I think I don't like Kubrick films Sup Forums

I think I don't like Kubrick films Sup Forums.

I've now watched A Clockwork Orange, The Shining and Full Metal Jacket; and I didn't really like any of them. I get them, or at least I think I do, but all his movies feel so extremely cold and dissonant. They're extremely well made, but they feel well made in a way something produced in a factory feels well made. Maybe that's the point, but it doesn't resonate with me at all. Especially in the Shining, that shit just felt completely devoid to me.

Am I a pleb Sup Forums?

Other urls found in this thread:

criterion.com/lists/178298-directors-talk-directors
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

You can "not like" something you know, you don't have to like everything that is critically acclaimed.

It's called having a taste.

You are a contrarian, a patrician and a faggot. All at the same time,

>It's called having a taste.

How will I go on living disagreeing with my favorite youtubers?

go watch your anime

Go watch paths of glory. I think its impossible to not love that movie.

You haven't watched his best work, Dr. Strangelove

What anime should I watch?

>They're extremely well made, but they feel well made in a way something produced in a factory feels well made. Maybe that's the point, but it doesn't resonate with me at all. Especially in the Shining, that shit just felt completely devoid to me.
Most of the best directors in film feel the same way about Kubrick.

This.

>but all his movies feel so extremely cold and dissonant. They're extremely well made, but they feel well made in a way something produced in a factory feels well made. Maybe that's the point, but it doesn't resonate with me at all. Especially in the Shining, that shit just felt completely devoid to me.

you've nailed it. kubrick was a great director, he was able to create marvelous cinematography, however he was too ''mathematical'' in his approach to cinema due to him being a perfectionist.
In the end his films, are devoid of passion, they feel really well made but the emotion, isn't there.

Tarkovsky on the other hand, for example, was all about wanting the viewer to experience emotions, to ''feel'' cinema.

>Most of the best directors in film feel the same way about Kubrick

What directors?

I don't remember.

Ctrl f Kubrick, sure you'll get some hits
criterion.com/lists/178298-directors-talk-directors

That's why I don't get all the praise for The Shining. I didn't feel anything all the way through (except for an urge to sleep).

Are you a woman?

>Are you a woman?
Nope
But raised in a house of ones and bipolar.

That would explain why you feel a movie needs to make you "feel" something every step of the way.

ultimately, art is meant to make you feel though.
products are made to entertain you.

You recognize they're well made, yet you say you don't like it?
It sounds like you don't like nor appreciate shit like concepts, quality, ideas, theories, science, provocative scenarios, etc.

How do you define the word pleb? Depending on your definition, you should know if you are one.

You like everything that is well made?

>Feel.....
Or think.....

Or both...

>I've now watched A Clockwork Orange, The Shining and Full Metal Jacket

They are his shittiest movies though. Watch everything else, starting with Paths of Glory or The Killing.

I would like to think I do, as long as I'm the one deciding if it's well made or not.

That is retarded, if you like every single well made piece of clothing or music album you have no taste at all.

This is an idiotic statement. You can appreciate good craftmanship regardless of personal tastes.

Appreciation is not really the same as liking something though.

Appreciating is not the same as liking.
Sure you can appreciate a well made noise album but very few will like it.

>Fun is a buzzword

>something produced in a factory

Can you pinpoint what you mean?

You can also like something and not have fun with it.
I think you some issue with the significance of words.

>Can you pinpoint what you mean?

Not really, since it's kind of an emotional thing.

I guess what this guy said about Kubrick being a perfectionist is the reason, his movies just feel very sterile to me.

So you can't appreciate something and like it, is what you're saying... okay.

I felt besides Paths Of Glory that The Shining was one of his most human movies. The whole interplay between Jack and his wife is as human as can be to be honest.

How did you come to this conclusion?
You can do both, you can do only one and you can do none, there is nothing that ties or separetes them.

>Appreciation is not really the same as liking something though.

Read the thread m8.

here :

I don't like Kubrick either.

Come at me.

>appreciate != like
>ergo you can't appreciate and like something
That is not how logics work.

>I felt besides Paths Of Glory that The Shining was one of his most human movies. The whole interplay between Jack and his wife is as human as can be to be honest.

OP here, this is actually why I think the Shining is probably the movie I liked the least out of the three I've seen; because to me that movie is Kubrick really trying to emotionally creep under your skin, only I think he fails to do so completely.

Like holy shit, i did not like The Shining, at all. It was Kubrick making a movie around what I would consider his Achilles heel, and it just came off as trying too hard to me.

No,well made isn't somethig that you decide.
Something well made is a fact, hence what you call "well made" translates to "things i like".

Your entire argument about whether Kubrick films are good or not is based on pedantic nitpicking on the definition of the word "like".

You don't make a very strong case.

>art
>products
Two different things though. Art doesn't have to guarantee you any sort of benefit. After all it can just be used to prove a point.

I never even talked about Kubrick nor made any argument. Jesus, you have very poor reading comprehension and you can't understand what words really mean; you should by no means be talking about things on don't understand at all.

Can you illustrate what you're trying to say? I'm intrigued yet can't see a single instance of your proposition in the movie.

No. You're not a pleb. It just isn't for you.

Wait so you came into this thread to nitpick about the difference between appreciate and like.
Got it, they are different words.

Or are you the poster who relies on his feelings to tell him what can and can't be enjoyable.

Is that why you're so hung up on defending your position on the word "like".

>Can you illustrate what you're trying to say? I'm intrigued yet can't see a single instance of your proposition in the movie.

Can't really explain it much better, there is a feeling that is prevalent throughout the entire movie, throughout all his movies. But the Shining suffers the most from that feeling.

You know that thing people always say about how Kubrick was making hundreds of takes in the Shining to get it "just right"? Well I think it's really apparent, but not at all in a good way.

His movies are so goddamn polished that his movies just come off as almost devoid of humanity. I know that might seem like a weird complaint to make but there it is.

>idk man, just feels like empty or something
Good thread, glad you made it.

I know what you mean. I don't really like his films either but I can totally see he was a genius. I hated Dr. Strangelove but had to give it an 8 anyway.

Unlike Fellini who is a piece of shit on a stick in comparison.

I came to the thread to view thoughts on Kubrick.
I posted on the thread because i was fascinated by the idea of a retard liking everything that is well made, only to find out it's just a retard who doesn't know what words mean and doesn't understand what he reads, which was fascinating at first but is now repetitive.

>so goddamn polished
As someone said earlier it's more than that, it's good craftsmanship.
To me Kubrick just had a very strict set of rules and principles to make his films and didn't deviate from them. In that he was a good director. You're not forced to like his codes because they were most likely idiosyncratic hence the hundreds of takes, but I can't think of any director who wouldn't pull some shit like that (the takes, the rules) in the name of his "art".

Uncanny valley?

>Uncanny valley

I guess.

High framerates makes movies look more like movies something something.

>Still harping on about the correct use of words in incredibly long winded sentences.

I can see it's going to be impossible to have an actual discussion with you, grammar genius.
come back when you're ready to talk about movies.

You sound like a person who uses movies as a substitute for a rich emotional life. Find a new interest or better yet: find friends.

No. Art is the product.

Full Metal Jacket didn't hit you on an emotional level?

>discussion
>grammar
Learn to read and interpret, neither were on the table in this whole chain.

Art isn't a product though. A product is something with some usage value. Art isn't or shouldn't be anything like this. If you use art to any purpose you've got it wrong, because art doesn't have any usage purpose.

>Find a new interest.
What thing can better encapsulate human emotion than movies though?

You could argue music, but music is ultimately also a part of movies.

kubrick sucks and water is wet, more news at 7

Books

>I posted on the thread because i was fascinated by the idea of a retard liking everything that is well made
> liking everything that is well made

Nothing wrong with that.
I'm also not that poster. Your chain with me is about the definition of the word "like" and how it differs from the word "appreciate", along with various insults.

>Books

Can't say I agree with that, books are much more about the reader painting the picture in his head. Of course there is nothing wrong with that and I enjoy books and what they can do that movies can not; but I like the directness that movies can provide.

>Moving pictures are easier to understand and feel than pictograms
Can't say I disagree, but you're shutting yourself off many great feelings.

my problem was when you watch so many film you start to look at kubrick and find his work really sterile, then you realize even if that was his style it doesn't really transcend what it is which is just imagery that fails to "really make me think"

Nothing wrong but still retarded.
Then why the fuck are bringing Kubrick into this when he has nothing to do with it?
I don't understand your train of thought at all, It's just random. You go from jumping to conclusions to bringing Kubrick out of nowhere to talking about liking and then Kubrick again.

Filmmaking is an intellectual effort, I would even go as far as to say that the intellectual aspect of film dominates over the emotional one. It is certainly more rewarding.

>muh feels

Living vicariously through movies: the poster.

There's no small irony that his most moving film to me is the one about a robot who imitates humans

All these fags don't know op's stale pasta

> to bringing Kubrick out of nowhere to talking about liking and then Kubrick again.
>Says he in response to a post where Kubrick was never mentioned.

Not sure what your point is.

>>Says he in response to a post where Kubrick was never mentioned.
Dude, seriously, try to do something about your reading comprehension. My last sentence was not in response to your post.
Please, please, please you need to understand what you read.

I mentioned Kubrick one (1) time in the entire "chain" as you call it, that sounds like a reddit term tbqh.

Your argument style is reddit as hell . You ought to lurk more before you post.

those are three of his weaker movies, especially ACO and FMJ. check out 2001, Dr. strangelove, or really any of his other films. a lot of people that don't like kubrick have the same complaint as you so no, I wouldn't say you're a pleb. kubrick is definitely over-rated by people just getting into cinema but he's still a great director.

I think I don't like Kubrick films Sup Forums.

I've now watched A Clockwork Orange, The Shining and Full Metal Jacket; and I didn't really like any of them. I get them, or at least I think I do, but all his movies feel so extremely cold and dissonant. They're extremely well made, but they feel well made in a way something produced in a factory feels well made. Maybe that's the point, but it doesn't resonate with me at all. Especially in the Shining, that shit just felt completely devoid to me.

Am I a pleb Sup Forums?

That's not what I was trying to say dude.

End of Evangelion

your insecurities normally fall away when you realize that film is the most pretentious art form with nothing to offer (compared to music, literature, sculpting)

How is Barry Lyndon? Only one I haven't gotten to yet by him.

Fucking Masterpiece

I haven't watched all of his movies, but A Clockwork Orange and Eyes Wide Shut have tons of emotions, and can resonate on a personal level. I don't get the "there's no emotion" complaint, is it just because they aren't traditional/explicitly shown emotions?

Kubrick is very self conscious, he's got lots of "structure" and metaphor and so on... But just having structure and metaphor doesn't make a great film, in my view. I've probably seen fewer Kubrick films than most everyone on this board, though from all his periods, but every one I have seen (possibly excepting the early and somewhat anomalous "Killer's Kiss") had what I would call a lack of visual structure. There are lots of ideas, and lots of visual tricks, but the spatial architecture, which in what I would call a great film consists of the way lines and surfaces and angles and light and movement combine to create the meaningful visual expression that I find in Ford and Hithcock and Rossellini and Bresson and Brakhage and Kubelka, is lacking. His films have for me a curious visual "emptiness," a feeling that the imagery is a kind of vacant vessel for stylistic and thematic and plot flourishes ("redrum" and all that), and this is true from me from "The Killing" to "Full Metal Jacket" to "Eyes Wide Shut, to choose three I've seen in recent years. Their hollow core suggests "A. I." (which I also disliked) as his perfect subject, I suppose, as was HAL, but he doesn't do enough with that hollowness in his own films to make it an expression in itself.

As a war movie, "Full Metal Jacket" seemed rather predictable too -- I just *knew* it was the African-American who would get killed.

>liking Jew shit

what you like and dislike does not etermine your taste as much as WHY you like ro dislike something.

I'm personally a huge fan, but if you don't like it who cares? You just have to try and understand what makes the films so good to so many people.

>His films have for me a curious visual "emptiness," a feeling that the imagery is a kind of vacant vessel for stylistic and thematic and plot flourishes.

You managed to put into words what I couldn't about his films. It almost feels like Kubrick's style is that he simply doesn't have a style at all, as contradictary that might sound.

Kubrick made mediocre genre films, fuck them really.

DR. STRANGELOVE is goat but not bcuz of Kubrick

Watch Steins;Gate again

Yes, you are a dumd reddit pleb.

Also friendly reminder that most of Kubrick films takes place in the same universe: Kubrickverse.

Part of the Kubrickverse
2001: A Space Odyssey
A Clockwork Orange
The Shining
Full Metal Jacket
Eyes Wide Shut

And maybe:
Dr Strangelove.

Kubrick is the ultimate pleb filter.

Began flashily by making glacial copies of Ophuls's tracking shots and Aldrich's violence. Then became a recruit to intellectual commerce by following the international paths of glory of another K, an older Stanley who also saw himself as Livingstone, but whose weighty sincerity turned up trumps at Nüremberg, whereas Stanley Junior's cunning look-at-me tactics foundered in the cardboard heroics of Spartacus without ever attaining the required heroism. So Lolita led one to expect the worst. Surprise: it is a simple, lucid film, precisely written, which reveals America and American sex better than either Melville or Reichenbach, and proves that Kubrick need not abandon the cinema provided he films characters who exist instead of idea which exist only in the bottom drawers of old scriptwriters who believe that the cinema is the seventh art.

...

Godard wasn't a very good critic nor a film maker

truefilm is > that way

I have always been a huge fan of Ridley Scott and certainly when I was a kid. Alien (1979), Blade Runner (1982) just blew me away because they created these extraordinary worlds that were just completely immersive. I was also an enormous Stanley Kubrick fan for similar reasons.

WELL DONE, OP.

YOU'VE BECOME A PATRICIAN.

When you think of a visual style, when you think of the visual language of a film, there tends to be a natural separation of the visual style and the narrative elements. But with the greats, whether it's Stanley Kubrick or Terrence Malick or Hitchcock, what you're seeing is an inseparable, a vital relationship between the image and the story it's telling.

There's many ways I look at his films, besides the big screen. I like watching them on the television. I like watching them with the sound off. Sometimes you can see the rhythm of the cutting and the camera moves...and when he cuts in a two shot conversation and when he destroys the invisible line and when the cut gets tighter...on which line of dialogue.

Stanley Kubrick was one of the only modern masters we had.

>His movies are so goddamn polished that his movies just come off as almost devoid of humanity.

Funny how that is exactly the reason why the Shining is my favorite Kubrick movie followed closely by Barry Lyndon.

>too polished
>devoid of humanity
How are these not good things? I thoroughly enjoy the beauty, absurdity and deeper meaning of his movies. I think making them all sappy would get in the way of his original way of filmmaking. Plus theres already enough sappy films out there. Maybe you should try the notebook user?

Kubrick is my favorite filmmaker because he is one of the only ones to actually get the art of film.

The art of film is mainly about the film part. Most people only care about the story and writing aspect of movies because they're too dumb or lazy to notice the film part like camera work, lighting, sound, editing, etc, but they don't realize how those are the most important parts to a good film, and there is no better filmmaker than Kubrick himself because he cares so much these aspects. He is truly great because he knows the priorities of what makes a good film.

Film shouldn't only be about stories. That's what books are for. It's about how you tell those stories through the other filmmaking aspects.