Would you tell me more about this please?
I'm mainly working off of Vincent LoBrutto's biography of Kubrick, according to which Winters was just the ultimate diva nightmare. She wanted to do everything her own way and for everyone to treat her like a queen and she pretty much did nothing without a fight. Added to which, she got sick at one point, which delayed production. She was also big into politics, and while I don't remember the exact details, she either wanted to, which caused a fight, or just up and did, which caused more friction, take a leave of absence to tour with JFK. Kubrick very nearly fired her, but I think the combination of not wanting to reshoot and really liking despite her obnoxiousness what he'd already shot of her is what made him just power through and put up with her shit.
Why no love for Spielberg?
In an effort to keep this brief rather than rant-like: There was an edge to his early movies that was lost after
Close Encounters of the Third Kind. I've said this before on here, probably in greater detail, but he once said (this was like 10 years ago or something), looking back on that film, that if he would've made the film today he wouldn't have had Richard Dreyfuss get on the ship. That is at the heart of my dislike. To borrow an insult from The Joker: His balls dropped off. And you can see that clear as day in
War of the Worlds, a brilliant fucking 10/10 thrill ride for so much of its running time but which drops off towards the end before just getting flushed down the fucking toilet with the goofy happy ending.
And then, in addition to that intellectual critique, most of his shit just isn't cool. Indiana Jones is lame as fuck,
ET and
Hook and all that kiddy shit doesn't do anything for me,
Jurassic Park was awesome when I was 6 but it doesn't hold up, his heavy-handed political shit in the '90s sucked ass (yes, I'm saying
Schindler's List sucked ass),
Saving Private Ryan is hands down the most overrated war movie ever.
I'm just not a fan of the man.
The one scene I really enjoyed was the final duel scene, THAT looked like an amazing painting. I mean the whole movie was amazing visually, but that scene was my favorite, I think.
The craziest thing to me is that, on shit like
2001, with all of the effects and the models and shit, Kubrick storyboarded, as you would expect, but on most of his stuff, he'd come up with shit on the set. He tried not to think about how to structure shit ahead of actually getting there, being in the space, and seeing what there was to see both of the space in general and, more specifically, what there was to see of the actors in the space.
Here's Leon Vitali talking about Kubrick's approach from that same documentary I mentioned above (once again time-stamped for relevance but which I once again encourage people to watch in full):
With how unbelievable the aesthetics of
Barry Lyndon are, it's almost incomprehensible that Kubrick was coming up with shit on the fly like that, but that's his genius. His eye does not have an equal in the history of cinema.
I liked what
@Bullitt68 posted about his immense care... I always feel like his movies are so carefully crafted, they feel almost too smooth, but it's good, IDK.
Once again, even though I'm not crazy about him, Spielberg is very perceptive when it comes to Kubrick, and he, too, emphasizes his craft:
I feel like he conveys a lot of truth, but it's very intellectual. I don't feel pulled in emotionally.
Me and
europe have said our pieces on the "cold" and "uncaring" portrait. Specifically in light of your post here, the films that I think have the strongest emotional "pull" in this sense are
Paths of Glory,
Spartacus,
Lolita,
Barry Lyndon, and
Eyes Wide Shut.
I saw a lot of truth in Barry Lyndon but it didn't hit me like, 'wow, this is you on screen!' - you know? I don't if I've felt that way about any Kubrick movie.
The only Kubrick character I actually
identify with in this sense is Kirk Douglas' character in
Paths of Glory. This is not to say, however, that I'm not
invested in his other characters. That, I think, is another element of Kubrick's genius. His characters are often deliberately schematized, but they're compellingly etched (by Kubrick) and vividly brought to life (by the actors). Not to mention they reinforce and are reinforced by brilliant and enthralling stories.
When the results are so good, I can't bring myself to complain.
I'd agree that Kubrick's movies are generally cold and engage the viewer more on an intellectual level than on an emotional one.
There are two distinct claims here that can and should be separated:
(1) Kubrick's movies are "cold."
(2) Kubrick's movies "engage the viewer more on an intellectual level than on an emotional one."
I don't have (as much of) a problem with (2). (1), though, I cannot abide. Even if we're just limiting the conversation to
Barry Lyndon, I simply cannot fathom where or how the word "cold" enters the equation. "Detached," maybe. "Objective," sure. But "cold"? I just don't get it.
Chris Nolan actually reminds me of Kubrick in this way
I'm not going to hijack a Kubrick thread with a Nolan rant. Suffice it to say that nobody else besides James Cameron currently making movies hits me in the feels as effortlessly or as profoundly as Christopher Nolan.
