For me, it’s Eyes Wide Shut
For me, it’s Eyes Wide Shut
Leo Richardson
Other urls found in this thread:
archive.4plebs.org
youtube.com
youtu.be
twitter.com
Jose Bennett
agreed
Isaac Evans
For me, it's Barry Lyndon.
Josiah Young
Doctor strangelove for me, its infinitely rewatchable. He doesnt have a bad movie though. Id personally say full metal jacket is the weakest, but its still a great movie
Carter Bennett
"Barry Lyndon is Kubrick's best" is the clearest pseud-marker in existence. His fumbling imitation of a painterly style and period-piece aesthetics, mastered by Griffith half a century earlier, is as dull as it is derivative.
Shooting on 'le special NASA stem lens' is always brought up as if it were some empirical evidence of genius. It isn't unique. David Lean had a lens specially made just for one shot in Lawrence. Hitchcock had to do extensive modifications to create the Vertigo effect without having a zoom lens. Welles was one of the first to utilize 18mm in Touch of Evil. Jacques Tourneur did amazing things with filters and Technicolor to mimic watercolor vistas in Way of a Gaucho. To say nothing of what Griffith accomplished with 1910s technology.
But even aside from the over hyping of the film's technical aspects, Barry Lyndon is worthless. It's a Bresson-ified 30s costume picture incapable of escaping its lowbrow picaresque entertainment roots (dissertations about fate et al.) Just like everything with Kubrick, it's calculated to appease the middle and lowbrow. To make them feel as if they are experiencing culture, as if they are "learning" something profound. This is peak cinematic art for people that have never seen more than 20 films from 1900-1938 tops.
Ryan Martinez
For me it's Barry Lyndon
...and 2001
...and the Shining
...and Paths of Glory
Ryan Sanders
Lel, nah.
Cherry picking and pointing out that Kubrick was well versed in film and utilized the techniques used by the masters before him doesn't detract from Bary Lyndon one iota. It's a great film, only lessened by how much greater it could have been had it been about Napoleon instead.
Juan Russell
Kubrick movies are sterile with no emotion to attach to. The technical side however are very good.
Brody Wright
We get it
archive.4plebs.org
I hope youre the person who first wrote it, because if not its pathetic af, and if so autistic af
Michael Allen
This
Alexander Sanders
Barry Lyndon is a film women will never understand. This includes whoever wrote this drivel.
Benjamin Howard
dis nigga looks like he's about to blow clouds of vape out of both nostrils
Evan Rogers
>Kubrick movies are sterile with no emotion to attach to.
Are you retarded or autistic?
Caleb Young
Lightboxes are biggest drawback of Lyndon technically. Once you realise he burned nearly all interiors from the outside with artificial light, you look at them differently. 50mm f/0.7 lens on closeups was a mistake as well. Dof is too narrow for focus pulling, so scenes had to be acted out as if actors were nailed to their seats.
On a side note, Touch of Evil was a technical disaster aside opening scene. Welles was completely oblivious of lighting, and as he was luck with quality cinematographer in Citizen Kane, he was unlucky here. He ended with many of the scenes having shadows on the ceiling among other defects.
Benjamin Lee
It's a sly and subversive satire of the age dressed as a sincere period piece, in a sardonic reflection of the very pretenses and pretentiousness of its subjects. Shallow intellects often fail to grasp humor when it is not accompanied by the appropriate cues. You may find more enjoyment in situational comedies, and their laugh tracks might serve to guide your meandering brain.
Jeremiah Rivera
>Touch of Evil was a technical disaster aside opening scene.
But what an opening scene it was. That opening deserves to be in a way better movie.
>HURR LONG SHOT TAKE IS A MEME
To pull THAT off then is amazing.
Andrew Wright
The events Joker when through are horrific, and could easy played up for emotion. Even a b-list director could do it with the marital. But it'll lose its cult flavour, which is what you like about it.
Anthony Allen
I think you responded to the wrong thread.
Justin Edwards
>Film making is only an exercise in technical inanities
What film schools shouldn't be teaching.
Both Barry Lyndon and Touch of Evil are more inventive and important films than pretty much everything that has come out in the past decade, which has been more about the technical side and the aesthetics than what is being said or experimented with. Heck, most films coming out these days are just a variation of the same formulas that gained a foothold in the 80s to 00s.
I'd rather have a flawed film say something or attempt something new than yet another flick that does everything right "technically", yet is forgotten within the month that it is released.
Christopher Kelly
This film is simply an extended piss take, from a jew, mocking Europeans. Sure, it’s pretty in parts, and slightly funny, if you get the jewish joke
Cameron Jenkins
Why 13 years between FMJ and EWS? Also watched Filmmaker (2017) - Leon Vitali you devoted madman. I can't imagine doing so much hard work only to be left aside.
Thomas Wright
>”are you retarded or autistic”
>posts sterile pic, void of emotion!
Idiot!
Dylan Barnes
Weak bait
Charles Edwards
It’s a jew, mocking Gentiles.
Simle.
Jason Martinez
>Muh Jebs
Kubrick was pretty anti-semitic in that he seemed to want nothing to do with his Jewish heritage.
Not in a neo Nazi kind of way, he just seemed way above tribal mentalities.
>"Hitler was right about almost everything."
A darkly comedic quote by the man if red in context, that went way above the head of his Jewish collaborator.
Eli Roberts
Because he was researching the ‘holocaust’, realised that ‘Hitler was right about everything’ and then tried to figure you how to blow the whistle on his own tribe.
Charles Rodriguez
>muh jebs
Did you do that deliberately, retard?
Isaiah Morris
Nah, that was an editing joke.
Heard of the term "kill your darlings".
Kubrick was claiming they should go the Holocaust on Eyes Wide Shut.
Levi Gutierrez
Mason Morales
/thread
Kayden Gutierrez
>Kubrick was claiming they should go the Holocaust on Eyes Wide Shut.
Pardon?
Could you please attempt to rephrase that, and be more clear.
Adam Walker
>Frederic Raphael, who co-authored the Eyes Wide Shut script with Kubrick, says that the director once remarked that "Hitler was right about almost everything", and insisted that any trace of Jewishness be expunged from the Eyes Wide Shut script. Kubrick's supposed relationship to his own ethnicity deeply troubled Raphael, a fellow Jew. Raphael was further puzzled over Kubrick's cryptic praise for Hitler, unable to decide if Kubrick was jesting. Raphael was equally puzzled by Kubrick's trashing of Schindler's List. After Raphael mentioned Schindler’s List, Kubrick replied: “Think that's about the Holocaust? That was about success, wasn't it? The Holocaust is about six million people who get killed. 'Schindler's List’ is about 600 who don't."[4] Kubrick's friend Steven Spielberg, the director of the film, disbelievingly responded that he "didn't recognize the voice of Stanley" in Raphael's interviews.
Two proud and about and tribal Jews not understanding how someone like Kubrick could have been disillusioned with such bullshit. Kubrick was editing his script to appeal to a more broader audience and made a dark joke that went over Rpahael's head. And Spielberg the sentimental narcissist couldn't fathom why someone would take issue with him turning one the 20th century's darkest moments into a success story.
youtube.com
Benjamin Baker
Kubrick was /ourguy/
Ayden Walker
It's just a placeholder for the actual scene which you should know by heart. Music, acting, symbolism is all there, it's very emotional.
Christopher Sanders