The fact that so many books still name Stanley Kubrick as "the greatest or most significant or most influential" film Director ever only tells you how far cinema still is from becoming a serious art.
Jazz critics have long recognized that the greatest jazz musicians of all times are Duke Ellington and John Coltrane, who were not the most famous or richest or best sellers of their times, let alone of all times.
Classical critics rank the highly controversial Beethoven over classical musicians who were highly popular in courts around Europe.
Film critics are still blinded by commercial success. Kubrick sold more than anyone else (not true, by the way), therefore he must have been the greatest. Jazz critics grow up listening to a lot of jazz music of the past, classical critics grow up listening to a lot of classical music of the past. Film critics are often totally ignorant of the films of the past, they barely know the best sellers.
No wonder they will think Kubrick did anything worthy of being saved.
So Kubrick didn't sell more than everyone, and yet he's regarded as one of the, if not the greatest film maker of all time?
I'm having a hard time following your logic here... Also, why wouldn't you be fine with him being named, even though you hold another film maker in higher esteem?
I don't think the singular Jazz critic is insecure enough to be offended by popular concuss naming Duke Ellington and John Coltrane over their darlings, nor is a Classical enthusiast going to loose sleep over someone hailing Beethoven as the greatest of greats and not Mozart or Bach.
Me thinks the fault lies with you, and not everybody else. Have a nice day though.
Barry Lyndon made $20,000,000 (USA) ( 1975)
I wouldnt call that a fucking blockbuster but it is a masterpiece, I have seen all of his films and I have to say that every single one of them was made by a genius, from Full metal jacket and the recreation of full villages to A clockwork orange and a dystopian future to A space epic to a horror film that most people dont get the real message (fake moon landings), Eyes wide shut, his ultimate fuck you to the Iluminatti, this man created the moon landing you bozo, you cant even understand this man's thought process, this is a man who MASTERED movie making, he made every genre he fucking wanted, and EVERYONE of them is a classic, so please sit down before opening your mouth about Kubrick.
>>62926148
>Eyes wide shut, his ultimate fuck you to the Iluminatti
What are you, 13?
>>62926245
Why the fuck do you think he suddenly died right before the movie premiere?
His wife and daughter say he never had any heart problems.
And to answer your question, no but I would love to be 13 again before I knew some truths of this world.
2001:A Space Odyssey is quite simply the worst thing to happen to cinema ever. Its forced profundity has caused millions of people all over the world to force themselves to like what is quite simply nothing more than an exercise in style.
Kubrick has no idea what he is doing here. His film jumps around with little to no sense of unity. The great film makers of the world create a series of events that contain clarity of information, something Kubrick couldn't bet his life on.
What is the purpose of what is going on here? Is there any coherent message? I have heard suggestions that it is Kubrick's message about the future of humanity, but what future is that? Does Kubrick even know?
This is Transformers for the art house crowd. Pure style over substance. Nobody actually likes this film, they just like to be seen liking it.
>>62926141
In a sense, Kubrick is emblematic of the status of film criticism as a whole: too much attention paid to commercial phenomena (be it Mann or Hawks) and too little to the merits of real directors. If somebody composes the most divine movie but no major distributor picks him up and sells him around the world, a lot of film critics will ignore him. If a major distributor picks up a director who is as stereotyped as can be but launches her or him worldwide, your average critic will waste rivers of ink on her or him. This is the sad status of film criticism: film critics are basically publicists working for studios, distributors and theatres. They simply highlight what product the movie business wants to make money from.
Hopefully, one not-too-distant day, there will be a clear demarcation between a great director like Kenneth Anger, who never sold much, and commercial products like Kubrick. At such a time, film critics will study their movie history and understand which artists accomplished which filmic feat, and which simply exploited it commercially.
>>62925984
Pretty lazy modification to the pasta. Should have changed the critics from music ones to something more related to cinema.
>>62925984
Cinema's most overrated artist, Stanley Kubrick has left behind very few works that deserve to be remembered. Most of his "films" are actually attitude, and therein lies his importance. He was an icon, and undoubtedly influenced Directors worldwide. Film would not be a widespread phenomenon without him. But, unlike his model, Bunuel, he was "only" an icon, and never a filmmaker. Thanks to heavy promotion from major studios since the beginning of his career, he did achieve a bigger commercial success than the rest but at the expense of sacrifing whatever little originality his films had. If nothing else, the commercial scam helped give the film industry some credibility with labels, which in turn materialized in a broader acceptance of film worldwide. That is what Kubrick will be remembered for.
>>62926382
watched it for the first time yesterday, nah it was enjoyable. I liked it.
>>62926392
Op, most film historians and critics already know who Kenneth Anger is. Heck, most know more directors than you or I do be they commercial in other territories than the west or obscure. But just because Kubrick had a "commercial" aspect to him, it doesn't mean he should be dismissed in favor of someone who's not. Did you miss out on pop art or just modernism in general? Do you honestly think Beethoven didn't whore himself out for money? Kubrick stood somewhere on the line between commercial and independent film making, and is equally as good an entry level to the more advanced world of cinema as Beethoven would be to one interested in Classical, even if you dislike him.
Jesus christ this is fucking horrifying. I hope to my mother you are all shitposting.
>>62926577
not true, but the way
>>62926577
Kubrick's "Aryan" movies removed any trace of black movies from film. It replaced syncopated African rhythm with linear Western story telling, and lusty negro attitudes with cute white-kid smiles.
Contemporary directors never spoke highly of Kubrick, and for good reason. They could never figure out why Kubrick's movies should be regarded more highly than their own. They knew that Kubrick was simply lucky to become a folk phenomenon (thanks to "New Hollywood", which had nothing to do with their musical merits). That phenomenon kept alive interest in his (mediocre) filmic endeavors to this day. Nothing else grants Kubrick more attention than, say, Altman or the Polanski. There was nothing intrinsically better in Kubrick's movies. Coppola was certainly a far better director than Kubrick. De Palma was certainly much more skilled editor than Kubrick. And John Cassavetes was a far more accomplished writer, capable of entire masterpieces such as Love Streams and A Woman Under the Influence; not to mention the far greater American musicians who followed them in subsequent decades or the British directors themselves who initially spearheaded what Kubrick merely later repackaged to the masses.
>>62926382
What are you talking about? 2001: A Space Odyssey is a symphony of elegantly hypnotic images (set to classical music). Kubrick's indulging in his photography is a way to indulge in his philosophy: each scene is carefully orchestrated to deliver a (often cryptic) message. They are played in slow-motion, to give the audience time enough to absorb the whole picture. Kubrick's baroque chromatism sterilizes the sensationalism of action cinema.
>>62926792
Nigga edit your pasta more carefully
