>I think modern art's almost total pre-occupation with subjectivism has led to anarchy and sterility in the arts. The notion that reality exists only in the artist's mind, and that the thing which simpler souls had for so long believed to be reality is only an illusion, was initially an invigorating force, but it eventually led to a lot of highly original, very personal and extremely uninteresting work.
What the FUCK did he mean by this?
the deeper you go the shittier your movie becomes
That Mr. Hitler was right about everything.
Dishonest filmmaking
this feels applicable to charlie kaufmans work
Being a jew he was in on the secret that modern art is a money laundering scheme.
Man this board is really filled with retards.
4U
I haven't seen all of Kaufman's, but Synecdoche doesn't feel subjective at all to me.
This
And this
you think everyone has the same perspective on aging and love?
>implying art isn't highly subjective, therefore what is interesting for him might very well not be interesting for me and vice versa
>implying generalizations aren't ideologically fascist
>implying kubrick wasn't a womanizer
>when tumblr arrives to the thread
He meant that at some point artists stopped even attempting to create inherently impressive, great, moving, or beautiful works and rather defaulted to very simple personal expression that was unique (because everyone's a special snowflake) but meaningless.
He's right.
La la land is dishonest as fuck, but that's about the opposite of what kubrick's talking about here.
Regardless of someone's specific perspective or opinions, synecdoche is well developed, moving, interesting, and ridiculously impressive scriptwriting
>using fascist to describe art
One can dissect and intellectualize movies all they want, but in the end, movies are judged on a case-by-case basis, and their merit broken down into various levels of "I liked it" or "I didn't like it" based on the subjective opinion of the viewer. Film critique is all academic masturbation.
what does that mean? serious question
I think Kubrick was, in effect, referencing directors' seeming preoccupation with the Aesthetic Movement as an influence for their films' ethe. The Aesthetic Movement, as succinctly described by Walter Pater, involves formulating an approach to art as "art for art's sake". At its core, Pater's foundational vision of aestheticism envisioned that individual subjectivity reigns supreme in understanding and filtering experience through deeply personal lenses. Though this has evolved over the years, its influence on modern cinematography, I think, is something that Kubrick is aligning himself against.
When you consider this point of view, I think Kubrick's statement is concerned with the ethos of film as a medium--and this is threatened, in part, by the deluge of self-serving artistic endeavors which (in his view) fall short of either truly embracing "art for art's sake" due to a hyper-awareness of its directors to make "something great" OR being a vehicle for some socio-political message at risk of alienating audiences who do not necessarily agree. Basically, that because directors have become so obsessed with a particular image of what a director SHOULD do to become a creative force, they essentially fall into the same trap as everyone else and thus, starve out true creativity in a vicious, self-serving cycle.
But that's just my opinion anyway.
>Implying why you're interested in something cannot be questioned or derided
>Implying fascism is somehow inherently bad and warrants automatic dismissal
>Implying I'm not being baited
I think the cat took a shit in my coffee pot. I do Turkish coffee and after I was done brewing it, there was this disgusting smell. I thought maybe it was coming from the stove, but I narrowed it down to the pot.
for newfriends:Dishonest Filmmaking:(Tarantino, Alejandro González Iñárritu, Wes Anderson, Christopher Nolan, James Cameron, Alex Garland, Paul Thomas Anderson, Nicholas Refn, Tom Hooper, Tyler Perry, Gaspar Noe, The Coen Brothers, Noah Baumbach, Denis Vilenueve, James Franco, Steve McQueen) are intellectually bankrupt moral whores and charlatans; their films appeal to the modern phenomenon of the 'Pretend Epic' or Pseudo Cinema, often tied to the criticism that "It was a movie that thought it was a film" they have no ideas of their own and are filmed purely to have fancy essays made about them. They obfuscate their lack of insight under a smug impenetrable irony and often contain scenes with disingenuous attempts at depth with characters spouting platitudes that the director takes VERY seriously.
This directly panders to the IMDb reddit sensibility of quote circlejerking since these hacks are masters of the fools wit, "Quipping" (Not to be confused with the marvel co-opting of the word) , it sounds smart, cool and worldly but in reality there's nothing of substance, the Revenant's attempt at spiritualism was cheap and laughable and whilst someone like Malick has considered his philosophy, Inaurritu wears his introspection on his sleeve to give his film a false sense of depth with pathetic sermonising.
THIS is Dishonest Filmmaking.
They leech the greater works that preceded them; like The Enemy being a rip off Eraserhead, but they have nothing else to say.They act under the guise of deconstruction with surface layer obvious 'social commentary' and a quirky forgettable score praised as 'innovative'. They are all inauthentic sycophants that rely on oscar buzz and post 9/11 detachment for relevance.These directors are hacks and will be forgotten to time. Some notably earnest filmmakers include, but are not limited to:
>Mike Leigh
>Alfonso Cuaron
>Werner Herzog
>Darren Aronofsky
>Mel Gibson
>Terrence Malick
>David Yates
>David Lynch
>Clint Eastwood
This.
Ever notice how every arthouse, auteur wanker filmmaker is trying not to make his own film, but to be a caricature of a caricature of a facsimile of some director from the 1940s through the 1980s? The result is transparent. Their film sucks. They didn't capture the filmmaker they plagiarized, and they have literally no message of their own.
Being a director is not really conductive to being an artist in the first place. Being surrounded by people all the time, having to order people around, filming people, people, people fucking everywhere. It's easy to lose track of what it is you really want to do.
So it's quite convenient to have a bunch of established but unspoken rules on what constitutes being a pretentious dickwad kinocunt so you can go straight for the awards without thinking or feeling much in the process.
>>Mike Leigh
>>Alfonso Cuaron
>>Werner Herzog
>>Darren Aronofsky
>>Mel Gibson
>>Terrence Malick
>>David Yates
>>David Lynch
>>Clint Eastwood
Literally all of these except Herzog match your former description of morally bankrupt hacks.
For you
oh I knew that, I think it complements nicely with . but yeah is right, most of those are hacks
he's 900% right
Interesting post. Could you elaborate on why you think someone like Paul Thomas Anderson belongs alongside Nolan, Cameron and Tarantino?
I dont think Coen brothers belong there either but I can see why their style of films would fall under your category of pandering to IMDBreddit with "quipping" in the non-marvel sense. Their cinematography, building of individual scenes is too good to put them in with some of these other hacks but I agree that on a philosophical level they dont have much to offer (except in films like No Country for Old Men but thats a straight up adaptation, where the philosophical aspects come directly from the source work).
Eh the ones posted not in the greentext are considerably worse.
To be perfectly fair maybe I'm being way to hard on PTA as he's better than those three combined. Perhaps I will actually switch him. The Coens as you said I think their filmmaking although technically very good tends to fall onto a parody of themselves nowadays on the whole. To the point where its slightly peetentious. No Country is certainly the exception in their recent work.
I think he meant that his movies addressed reality, while worse directors make up their own.
interesting perspective
I certainly get that feeling from many praised filmmakers, like im being asked to believe in a sort of mawkish and exaggerated sensibility
But I think what kubrick was talking about was the attempt to create fantasy lands of highly unrealistic people with highly unrealistic morality and perspectives, an attempt to get away from reality rather than make films about reality and human nature as it actually is, not how they would like it to be.
Big guy
>But I think what kubrick was talking about was the attempt to create fantasy lands of highly unrealistic people with highly unrealistic morality and perspectives, an attempt to get away from reality rather than make films about reality and human nature as it actually is, not how they would like it to be.
What the fuck? No, that's not what Kubrick meant at all, it is actually much more simple. See what said.
Once Again, 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.
Basically he means that without a basic level of objectivity your work will most likely become some pretentious 2deep4u crap nobody cares about except you and a handful of hipsters in your clique of friends.
This can be extended to any medium really, not just movies.(even video games have this shit happening in the form of some indie games)
The numbers have spoken
He was talking about how films and art in general has become a vehicle for promotion of the artist, and not an expression of the artist. For example, with 2001 in particular it became obvious to me at one point that he was trying to display the movie with an objective perspective. It looks like you're just eavesdropping in on events that are happening. He wasn't trying to make a Stanley Kubrick movie, he was just trying to find interesting ways to tell stories. Ironically a lot of the techniques he used became synonmous with his works and he did end up developing a style where you can tell that you're watching a Stanley Kubruck movie, but what he was trying to say was that a movie needs to be more about the story than the agenda of the people making it. It's just a particular philosophy on filmmaking that he was trying to do and it ended up helping him to make a lot of good movies.
nah, PTA is crap. he deserves his place on your list.
That is based on absolutely nothing. A Clockwork Orange is based in a dystopian society and the rest are just based in reality.
Kubrick is speaking of a time during which films were competing more and more with TV. That quote is from the 70's and is a response to films of the 60's.
He was shitting on New Hollywood and its overt narcissism.
>implying there isn't objective beauty in art
Some bitch twerking on a canvas smeared in menstrual blood isn't art. No matter how much retards and talentless hacks want to make the arts "subjective".
Yet he said that Bob Fosse's "All That Jazz" was one of the best films he'd ever seen. Whilst I love the film, I have to admit it doesn't get much more narcissistic than that. Note: I'm using the term colloquially.
he said the OP quote around 1971 when clock work orange came out and all that jazz was some 8 years later. Hollywood had started to shift again at that point.
Ah okay, that makes more sense.
And again, 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.
>8814
Nice digits, Hitler
>wrong
>wrong
>implying womanizing (and fascism) are bad
thank you for giving some historical context rather than pasting meme theories like kubrickverse or dishonest filmmaking guy
I repeat: 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.
What about Lolita and Paths of Glory?
>guy makes sterile humanity-less movies about paintings and robots
>complains about the sterility in the arts
Altman was a hundred times better
TRIPS CONFIRMED!!!
therefore
Kubrickverse Confirmed
2001 is a movie in the universe of aco, you can see a copy of the soundtrack at the record store
>kinocunt
I like it
Mah nigga, Altman was the man.
kubrick is stupid
this
He means (((modern filmmakers))) and (((modern artists))). There's no objective truth goys. Trannys and gays are not mentally ill. Just do whatever you want.
You don't understand the term in the context they used it. You are a retard.
>Vilenueve
>platitudes
Literally too deep for you.
Trying to be deep for the sake of to look intelligent will make your movie flat out pretentious and boring.
Kubrick was a technically masterful hack. Check his writings, interviews, even his favorite films: he had basic taste and was incapable of understanding or relating to most arthouse cinema even back then. Autism is an awful condition
Autism
>The Enemy being a rip off Eraserhead
You've got to be kidding me.
Are you the same idiot running around claiming Orwell is a 'rip off' of Kafka?
>Cuaron
>Aronofsky
>serious filmmakers
>Coens
>PTA
>not serious
Man there is so many things wrong with this. I don't even know where to start. I think I'll start by questioning your intelligence
Reviews and critiques are all bullshit.
If I like a movie, I like it.
I hate a movie, I hate it and I don't care how critically accalimed it is. IT'S SHIT.
you sound black or at least latino
>was incapable of understanding or relating to most arthouse cinema even back then
>implying this is a bad thing
Go neck yourself.
go back to Sup Forums, philistine
Kubrick made simplistic movies with simplistic plots which lead to much theories how deep they are.
Art should affect you personally. Having a contrived meanings makes it boring.
>a quirky forgettable score
What? Are you retarded?
>Having a contrived meanings makes it boring.
Stupid generalization. Contrived movies can still be moving. Hell, movies with no meaning at all can still be amazing.
art should grab you by the pussy
That's more interesting than watching Citizen Kane.
>oscar buzz
>quote circlejerking
>intellectual bankruptcy
And you are implying Kubrick fits into this how exactly?
>critiques an artist because he has unique perspective
>Hurr you disagree? Go to Sup Forums or reddit!
Are you retarded or something?
>Kubrick made simplistic movies
That's a fucking retarded statement.
If you are intellectually challenged, maybe
>being a simpleton is an unique perspective
cute
>Calling Stanley Kubrick a "simpelton".
Oppinion dismissed.
The industry is a mostly solipsistic behemoth of unoriginality that largely prioritizes the already established, the already seen, and the already known; this makes the most sense because it's the most reliable business model
Art was always going to be in danger of this. It just means that the few artisans out there making truly unique and cherishable content have to crank up their capabilities that much more to be seen; competition that hopefully will raise the stakes
That is, until it blows everyone away and then every studio under the sun tries to replicate it or straight up offer the director billions to make 6 sequels out of it
Nice world we're living in
Theres nothing intellectually challenging about Citizen Kane.
Its an extremely impressive show of cinematographic technique, lightning and innovative storytelling structure for its time, thats why its lauded.
As a film on its own its good, in a film-history context its GOAT.
The endless amounts of WW1/2 flicks I've seen in the past 10 years, hell, the past 10 days now come to mind
>The Thin Red Line
vs.
>Hacksaw Ridge
>The Pianist
vs.
>Schindler's List
vs.
>La vita e belle
>Pearl Harbor
>Inglorious Basterds
>Valkyrie
>Allied
>Fury
>Band of Brothers
>Full Metal Jacket
That's depressing
How many more ways can we tell the same story?
That's exactly what Kubrick is talking about though. Nowadays the quality of art is determined by whether individuals "like it" instead of being judged by some objective attributes. For example, a painting can be graded on color, brush technique, balance of composition, etc., qualities that can be supported by substantial evidence, reasoning, logic and even math. Society is slowly being corrupted and being led to believe that there are no objective truths, and that everyone's opinion matters and are equally loud and valid (remind you of anything?). It's a lie. There are objective truths and beauty in nature.
In terms of film or stories, they can be judged by tightness of plot, completeness of the action, craft of the many aspects of production, just to name a few, and Aristotle figured this out more than 2000 years ago. Don't get brainwashed by this new age, NWO bs that attempts to divide and conquer, and dumb down the masses.
Only these are not the same stories at all. Each movie (of those that deserve the term in this list) features a unique visual and/or philosophical approach to something you decided to lump together under "WW1/2".
literally shat on artsy hacks
Nope,2001 and ACO take place in the same universe: Kubrickverse.
Also it was a soundtrack cover, in memory of the events of 2001. To inspire people to join the space program.
Old hobo: Its a stinking world because there's no law and order any more. It's a stinking world because it lets the young get onto the old like you done. It's no world for an old man any more. What sort of a world is it at all? Men on the moon and men spinning around the earth and there's not no attention paid to earthly law and order no more.
>men on the moon.
>men spinning around the earth
2001 and ACO taking place in same universe. CONFRIMED
Fucking morons.
You are fucking retarded.
Varied approaches to the same story.
But they are the same story. World War films are a safe bet, admit it.
>What the FUCK did he mean by this?
He meant you should form your own opinion :^)
>there are objective truths and beauty in nature
No there fucking aren't
Life is an inherently subjective process; all objectivities that we confer upon are simply the most agreed upon ideas, get out from behind that narcissism goy
Your perception of the world is simply that which you need for the sake of executing the process of being human, and that's literally all you can be certain of
Fucking faggot.
>But they are the same story
And what story might that be?
Villenueve is as deep as nolan
Pta and the coens are hacks the coens are a parody of themselves.
>Don't get brainwashed
Confirmed for mental 16 year old.
Here's your reply.
>Villenueve is as deep as nolan
>Pta and the coens are hacks the coens are a parody of themselves.
You have to be the most ignorant shitstain in this whole thread and that's saying a lot.
**crickets**
he's obviously talking complete bollocks
WW1/2 is just a setting like any other
>arrival is deep
>two directors ever being good
Lmfao
See
>he hasn't watched Enemy or Prisoners.
That other statement is just a shitpost.