That's interesting; not the fact that you only got four, which is pretty typical, but which ones you know. Of the earliest six, you had heard of Lolita and Spartacus, but not Paths of Glory. That's interesting, because I would have thought that that one would be the most famous of all the ones on the right. Barry Lyndon is, I suppose, not one of the most famous Kubrick movies to the average person, but it is definitely one of the greatest, especially with its cinematography.
Though Lolita and Spartacus are less-guessed than Lyndon (which feels odd to me, both seems pretty famous and culturally significant, but maybe because Lyndon is more recent), it seems like I'm not alone in being unfamiliar with the first 4, going by the answer percentages.
Actually that does make some sense to me. The Shining seems to me sort of separate from all the rest. It seems to me that the connotation of The Shining for most people is "that scary horror movie" or "the one with 'Here's Johnny'" rather than "that Stanley Kubrick masterpiece". I think that the people who have heard of The Shining and the people who have heard of Stanley Kubrick do not always align.
Only six of which are amongst the 100 highest-rated movies of all time at IMDB. So not only is he a slacker, he had less than a 50% success rate at making an all-time classic. What a schlub.
I mean, he was fairly prolific until he finished The Shining. His first 11 movies were in a span of 27 years. That's like one every 30 months. Pretty standard. It's just the last two that make it look so drawn out. And judging by Eyes Wide Shut, he probably should have just stayed retired.
In hindsight, all of those delays were worth the wait. And many of those delays were partially caused by his perfectionism, his numerous failed attempts to get both films Napoleon and The Aryan Papers and other projects that never materialized due to too many numerous reasons (including fights with the various book authors and internal battles with studio heads). Also, Kubrick's final marriage German actress Christiane Harlan (m: 1959 until his death) and the subsequent birth of their children played a big roll in his becoming a family man, after his prior marriages failed.
I think Eyes Wide Shut is great. Definitely not among his best films but still great; imo 8/10. Anything Kubrick made is still way better than most people's best films.
I just love every movie he made. It doesn't matter to me whether he was prolific or not. He contributed a lot to art and that should be enough. He directed thirteen wonderful feature films and three documentary shorts (that we know of), in addition to creating the concept to A.I. - that's a little more than billions of people do in their entire lives, isn't it? Furthermore, although Buñuel, Fellini, Godard, Bergman and Herzog, among some others, could be compared to him, Kubrick had a single, unique style of his own (I'm just trying to emphasize!).
Anyway, all I'm saying is that he should be respected, even by those who can't enjoy his work.
Kubrick definitely did *not* invent the concept of artificial intelligence. Come on. Even discounting things like Frankenstein, the Golem myth, or various creation myths that have existed forever and even just looking at the concept of computer intelligence in popular fiction we've got 1956's Forbidden Planet, Asimov's "I, Robot" published in 1950, the 1920 Czech science fiction play Rossum's Universal Robots, Erewhon published in 1872, and Darwin Among the Machines in the 1860s among many, many others that predate 2001.
Dartmouth College opened a workshop to research AI in 1956. Alan Turing described the "Turing Test" in 1950.
I'm pretty sure that Mila is referencing 2001: A Space Odyssey, a science fiction film from 1968 about artificial intelligence, not A.I. by Steven Spielberg. And Mila was suggesting that in 1968 the concept of artificial intelligence was something new, which it wasn't. But I could be wrong.
Yes and more than anyone I know I readily admit it when I am and welcome people pointing it out. Again, if it was clear it would be clear, and this comment thread would not exist.
Best director ever. He has done "only" 13 films, but all of them became the top in their genre. Paths of glory is the best war film, Space Odyssey best scifi, Eyes wide shut best drama, or something like that. :)
I like some of his movies but Eyes Wide Shut was crap, Space Odyssey is boring and far from the best science fiction film ever made; I've never seen Paths of Glory. I liked Full Metal Jacket but it was also far from the best war movie ever made. On the other hand, The Shining is pretty high up there on a list of top horror films.
I think the only time I ever gave a film a one-star rating on IMDB was for 2001: A Space Odyssey. What a steaming pile of crap. I didn't just dislike it, I was angered and insulted by it. I know I'm in the minority here but I will say it...the emperor has no clothes!
@kalbahamut: Yeah, it's getting lame if the common criticism towards the movie consists of just one word, which is of course not a fact since "boring" describes a subjective experience. I once read a slam of "2001" by Pauline Kael, who at least provided interesting arguments that (almost) convinced me. What I wrote wasn't in ill will against you though.
If the vast and overwhelming majority of people are entertained by a film it's appropriate to call it entertaining. Pretty conceited to imply we shouldn't. Though I'm also sure that the percentage of people touched by Twilight is far smaller than the percentage of people bored by 2001, whether your sample size includes average audience members or even just premiere film critics.
The word truth evokes something objective and universal; it's as if those people who enjoyed 2001 are wrong. But in the way you phrased it, if "boring" implies "many people find it boring"... yeah, then you're right. @eric29: I'll try my best to describe the emperor's clothes. The best way to start is to tell the story, because many people who hate "2001" don't even see that there is a story. So: back when our ancestors were ape-like and at the brink of extinction, a giant monolith appeared and inspired them to use tools. Flash forward a few million years, modern mankind has found a similar monolith on the moon. It is perfectly shaped and its origin can't be explained. The monolith points to Jupiter, so a space team travels there. The HAL sequence is understandable without further explanations. The last astronaut reaches Jupiter, finds another monolith, and is transported into an unknown place. The monoliths were planted by some powerful entity (aliens? God? whatever).
(continued) The same entity provides the astronaut with a richly furnished room that evokes human civilization. The astronaut ages and is somehow reborn, probably symbolically for all mankind. (END OF PLOT). In case you've read Nietzsche, it is pretty clear that Kubrick ransacks his philosophy for the movie.
As mankind, we were once like monkeys, but we learned to use tools and make evolutionary progress. But we still have a long way to go, and have to make the next step; we have to become super-humans (the whole Übermensch thing). To the powerful entity that placed the monoliths, we probably look as primitive as monkeys. That's why the astrounaut (and the viewer) has a hard time understanding the last scenes. "Thus spoke Zarathustra" is played at the beginning and the end of the movie. The music's title directly refers to Nietzsche's book about the Übermensch. Many people think that the movie means nothing, hence the "emperor without clothes" remark. But all of what I described...
... is very evident in the movie and becomes more clear if you read the original book, and Nietzsche's books. I don't think that this is very deep philosophically, but it's definitely there. But here are some reasons why I think that "2001" is a great movie nonetheless. 1) Some of the most awe-inspiring imagery in movie history. 2) We go from a bone thrown in the air to a space ship that floats through the air. Millions of years of human technological progress skipped in one cut! 3) Who in the world would think to link space ships to classical music? And yet it works. The space ships elegantly float, as if dancing a waltz, to the tune of "The Blue Danube". 4) The monolith is a symbol for never-ending progress. It is present in every stage of mankind. It is opaque. It can't be fully unerstood. It is intimadating and awe-inspiring. It always makes us go forward, but we can never really reach and fully grasp it. 5) The HAL 9000 sequence is a slow-burning mini-thriller.
The sense of being trapped with this super computer that controls everything in a space ship that doesn't seem to have a private corner, a dark spot, is truly frightening. Although admittedly, other movies have explored AI better than this one. 6) Kubrick knew that in space, no one can hear you scream. 7) Consider that this movie was made in 1968. The special effects are unheard of for that time and still don't look shabby. The design is more reminiscent of modern technology than what you would see in just about any SF movie for a long time. 8) When people talk about entertaining movies, they often compare them with roller coaster rides. Fair enough, "2001" is anything but that. It's more like a solitary walk in the mountains, a gaze from a cliff down a waterfall while lost in thoughts, perhaps a stroll through a large cathedral or a museum, or listening to long Pink Floyd songs. In fact, Pink Floyd's "Echoes" is noted to fit the last 23 minutes of "2001" well.
I have my gripes with the movie. Among them is the emptiness of its main characters, save the computer. This was intended, but I still see it as a flaw. Some human quirks would have worked well against the contrast of cosmological amazement. John Carpenter made his movie "Dark Star" (1974) as an answer to Kubrick, for exactly the same reason. But it's still a beautiful movie full of innovation and interesting cinematic ideas. And to make a little return to kalbahamut, I'll set up extremely crude equivalences. Transformers = Justin Bieber (popular, and therefore entertaining in a sense, but crap). Terminator 2 = Michael Jackson (popular and great, certainly entertaining). 2001: A Space Odyssey = Nine Inch Nails (what shall we make of those? found to be boring by many, but recognized by a certain audience...)
In this context, stating that some of Kubrick's films are the "best" in their particular genre is neither helpful nor accurate (albeit because determining the best or your favourite is entirely subjective). 2001, for example, is one of the most groundbreaking films ever made but it is boring for long stretches and is utterly unfathomable unless you've read the book.
I think Kubrick is one of the most influential filmmakers of all time but that isn't saying he made the most entertaining films. The Killing and Strangelove excepted of course. But he did make some of the most thoroughly researched and impeccably produced films in the history of the medium. That's beyond argument.
Anyway, all I'm saying is that he should be respected, even by those who can't enjoy his work.
Dartmouth College opened a workshop to research AI in 1956. Alan Turing described the "Turing Test" in 1950.
But then again, every film he made from The Killing forward is arguably his best film.
As mankind, we were once like monkeys, but we learned to use tools and make evolutionary progress. But we still have a long way to go, and have to make the next step; we have to become super-humans (the whole Übermensch thing). To the powerful entity that placed the monoliths, we probably look as primitive as monkeys. That's why the astrounaut (and the viewer) has a hard time understanding the last scenes. "Thus spoke Zarathustra" is played at the beginning and the end of the movie. The music's title directly refers to Nietzsche's book about the Übermensch. Many people think that the movie means nothing, hence the "emperor without clothes" remark. But all of what I described...
I think Kubrick is one of the most influential filmmakers of all time but that isn't saying he made the most entertaining films. The Killing and Strangelove excepted of course. But he did make some of the most thoroughly researched and impeccably produced films in the history of the medium. That's beyond argument.