are great. You do a fantastic job. Thank you!
In Barry Lyndon, I think it's very clear why Barry throws his shot away: he *is* broken in spirit, and he knows he has lost everything, through his own actions. We see from the beginning that Barry's ambition is tied to being recognized as a true gentleman (to paraphrase Tony Montata, first you get the money, then you get the girl (and implied is also the social acceptance--but, like Tony Montana, he's never going to fit into the world he wants to be a part of). He has finally figured out that it's impossible. I think Ryan O'Neal's performance really conveys this: you can see that he identifies with his stepson, maybe for the first time, especially as the gun misfires. I think he recognizes that they're both fatherless boys, and he doesn't want to do even more damage to his soon to be ex-family.