BBC Blog Network

User Profile

KubrickandScott

Listed below are comments made by KubrickandScott between Saturday, 3rd October 2009 and Wednesday, 21st October 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Trailer Treachery 4:55pm on 21 Oct 2009 The Eyes Wide Shut trailer is an interesting case in point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIAneEiWEJ4

On first viewing, this seems to fit the bill. Looking at this trailer, you'd think it was going to be a racy erotic thriller that would 'excite' audiences, particularly male ones. And then you watch the film, which is two-and-a-half hours long, shot in a dreamy way and whose sex scenes are repulsive.

The first time I saw Eyes Wide Shut I had exactly this reaction. But then I watched it again recently and realised that it made sense. I know Mark hates the film - calling it "the inane ramblings of an old man who needed to get out more" - but stay with me a second.

Kubrick films are all about subverting expectations. You go in expecting one thing, you come out having seen something completely different and feeling the need to talk about it. Take his previous film, Full Metal Jacket. You expect it to be like Platoon, all battles in the Vietcong jungle and lots of people you don't care about getting killed for the sake of spectacle. Instead you get a harrowing insight into dehumanisation, gender and the nature of urban warfare.

Kubrick knew that Eyes Wide Shut would be greatly anticipated, not least because of its two big stars. The film is not about sex or getting laid as some people thought, it's about narcissism and the destructive power of jealousy. He led audiences to believe that the orgy sequences would be titilating (literally), so that it was a bigger and more powerful shock when the audience found the orgy sequence repulsive. In Eyes Wide Shut Kubrick holds up a mirror to our society's love of sex, power and physical pleasure in order to challenge our ability to take our excesses for granted.

It's not Kubrick's best film by a long stroke, but the point is that the trailer serves a purpose, the same purpose as that of the film, namely to offer an unpopular but equally valid view of sex and monogamy which stands against our expectations and the increasing conventions of our society.

That's not to say of course that all attempts at such a device work. I would refer the Good Doctor to his post on Zak and Miri Make a Porno for an example of a failure in this area.
Jen Again 11:24am on 20 Oct 2009 HOW?! It's one of the stupidest, silliest, most po-faced films ever released
Jen Again 11:26pm on 19 Oct 2009 @ junkiecosmonaunt: Connery didn't deserve his Oscar. The Untouchables is an overrated film and his death scene is the most overblown and ridiculous before Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (which he's in of course). And don't forget The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen - one of the worst films of the decade.

Robin Williams is great in The Fisher King.
The Revisitations of Doctor Kermode 10:57pm on 15 Oct 2009 @ Zombles:

Can't comment on Twilight, but I've seen Sweeney Todd three times - including twice in the cinema - and I think it's Burton's masterpiece (or at least tied with Ed Wood). It's the perfect blend of stunning visuals, great songs, dark and complex plot, and brilliant acting from all involved (yes, even the soppy one who falls for Joanna).

I also think it's the first of Burton's recent work in which he's managed to successfully marry his dark gothic roots with a warm, almost (but not quite) sentimental streak. As much as I love Big Fish and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, this is still something unusual and out of place about the sentimental side which seems to have entered into his work since his engagement to HBC. Sweeney Todd has a great warmth going on in the centre of all the darkness and violence, which makes for a truly mesmerising experience.
The Revisitations of Doctor Kermode 6:48pm on 14 Oct 2009 Let the good Doctor correct me if I'm wrong, but:

The new cuts of Blade Runner - the Director's Cut in the 1990s and The Final Cut in 2007 - were primarily designed to fix the errors of the original film, not pad it out with backstory or answer questions about the meaning. The original director's cut to my knowledge took the narration off and changed the dream sequence but did little else. With The Final Cut, they correctly some of the obvious special effects goofs - like the death of Zhora - but again very little changes which undermine the central ambiguity of the film. Just because Scott thinks Deckard is a replicant, doesn't mean that he is. Trust the film, not the person who made it.
The Revisitations of Doctor Kermode 12:04pm on 14 Oct 2009 Interesting that Blade Runner has come up a lot on this thread. Could it be that repeat viewings are enhanced by seeing the "proper version" of a film (usually a director's cut) rather than the version put out in the cinema. That's been the case with Alien 3 and Scott's Kingdom of Heaven, but especially relevant for Blade Runner.

In its original cinematic release, there's the horrible narration inserted by the producers because they thought American audiences wouldn't understand the plot(WTF?!). I've seen the original and it suffers from it, but the Final Cut version without the voiceover - the way the film was always meant to be - is my all-time favourite film.
The Revisitations of Doctor Kermode 3:34pm on 13 Oct 2009 I agree with QuaterPitandtheMass's point about Kubrick - there's so much going on in a Kubrick film that you simply can't spot everything first time round, and hence it can seem overwhelming. The first time I watched The Shining I thought it was scary but not really interesting. But saw it for a second time recently and really liked it, one of the most open-ended and ambiguous horror films I've ever seen, and one of the scariest (though Mark will disagree).

Personally though, the one film I've completely changed my mind about was Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. I wasn't hugely devoted to the original and I'm a huge Tim Burton fan, but when I first saw it in the cinema I disliked the creepiness of it, and I really HATED the happy ending. It was so jarring the first time round that it reminded me of AI: two thirds of a really dark, interesting film and then a mawkishly sentimental cop-out ending a la Spielberg. But saw it again recently, and I really like it. The creepiness is much closer to the tone of Dahl's story, the dentist backstory works, the creepiness is in keeping with the character of Wonka as essentially Howard Hughes with chocolate instead of planes, and the ending just about fits.

One other passing mention for Alien 3 - disliked it the first time, but then found out about how David Fincher's 'vision' had been torn apart and recut by the studio. Caught some of the director's cut on TV recently and though it's still problematic it's a very underrated film, much better than Alien: Ressurection and you can see hints throughout of the grimy, nihilistic visuals and atmosphere that made Se7en such a joy.
Big Budget Catastrophes of Pure Joy 01:52am on 10 Oct 2009 Get well soon Mark :S
What Jennifer Aniston's Best Friends won't tell her 01:55am on 03 Oct 2009 Shirley Maclaine is great in Being There :)
What Jennifer Aniston's Best Friends won't tell her 00:39am on 03 Oct 2009 The problem with Tom Cruise is that he's too earnest, too keen. Particularly in his more recent roles - say from Collateral onwards - there's a strange creepiness to him, like he's begging you to take him seriously. Maybe it's to do with all the brouhaha over his Scientology, but it's difficult to watch him without feeling a little squeamish.

Mark, since Love Happens this is clearly a TV programme as opposed to a film, will be it be joining Charles Dickens's England on your 'Bride Wars Challenge' list?

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

KubrickandScott