10 ms·
A book Stanley Kubrick didn’t want anyone to read is being published
- dmead 2y agoI am a literate adult. When I read this title I saw Aurthur C. Clarke's face.
- napierzaza 2y agoSo the guy writing the book wanted Lolita to be a lot hornier?
- dirtyhippiefree 2y agoHe refers to deviations from the book…I see what you did there…
- block_dagger 2y agoWell, she is a “nymphette” in the book. That novel is so well written and not even in the author’s native language.
- aaplok 2y agoActually in the book she is really not. She is a 12 year old child being sexualised in the mind of the narrator. She doesn't act seductively, the narrator sees whatever she does in a perverted way. There is a famous interview on French TV where Nabokov says as much (in French) [0] [0] https://www.ina.fr/actualites-ina/mon-archive-preferee/mon-archive-preferee-augustin-trapenard-nabokov-lolita https://www.ina.fr/actualites-ina/mon-archive-preferee/mon-a...
- themaninthedark 2y agoI suppose that your interpretation would be dependent on if you are postmodernist or not and if you believe in the death of the author. I have never read the book or seen the file but the work is very interesting to me as when it get brought up people will start claiming all sorts of things from it. I think the most insane from my point of view was when I heard/saw(can't remember if online or in person) an argument that all men are perverted and want to rape children. The proof was quotes from Lolita....
- aaplok 2y agoI recommend you to read the book, I think that the film doesn't (can't?) do it justice. The book being written from the point of view of the narrator is crucial: the reader is put in the mind of a pedophile (we are told that he is in jail). I also suggest imagining the girl as a child, before puberty at the start of the story. The case study of Lolita is interesting because there are two competing readings. The fact that the character is often associated to seduction and jailbait in popular culture is arguably symptomatic of a culture of blaming the victims of this kind of crimes. Obviously not all men are perverts but I sometimes wonder if those of us who aren't don't underestimate the number of those who are.
- fermigier 2y agoKubrick’s film simplified the psychological depth and literary nuances of Vladimir Nabokov's 1955 novel, adapting its themes and character dynamics to fit both the cinematic form and the censorship norms of its time. Constrained by the Hays Code and societal taboos of the 1960s, it toned down the explicitness of the sexual elements of the story. The was more overt humor and satire in the film, partly as a way to address the censorship regulations of the time. This approach changes the tone from the intensely personal and tragic to something lighter and more accessible, though still deeply disturbing. Note that Nabokov was credited as the screenplay writer for the movie (Kubrick is uncredited). https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056193/fullcredits/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056193/fullcredits/
- ghaff 2y agoThe criticism seems pretty fair. Not sure how filmable the book is especially given the constraints of the time.
- trwm 2y agoThe constraints of today would be much worse. I'd go so far as saying that making even Kubricks version today would be impossible.
- ghaff 2y agoThat may be fair. Arguably different constraints. But would probably be pretty radioactive especially with a Lolita at an age faithful to the book.
- Detrytus 2y agoHow does that compare to 1997 "Lolita" with Jeremy Irons?
- victorstanciu 2y agoI guess it shows that no matter how objectively successful you are, your skin can still be see-through thin.
- dmonitor 2y agoIt sounds like Kubrick felt betrayed. He collaborated with the author extensively up until receiving a draft.
- miguelazo 2y agoI was thinking the same, but it’s easy to do so when it’s not your life’s work— especially something that took so much time and dedication. The quote about the Lolita film was pretty damning, and imagine the shame of accepting that you had botched the adaptation of such a prolofic novel.
- iainmerrick 2y agoSo what, everyone is supposed to pretend that everything Kubrick touched was completely perfect? That would be a hagiography, not a serious artistic critique. It seems more than fair to point out that Kubrick was touchy and thin-skinned. You could argue that it's an inseparable part of his overall genius -- but only if you're allowed to criticise him in the first place!
- ashurov 2y agoSo, why can they publish it now? His death doesn’t nullify the agreement, does it?
- ggm 2y agoI would think it does, yes. It's personal rights, not concrete assets. Dead people have no right to privacy in law as I understand it. Not a lawyer, not in the economies involved in this. "it depends"
- Kinrany 2y agoWas it because of the privacy laws that they needed his agreement in the first place? It seems he contributed, so I assume otherwise.
- bhaney 2y agoMy understanding is that they didn't need his agreement in the first place, but they voluntarily entered into a contract with Kubrick that gave him the final say on publishing in exchange for him agreeing to be interviewed for the book.
- ggm 2y agoContracts to personal affairs not real property, I believe would terminate on his death unless deliberately constructed to use e.g. a trust. I repeat, I'm not a lawyer.
- FrustratedMonky 2y agoIf they didn't need his agreement, but entered into contract anyway that gave so much power. Why? Seems like we are still missing something here. The article didn't get into the legal side.
- bhaney 2y agoI said it in my previous comment and it's also in the article. The "why" is so Kubrick would agree to be interviewed for the book. They gave him publishing veto rights that he otherwise wouldn't have had in exchange for that, which is pretty common and typically well worth it.
- fastball 2y agoDoesn't seem that controversial. A publisher commissioned a book about the films of Stanley Kubrick, agreeing that Kubrick would be able to veto publishing of the text if he didn't like it. He didn't like it, didn't sign off on it, and the book was never published.
- textfiles 2y agoFrom the article, it appears the big sadness for the author was he wrote back and said he was happy to work with Kubrick to discuss getting it to where he was more comfortable with it, Kubrick never responded, and then sent lawyers. That's all that's rough for the writer, here.
- ZiiS 2y agoThe problem is, if you have a veto and don't use it; you are basically endorsing the book.
- chefkd 2y agoI'm confused isn't sending lawyers basically the same thing as a veto? Or am I misunderstanding
- ZiiS 2y agoI this case the author agreed that Kubrick would read the final book and agree if it should be published. This removes the option he chose with all other books of simply ignoring them. Very different then Streisand effecting an independent author.
- fastball 2y agoThat's not very surprising either though. I don't know many artists who would enjoy the prospect of justifying their art to someone who was skeptical of its merit from the start. Not saying Kubrick did the right thing, just that it seems very on-brand for most people in his position.
- 2y ago
- Hard_Space 2y agoI have to say that the 'critical' quotations from the book are uncharacteristic of a project where the target of the biography (and this is a kind of biography) is cooperating and participating - and particularly when they have veto. Most writers know the score in this respect: unauthorized coverage is harder-hitting and may be more accurate, whereas authorized coverage has inside scoops, but is unlikely to be allowed to contain very critical barbs.
- FrustratedMonky 2y agoThink the issue is, Kubrick was so sensitive, that even the most mild criticism was taken badly. So the author knows the score, and treads lightly, and is still jumped on. The author was hired to do a 'nice' book, and was pretty nice but the customer was a Prima donna and rejected it anyway. Think we've all encountered bad customers like this.
- Hard_Space 2y agoI don't know - I think the author was hoping for tremendous indulgence from Kubrick when attempting to get him to green-light quotes like: 'There are good things in Lolita. But in too many respects it squanders, impoverishes and conventionalises its source material, draining it of its complexity, nymphetry and eroticism.' It's valid criticism, because it's a point of view, but I wouldn't expect anything quite that harsh in a collaborative work.
- FrustratedMonky 2y agoSince Kubrick had opportunity to respond, he was able to respond to the draft, he could have used it as opportunity to explain the censorship of the time that lead to that outcome. The article even mentions that later Kubrick tended to agree with that view of Lolita.
- makingstuffs 2y agoFun fact you can visit Stanley Kuberick’s old house in North London (near Elstree). You can’t go inside, mind. It is surrounded by lots of farm and woodlands, however, so theres that.
- lqet 2y ago> "There are good things in Lolita. But in too many respects it squanders, impoverishes and conventionalises its source material, draining it of its complexity, nymphetry and eroticism." I think anyone who has read Nabokov's novel would agree that Lolita really isn't a great adaptation of the book. I think it is by far Kubrick's weakest film. There is a deep cynic darkness to the book that the movie misses completely. In later interviews, Kubrick always tried to downplay this and only admitted that the movie lacked eroticism: > "If I could do the film over again, I would have stressed the erotic component of their relationship with the same weight Nabokov did," the director admitted. "But that is the only major area where I believe the film is susceptible to valid criticism." I sometimes wonder how a Lolita movie by Francis Ford Coppola would've turned out (maybe with Gene Hackman).
- cubefox 2y agoThere are also things that are still in the realm of the acceptable in a book but that would go too far in a movie.
- JKCalhoun 2y agoPerhaps in 1962, a big studio. But if Lolita had been tackled just a decade later when we had entered in the anything-goes era of filmmaking....
- onemoresoop 2y agoThere's another version of Lolita by Adrian Lyne starring Jeremy Irons. It's quite a bit different having that it was filmed in a different era.
- lqet 2y agoI highly recommend the documentary Filmworker to anyone interested in Stanley Kubrick's character. It's about Leon Vitali, the actor who played Lord Bullingdon (the neurotic brother of Lady Lyndon) in Barry Lyndon. After filming Barry Lyndon, he quit acting and became Kubricks personal assistant / factotum for over 20 years. Although some would say he was Kubrick's personal slave. It is utterly shocking to see how badly Kubrick treated him at times. Vitali did the work of 4-5 assistants, completely neglected his family, destroyed his health, spend the best years of his life re-cutting scenes until 5 in the morning while listening to Kubrick's violent tantrums, and ended his successful acting career for him. But apparently he was paid so little by Kubrick that he ran into financial trouble after the director's death. Yet for some mysterious reason, he remained completely loyal to his master until his own death in 2022.
- voltaireodactyl 2y agoThere are many people who believe that something outside themselves is more important than their own personal happiness or even basic sustenance/stability. Whether that’s something to be admired, damned, or merely observed — it would seem Vitali made choices for reasons worth it to him, personally.
- crazydoggers 2y agoLots of people make bad choices for themselves and others due to psychological control, manipulation, and/or abuse, such as people who willingly join cults. I’m not saying that is what happened to Vitali, but I think it’s the open question being alluded to. It is important to be aware and concerned about cultures or industries that foster cult like personality leaders.
- slibhb 2y agoExactly right. But people today are extremely resistant to this fact. It's very clear that many, many people would give up nearly anything -- including years of their lives -- to work with someone as talented as Kubrick. Is that crazy? I wouldn't do it, but others would.
- xchip 2y agoNice sales trick
- latexr 2y agoNot publishing a book at the height of the subject’s popularity, but instead launching it half a century later when the money and recognition won’t matter is a nice sales trick?
- psychoslave 2y agoSure, maybe this would have provided more attention then, but also more troubles to the author and publisher. So the "look that stuff that a famous person absolutely didn’t want this to be read by anyone" is still a good click bait.
- amanzi 2y agoI love Kubrick movies, but my one bit of criticism I'd give (from me - a random guy on the internet, who's never made a movie), is that both 2001 and The Shining both require the viewer to have read the respective books to fully appreciate them. I know it's a cliché to harp on about the ending of 2001, but it really does make a lot more sense after having read the book, which in turn makes the movie a lot more enjoyable. With The Shining, you really need to read the book to fully understand the back-story to Jack's issues, and Danny's premonitions. I was amazed at how much the movie left out, and after reading the book, the movie is so much better.
- mateus1 2y agoI do not think you have to fully rationally grasp the ending for 2001 to be an impactful film. I’d argue it is a masterpiece _because_ of that uneasiness and befuddlement and that is one of the ways it leaves a mark on you.
- onemoresoop 2y agoI agree with the befuddlement aspect that makes the mind rummage on it from time to time long after watching the movie. It's an incomplete resolution that causes us to think about the movie. It could be frustrating at times but I guess that's the whole point.
- ghusto 2y agoAgreed, and I’d be comfortable calling this incompetence. Triggers cinemaphiles to hear a director that’s supposed to be ome of the finest being called incompetent, but I can’t see how it’s defendable. He failed at the _one thing_ a film is supposed to do.
- bondarchuk 2y agoCinemaphiles TRIGGERED by this simple critique! (come on man...)
- latexr 2y ago> Agreed, and I’d be comfortable calling this incompetence. You do know that in the case of 2001, the movie and book were done simultaneously, right? There’s no failure of adaptation because it wasn’t one. It makes no sense to fault the movie by comparing with the book in this case. > He failed at the _one thing_ a film is supposed to do. Which is what? Entertain? Make a profit? Be culturally relevant to an extent that is still felt decades later? There is no rule which says a movie has to be a coherent linear story that spoon feeds you to be significant, good, or artistically relevant.
- numeromancer 2y agoStanley Kubrick was one of that kind of people who cannot take criticism of anything they do.
- JKCalhoun 2y agoThat's too bad. I understand that as a young filmmaker with an ego, but your supposed to lose that ego as you mature both emotionally and as an artist.
- psychoslave 2y agoAs surprising as it might be, narcissistic personality disorder won’t go away simply as people age, especially if they live in a social bubble where they are sent overall continuous positive feedback that society is very pleased at the global result of their behavior.
- onemoresoop 2y agoDo you suppose Kubrick may have suffered from narcissistic personality disorder?
- psychoslave 2y agoActually, no. Apart that he was a film maker, I don’t know anything about him. If anything, this thread thrown more claims on the person than I have ever read before, as I couldn’t care less about topics that can perfectly fit gossip magazines. Plus not being a doctor, I’m not even qualified to make a compelling diagnosis. All that said, clichés don’t come from anywhere, and tyrannic personalities who destroy everybody around them as sure as they get social glorification for practicing some art is a well established one, so I wouldn’t be surprised that it would be the case. However I would rather have Picasso coming to my mind.
- Towaway69 2y agoDirectors to a certain extent need to dominate, it’s the nature of the job. If you’re the one organising 30 to 50 people on a set with a good many of them also being egos (think actors for example), you have to make hard decisions and to certain extent be that unpopular leader. On the other hand, there also plenty of soft spoken directors that use soft power to manage a set. Just want to point out that directing isn’t an easy job at times and how that gets handled various from director to director.
- danjoredd 2y agoGood, if Stanley was going to bully them into not publishing I am glad it got published eventually. I like Stanley Kubrick's films but every time I read about him he comes off as a generally unlikeable guy.
- Nostromos 2y agoIf you don't want your art to exist beyond you, destroy it. Once you die, whatever remains is fair game.
- histories 2y agoThis book is a great one: "Stanley Kubrick and Me: Thirty Years at His Side", by Emilio D'Alessandro
- musicale 2y agoFortunately people don't read books anymore.