Was this guy a great artist or just a fastidious technician who knew how to tell other people's stories in compelling ways?
Was this guy a great artist or just a fastidious technician who knew how to tell other people's stories in compelling ways?
Was this guy a great artist or just a fastidious technician who knew how to tell other people's stories in compelling ways?
both
I don't see how he could be both.
He was a genius when it comes to IQ, no question. But putting him in the same class as top-tier artists like Shakespeare or Bach or Yeats, as people so often do, is misguided.
Kubrick was a director in the strictest sense. He was great at knowing what works and what doesn't, but I'd be willing to bet his films would have been complete dogshit if he didn't have other people's stories to work with.
>his films would have been complete dogshit if he didn't have other people's stories to work with.
That has nothing to do with if he was simultaneously a great artist and a great technician.
I disagree
There are loads of directors who do the same thing Kubrick did. The main things that separate them from Kubrick are IQ, OCD, ambition, and aesthetic sensibility - and as far as aesthetic sensibility is concerned, I wouldn't consider even the top-tier photographers (which is essentially what Kubrick was) great artists.
you're moving the goalposts by comparing him with Shakespeare, Yeats and Bach, OP was about great artist. (BTW I think Shakespeare was a nom de plume for a crew of anonymous writers and not just one single guy, but that's another story)
And cinema is a collaborative medium, but their work is channeled through Kubrick's sensibility.
A ton of creative ideas in 2001, The Shining, Full Metal Jacket, and Eyes Wide Shut were Stanley's. In any case what made him so great was taking these stories and running with them rather than doing the legwork of crafting a story. Kubrick is the dominator of the art of film.
Yeats yeets Back. Bach backs Shakespeare. Shakespeare spears Kubrick. Kubrick bricks...
In Frodo's frickin' mouth
neither
He was funny, most of all. Many people forget that about him. Even "Barry Lyndon" was funny just because of how pretentious and homosexual it was.
I agree. The humor in his films is often overlooked, probably because of how dark it usually is.
Barry Lyndon was a straight up comedy and wasn’t pretentious at all. It’s insane how easily emasculated you estrogen pumped femboys are by anything resembling personality.
They are extremely insecure.
The movie itself wasn't pretentious, but he obviously highlighted the pretentious nature of English high society for comedic effect and to show how cutthroat it actually was in spite of all the superficial niceties. I also like how you call me a femboy after getting overly offended for no reason like a b***h.
Yes. He's one of the best to ever do it.
Honestly, I think when it comes to the art and craft of making movies, you can't be one without also being the other.
This is a bit of a stretch imo.
Sure, a big part of what makes someone an artist is problem solving and making aesthetic choices. But great artists dig deeper than Kubrick ever did (or was even able to, most likely). Great artists are able to (seemingly) conjure their content and change how people view not just the world but the medium with which they work. Kubrick did neither of those things. He just made top-tier visual representations of other people's stories.
just to be clear who you are referring to, which artist changed the way the audience viewed the world? which director changed the way people viewed the medium of cinema?
I think the latter would apply to Kubrick just with 2001, which he developed the screenplay from scratch with Clarke.
Artists I mentioned earlier, as well as people like Picasso, Ingmar Bergman, James Joyce and John Ashbery.
And please resist the urge to state the obvious fact that they borrowed from other artists, as if that negates my point. Of course everyone has influences.
This guy's right. I read a biography of Kubrick and he tried to write but knew he'd never do as good a job as others. Things may have been different if he'd come later, where there's more an acceptance of 'auteurs' like the europeans, Woody Allen and David Lynch. But then maybe that wouldn't have happened in the same way without Kubrick's influence heh
I may not consider Kubrick a great artist, but I'm glad he did what he did. He was great at it.
He turned filmmaking into a science that's like a problem to be solved and I will forever hate him for it
He's talented, but The Shining is not scary at all.
not in a cheap horror film way, but there's plenty of uncanny stuff to inspire dread.
>Dear God no, don't blow me in a fursuit, AHHHHHHH, the horror.
Is there any meaningful difference?
He had the 'tism
Both and more
You know what being a great director includes?
Knowing how to tell other people's stories in compelling ways.
You're missing the point.
My question is essentially about whether Kubrick was simply a director or an auteur (artist/director).
auteur.
if some producer handed kubrick pre-made screenplays for him to execute, you could call him just a director, but fact is he selected his screenplays, shaped them autonomously and produced his films while directing them.
>but fact is he selected his screenplays
Assuming you mean stories, this doesn't really help your case. I mean, publishers aren't artists.
>shaped them autonomously
No he didn't. He always had people working with him.
>pointless bickering
ok you're right kubrick was a hack. case closed, you win, goodnight.
I never said he was a hack.
In fact, I think he's the greatest *director* of all time. I just don't consider him much of an artist.
israeli Ridley Scott