You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
NWR: Paths of Glory
- Thread starter Joe Dressner
- Start date
originally posted by Joe Perry:
originally posted by Hoke:
For Spartacus, I believe Kubrick was more of a salvage expert than a director
Let's not start this one again.
Why? Because YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH???
(with apologies to Jack Nicholson)
Anyway, it seemed to have dropped well into the pool of oblivion...until you brought it back up, Joe-Boy.
(btw, did Thor ever give you that Aussie?)
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
originally posted by MLipton:
originally posted by Scott Kraft:
I thought Kindahwas Boston for kinder.
It's NE Yiddish for kids.
Mark Lipton
Only if you are Yiddish in Boston.
By the way, if you can't see Kubrick's hand all over Spartacus, your too affected by its Hollywood budget and not seeing the movie. All that Joe likes about Paths of Glory is there in that movie.
I did not say I couldn't see Kubrick's hand all over Spartacus, Jonathan. Don't know how you pulled that from my comments either.
I do believe I said, "For Spartacus, Kubrick was more of a salvage expert than a director."
I've seen Spartacus too many times to count, Jonathan. Also done a lot of work investigating the making of the movie, which is a fascinating story in and of itself; perhaps even more fascinating than the movie itself.
The fact is that it was a sequential creation by a number of people---which every film is, of course, but usually not from sequential masters to the degree that this one was.
If you accept the standard definition of a director as one who creates the initial vision, leads it through the filming and takes it through to editing, then Kubrick was as much a salvage expert as a director.
He didn't initiate the project. He took over from Anthony Mann. He was forced to use scenes done by Mann, and actors cast by Mann (and Douglas). Douglas maintained a very strong artistic control over the picture, and so frustrated Kubrick in that regard that Kubrick bought himself out of the three picture deal they had formed when he joined the project.
It's a testament to Kubrick's sheer force of will that he still so obviously commanded the film, Jonathan. Yes indeed, his hand is all over it. But it was the only project in his life where he did not initiate the directorial vision: he was a salvage expert.
I do believe I said, "For Spartacus, Kubrick was more of a salvage expert than a director."
I've seen Spartacus too many times to count, Jonathan. Also done a lot of work investigating the making of the movie, which is a fascinating story in and of itself; perhaps even more fascinating than the movie itself.
The fact is that it was a sequential creation by a number of people---which every film is, of course, but usually not from sequential masters to the degree that this one was.
If you accept the standard definition of a director as one who creates the initial vision, leads it through the filming and takes it through to editing, then Kubrick was as much a salvage expert as a director.
He didn't initiate the project. He took over from Anthony Mann. He was forced to use scenes done by Mann, and actors cast by Mann (and Douglas). Douglas maintained a very strong artistic control over the picture, and so frustrated Kubrick in that regard that Kubrick bought himself out of the three picture deal they had formed when he joined the project.
It's a testament to Kubrick's sheer force of will that he still so obviously commanded the film, Jonathan. Yes indeed, his hand is all over it. But it was the only project in his life where he did not initiate the directorial vision: he was a salvage expert.
Joe Dressner
Joe Dressner
Heck, I agree with Hoke!
Eden Mylunsch
Eden Mylunsch
Not exactly sure why, but this springs to mind.
-Eden (I used to think I understood 2001: A Space Odyssey until I read the book)
-Eden (I used to think I understood 2001: A Space Odyssey until I read the book)
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
My, I feel as if I've been lectured to by McCain, with three condescending first name addresses. No I don't accept the definition of a director as the one who initiates a vision since, if I did, I'd have to rule out most of the studio directors of the 20th century, among whom, Ford, Hitchcock and Hawks, who adjusted scripts but didn't write them.
In the case of Spartacus, you have as a source a florid, left wing Howard Fast novel, with a lead actor for whom overacting is breathing and florid is far too restrained a word. And you have before you a movie that relentlessly knows how it will end, with far more meticulous pacing than say Ben Hur, and doesn't give an inch, with a performance from Douglas that has a minimum of cleft twitching and some moments of interesting reserve. If that's merely salvage work, I'll take it any time. I don't know what was by Mann, what was by Trumbo and what was by Fast, because I'm just a mere aesthete, but I know that Spartacus doesn't look like other movies made from Fast novels, or other movies made by Mann and certainly doesn't look like Lonely are the Brave, to choose a Kirk Douglas movie that people unaccountably take seriously.
In the case of Spartacus, you have as a source a florid, left wing Howard Fast novel, with a lead actor for whom overacting is breathing and florid is far too restrained a word. And you have before you a movie that relentlessly knows how it will end, with far more meticulous pacing than say Ben Hur, and doesn't give an inch, with a performance from Douglas that has a minimum of cleft twitching and some moments of interesting reserve. If that's merely salvage work, I'll take it any time. I don't know what was by Mann, what was by Trumbo and what was by Fast, because I'm just a mere aesthete, but I know that Spartacus doesn't look like other movies made from Fast novels, or other movies made by Mann and certainly doesn't look like Lonely are the Brave, to choose a Kirk Douglas movie that people unaccountably take seriously.
Chris Coad
Chris Coad
My, I feel as if I've been lectured to by McCain, with three condescending first name addresses.
Interesting that you should mention this, as I was just talking with Lisa about how last night Obama was all "John" this and "John" that, but McCain didn't once use Barry's name, despite the drama coach's repeated efforts to get them to talk directly to one another. Not sure of the tactic there, but it stood out, at least to me.
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
My, I feel as if I've been lectured to by McCain, with three condescending first name addresses. No I don't accept the definition of a director as the one who initiates a vision since, if I did, I'd have to rule out most of the studio directors of the 20th century, among whom, Ford, Hitchcock and Hawks, who adjusted scripts but didn't write them.
In the case of Spartacus, you have as a source a florid, left wing Howard Fast novel, with a lead actor for whom overacting is breathing and florid is far too restrained a word. And you have before you a movie that relentlessly knows how it will end, with far more meticulous pacing than say Ben Hur, and doesn't give an inch, with a performance from Douglas that has a minimum of cleft twitching and some moments of interesting reserve. If that's merely salvage work, I'll take it any time. I don't know what was by Mann, what was by Trumbo and what was by Fast, because I'm just a mere aesthete, but I know that Spartacus doesn't look like other movies made from Fast novels, or other movies made by Mann and certainly doesn't look like Lonely are the Brave, to choose a Kirk Douglas movie that people unaccountably take seriously.
I'm very sorry, Jonathan. Do you not like your first name, or do you resent my using it in a discussion? I have a habit of doing that, when I'm addressing people. I see it as a sign of recognition and respect. Especially to someone with whom I've shared a meal and wine through an offline, and one with whom I interact with as part of a small group with some shared interests. If you smell condescension, it's not from me. Perhaps you should look closer to the source.
Should I hereinafter address you as Professor Loesberg, Doctor Loesberg, Herr Professor Doktor Loesberg, or maybe Dr. J.? (I'm thinking that last one is out.) Or is it that you'd rather I not respond to you at all? Curious then, if that's the case, since your rules apparently then allow you to respond to me but not for me to respond to you. Who's the condescender there, I wonder?
Getting back to the subject, Jon....er, sorry...Dear Correspondent, you are of course correct in upbraiding me about the initiating vision comment. I worded that poorly, not being a mere aesthete. But you obviously got the point I was attempting to make, and for that, thanks for your illuminative response.
I actually do know some of what was by Mann, from my personal interest and subsequent investigation of the making of. Even managed to see some of the storyboards of the film. (I was at one time in my now distant past deeply involved in drama and film and the creation thereof.) But that's not really all that relevant here.
Nowhere in my original comments did I intend to demean Kubrick's talents as a director, J...(dammit, there I go again); I respect his talents immensely, and consider him one of the most creative of 20th Century directors, even with some of his apparent flaws. But I differentiate, I must differentiate, between this particular film and his other films. For the reasons cited previously.
That may well be a flaw in my vision, one formed admittedly in part through my investigation and involvement, as versus your perhaps more unfettered view as a movie, without backstory. Hard to gain innocence lost, right?
You've made references twice that indicate you put Spartacus on an equal plane with Paths of Glory. I would disagree with that. That's not a dump on Kubrick and his talents, by the way, just my honest assessment, in totality, of the two entirely different films. I'd love it if you (is the basic pronoun a vague enough reference?) would enlighten me as to how I am wrong.
Also, interesting that you cite Lonely Are The Brave, since I happened to see that just last week on one of the cable channels. While there's no way I would consider it on a par with a film like Paths of Glory, I'm not as totally dismissive of it as you seem to be. Could you be condescending enough to me to explain what roils you up so much about the film?
Joe Dressner
Joe Dressner
Heck, Hoke, this reads like one of your wine arguments.
Can't you take it down a notch.
Dang!
Can't you take it down a notch.
Dang!
originally posted by Joe Dressner:
Heck, Hoke, this reads like one of your wine arguments.
Can't you take it down a notch.
Dang!
Darn it, Joe (can I call you Joe, Joe?), I'm just trying to be consistent.
I wasn't the one being snarky and pissy to start with. Got me riled. Got my dander up. (That enough country colloquialisms to keep you happy, Joe?)
originally posted by Chris Coad:
My, I feel as if I've been lectured to by McCain, with three condescending first name addresses.
Interesting that you should mention this, as I was just talking with Lisa about how last night Obama was all "John" this and "John" that, but McCain didn't once use Barry's name, despite the drama coach's repeated efforts to get them to talk directly to one another. Not sure of the tactic there, but it stood out, at least to me.
Debate, shmebate.
When are we going to get to the real issues?
Jeff Grossman
Jeff Grossman
Ooh, pissy dander. I'm clearin' outta here.
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
If in fact, a first name address in print, three times in a post, is not rhetorcally pointed, I take it all back. It seems unusual to me and I responded as such.
I'm not much for comparative evaluations so I don't know how to say whether Paths of Glory is as good or not as good as Spartacus. What has always interested me about early Kubrick which I think of as going through Spartacus but ending with Strangelove, where he indeed controlled his material, was his imposition of a distinctly askew formalism on subject matter that seemed to resist it. Paths of Glory is as good as it is, at least partly because it asks to be treated with melodrama and histrionics and it remains torturously cool. Spartacus has some of that. And in both of them, one can see Barry Lyndon, a movie that I am in the minority in thinking of as one of his best achievements.
Lonely are the Brave is in tone and sentiment a remaking of High Noon, sentimentalizing a certain 50s version of hip existentialism. I'm OK with both of those movies, but I can't take either of them as seriously as they have been taken. And one final thing. I'm a Victorianist, not a film person, so I can't inform you of anything, just register my responses.
I'm not much for comparative evaluations so I don't know how to say whether Paths of Glory is as good or not as good as Spartacus. What has always interested me about early Kubrick which I think of as going through Spartacus but ending with Strangelove, where he indeed controlled his material, was his imposition of a distinctly askew formalism on subject matter that seemed to resist it. Paths of Glory is as good as it is, at least partly because it asks to be treated with melodrama and histrionics and it remains torturously cool. Spartacus has some of that. And in both of them, one can see Barry Lyndon, a movie that I am in the minority in thinking of as one of his best achievements.
Lonely are the Brave is in tone and sentiment a remaking of High Noon, sentimentalizing a certain 50s version of hip existentialism. I'm OK with both of those movies, but I can't take either of them as seriously as they have been taken. And one final thing. I'm a Victorianist, not a film person, so I can't inform you of anything, just register my responses.
Levi Dalton
Levi Dalton
I'm pretty sure Coad told me recently that he is a big Eyes Wide Shut fan.
But maybe I have that wrong.
But maybe I have that wrong.
originally posted by Joe Dressner:
Heck, Hoke, this reads like one of your wine arguments.
Can't you take it down a notch.
Dang!
I think he was dialing it in with the whole "greatest debater of all time" shtick.
SteveTimko
Steve Timko
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
IAnd in both of them, one can see Barry Lyndon, a movie that I am in the minority in thinking of as one of his best achievements.
::::imagine puking emoticon here:::::
Chris Coad
Chris Coad
originally posted by Levi Dalton:
I'm pretty sure Coad told me recently that he is a big Eyes Wide Shut fan.
But maybe I have that wrong.
I am always a fan of extended, gratuitous female nudity.
Does that make me a bad person?
Thanks, Jonathan.
No rhetorical flourishes in using your name.
And obviously my repsonse was overboard, as evidenced through the irony of Dressner counselling me to restraint and temperance. Insert whicheve emoticon your mind supplies here.
And you are not alone with Barry Lyndon. When I first saw it I thought it a wonderful...and daring...film, despite it's flaws (Ryan ONeal??). What others called slow (or no) pacing, I enjoyed immensely. Heck, if Kubrick had done nothing but attempt (and I think it was an attempt and not altogether a success) the filming by candlelight effect, I would have been pleased. He was a director who continually pushed his medium.
I don't really rank films either...but do compare. I think Lonely...was a piece of its time, and not much more. Had some good elements though. Made too much of? Yeah, I think so.
And by the way, High Noon: good popcorn fare, but hardly a great picture. It was 'made great' by critics gushing over it. A cartoon western with its only redeeming feature an unexpected shock value at the end. Gimmick, but needful people invested it with more power than it actually had.
No rhetorical flourishes in using your name.
And obviously my repsonse was overboard, as evidenced through the irony of Dressner counselling me to restraint and temperance. Insert whicheve emoticon your mind supplies here.
And you are not alone with Barry Lyndon. When I first saw it I thought it a wonderful...and daring...film, despite it's flaws (Ryan ONeal??). What others called slow (or no) pacing, I enjoyed immensely. Heck, if Kubrick had done nothing but attempt (and I think it was an attempt and not altogether a success) the filming by candlelight effect, I would have been pleased. He was a director who continually pushed his medium.
I don't really rank films either...but do compare. I think Lonely...was a piece of its time, and not much more. Had some good elements though. Made too much of? Yeah, I think so.
And by the way, High Noon: good popcorn fare, but hardly a great picture. It was 'made great' by critics gushing over it. A cartoon western with its only redeeming feature an unexpected shock value at the end. Gimmick, but needful people invested it with more power than it actually had.