Stanley Kubrick/Filmography: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Jeffrey Scott Bernstein
No edit summary
imported>Jeffrey Scott Bernstein
No edit summary
Line 5: Line 5:
== Introduction to Kubrick (1): Kubrick’s impact on world cinema. ==
== Introduction to Kubrick (1): Kubrick’s impact on world cinema. ==


A telling example of Kubrick’s impact on world cinema is the following. In 2002, the British film journal Sight & Sound asked 145 film critics and scholars and 108 film directors from around the world to each submit a list of ten films deemed worthy of inclusion in an ultimate “best films of all time” list. When the lists were collated and the votes tallied, Kubrick’s ''2001: A Space Odyssey'' occupied the sixth place on the critics’ list, while ''Dr. Strangelove'' occupied the fifth place on the directors’ list. But even this extraordinary achievement is not the most telling point. What may have never before been pointed out is this: Kubrick was the one director with the most variety of films cited in the original hundreds of lists (which were published in the original September 2002 print edition of ''Sight & Sound''). For example, although ''Citizen Kane'' graced the top spot on both critics’ and directors’ lists, taking the over two hundred lists as a whole, Kubrick himself via his other films appeared more often than ''Kane''’s director Orson Welles. Kubrick’s name was “spread thin” because some critics cited ''2001'', while others cited ''Dr. Strangelove'', or ''A Clockwork Orange'', or ''Barry Lyndon'', or ''The Shining''. In the complete lists published in ''Sight & Sound'', Kubrick had more different individual works cited than any other director’s. This can only mean that Stanley Kubrick produced a body of work that, at least according to those participating in the ''Sight & Sound'' poll, is second to none.  
A telling example of Kubrick’s impact on world cinema is the following. In 2002, the British film journal Sight & Sound asked 145 film critics and scholars and 108 film directors from around the world to each submit a list of ten films deemed worthy of inclusion in an ultimate “best films of all time” list [http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/topten/]. When the lists were collated and the votes tallied, Kubrick’s ''2001: A Space Odyssey'' occupied the sixth place on the critics’ list, while ''Dr. Strangelove'' occupied the fifth place on the directors’ list. But even this extraordinary achievement is not the most telling point. What may have never before been pointed out is this: Kubrick was the one director with the most variety of films cited in the original hundreds of lists (which were published in the original September 2002 print edition of ''Sight & Sound''). For example, although ''Citizen Kane'' graced the top spot on both critics’ and directors’ lists, taking the over two hundred lists as a whole, Kubrick himself via his other films appeared more often than ''Kane''’s director Orson Welles. Kubrick’s name was “spread thin” because some critics cited ''2001'', while others cited ''Dr. Strangelove'', or ''A Clockwork Orange'', or ''Barry Lyndon'', or ''The Shining''. In the complete lists published in ''Sight & Sound'', Kubrick had more different individual works cited than any other director’s. This can only mean that Stanley Kubrick produced a body of work that, at least according to those participating in the ''Sight & Sound'' poll, is second to none.  




Line 18: Line 18:
I thought a thematic introduction would be more dynamic than simply leaping into “the early years of . . .”.  
I thought a thematic introduction would be more dynamic than simply leaping into “the early years of . . .”.  


I also need to learn how to add links to the internal prose. Such as to the 2002 Sight and Sound poll:


http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/topten/
 
 


I myself wrote an essay, “The Zooms in Barry Lyndon”; but can an author cite his own work in this setting?
I myself wrote an essay, “The Zooms in Barry Lyndon”; but can an author cite his own work in this setting?

Revision as of 19:34, 6 October 2007

Stanley Kubrick (July 26, 1928 – March 7, 1999) was an American-born filmmaker who co-wrote, produced, and directed some of most highly regarded and innovative films ever to be financed by Hollywood studios. For decades now Kubrick has been consistently acclaimed by the world’s most influential film critics and scholars as one of the greatest filmmakers of all time.


Introduction to Kubrick (1): Kubrick’s impact on world cinema.

A telling example of Kubrick’s impact on world cinema is the following. In 2002, the British film journal Sight & Sound asked 145 film critics and scholars and 108 film directors from around the world to each submit a list of ten films deemed worthy of inclusion in an ultimate “best films of all time” list [1]. When the lists were collated and the votes tallied, Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey occupied the sixth place on the critics’ list, while Dr. Strangelove occupied the fifth place on the directors’ list. But even this extraordinary achievement is not the most telling point. What may have never before been pointed out is this: Kubrick was the one director with the most variety of films cited in the original hundreds of lists (which were published in the original September 2002 print edition of Sight & Sound). For example, although Citizen Kane graced the top spot on both critics’ and directors’ lists, taking the over two hundred lists as a whole, Kubrick himself via his other films appeared more often than Kane’s director Orson Welles. Kubrick’s name was “spread thin” because some critics cited 2001, while others cited Dr. Strangelove, or A Clockwork Orange, or Barry Lyndon, or The Shining. In the complete lists published in Sight & Sound, Kubrick had more different individual works cited than any other director’s. This can only mean that Stanley Kubrick produced a body of work that, at least according to those participating in the Sight & Sound poll, is second to none.


Introduction to Kubrick (2): How might Kubrick stand apart from other film geniuses?

Kubrick’s films, especially from 2001: A Space Odyssey on, exhibit conceptual depth and complexity which distinguish them as exemplary models of narrative art. 2001, for example, is concerned with such philosophical and scientific subjects as cosmic time and human evolution, subjects which films only extremely infrequently attempt to deal with. However, in Kubrick’s intellectual and philosophical depth he is far from alone; other highly acclaimed filmmakers such as Ingmar Bergman and Luis Buñuel had consistently produced major film works of commensurate philosophical complexity. So what, arguably, sets Kubrick apart from the rest of the world’s greatest filmmakers? It is precisely this: Kubrick’s utter command of the technical aspect of the film medium. In every film Kubrick made from 2001 on, he pioneered new technological techniques to realize his vision. In A Clockwork Orange, for example, he pioneered a new use of sound recording; in Barry Lyndon, he pioneered the use of a new type of lens; in Full Metal Jacket, he pioneered the use of a new type of shutter for the camera. It is the fusion of philosophical complexity and technical command (in so many of his films) that, arguably, sets Kubrick apart from all other of the world’s greatest filmmakers. (One can equate this to William Shakespeare’s fusion, in his plays, of his mastery of dramatic structure with his mastery of the linguistic form.) It must be stressed that Kubrick’s technological advances were never merely for the sake of showmanship; Kubrick always employed his technological advances for the sake of the story being told. In The Shining, for example, Kubrick brings the camera into the story, as it were; that is to say, just as one can pause over Shakespeare’s language and hear resonances in the poetry which parallel and enhance the dramatic action which the poetry is bringing into being, so in The Shining the camera not only allows the story to be told but also contributes actively to the complexity of the story (through the viewer’s awareness of the repetition of many of the camera’s movements, for example; the repetition of specific camera moves creates thematic connections between different scenes of the film); while in Barry Lyndon, Kubrick’s clever multifarious employment of the zoom lens adds a surprising number of conceptual resonances to the dramatic action which contribute to the overall meaning production of the story; and in Eyes Wide Shut, Kubrick uses light reflections on the camera lens (such as lens flares) to suggest thematic elements (i.e., so-called “symbolism”) that enhance the story being told through the lens. In short, when the viewer pays attention to the technical aspects of a Kubrick film, the story (of emotional human concerns) is not thereby lost but enhanced. In virtually all films that are made, the film technology that brings these films into being is meant to remain “unnoticed” as it were (as the “tools” that made the product); when viewing Kubrick films, however, the viewer’s awareness of the technology is a part of the overall film experience. A Kubrick film is a dense cerebral cinematic phenomenon.


Author’s note: This is my first stab at an introduction to this page. If I were a teacher I’d grade it as a C. But what I am searching for is a way to present the general theme in a way different to those already established ways that are to be found on other Internet-based [encyclopedias]. Perhaps I am completely in the wrong here; and so I shall stop now, and await the input of subsequent authors, who might (and quite rightly?) scrap this and start anew.

I thought a thematic introduction would be more dynamic than simply leaping into “the early years of . . .”.



I myself wrote an essay, “The Zooms in Barry Lyndon”; but can an author cite his own work in this setting?

http://www.jeffreyscottbernstein.com/kubrick/images/BARRY%20LYNDON.pdf



Notable feature films