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

Z

Quote Unquotesee all »

MAMET
Well, that, to me, is always the trick of dramaturgy; theoretically, perfectly, what one wants to do is put the protagonist and the audience in exactly the same position. The main question in drama, the way I was taught, is always what does the protagonist want. That’s what drama is. It comes down to that. It’s not about theme, it’s not about ideas, it’s not about setting, but what the protagonist wants. What gives rise to the drama, what is the precipitating event, and how, at the end of the play, do we see that event culminated? Do we see the protagonist’s wishes fulfilled or absolutely frustrated? That’s the structure of drama. You break it down into three acts.

INTERVIEWER
Does this explain why your plays have so little exposition?

MAMET
Yes. People only speak to get something. If I say, Let me tell you a few things about myself, already your defenses go up; you go, Look, I wonder what he wants from me, because no one ever speaks except to obtain an objective. That’s the only reason anyone ever opens their mouth, onstage or offstage. They may use a language that seems revealing, but if so, it’s just coincidence, because what they’re trying to do is accomplish an objective… The question is where does the dramatist have to lead you? Answer: the place where he or she thinks the audience needs to be led. But what does the character think? Does the character need to convey that information? If the answer is no, then you’d better cut it out, because you aren’t putting the audience in the same position with the protagonist. You’re saying, in effect, Let’s stop the play. That’s what the narration is doing—stopping the play… It’s action, as Aristotle said. That’s all that it is—exactly what the person does. It’s not what they “think,” because we don’t know what they think. It’s not what they say. It’s what they do, what they’re physically trying to accomplish on the stage. Which is exactly the same way we understand a person’s character in life—not by what they say, but by what they do. Say someone came up to you and said, I’m glad to be your neighbor because I’m a very honest man. That’s my character. I’m honest, I like to do things, I’m forthright, I like to be clear about everything, I like to be concise. Well, you really don’t know anything about that guy’s character. Or the person is onstage, and the playwright has him or her make those same claims in several subtle or not-so-subtle ways, the audience will say, Oh yes, I understand their character now; now I understand that they are a character. But in fact you don’t understand anything. You just understand that they’re jabbering to try to convince you of something.
~ David Mamet

INTERVIEWER
Do you outline plays before you start to write them?

PINTER
Not at all. I don’t know what kind of characters my plays will have until they…well, until they are. Until they indicate to me what they are. I don’t conceptualize in any way. Once I’ve got the clues I follow them—that’s my job, really, to follow the clues.

INTERVIEWER
What do you mean by clues? Can you remember how one of your plays developed in your mind—or was it a line-by-line progression?

PINTER
Of course I can’t remember exactly how a given play developed in my mind. I think what happens is that I write in a very high state of excitement and frustration. I follow what I see on the paper in front of me—one sentence after another. That doesn’t mean I don’t have a dim, possible overall idea—the image that starts off doesn’t just engender what happens immediately, it engenders the possibility of an overall happening, which carries me through. I’ve got an idea of what might happen—sometimes I’m absolutely right, but on many occasions I’ve been proved wrong by what does actually happen. Sometimes I’m going along and I find myself writing “C. comes in” when I didn’t know that he was going to come in; he had to come in at that point, that’s all.
~ Harold Pinter

Z Z