Z
MCN Blogs
Noah Forrest

By Noah Forrest Forrest@moviecitynews.com

Stanley Kubrick Passed Away 12 Years Ago Today

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDupoFh5Op0

One of the greatest scenes in movie history in one of the greatest films in movie history.

I remember waking up on March 7th, 1999 and seeing the news that Kubrick had died on AICN.  I couldn’t believe my eyes, thought it was some kind of joke.  The man was my hero, the man who made me interested in movies as an art form.  When I realized that it was true, I nearly burst into tears.  Eyes Wide Shut was still four months from being released and word had gotten out that he had screened it a few days before his death.  I was excited to see my first new Kubrick film in theaters – even if it wasn’t finished – but depressed because it would be the last.  The man was a visionary and I will always believe that he was the greatest filmmaker that ever lived.

To quote the ending of the film: “It was in the reign of King George III that the aforesaid personages lived and quarreled; good or bad, handsome or ugly, rich or poor, they are all equal now.”

6 Responses to “Stanley Kubrick Passed Away 12 Years Ago Today”

  1. Ed McMurchy says:

    Just finished watching “A Life in Pictures” without realizing the significance of the date. Such a spooky but wonderful coincidence. Spot-on post Noah.
    I was going to watch Lyndon again in honour but I think I’ll wait until the bluray comes out (is there a more anticipated release this year? Not bloody likely!).
    No matter how shitty the world seems to be these days we’ve always got Kubrick’s movies with us. The films themselves will never leave you feeling better about the world or humankind in general. But if you are a person who subscribes to the religion of the cinema, his films will always make you feel better about living in a world where watching these films is possible. And that is a valuable thing.

  2. Popcorn slayer says:

    “The films themselves will never leave you feeling better about the world or humankind in general. But if you are a person who subscribes to the religion of the cinema, his films will always make you feel better about living in a world where watching these films is possible. And that is a valuable thing.”

    Very well said.

  3. RP says:

    Everyone in the world knows that Damon and Affleck didn’t fully write “Good Will Hunting”. The article in ‘Premiere’ by William Goldman was a joke, but a true joke. They wrote parts of it, and they got help. How many scripts in Hollywood actually remain intact when they are hitting the screen?

    Damon is obviously the better actor, but was that ever a shock or a surprise to anyone?

    Why do people care so much about what directors that actors work with as well? Mark Wahlberg was still Marky-Mark until he made “Boogie Nights”. But Paul Thomas Anderson was a nobody until he made that movie. There are a ton of directors and actors out there that make great movies, and they never see the time of day, because people in the movie industry sit around and complain about the careers of Matt Damon and Ben Affleck. Let me tell you-they don’t give a shit-so you probably shouldn’t either.

  4. berg says:

    huh

  5. berg says:

    every year another Kubrick film becomes my “the best Kubrick film” … for a few it was Paths of Glory, then Dr. Strangelove … then Clockwork Orange … then 2001 … then parts of Eyes Wide Shut .. then Dr. Strangelove, Then The Killing on a double bill with Killer’s Kiss, then … Dr. Strangelove ….

  6. berg says:

    to go off on a Damon Affleck riiff during a Kubrick rant is like ordering a burger with stilton cheese well done with no mustard at a three star gourmet restaurant

Leave a Reply

Quote Unquotesee all »

“Chad Harbach spent ten years writing his novel. It was his avocation, for which he was paid nothing, with no guarantee he’d ever be paid anything, while he supported himself doing freelance work, for which I don’t think he ever made $30,000 a year. I sold his book for an advance that equated to $65,000 a year—before taxes and commission—for each of the years of work he’d put in. The law schools in this country churn out first-year associates at white-shoe firms that pay them $250,000 a year, when they’re twenty-five years of age, to sit at a desk doing meaningless bullshit to grease the wheels of the corporatocracy, and people get upset about an excellent author getting $65,000 a year? Give me a fucking break.”
~ Book Agent Chris Parris-Lamb On The State Of The Publishing Industry

INTERVIEWER
Do you think this anxiety of yours has something to do with being a woman? Do you have to work harder than a male writer, just to create work that isn’t dismissed as being “for women”? Is there a difference between male and female writing?

FERRANTE
I’ll answer with my own story. As a girl—twelve, thirteen years old—I was absolutely certain that a good book had to have a man as its hero, and that depressed me. That phase ended after a couple of years. At fifteen I began to write stories about brave girls who were in serious trouble. But the idea remained—indeed, it grew stronger—that the greatest narrators were men and that one had to learn to narrate like them. I devoured books at that age, and there’s no getting around it, my models were masculine. So even when I wrote stories about girls, I wanted to give the heroine a wealth of experiences, a freedom, a determination that I tried to imitate from the great novels written by men. I didn’t want to write like Madame de La Fayette or Jane Austen or the Brontës—at the time I knew very little about contemporary literature—but like Defoe or Fielding or Flaubert or Tolstoy or Dostoyevsky or even Hugo. While the models offered by women novelists were few and seemed to me for the most part thin, those of male novelists were numerous and almost always dazzling. That phase lasted a long time, until I was in my early twenties, and it left profound effects.
~ Elena Ferrante, Paris Review Art Of Fiction No. 228

Z Z