3 ms·
Maybe he was happy doing it but it doesn't mean that he was treated well. That era of director dictators caused a lot of suffering.
by Hikikomori 3y ago
Maybe he was happy doing it but it doesn't mean that he was treated well. That era of director dictators caused a lot of suffering.
- jfkrirj 3y ago[flagged]
- Hikikomori 3y agoSo you believe that what OP wrote is normal boss behaviour? I wouldn't want to work for you.
- fidotron 3y agoNormal bosses don’t get Kubrick like results.
- zoky 3y agoKubrick’s results were all over the map. He made maybe three great films: Dr. Strangelove Full Metal Jacket A Clockwork Orange A bunch of not bad films: 2001 Lolita Barry Lyndon The Shining Spartacus One real turd of a film: Eyes Wide Shut And a bunch of forgettable filler: All the other films he made. Compare this to the Anti-Kubrick, Clint Eastwood, who made: Unforgiven Mystic River Million Dollar Baby Letters From Iwo Jima Gran Torino And a bunch of okay films: Pretty much everything else And it’s pretty obvious that you don’t need to be an abusive taskmaster like Kubrick to make great art.
- hrhfisk 3y agosorry but Eastwood is not in the same league as Kubrick, by a long mile. just ask reddit and reverse the results to know who is better
- fidotron 3y agoNote to self: In future it's definitely best to respond to all bait with "just ask reddit".
- iknownthing 3y ago2001 was "not bad"????
- hrhfisk 3y ago2001 Lolita Barry Lyndon The Shining Spartacus these "mid" films would be among the top 10 ever easily but according to him "tough" guy Eastwood can surpass it
- gspencley 3y agoJumping into this with a "spicy" personal opinion. How I would rate 2001 depends entirely on my criteria. For cinematography and vfx I would give it an 11 out of 10. Ground breaking. For story and entertainment, I'd give it a -1. It is an anti-film in that sense. The most mind-numbingly boring and drawn out piece of "film" that I have ever had the displeasure of trying to sit through. And I say that as a self-professed film nerd. I admire Kubrick a lot. But I can't stand 2001, at least when I judge it by the same criteria that I judge other films. Film is visual story telling. Emphasis on "story." Putting aside Dave & Hal (which make their appearance so late into the "film" that I've already been asleep for 3 hours - yes I'm exaggerating), when you take away identifiable protaganoists and antagonists, with backstories, goals, motivations and obstacles what you are left with is more of an exhibition. 2001 was more of a 1960s speculative endeavour into humanity's future at the dawn of the space age than it was a story told through imagery. It lacked plot, character development, relatibility and it's pacing was so slow and drawn out that it's hard to maintain your attention throughout. When you judge it for what it was, there is a lot of greatness there. Many of its visual effects were truly groundbreaking and influenced filmmaking for decades to come. But when you compare it to films that you actually want to re-watch for entertainment value ... I would put it in the "awful" category. But that's just my personal opinion.
- Hikikomori 3y ago2001 is art but its also like watching paint dry.
- iknownthing 3y ago> It lacked plot, character development, relatibility Kubrick definitely did not play by those rules.
- Hikikomori 3y agoWeinstein also got a lot of good movies made, probably more than Kubrick. Sexual abuse and rape is fine and forgiven I guess.
- CamperBob2 3y agoThat's impressive. The ratio of offensiveness to word count is off the charts. Hats off, I guess.
- hrhfisk 3y ago[flagged]
- gspencley 3y agoI don't think there's a lot of people that wanted to work for Kubrick. But I also have an easy time accepting that there are many people out there that will make great sacrifices for something that they love and believe in. MMA fighters, for example, put themselves at tremendous risk because they're chasing their own personal ideas of "greatness." And there are many examples of "struggling artists" throughout history that gave up on relationships and money because they were chasing something that they believed in. I'm not defending Kubrick's managerial style, and I don't know anything about the individual that they are talking about and what drove him. I just don't have any difficulty imagining that this person believed in something very personal that he was chasing. Something that the rest of us can't relate to but that meant a great deal to him. We don't have to imagine that Kubrick had him brainwashed or "enslaved" to accept that he could have made a personal choice that the rest of us are incapable of understanding, in pursuit of a value that he held above all others, because it was a deeply personal choice.
- sevagh 3y ago>MMA fighters, for example, put themselves at tremendous risk because they're chasing their own personal ideas of "greatness." And there are many examples of "struggling artists" throughout history that gave up on relationships and money because they were chasing something that they believed in. MMA fighters generally chase their own glory, to get their own hand raised in the ring. Not become a personal servant to another person's ego.
- gspencley 3y agoAgreed but you're missing the point, which is that the individual might have so believed in Kubrik's art that he wanted to make personal sacrifices in pursuit of that. For all we know (and others undoubtedly know more about the story than I do), this man might have actually been in love Kubrik and wanted nothing more than to be close to what he perceived as "greatness." I'm not even saying whether I think it's morally right or wrong. Only that it's not hard to imagine the scenario.
- 3y ago
- jan3024 3y ago[flagged]
- timdiggerm 3y agoWhat a weird comparison.
- FrustratedMonky 3y ago"doesn’t make him bad" Doesn't it though?
- Hikikomori 3y agoDid Jesus himself do that directly? I mean directors like Kubrick, Hitchcock and John Landis that acted like dictators. See twilight zone accident.