Great read, viva Kubrick! 2001 and Barry Lyndon are probably my favorites, and I'll agree, Paths of Glory is a timeless tear dish of hard emotions perpetually served raw and cold, it always get to me. Funny thing tho with The Shining, sometimes I love it, other times, I struggle with it. I think it's Shelly, no disrespect to her but watching her is like running fingers down a chalkboard. Anyhow, so much talk of Kubrick and the other greats but no mention of "The Green Slime", what gives?
I think Kubrick was more interested in men than women, and his movies reflect that. In most of his films, when there are significant female characters at all, they often serve as plot devices and sexual motivators to get the men to do things and feel things. When the men do "feel" things, they are often shown at a remove, via long shots and with a minimum of dialogue, and usually no music to augment the scene. This could be interpreted as "cold" filmmaking (by the way, Dr. Strangelove, which is a nonstop reel of over-the-top emotional performance, is not an exception. Strangelove is a satire and the emotions there are cartoon-like and therefore not adult. Often men who are uncomfortable with confronting real emotions find a sanctuary in satire because (as a creator) it can allow them to believe they are addressing emotion, or (as a viewer/reader) it can allow them to keep real feelings at arm's length by taking pleasure in emotions being inflated out of reality (and therefore not truly scary).
I agree that most of Kubrick's films do show a range of real emotion, and I agree with all the examples you cited. It seems to me that with Kubrick personally, being in control was a big part of his psyche. Certainly it manifested in his personal and professional life. Part of feeling in control is not showing your emotional hand to others, lest they exploit it and weaken your position. To me, Kubrick unconsciously manifested this character trait into the way he filmed scripts and the way he shaped stories. It was more his tendency to hang back, as far as lens choice, music (or absence thereof) and even the way he showed action (or didn't). He achieved a uniqueness this way, because most of his contemporaries just plunged in and shot scripts and were in sync with Hollywood's belief that the more emotion you show (and hammer home with no shame), the greater impact on the audience and the better the movie would do.
In a perverse way, I think Kubrick's "coldness" as a filmmaker is actually more of an accurate depiction of the way real people experience (and display) emotion. It's more common for people to feel things intensely but not emote like a movie actor; and in my experience most of life's most deeply-felt moments are silent and still.
Thanks for this detailed response. It's subjective of course, but after reading your comment twice I find I don't disagree with much what you say. In fact I think my piece fits with your analysis more that might be realized.
Not super sure about your initial point though. I think he was interested in all humans. Men or women. I mean Kubrick is a male who grew up in the 40's & 50's. So the focus of his screenplays may be naturally seem to be mostly about men. But again I'd say in the context of his time he was still pretty progressive in his overall view of women. Even if they weren't always front & center.
For instance, the Paths Of Glory scene I mentioned inverts the sexism of how she's displayed. Her emotion moves the rowdy soldiers from lust to a longing for a mother figure.
Think of Joker shooting the sniper at the end of Jacket. The shock that it was a young girl picking off his buddies one by one.
Even Lolita finally turns the tables on both Humbert & Quilty. She runs away from the overbearing mother, the hipster pervert as well as the drooling, humorless protagonist. She finds her own way.
And as annoying as her performance may be, Wendy saves the day in the Shinning. Both Jack & the ghosts frozen in 1921. Banished to the racist & sexist past where they belong
Is some of this analysis just ad hoc post-rationalization? Of course! But that's my personal Kubrick truth & I'm sticking with it. Haha!
I really like what you say at the end there however. I agree that Kubrick's view is indeed one of how people "experience" emotion. Within. Not without. That's what a lot of people miss about Stan the Man. (Yes, I'm ending my response with "Stan the Man." Deal!)
Great read, viva Kubrick! 2001 and Barry Lyndon are probably my favorites, and I'll agree, Paths of Glory is a timeless tear dish of hard emotions perpetually served raw and cold, it always get to me. Funny thing tho with The Shining, sometimes I love it, other times, I struggle with it. I think it's Shelly, no disrespect to her but watching her is like running fingers down a chalkboard. Anyhow, so much talk of Kubrick and the other greats but no mention of "The Green Slime", what gives?
Thanks for the comment movie buddy! You really want me to review Green Slime? Carful what you wish for. Ha!
Loved this take on Kubrick.
I think Kubrick was more interested in men than women, and his movies reflect that. In most of his films, when there are significant female characters at all, they often serve as plot devices and sexual motivators to get the men to do things and feel things. When the men do "feel" things, they are often shown at a remove, via long shots and with a minimum of dialogue, and usually no music to augment the scene. This could be interpreted as "cold" filmmaking (by the way, Dr. Strangelove, which is a nonstop reel of over-the-top emotional performance, is not an exception. Strangelove is a satire and the emotions there are cartoon-like and therefore not adult. Often men who are uncomfortable with confronting real emotions find a sanctuary in satire because (as a creator) it can allow them to believe they are addressing emotion, or (as a viewer/reader) it can allow them to keep real feelings at arm's length by taking pleasure in emotions being inflated out of reality (and therefore not truly scary).
I agree that most of Kubrick's films do show a range of real emotion, and I agree with all the examples you cited. It seems to me that with Kubrick personally, being in control was a big part of his psyche. Certainly it manifested in his personal and professional life. Part of feeling in control is not showing your emotional hand to others, lest they exploit it and weaken your position. To me, Kubrick unconsciously manifested this character trait into the way he filmed scripts and the way he shaped stories. It was more his tendency to hang back, as far as lens choice, music (or absence thereof) and even the way he showed action (or didn't). He achieved a uniqueness this way, because most of his contemporaries just plunged in and shot scripts and were in sync with Hollywood's belief that the more emotion you show (and hammer home with no shame), the greater impact on the audience and the better the movie would do.
In a perverse way, I think Kubrick's "coldness" as a filmmaker is actually more of an accurate depiction of the way real people experience (and display) emotion. It's more common for people to feel things intensely but not emote like a movie actor; and in my experience most of life's most deeply-felt moments are silent and still.
Thanks for this detailed response. It's subjective of course, but after reading your comment twice I find I don't disagree with much what you say. In fact I think my piece fits with your analysis more that might be realized.
Not super sure about your initial point though. I think he was interested in all humans. Men or women. I mean Kubrick is a male who grew up in the 40's & 50's. So the focus of his screenplays may be naturally seem to be mostly about men. But again I'd say in the context of his time he was still pretty progressive in his overall view of women. Even if they weren't always front & center.
For instance, the Paths Of Glory scene I mentioned inverts the sexism of how she's displayed. Her emotion moves the rowdy soldiers from lust to a longing for a mother figure.
Think of Joker shooting the sniper at the end of Jacket. The shock that it was a young girl picking off his buddies one by one.
Even Lolita finally turns the tables on both Humbert & Quilty. She runs away from the overbearing mother, the hipster pervert as well as the drooling, humorless protagonist. She finds her own way.
And as annoying as her performance may be, Wendy saves the day in the Shinning. Both Jack & the ghosts frozen in 1921. Banished to the racist & sexist past where they belong
Is some of this analysis just ad hoc post-rationalization? Of course! But that's my personal Kubrick truth & I'm sticking with it. Haha!
I really like what you say at the end there however. I agree that Kubrick's view is indeed one of how people "experience" emotion. Within. Not without. That's what a lot of people miss about Stan the Man. (Yes, I'm ending my response with "Stan the Man." Deal!)