Sunday, September 21, 2008

Stanley Kubrick's Boxes

Ok, I appreciate that not everyone's as obssessed by Stanley Kubrick as I am, but I'm posting this just in case you are. It's a documentary from Channel 4 in the UK about Kubrick's boxes. That's right, the boxes he kept his stuff in. It was based on this great original article in The Guardian. The YouTube link breaks it into five parts, but you can also watch the whole video uninterrupted on Google Vid here.

10 comments:

steve said...

you are not alone thanks for this

adrian mckinty said...

thanks steve

Conduit said...

I have always found myself at odds with Kubrick, and for similar reasons Michael Mann. If you just asked me flat out what I thought of them, I's say they were clinical, lacked feeling, all surface sheen, no heart, mechanical, place visuals over story ... and so on.

BUT ... I still have several movies form each director in my collection. PATHS OF GLORY is heartbreaking. CLOCKWORK ORANGE is terrifying. 2001 is breathtaking, and the special edition Blu-Ray is a beautiful thing. Oh, and I love Dr Strangelove. But still, if you were to ask me, I'd say I don't like Kubrick. Strange, innit?

adrian mckinty said...

Stuart

Where do you come down on the Manhunter v Silence of the Lambs debate? Personally I always thought Brian Cox made a more effective and less campy Dr Lecter in the Michael Mann flick.

I can see what you're saying about Kubrick but cinema is such a visual medium that style can go along way. Millers Crossing is a good example, basically a rip off of Red Harvest and The Glass Key but rip offed with such loving style and pinache that for me at least it works beautifully. Sometims Kubrick's style gets in the way of the story (Barry L. Eyes Wide Shut) but other times he transcends the material 2001, Strangelove, Paths and especially the earlier noirs The Killing and the expressionist Killers Kiss.

I see what you're saying but give me Kubricks chilliness over Spielberg's sentiment any day of the week.

cheers mate

a...

Conduit said...

On Manhunter vs SOTL...

I know the general film buff consensus is to favour Manhunter, but I've always preferred SOTL. I saw Manhunter first, I think maybe six months before SOTL. While I agree Cox's performance was faultless, I do think Hopkins rather muddied his own waters with Hannibal and Red Dragon. He did milk the character, becoming more pantomime villain with each, so it can be hard to set that aside when watching SOTL.

But the bigger factor for me is the tone of the two films. I always felt Mann's touch was too clinical, all that modern architecture and open space. It worked wonderfully for Heat, but I feel SOTL did a better job of capturing the gothic claustrophobia of Thomas Harris's best work (as opposed to his lazy Hannibal-by-numbers effort that we last saw).

BTW, I'll be posting a little something about James Ellroy's new book some time this evening...

adrian mckinty said...

Stuart

I see what you mean, but I still fav Manhunter.

I'll be jumping over now to see the Ellroy.

A...

Dan Wagner said...

Thanks for the post on this. I consider myself a Kubrick completist, so this is one less thing I have to watch about the man before I die. Cheers!

Dan Wagner said...

Shoot! I almost forgot.

Manhunter. The production design will forever date this film to the mid-80's. However, I see this as its most attractive quality. Mann is never afraid to embrace the time period as an essential character of the film

adrian mckinty said...

Dan

You may have seen it already but Stanley Kubrick A Life in Pictures is also available free on google video. You have to dig a little for it though.

Cheers

adrian...

adrian mckinty said...

and the music too, if I recall correctly, lots of heavy synth