[ art / civ / cult / cyb / diy / drg / feels / layer / lit / λ / q / r / sci / sec / tech / w / zzz ] archive provided by lainchan.jp

lainchan archive - /art/ - 152

File: 1435554895672-0.png (20.11 KB, 200x300, Clockwork_orangeA.jpg)

File: 1435554895672-1.png (99.24 KB, 199x300, Full_Metal_Jacket_poster.jpg)

File: 1435554895672-2.png (47.65 KB, 200x300, The_Shining_poster.jpg)


Any fans here?
Created The Shining, Clockwork Orange, 2001: a Space Oddysey, full metal jacket, and more iconic films.


File: 1435568599063.png (693.42 KB, 200x165, 003 - B0wld.gif)

He had great works, and I'm a huge fan.
I just find that some of it is overrated by modern cinema hipsters.


I've liked most of what I've watched.

My favourite one has to be The Shining, which remains the only horror movie that has had any real effect on me, mainly because of the expert use of frightening and disturbing imagery.

The one that I don't love all that much is 2001. It might sound like I dislike it because it is "too smart" or something, but I felt like the purposely drawn-out pace of it does not hold up anymore. I'll be the first one to say that some of the things it did were awesome, like the running scene, which I think is one of my favourite scenes in movies, period.

I think that a large amount of the appeal comes not only from the philosophical parts of it, but also the set design, which simply doesn't have as much reason to be appreciated today.


I love clockwork orange and 2001.
It's on my top ten movies.


I'm sure it has its merits. I'm not so sure the people who like it do because of them.

Not a fan personally.


I'd agree, movies and directors don't get popular because of their themes


I think Kubrick nowdays is popular for the wrong reasons, newage cinema hipsters think too high on him without actually taking a minute or two to try to get the meaning to analyze the work.
One of these days me and a friend had a great talk on the tricks used on the 2001 set and on how it was directed, some scenes are amazing just because they leave you thinking "how the fuarrrk did he do this".


My favourite is FMJ definitely.

I love both parts, the boot camp one and the war one. It's like two movies in one. I appreciate them separately and I can watch this movie anytime.

I guess I'm one of the few people that like the second part like that.


File: 1455338791133-0.png (140.45 KB, 200x145, toynbee tile.jpg)

File: 1455338791133-1.png (167.13 KB, 200x150, tile in NYC.jpg)

File: 1455338791133-2.png (76.57 KB, 200x186, feds.jpg)

What do they mean, Lain?


shit, i remember watching some documentary on those. Interesting stuff


File: 1455357273401.png (1.12 MB, 200x194, 12.png)

I've long accepted that I'm the dumbass for not liking 2001.
In every conversation I've ever had about film, if Kubrick comes up, I say I love Full Metal Jacket, The Shining and A Clockwork Orange.

But I hate 2001.

Don't get me wrong, it's a visual masterpiece. Some of the miniatures look better than the CG spaceships in The Martian. There's a lot of interesting cinematography and striking visuals.

But it is not, for one second, entertaining.
I wonder if this is on the fringe of what can be called a "film" before being called a "cinema experience." It's not quite as obnoxious as Andy Warhol's Empire, but I'd honestly put it quite close.

The focus on astronauts downtime combined with a score often consisting of ear-hurting single tones before ending with a heavily debatable ending (which can be a good thing, it just didn't feel like any pay off) leads to a film I struggle to picture anyone watching for fun. I'm not sure how much is the changing times and how much is artistic vision, but it doesn't feel like any other film I've watched, and in this case that's a bad thing.

I struggled through it and now get called a popcorn-shovelling, baysplosion-loving moron every time I criticise it.
Yet another film that's tainted by unwavering, overbearing love of it by its fans.


Just don't bother, m8. Some movies are unbearable, but get a hords os pretentious fans. Like Tarkovsky fans, for example. I've stopped watching movies recently, partly due to art-sy hipster fаgs being everywhere. Dig only for something you'll surely like.



I was listening to a podcast that had Mike Myers on it and he was talking about when he was a kid and 2001 was released, his dad said to him something along the lines of "this isn't a film, it's art, it's the first time film has been art".

Which makes sense. I don't particularly like 2001 either. But when you look at it from the point of view of being nothing more than an art piece it makes sense. It's got a pretentiousness about it that can only come from someone painting a picture with some obscure meaning to it that we're all supposed to get and if we don't we're somehow idiots.

It's beautiful and all. But boring as soykaf . Like the Sistine Chapel.


Funny for me to read this I love 2001 a lot, for multiple reasons. I genuinely find it (and Stalker and Solaris (Tarkovsky films)) engaging and highly enjoyable to watch, and did from the beginning; just in a fundamental way, I'm not sure I can even explain why.
Maybe for me, interesting cinematography and striking visuals == entertaining.
Beyond that, you can call me a pretentious liar I don't care, but I do see deep philosophical meaning behind 2001. All I can say is to try watching it on LSD, because the whole point for me is that it uses visuals to refer to ideas that can't be effectively communicated in words, which should be the point of film as a form of storytelling and an art form.
Even apart from all that it's great as an immersive, well-done sci-fi film showing easily accessible visions of a future with AI and further scientific discovery in learning more about our place in the universe... like if we came into contact with aliens it would be illuminating to compare a separate chain of evolutionary history, which is a clear theme in the film with the monkeys and monolith etc.


File: 1455397629542.png (47.54 KB, 200x113, c.jpg)


Reading first hand testimonies about viewing in theaters when it came out. Hippies would watch it over and over again for the star gate scene. Every initial meaning about it is debunked by kubrick through interviews, tons of denial, and up for open interpretation.

What ive come to find as the central theme is how the time right now is completely useless, that the only thing monumental is the monolith. The ties with Nasa, all the big companies that helped created the movie, Boeing, Hilton, IBM.
Cold war, space race. The pure unnatural state of the last half of the movie. Soulless cruelty.

Its like a giant birth of creationism. I've seen so many scenes replicate it countless amounts of times and im flabbergasted every time. It always is like kicking dead whales down the beach me in.


>I struggled through it and now get called a popcorn-shovelling, baysplosion-loving moron every time I criticise it.
You gave actual reasons for not liking though, which means you have the capacity for critical thought and aren't just another Baytard. It's all good.

> I've stopped watching movies recently, partly due to art-sy hipster fаgs being everywhere.
You on the other hand... stopped watching movies because other people are stupid and express their stupidity. Wow.


anything i dont get or enjoy is just pretentious garbage for "arts-y hipster fags". nice.


>Every initial meaning about it is debunked by kubrick through interviews, tons of denial, and up for open interpretation.
That's a quality indicating a good work of art... Something that acts as a tool to help people think


...and his films are enjoyed by mainstream as well as art crowds. Like they can be interpreted in "deeper" ways but can also be enjoyed in a surfacey way too. Also Full Metal Jacket is one of the few war films equally praised by peaceniks/hippies as by warhawks/patriots.


I think I have lost the momentum to watch it. I just wonder about the people watching it in 68' . It was a year before the actual moon landing. The hype would be just out of the charts.


That post did hit the right spot, though.


It's also the way he directs and how much time he spends on the movie. He's a perfectionist and he has no problem making actors do a scene over a hundred times until they get it "right" (by him).

In Shining Kubrick actually verbally abused and stressed the female lead so that she would be stressed/flustered for real. Thus making her performance more realistic.

Hitchhock did the same thing with his female characters. For example, in Birds, some birds were tethered to the actress so she got scratched, bit and scraped for real.

Eccentricity? Sure. A different kind of genius is to know when to keep the camera rolling. In Apocalypse Now Martin Sheen's drunken rant scene is actually real, and he really does cut himself. The director just had the good sense not to end the scene but let the actor do his thing.


> He's a perfectionist
It was said that he was OCD but never got a diagnosis. He was also a certified chess master. Managable mental problems + genius = great things.

> In Shining Kubrick actually verbally abused and stressed the female lead so that she would be stressed/flustered for real.

I saw a behind the scenes clip of the bit where Danny is running and hides in a cupboard. Stanley is yelling through a megaphone RUN DANNY RUN, YOU'RE SCARED, RUN! I'll bet he was scared. Scared of the director.


>The focus on astronauts downtime
What people seem to forget about 2001 is that it was made in 1968. That was a full year before man walked on the moon, and was the year the space race was at its height. It was a time of great excitement and even greater uncertainty. There was a sense that by the end of the century mankind would be living among the stars (hence the title). But the general public, being aware that the space age was dawning, still did not fully grasp what was involved or what that meant.

People in 1968 weren't even sure what the Earth looked like from space. In the film Earth is depicted as a blue planet with clouds, but the continents are not visible. It was a best-guess by scientists at the time, that Kubrick used.

Previous to 2001 space in film was hokey. It was depicted in trashy sci-fi B-films in a laughable manner: men would walk on Mars without space suits and find native plants and animals to use for food, luxury space ships would boldy go where no man had gone before at several times the speed of light and encounter sexy green aliens. 2001 showed the public the reality of space (at least how it was thought by scientists and people involved at the time), and that must have been immensely entertaining at the time. To see for the first time how the mundane would change, that food would be eaten from packets, that the toilets would come with lengthy instructions, that people would walk on the ceiling held down by velcro, that gravity had to be fought by the craft rotating and the crew exercising, and also to see the start of the space age, the colonisation of the moon and exploration of the outer planets.

We now fully live in the space age, men have explored other worlds, we have sent probes to the deepest corners of the solar system, and we maintain a continuous human presence in space thanks to the ISS. To us what happens in 2001 is routine because we grew up with it. To us it's "downtime", but to a 1968 audience it was a mind-blowing glimpse into the future of the species.

>combined with a score often consisting of ear-hurting single tones before ending with a heavily debatable ending

Kubrick saw in the dawn of the space age and the immense challenges that it brought with it the hand of evolution, and he structured the film around that.

It has an ambitious scope as a consequence, built around key moments of advancement and change in the species and the universe. Originally in the cinema it opened with several minutes of a blank screen and silence before the opening sequence suddenly came on where light emerges and illuminates the heavenly bodies. It's the dawn of the time so to speak, in simple cinematic terms. Then Kubrick takes us to the dawn of man, and he connects that to the dawn of the space age with technology, the bone tool thrown in the air is matched with a spacecraft.

The main part of the movie then shows the space age for the audience, but Kubrick had to go forward beyond even that for the structure he had set up at the beginning to find form. But of course the future beyond the future is completely and totally speculative, so Kubrick intentionally kept it speculative to give the audience the chance to wonder. You're not really supposed to make sense of the ending beyond realising that its representative of a further step, and the 'starchild' is symbolic of that step.


>that the toilets would come with lengthy instructions
And I think something like 5 or 6 steps of those instructions are still written/used on the ISS.


File: 1462986877897.png (721.96 KB, 200x151, 1456427785478.jpg)

Any love for Dr. Strangelove lainons?


File: 1462990254814.png (86.21 KB, 134x200, the mouse that roared.jpg)

This has a lot to do with the movie business in particular and how they restrained writers because some novels and stories from well before that era made serious attempts at realism, depending. Heinlein of course comes to mind. Also some popcorn movies that came out after 2001 made some nods to realism. Moon Zero Two for instance, a heist movie with a wisecracking lead character which was filmed during the exact time of Apollo 11. They get around the no noise in space issue by using free jazz sync'd to the action and they cover things like the extremes of temperature on the moon too. They even use the 1/6 G to a comic effect in a saloon brawl. Highly underrated flick.

yes lain... you might like pic related too, it's another cold war comedy also starring Peter Sellers in at least three roles like Strangelove, also featuring a doomsday weapon like Strangelove and came out around the same time, give or take. The final results are surprisingly different and it makes for an interesting comparison at least. It has a more positive message of peace as opposed to "we all gonn' die".


I'm sure a lot of people posting here would've seen Room 237.

So, what's your favourite interpretation of the Shining? I'm big into to the idea it's about America's westward expansion. The references to Colorado's pioneer past, the various Indian paraphernalia scattered throughout some of the movie's most important scenes, the "Indian burial ground" and finally the camera as a mystical object that captures souls both in the final scene of the movie and in the way Kubrick filmed The Shining itself.


I believe in the westward expansion interpretation too. They made a point of bringing up the burial ground early on and the shafts for the elevators would have been desecrating that ground below the structure, hence the flood of blood Danny saw in his vision. Also in the car ride up they talked about the Donner party.

The guy who was promoting the minotaur idea was a bit wack but we do have a maze, we have a monster (Jack) so that's the labyrinth right there on the surface without any deeper interpretations. Also recall how Danny escaped in the end, back tracing his steps to confuse his father... leaving footprints just like Icarus and Daedalus would have left when they flew out of the labyrinth.

I don't see Room 237 as being a documentary about The Shining itself though, more about the cult surrounding it. Just like how Heavy Metal Parking Lot isn't about Judas Priest. Some of the theories in that documentary are silly and the evidence they grasp at is almost embarrassing. I did hear a rumour though, but I can't verify this, that Stanley heard about the people who said he faked the moon landing before The Shining was made. If so, this could explain Danny wearing an Apollo 11 sweater; it sounds exactly like the sort of thing he would find hilarious, giving them something to really talk about.


"FMJ starts as a good movie, then becomes a great movie"


I remember thinking the opposite when I was about 13, that the second half was anti-climactic. All the boys I knew were running around spouting quotes from teh funneh sergeant xD for about a year when it came out. I revisited it as an adult and realized what I had missed. The second half really is amazing, right up to the last second. Also I can't think of another Vietnam movie that had it's major battle scene in an urban setting.

Anyone care for his earlier films at all? I don't see any mention here besides Strangelove. Check out Paths of Glory and then compare to FMJ and see how his politics and his directotial style changed over the decades, though to be fair, film making in general had changed a lot in three decades. Lolita is a pile of crap though.


File: 1465900386564.png (697.01 KB, 200x200, Arthur C. Clarke - Lost Worlds 2001.pdf)


No love for Barry Lyndon?


I liked the first half. Movies that start with an adventurous young man who turns into a depressed rich man in the second half have always disappointed me.

The use of light in the film is impressive though, he had a special lens custom made or something. I forget the details but it was to make the most of filming in candlelight.



used three of 10 lenses made by Zeiss that were used on NASA satellites to take pictures of dark side of the moon.

Insane 0.7 aperture, is what allowed him to shoot in those candlelit scenes.

What made me want too watch it, stayed for the story.


That's what it was, right. Him and Clarke had friends at NASA from consulting them for 2001:ASO.

I imagine that's what inspired the hurr durr kuby faek moon landins crap originated from.