Stanley Kubrick

[beamish14]

Thank you for this information. I’m always eager to learn more about this film and its fascinating genesis/production. I saw the film on its second day of release in North America, and this information about a hitherto unremarked upon lost scene is really tantalizing

[hearthesilence]

The film's grown on me exponentially - I never would've guessed it, but I saw it in 35mm at Metrograph in 2021, maybe the first time I've seen it in over a decade (even though Metrograph screens it every year around the holidays), and it really seemed like a masterpiece. Everything carried a lot more weight and seemed far more complex in terms of what it had to say or explore about real-life social aspirations. Amazingly in terms of craft, I didn't find fault with it - and this is acknowledging that I once thought the score could be pedestrian and that Sydney Pollack's explanation rambled on forever among many other flaws. For whatever reason, all of these moments played out fine now. So with those two perspectives in mind, I can definitely understand how the film is unfinished - especially given Kubrick's working methods, at minimum I don't doubt it would've been subject to more fine-tuning. But at the same time, I don't lament that possibility anymore because as-is, it now feels fully-realized to me, and I can't see how it could be improved, much less transformed, by any further changes. I do look forward to finding out what that missing shot could be - who knows, maybe I'll change my mind again.

[oh yeah]

Yeah, it's weird because as much as I realize the film is probably only ~95 percent "finished" (considering Kubrick often edited up to/beyond opening day, c.f. 2001 and The Shining), somehow I struggle to think of any full scene that could be cut out without losing something. Especially seeing as virtually every scene is kind of doubled/mirrored by a corresponding scene elsewhere in the film - using a "sonata" structure overall sort of similar to that of Clockwork Orange. Perhaps some of the transition/second-unit shots of NY could be polished up, and we do know for sure that the sound editing was unfinished enough when Kubrick died that the precise performance of the Ligeti piece eventually utilized was either not yet chosen or not yet recorded for the film IIRC. That had to be decided by Jan Harlan or Vitali perhaps, just by looking at K's notes. Additionally, I've read Kubrick wanted to edit it down closer to 140 minutes (again, like 2001 and The Shining), but I'm not certain who said that. And yet, again, the film seems so marvelously full and rich and certainly visually astonishing. I've seen it dozens of times and its depth continues to amaze me. Zierra also added that he wanted to use the doc to dispel the usual rumors from detractors that say how Kubrick disliked the film, or Kubrick was somehow taken advantage of/bested by Cruise and Kidman (as R. Lee Ermey claimed).

So it's a strange paradox - I don't think WB was truthful about the state of completion of the film when Kubrick died, and about any changes that may have been made between then and theatrical release. And we know that they had no issue inserting those absurd robed figures in the US cut to pacify the MPAA. On a less well-known note, the studio even removed a bit of music/chanting during the same ritual sequence simply because it contained a passage from the Bhagavad Gita and Hindu groups were upset over this. Knowing all this, it's not surprising there might be more shots or even scenes that were cut at some stage. And yet despite all the alterations and controversy, I still think EWS is a masterpiece and probably the greatest of all such "unfinished" films. Hopefully Zierra's doc will do what he's aiming for in setting the historical record straight and arguing against the view that the film is Kubrick's lone turkey, or whatever (anyone who says that clearly hasn't seen his first feature).

[beamish14]

The R. Lee Ermey/Todd Field flack over this was so bizarre. I get that Field felt defensive over the final product, but to subsequently insinuate that Kubrick told him to never cast Ermey in what became In the Bedroom was petty and immature as well

[oh yeah]

The R. Lee Ermey/Todd Field flack over this was so bizarre. I get that Field felt defensive over the final product, but to subsequently insinuate that Kubrick told him to never cast Ermey in what became In the Bedroom was petty and immature as well

I always had a visceral reaction of "bullshit!" to the Ermey quote just because of my own love for the film. But honestly looking back now, I wonder why Ermey would fabricate such a story. Field and many others, including now Zierra it seems, have refuted Ermey's claims -- and Kubrick did also tell Jan Harlan that EWS was his finest work. But Ermey claims Kubrick called him up in a panic, said he thought the movie was "a piece of shit" and that Tom and Nicole had "had their way with him." I'm not sure why Ermey would put that out there, some five years after the movie came out, if it was all a lie. Just to get a moment in the limelight? I suppose it's possible. But what if Kubrick, the notorious perfectionist, vacillated between being proud of the film and worrying that it wasn't yet ready to show to the execs or that he'd be seen as a fraud? Especially after the infamous 2-year shoot and all the hype and anticipation. I'm just speculating of course, but I could almost imagine Kubrick saying such things in a moment of anxiety. After all, according to Michael Herr, on the day of that private screening for Tom & Nicole and the Warner execs, Kubrick told Herr it "pained him" to show the unfinished cut to "these people." I doubt he truly hated the film or the experience of making it, though, and he seemed to get along well with Tom and Nicole. (Although many analyses act as if the film is some kind of elaborate joke at Cruise and Scientology's expense, which seems a bit silly to me). Hopefully the doc will shed light on all of this.

[hearthesilence]

I got the impression Ermey turned out to be more and more of a nut as he grew older, so it's tough to take his word on anything.

[beamish14]

Kubrick was many things to different people. A lot of those in his inner circle were infuriated by what Frederic Raphael wrote about their collaborative relationship, but I don’t think he was deliberately trying to disparage him and create specious claims. His working methods weren’t the same with Diane Johnson or Michael Herr.

There is a fantastic anecdote in Kolker and Abrams’ amazing book on Eyes Wide Shut when Kubrick, on his seemingly endless search for a co-writer on the project, went on a long walk with John le Carre(!), who pitched a very detailed and elaborate scenario. Kubrick listened patiently and at the end of their walk, merely reiterated that he thought he would continue to go with his own initial instincts.

I just finished reading James Fenwick’s Stanley Kubrick Produces, and it adds even more amazing layers to the boundlessly complicated man

[Stefan Andersson]

Tom Cruise and Terry Semel, moderated by Annette Insdorf, on Eyes Wide Shut + more:
https://cinephiliabeyond.org/eyes-wide- ... mate-film/

[copen]

i've not seen a reference to this audio in this thread.
2-Hour Interview with Stanley Kubrick (1987) audio.
intv with rolling stone magazine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehQf0LJVOHQ

as far as non-films-kubrick, this is probably the greatest thing available. and the interviewer doesn't talk more than needed. as you can imagine, dozens of topics are covered.
my favorite kubrick is the 75min vietnam portion of full metal jacket, so this was a welcome item in more than one way.

and then there's this:
"" The Making of Stanley Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket (best version) "" 22 minutes. includes footage from a new source - from some exhibition.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x4ax8pi3sI

[The Elegant Dandy Fop]

Seeing as there’s endless scholarship on Stanley Kubrick and numerous books on the specifics of his career, is there any value in the new Kubrick: An Odyssey book? I’m curious, but want to hear thoughts by people who are well informed rather than web reviews.