Why do millennials think Kubrick is good?

Why do millennials think Kubrick is good?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=3c_dOMVXRhw
youtube.com/watch?v=6jXRqQAlVQg
youtube.com/watch?v=FsIGWL17u1U
youtube.com/watch?v=e-QFj59PON4
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Everyone thinks Kubrick is good unless they're an idiot like you.

youtube.com/watch?v=3c_dOMVXRhw

youtube.com/watch?v=6jXRqQAlVQg

youtube.com/watch?v=FsIGWL17u1U

2deep4U

They don't. They think Christopher Nolan and Darren Arraonanyfoofsky are

Because he made good movies? Dr. Strangelove is one of the greatest movies of all time. And his others were pretty good also

Because of this sick digits

I'm sure most normie millenials have no idea who kubrick even is

Always the first post.
Because he was good. His movies are interesting because they tell stories on more than one plane.

Kubrick commented regarding A Clockwork Orange:

Man isn't a noble savage, he's an ignoble savage. He is irrational, brutal, weak, silly, unable to be objective about anything where his own interests are involved—that about sums it up. I'm interested in the brutal and violent nature of man because it's a true picture of him. And any attempt to create social institutions on a false view of the nature of man is probably doomed to failure.[12]

He went on to say:

The idea that social restraints are all bad is based on a utopian and unrealistic vision of man. But in this movie, you have an example of social institutions gone a bit berserk. Obviously, social institutions faced with the law-and-order problem might choose to become grotesquely oppressive. The movie poses two extremes: it shows Alex in his precivilized state, and society committing a worse evil in attempting to cure him."

hen New York Times writer Fred M. Hechinger wrote a piece that declared A Clockwork Orange "fascist", Kubrick responded:

It is quite true that my film's view of man is less flattering than the one Rousseau entertained in a similarly allegorical narrative—but, in order to avoid fascism, does one have to view man as a noble savage rather than an ignoble one? Being a pessimist is not yet enough to qualify one to be regarded as a tyrant (I hope)... The age of the alibi, in which we find ourselves, began with the opening sentence of Rousseau's Emile: 'Nature made me happy and good, and if I am otherwise, it is society's fault.' It is based on two misconceptions: that man in his natural state was happy and good, and that primal man had no society... Rousseau's romantic fallacy that it is society which corrupts man, not man who corrupts society, places a flattering gauze between ourselves and reality. This view, to use Mr. Hechinger's frame of reference, is solid box office but, in the end, such a self-inflating illusion leads to despair.[13]

>87586210

this tbqh

Frederic Raphael, who authored the Eyes Wide Shut script for Kubrick recalled that Kubrick once remarked that "Hitler was right about almost everything," and insisted that any trace of Jewishness be expunged from the "Eyes Wide Shut" script. Kubrick's bizarre relationship to his own ethnicity deeply troubled Raphael, a fellow Jew. Raphael was further puzzled over Kubrick's cryptic praise for Hitler, unable to decide if Kubrick was jesting. Raphael was equally puzzled by Kubrick's trashing of Schindler's List. After Raphael mentioned “Schindler’s List,” Kubrick replied: “Think that's about the Holocaust? That was about success, wasn't it? The Holocaust is about six million people who get killed. 'Schindler's List’ is about 600 who don’t."[4] Kubrick's friend Steven Spielberg, the director of Schindler's List, disbelievingly responded that he "didn't recognize the voice of Stanley" in Raphael's interviews.[5]

fucking hell
I remember watching 2001 during class in Highschool
during the opening scene while youtube.com/watch?v=e-QFj59PON4 is playing one kid says "they use that music in everything"

why do leafs always ask about millennials ? dont you have any in your little lumberjack communities? or has buttsecs made them nonexistent ?

>because they tell stories on more than one plane
So you're saying Air Force One isn't good because it takes place on only one plane? Snob!

not all was good the last one with robots and that porn movie with Tom Cruise, horrible

Because he is good

same reason they think jackdurden.com is genius

Well he was one hell of a director tbqh famalam

...

>Actually an embarrassment to the intellectually ambitious Kubrick, Room 237 shows that the Kubrick cult consists of that breed who like to think they think. However, the hypotheses presented (and seemingly validated by use of actual—pirated?—Kubrick clips) resist rationality. I’ve long realized that Kubrick’s stature among film buffs certified a paradigm shift from the Hitchcock era when the legendary master of suspense—and of montage—inspired a different, popular enthusiasm than Kubrick whose esoteric, post-WWII misanthropy fed recent generations of kiddie nihilists who, considering themselves especially smart, responded to his stiff (non-sensual, thus anti-Hitchcockian) compositions. (They’re now the Fincher/Nolan kids.)

>Recall Kubrick’s tracking shots from Paths of Glory and Lolita to Full Metal Jacket that were more deterministic than Max Ophuls who tracked to observe transitory life while Kubrick’s steadicam tracks bore down and confined life’s possibilities. No Kubrick film exemplified this determinism like The Shining, a horror movie about existential claustrophobia that seems angled to mean much more. But whatever it is exactly (and this fastidious Stephen King adaptation is surprisingly, unexpectedly sloppy) drives the Kubrick cult of Room 237 to weird ecstasies of obsessive overthinking.

he was good but the fanboyism surrounding him is because he was a mysterious shut-in autist so I guess a lot of millennials can relate

room 237 was such fucking garbage

because he had autism
just like me :)

>Fans seem unable to recognize the film’s failings and so try to make virtues of its mistakes. “Kubrick often in many of his movies would end them with a puzzle so he’d force you to go out of his movies saying ‘What was that about?’” So claims one zealot who responds to cinema the way a child reacts to a video game, trusting that the manufacturer cares about his response.
>Another nerd says “[Kubrick] is like a megabrain for the planet who is boiling down, with all of this extensive research, all of these patterns of our world and giving them back to us in this dream of a movie.”
>One cheerleader cheers “Its contradictions pile up in your subconscience.” Another recidivist viewer avers “When you see things over and over again their meanings change for you…He’s playing with your acceptance of visual information and also your ignorance of visual information.” This is hero-worship, not analysis. Another Kubrick-lover insists “We are dealing with a guy who has a 200 IQ.”
Reverence for Stanley Kubrick overwhelms any understanding of The Shining. It is symptomatic of today’s celebrity veneration—the flip-side of the feeling of nothingness that makes nerds bow down to the likes of Nolan, Fincher, Paul Thomas Anderson, Soderbergh and Kubrick. So they fantasize about The Shining’s supposed profundity as when one professes, “We all know from postmodern film criticism that the meanings are there whether or not the filmmaker is aware of them.” This is the mess that criticism has come to. Fake erudition causes another to muse, “Why would Kubrick make the movie so complicated? Yeah, why did Joyce write Finnegans Wake?” This goofy comparison shows they don’t know the difference between literary and cinematic erudition. These Shining geeks don’t even know the hotel story of Alain Resnais’ Last Year at Marienbad, a truly profound expression of memory and desire.

Agreed, they are disinformation agents hiding the truth.

You quote an unattributed source. A source which, from the quoted text, seems overly convinced of its own intelligence, yet fails to make any coherent point (from the quoted text, I stress again).

>The Kubrick cult dispenses with traditional humanist notions of art appreciation. They prize Kubrick for The Shining’s horror movie dread, perverting Diane Arbus’s twins, turning an elevator into a bloody diluvium (although as Pauline Kael observed “No one takes an elevator in this movie anyway”). Without any schooling in visual or literary interpretation, the Kubrick cult is left to bizarre fantasizing. One nervously giggles “I’m trapped in this hotel. There’s no escape, there’s like this endless loop.” Shining co-star Shelley Duvall said it better, describing the production as “like Groundhog Day.”
>So we’re subjected to ideas about Kubrick’s face subliminally photoshopped in clouds, an actor’s erection, a Rodeo poster turned minotaur and a Dopey dwarf decal. Ascher subjects his witnesses to humiliation that’s no better than his unidentified steal from Murnau’s magnificent Faust, where a silly narrator adds Kubrick “found the Holocaust of such evil magnitude that he just couldn’t bring himself to treat it directly.”
>When Ascher isn’t holding Kubrick obsessives up to ridicule, his presentation yet implies the same credibility the Internet gives fanboy bloggers. Like Internet criticism, Room 237 resembles the kind of conspiracy theory mania that kooks used to put on single-spaced mimeographed sheets and pass out on street corners.
>The ultimate nerd testimony says “In your own life, your point of view is being altered by your study.” But this isn’t study which means to examine, this is mere mania.

He was good.

Eyes Wide Shut
The Shining
2001: A Space Oddysey

I like my precious bodily fluids movie.

It's sperg for WE WUZ DIRECTORS N SHIT.

>2001: A Space Oddysey

2001: A Space Sodomy

FTFY