MovieChat Forums > Owlwise > Replies
Owlwise's Replies
Kubrick is a visual poet, subtle, lyrical, richly textured & layered. All qualities that are seldom valued today, sadly.
And Kubrick's films are usually best seen in a theater as well. Certainly 2001 must be, for full effect!
The thing is, Kubrick's qualities don't necessarily have to be accounted for by ASD, as they're not limited to it. Is it possible? To be fair, I wouldn't entirely discount it .. but I'm as wary as the OP about retrospectively diagnosing anyone with anything. I'm also wary about reducing an artist, or any human being for that matter, to a reductive label or symptom or syndrome of any kind, whether ASD or NT.
Nolan is a gifted director, no question about it. But the more I see of his work, the more I realize that he lacks the gift of understatement, something that Kubrick possesses in abundance. And in his stated attempt to match Kubrick with Interstellar, he stumbles badly by attempting to imbue it with the humanity that he felt was missing from 2001; the human aspect of Interstellar is sadly mawkish, not moving at all (at least to me), and diminishes rather than enhances that film.
As for popularity contests, the likes of Justin Bieber has outsold both Mozart & Miles Davis. Does that make him "better" in any recognizable way? I don't think so!
Scorsese himself might disagree with you. Certainly his films are superb, and have for the most part been commercially successful, as well as critically successful. But Kubrick made brilliant films that are visual poetry, and other directors have always acknowledged that genius. If Kubrick had only made 2001, that alone would be enough for him to be one of the finest directors of film, bar none. And he did so much more, as well.
Now, if you're saying that you prefer Scorsese's films to Kubrick, that's definitely a valid opinion, and nothing in the least wrong with it. The two directors had different styles & approaches; some people can appreciate both equally, some prefer one to another. Again, perfectly valid for each person.
I love the LotR films, minor flaws & all, but greatest popularity doesn't necessarily equal greatest film.
You said it perfectly. Keating knew his students as students, he liked them as individual people & could see the faces they showed to the world, as well as just a little bit beneath them as well … but he didn't have an in-depth relationship with them, certainly not enough to understand Neil's precarious situation. Given time, he might have understood that. But there wasn't enough time for that, sadly.
As for the OP, I'd definitely agree that he helped the boys overall, by encouraging them to stop & at least think about other possibilities they either hadn't considered, or else felt could be nothing but idle & impossible dreams. In that, he was indeed a good teacher.
A sad failure of imagination on Jackson's part, as he openly said that he didn't believe someone could be as decent and noble as Faramir. Maybe not in a modern novel: but LotR is properly a Romance, of the Medieval kind, and that's different kind of storytelling. If he only had been faithful to the original scene, it would indeed have powerfully pointed up the contrast between Faramir & Boromir—the latter an essentially good man, as he proved with his redeeming death, but lacking that spiritual aspect of the old Numenoreans, which Faramir did possess, reminding Sam of Gandalf.
It's a fun movie, the sort that used to be made on a regular basis up until the mid-1960s. It's a treat to see so many good characters actors in one film, as well as Sam Waterston's first film appearance. And Barbara Feldon is absolutely adorable & scrumptious.
Very wealthy Americans used to have butlers, as well as an entire staff of household servants. Some of that lingered into the 1960s. Not sure if they have actual butlers today; maybe they call them "executive assistants" or something similar now? :)
George's songs seem especially appropriate & comforting during these times ...
I can't pick just one. All those mentioned here are wonderful & qualify equally for me. I do have a particular love, when in a reflective mood, for All Things Must Pass. And his pre-When We Was Fab song Living In The Material World is pure enjoyment … "Though we started out quite poor, we got 'Richie' on a tour" … :)
In the books, at least, it's his father's knife.
Well said!
Because it was a much-needed counterpoint to decades of films that justified the near-destruction of Native peoples in the name of Manifest Destiny & Progress. In nearly all of those older films, the only good Indian was either a dead one, or one working for the white man.
As for being a product of its time, why not? Audiences easily drew the parallel between the Native Americans & the Vietnamese people, and saw both wars as illegal & immoral ones. As indeed they were.
The filmmakers then trusted in the intelligence & imagination of their audiences.
Everyone in life loses at some point or another. Scorsese isn't glorifying the worst losers, he's simply examining them, so that we can see just how often they might have turned their lives around if they had made better choices. But they never do. Those particular films work as powerful cautionary tales, a genre of storytelling that's as old as human culture.
And, unlike the characters in Michael Bay's films, they're actual flawed, striving, stumbling human beings, not one-dimensional cutouts.
Perhaps because the films swiftly became increasingly over the top blockbusters with stunts & special effects? The books, which are still smart, enjoyable Cold War entertainment, must invariably suffer for many new readers by comparison. While I appreciate the novels for their own merits, I can understand that response.
(Don't get me wrong, I also love the films.)
It's not "commie" in the least, although it is definitely anti-blacklisting, as it should be.
Well said!