criterionforum.org

tavernier wrote:

miless wrote:I hope (but do doubt) that this means new restorations of The Killing, Paths of Glory and Killer's Kiss.

Maybe new prints, but not restorations....

Don't hold your breath for a new print/restoration of The Killing. The NW Film Center is showing it as part of their rooftop screenings, and if my experience is any indication, that means it will almost surely be a projection of the old MGM disc.

Cough Fear and Desire screening Cough

miless wrote:The NW Film Center, here in Portland Oregon, just announced its schedule for showing a Kubrick retrospective ...

I hope (but do doubt) that this means new restorations of The Killing, Paths of Glory and Killer's Kiss.

So far I've seen 2001, Paths of Glory, and Lolita at this series. The 2001 print was less than stellar, obviously not restored, and they seriously botched the intermission. Of course, it was still great to see it on the big screen. A writer from The Oregonian introduced the film and then hosted a Q&A afterwards, with only about 30 people sticking around. He started out the Q&A by saying he doesn't like interpretations of the movie and he prefers it to be mysterious, enigmatic, and beautiful (apparently these things are incompatible with narrative interpretation). I should've walked out, but I stayed and at least a couple people in the audience disagreed with him.

As for Paths of Glory, it looked pristine and sharp, with amazing grain and sharpness. There was text after the screening that said it was restored by the UCLA film archive, which as far as I can see happened in 2005. I'd like to see this print on DVD! One of the film's primary methods is texture, comparing the smooth and ornate decorations in Menjou and Macready's dwellings with the dirt and mud of the trenches. On the big screen, the film plays much better, although I think it was pretty clear that Kubrick's narrative skills were lacking - certain scenes are jammed right next to other scenes with no skill, but then each scene will contain some of the most beautiful staging and lighting this side of Lolita. Kubrick's skill at choreography and camera movement are clearly present, and it's safe to say that Spielberg drew a lot of his inspiration for the D-Day invasion in Saving Private Ryan from this film's awesome battles, though Kubrick's are more like perfectly timed tragic ballet.

Since I was indifferent to Paths of Glory before the screening, I was hoping I'd have a similar experience with Lolita. Unfortunately, I think the film is worse on the big screen, perhaps because its true moments of comedy are so few, and the rest of the film feels lacking. (It could also be because I've seen the film so many times, each time hoping to find more than is probably there.) The movie flits between so many different modes it's dizzying, but my favorite parts are when Kubrick treats the romance between Humbert and Lolita as totally normal, even romantic, like the famous shot where Lolita runs up the stairs to hug Humbert goodbye, and his only response is to fall on her bed and cry. Later when the film becomes tragic, as when Humbert discovers the pregnant Lolita who won't run away with him again, Kubrick achieves a similar romanticism. In the middle of the film, though, Kubrick focuses mainly on the suspense plot and the many distracting impersonations of Peter Sellers as Clare Quilty. I don't think Humbert's fear of the police is warranted at all, traveling beyond bizarre paranoia and into random plot device. (Although, the best example of his paranoia is when Humbert attacks a nurse and must be held down in the hospital where Lolita was abducted - this scene has almost noir lighting and very violent choreography that approaches a pseudo-realism, especially after so many moments of fantasy.)

On this viewing of Lolita I was much more interested in how there is really a dividing line between the couple's father/daughter relationship, and their sexual relationship. The movie doesn't come right out and say it, but it's pretty clear, especially in the final scene when Humbert pleads with Lolita to come back to him. Overall, I think the failings of the film aren't in the removal of sex or intimacy between the two characters, but rather the weird shifts in tone, with Sellers apparently included to ensure box office appeal and some yucks in between the actual movie.

One interesting thing I noticed: just like Bill in Eyes Wide Shut, many people react to Humbert sexually. The Farlows make it clear they are interested in swinging with Humbert and Charlotte, and Mrs. Starch asks for a date of sorts. With Charlotte, that makes three middle-aged women who want Humbert, and he only goes for Lolita. There was also an odd scene where Quilty and his mysterious companion seem to be hitting on Mr. Swine, the hotel receptionist, something I haven't read a lot into before, but now seems to be an invitation to a threesome.

This print, which was not restored and looked overly gray, was missing that one excised bit where Lolita crawls up on Humbert to tell him more about the game she played with Charlie at Camp Climax. All of the DVDs of Lolita are missing this scene, but an old VHS I rented from Blockbuster in 99 or 2000 definitely had the extra bit. Any chance the new SE will have this extra 10 seconds of dialogue? I don't know why it hasn't been included when its removal was the result of censorship.

Apologies for the (incredibly) dull question, but does anyone know how the MGM Kubrick Collection is packaged? Since I've never got around to buying any of those three before it'd be nice if it was a compact set as the image suggests rather than the three individual releases in an outer case.

It's a terrible thing when space limitations start to dictate what you should and shouldn't buy

Cinephrenic wrote:This ain't the thread for it, but I wish we could get a Paths of Glory special edition.

I don't know why we don't have a PoG SE by now, UCLA restored the film two years ago and the print I saw in Portland was beautifully detailed, compared to the DVD.

From the Kubrick Box Set thread:

ivuernis wrote:I still remember what a great experience seeing ACO on a limited theatrical release in 2000 was in this part of the world where it was withdrawn for so long until after Kubrick's death. In fact having never seen a Kubrick film in the theatre until 1999 with EWS I then had the joy of seeing a Kubrick film in the theatre for 3 consectutive years, EWS in '99, ACO in '00 and 2001 in its eponymous year.

This made me think of my own memories of having seen his last two films in the theaters on their opening runs, and I wanted to put it in an appropriate thread.

It might sound cliche but seeing Full Metal Jacket for the first time was really a defining moment in my life. I was ten years old and my middle-aged mother had to come with me so that I could get in. She sat through the whole thing and didn't say a word. She didn't know exactly what it was beforehand but I think she understood that I was mature enough to "handle" it. It was an experience that has stayed with me and that comes back in a way each time I re-watch the film. As much as I might admire or appreciate many things about all his other films, the only ones that ever meant as much to me as Full Metal Jacket have been Paths of Glory, Dr. Strangelove, and Barry Lyndon.

I recently tried to organize a showing of Fear & Desire for my local arthouse's Kubrick month-long retrospective, even went as far as to attempt contact with his estate, but I got no permission and little answer.

It was sad, as I do have (a low quality) copy of it, and wanted it to be a part of the festivities, but alas it didn't work out. The last time a screening was arranged in NYC around 1993, Kubrick famously stopped it.

In his defence, it is not very good. I completely understand his dislike for it.

Has anyone else seen Fear & Desire, or any of his early shorts?

Kubrick didn't actually own the rights to Fear and Desire and I assume his estate doesn't either. The George Eastman House has a couple of prints and it supposedly screened last August at the Cleveland Cinematheque (although I can only find advance announcements, which means it may well not have happened).

I saw it at Film Forum several years ago, and I believe it was before he croaked.

EDIT: it was 1994

I often say without hesitation that Kubrick is my favorite director. Of all time. Not by leaps and bounds, but certainly at the top. The excellence of the cinematography, the standouts in multiple genres, the vast amount of creative control and unseen work ethic all combine into the person whose films I enjoy the most.

Fear and Desire is on YouTube in 9 parts (the quality is pretty bad).

The Fanciful Norwegian wrote:Kubrick didn't actually own the rights to Fear and Desire and I assume his estate doesn't either. The George Eastman House has a couple of prints and it supposedly screened last August at the Cleveland Cinematheque (although I can only find advance announcements, which means it may well not have happened).

I work at the GEH, and I can confirm that this screening did take place.

2001 turns 40.

For those of us in LA, the Aero Theatre in Santa Monica has a 70mm screening of "2001: A Space Odyssey" on May 23. I've got my tickets; see you there! (If you like, PM me before, so I know how to recognize you!)

Brian Eno loves Barry Lyndon.

Oedipax wrote:Cool clip, although the host is kind of annoying (I don't get the feeling she's ever seen Barry Lyndon). Also, it's 'hard to get on video'? News to me!

Sorry Oedipax, I messed up your post but I've quoted it above.

I think this comes from an early 90s Channel 4 show. Barry Lyndon had never been shown on television at that time (not sure about video availability at the time) - it wasn't until Channel 4 did a Kubrick retrospective in the summer of 1996 that Barry Lyndon and Full Metal Jacket got their UK television premieres (though we had to wait for the BBC to show Day of the Fight and Flying Padre in 1999 and for A Clockwork Orange to go through its cinema reissue for its first TV showing in, I think, 2003)

I guess they were trying to do a 'serious' answer to Barry Norman's 'Film [insert year]' BBC programme in the mid-90s (which was in trouble because the BBC were pushing it to a later and later mid-week timeslot, usually 11.45 p.m. on a Monday night) but unfortunately it was marred, like much of Channel 4 (and unfortunately much of all television now) by the need to put attractive but ignorant presenters in to appeal to the 'yoof' market rather than anyone with their own thoughts about the subject and I think The Film Programme went irregular in the mid-90s (I remember they did a half hour special introducing Reservoir Dogs before it got its first uncut television screening in 1997) before getting rebooted for another season in 1998-9. While I don't like it, I suppose it kind of makes sense for the programme makers to have a nice but dim presenter fronting the show - you don't have someone passionate about the subject pushing for longer interviews or analytical pieces or asking why they have to do that series long in-depth look at the making of Fanny and Elvis, they'll just do whatever you want and read what you put in front of them. Plus they'll be fine with taking pot shots at stuffy critics and always in awe of the celebrity guests who they have heard of!

In the end it didn't work, partly because of the shuffling around, partly because Channel 4 put it on in a similar late night in a mid-week slot as well and partly because of the general shift away from film discussion on television even at this most basic level (Film [insert year] now presented by Jonathan Ross is the only regular terrestrial TV review show these days).

I do have a couple of episodes from the 1998/9 season of this show and they kept the 'celebrity talking about their favourite film' idea but dumped the 'sitting on a sofa and having a chat' aspect and just had the celeb presenting their case in a pre-recorded segment. One of those that I thought was very nice was Julie Christie talking in glowing terms about Ali: Fear Eats The Soul and Fassbinder in general.

I just recently rewatched Eyes Wide Shut and although it isn't as good as 2001, I feel like it is his second best, even before Clockwork.

The more I watch Barry Lyndon, the more darkly humorous I find it. It's like a Coen Bros. film before the Coen Bros. If they were ever at their best doing a period film, it would play like Lyndon... I'm probably alone on this, anyway.

exte wrote:The more I watch Barry Lyndon, the more darkly humorous I find it. It's like a Coen Bros. film before the Coen Bros. If they were ever at their best doing a period film, it would play like Lyndon... I'm probably alone on this, anyway.

No, you're right, it's a pretty funny film. It's a very dry humor, with a lot coming from the narrator, but also a few funny scenes and characters (the tremendous coward, John Quinn, is my favorite).

I know it sounds probably very bad on my part, but the more I see the death scene of Sir Charles Lyndon, the more I laugh my ass off. It's so funny, considering the bit of dialogue they just shared, the way the pills go flying and he practically squeals, and the way the narrator just trails off... Brilliant.

Kubrick's entire body of work is darkly comic. You could even call them comedies, with maybe the exception of Paths of Glory.

chaddoli wrote:Kubrick's entire body of work is darkly comic. You could even call them comedies, with maybe the exception of Paths of Glory.

I'll give you Lolita, ACO, Lyndon, and obviously Strangelove as having elements of comedy. FMJ is darkly ironic -- and does have some jokes -- but I would hesitate to call it a comedy. But 2001? The only remotely funny thing I can think of in the entire film is Floyd staring quizzically at the instructions for use of a space toilet. That's like describing No Country for Old Men as a comedy because of the three-second mariachi band scene and because the film's directors have made comedies in the past. And The Shining? EWS? I can think of nothing about those films suggesting a comedic structure.

I find The Shining hilarious in places now, but when I first saw it, it scared the poop out of me and did so for many years. But the scene in the toilet with Delbert Grady has me reeling: "A nigger. A nigger cook." The - pardon the pun - stony expression on Philip Stone's face throughout is great. Dick Hallorann travelling thousands of miles, only to get an axe through his heart after being in the hotel for only a few minutes is an hilarious incongruity. And it goes without saying that Nicholson is out the window for the whole film. The guest with blood running down his face, blithely commenting, "Great party!" is very amusing.

On a similar note, as a child, I didn't find any of Hitchcock's films particularly funny or amusing, but now I deeply appreciate Alfred's morbid, sometimes slightly pervy humour.

Every conversation involving HAL is hysterical. The Shining? Are you kidding? That film is unbelievably funny - probably his darkest comedy.

And Eyes Wide Shut, his best film, is also his funniest.