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

Quote Unquotesee all »

“When books become a thing, they can no longer be fine.

“Literary people get mad at Knausgård the same way they get mad at Jonathan Franzen, a writer who, if I’m being honest, might be fine. I’m rarely honest about Jonathan Franzen. He’s an extremely annoying manI have only read bits and pieces of his novels, and while I’ve stopped reading many novels even though they were pretty good or great, I have always stopped reading Jonathan Franzen’s novels because I thought they were aggressively boring and dumb and smug. But why do I think this? I didn’t read him when he was a new interesting writer who wrote a couple of weird books and then hit it big with ‘The Corrections,’ a moment in which I might have picked him up with curiosity and read with an open mind; I only noticed him once, after David Foster Wallace had died, he became the heir apparent for the Great American Novelist position, once he had had that thing with Oprah and started giving interviews in which he said all manner of dumb shit; I only noticed him well after I had been told he was An Important Writer.

“So I can’t and shouldn’t pretend that I am unmoved by the lazily-satisfied gentle arrogance he projects or when he is given license to project it by the has-the-whole-world-gone-crazy development of him being constantly crowned and re-crowned as Is He The Great American Writer. What I really object to is this, and if there’s anything to his writing beyond it, I can’t see it and can’t be bothered. Others read him and tell me he’s actually a good writer—people whose critical instincts I have learned to respect—so I feel sure that he’s probably a perfectly fine, that his books are fine, and that probably even his stupid goddamned bird essays are probably also fine.

“But it’s too late. He has become a thing; he can’t be fine.”
~ Aaron Bady

“You know how in postproduction you are supposed to color-correct the picture so everything is smooth and even? Jean-Luc wants the opposite. He wants the rupture. Color and then black and white, or different intensities of color. Or how in this film, sometimes you see the ratio of the frame change after the image begins. That happens when he records from his TV onto his old DVCAM analog machine, which is so old we can’t even find parts when it needs to be repaired. The TV takes time to recognize and adjust to the format on the DVD or the Blu-ray. Whether it’s 1:33 or 1:85. And one of the TVs he uses is slower than the other. He wants to keep all that. I could correct it, but he doesn’t want me to. See, here’s an image from War and Peace. He did the overlays of color—red, white, and blue—using an old analog video effects machine. That’s why you have the blur. When I tried to redo it in digital, I couldn’t. The edges were too sharp. And why the image jitters—I don’t know how he did that. Playing with the cable maybe. Handmade. He wants to see that. It’s a gift from his old machine.”
~ Fabrice Aragno