stanley kubrick retrospective. lacma.

if you are an avid reader of this blog (thank you if you actually exist!) then you know that i have spent the last couple of months checking out as many kubrick films as i could in preparation of this exhibit.  prior to this exhibit, i was a huge fan of "a clockwork orange" (i loved the book as a teen) and "full metal jacket", but after watching his catalogue, i became a fan of his work.  i did not see all of his films but luckily i did see the ones that were featured in this retrospective.

the retrospective covers his early career as a photographer, his films: the killing, paths of glory, spartacus, lolita, dr. strangelove, 2001: space odyssey, a clockwork orange, barry lyndon, the shining, full metal jacket, eyes wide shut, and the never made, aryan papers.  there was also a portion dedicated to the film A.I. which i skipped because i didn't see the film nor have a desire too.

as i watched and researched about kubrick's films, i learned that they were based on literary works.  as a result, there were so many amazing bookish pieces in the retrospective.

letters between vladimir nabokov, author of "lolita" and kubrick about the screenplay.

bookcase filled with books for research for "barry lyndon".  he really wanted it to be true to the era and did an extensive amount of research for it.

kubrick's copy of "the shining" filled with his notes.  these pages demonstrated kubrick's attention to detail, he had notes for the set based on the setting from the book.

the books that "full metal jacket" were based on.

i loved kubrick a little bit more based on his bookwormness.

here are some of my other favorite parts of the exhibit:

mitchell mbc camera.

i was so excited to see this camera.  i had read about it on wikipedia after watching "barry lyndon".  this camera was engineered by kubrick and his team, i am not sure how it works (they had some lenses from NASA) but i do know it resulted in a beautiful film.  all of those beautiful scenes lit by candlelight or daylight, all thanks to this camera.

continuing with the "barry lyndon" room:

a letter from audrey hepburn.  kubrick had asked her to be in "barry lyndon" but sadly she was unable to act in it.  marisa berenson ended up with role and was beautiful as lady lyndon.  my friend shawn pointed out the letter to me and we both decided that the film was better off without a big name like hepburn in it.

"a clockwork orange" was the first kubrick film i saw.  so was excited about all of the props from that film:

love the eyeball cuffs!!!!!

in the clockwork orange room, i attempted to give my friends, shawn and chrissie, a quick tidbit about kubrick's adaption of the novel but forgot how it went.  i googled to refresh my memory.  so here it goes:  kubrick's film omits the ending of the novel.  burgess had this whole theory about cycles and numbers and wrote the novel as three cycles of seven chapters.  however, american publishers did not think americans would buy the ending in which alex reforms of his own will, so they omitted it. the version that kubrick read was the american was so his adaption does not have the compete ending.

"the shining" room was seriously creepy with all of its props.  though i have to admit that i was disappointed that the big wheel was not in there.

if you read my shining post, you know i loved the fashion in it.  so was excited to see this:

dr. strangelove:

this picture is from a pie fight scene that was cut.  even though this photo is amazing, i do agree that the pie fight would have caused the film to lose some of its edge.

full metal jacket:

and last but not least, "eyes wide shut":

i also made some instavideoes which i will post later.

but as you can see the exhibit was amazing and i hope you were able to see it (if you live in la).

eyes wide shut.

i was 16 when "eyes wide shut" came out in theaters and i remember all of the controversy about it due to the sex.  back then i had no desire to see it, it wasn't the type of film i would see. i probably would have never saw it but since the lacma has their kubrick exhibit so i finally watched it.

and i know it was critically acclaim and all but i wasn't impressed by it.  i wouldn't even place it in kubrick's top 5.  its called a erotic thriller but there was nothing too suspenseful about it, not like "the shining" suspenseful.  other than maybe expecting nicole kidman to be revealed as the masked woman.  the orgy didn't shocking for me.  maybe it's because i knew what to expect or maybe our media is so sex driven that what was controversial in 1999 is kid's play in 2013.  also i am not surprised that the super rich engage in things like orgy, i mean with all the money, time and power they have, of course they would have some weird sex fetishes.

"eyes wide shut" was based on (just like all of kubrick's work) a literay work, arthur schnitzler's novella "dream story" which was written in 1926.  it did raise an interesting discussion of gender roles and sex and of course the repression and denial of female sexuality.  but again being in 2013 versus 1999 and a woman raised by "sex and the city" and catchy commercials about birth control, i feel i am free to have sex as i want and on my own terms.  i am not saying that prejudices do not exist but i am not affected by them; i do not need to conform to society's views of female sexuality.  it's like being samantha from sex and the city.

the film did not have any wonderful shots or scenes like kubrick's other films.  though all the naked ladies did remind me of "a clockwork orange".  the lighting especially with the christmas lights did remind me of "barry lyndon".  but other than that nothing really stood out.  i did appreciate the inclusion of the prostitute with HIV, with all of the sex in that film, there did need to be a cautionary tale of AIDS/HIV.  and i also wonder if tom cruise being called gay in the film was kubrick poking fun at rumors about cruise's sexuality.  and alan cummings was great as the hotel clerk, the perfect element of weirdness, reminiscent of peter sellers. i will add, i could have done without cruise and kidman, cruise was fine but i do not find kidman attractive and so seeing her naked and during sex scenes was more gross than sensual.

though the film was ho-hum, i will say i loved all the conspiracy theories about the illumanti killing kubrick. i mean would the world really pay attention if kubrick revealed their secret.  also kubrick is one man, it seems impossible for him to actually topple the illumanti.  but while looking up articles about kubrick's death and all of the illumanti signs in his films, I came across gawker's comprehensive guide to the illumanti, enjoy!  lol

spartacus.

as i was watching, i had planned on writing this cute little introduction about how surprised i am with myself for not seeing this sooner since it was referenced in my all time favorite movie "clueless". (chee and christian watched "spartacus" on their first date because christian had this thing for tony curtis. and yes, curtis was dreamt in this with those blue eyes! swoon).

i had also planned on writing how disappointed i was by how the film looked and felt very hollywood. and very un-kubrickesque. it looked more like "the ten commandments" and "ben-hur" than "a clockwork orange" and even "barry lyndon." as i was watching i was certain kubrick didn't direct it, it was so mainstream. (i just read on wikipedia that there was a previous director and kubrick did not have complete artistic control. so that explains that.)

[quick random sidenote but wikipedia also told me the movie was based on a novel, which upholds kubrick's movies being based on literary works.]

i was also going to complain about how
long it was! 3 hours and 15 minutes! actually i will still complain about that. seriously 3 hours and 15 minutes?!?!

anyway, all on judge-iness went on the window with the last 45 minutes and that ending. my god! that ending!

how beautiful and tragic the last 15 minutes were! the irony of the fight between spartacus and antoninus. they actually fought due to their love for each other; spartacus wanted to save antoninus from a slow and painful death, and antoninus did not want the romans to crucify spartacus! but at least they were able to declare their love and appreciate for each other.

and then the ending!!! i was so unprepared. spartacus still partially alive and hanging on the cross, while varinia introduced him to his son. so compelling yet so weird. i mean i still cannot get my head around it. it was beautiful but spartacus was literally hanging on a cross with his newborn at his feet. though maybe my issue with the scene is due to the sacredness of the cross due to my christian upbringing. (mormons do not recognize the cross as a symbol of christ which makes it ultra taboo which might be why i was uneasy with the last scene. uneasy is the wrong word, just surprised. it did pull at my heartstrings.)

since we are on the topic of shocking scenes, i was surprised by the showing of the curfixiaions along the road. but then i guess i got my wish of the film being more kubrickesque. also the battle scenes with limbs being chopped off and sword fights. also those fights scenes were good considering how low tech they were. like how did they do the fire scenes unless they just fired up people? also all of those extras?!?! how did they do that.

and of course, one of the most memorable scenes, "i'm a spartacus". i first hear that phrase in "that thing you do!" (the drummer). and kinda wished i didn't cos it kinda killed the scene. but again so compelling, all of the slaves. standing by spartacus' side. and in a way, they were all him. and of course just single tear down douglas' face, so powerful!

seriously though i was not enjoying "spartacus" at all, but that last hour just reinforced how amazing of a director kubrick truly was.

and one last thought, how lovely was jean simmons? very.

paths of glory.

so i had never heard of "paths of glory" before but came across it while searching the library catalog for "kubrick". after watching "barry lyndon", i was a little weary of watching what looked like a war film. but kirk douglas was in it so assumed it couldn't be that bad. plus it was an hour and 27 minutes, i could survive that.

and what a gem this film was! it was a sad and tragic story but done extremely well. it raised questions of morality, humanity and war.

the movie centered around a french colonel, dax, played by kirk douglas. dax was given a suicide mission to take ant hill, however since it was a suicide mission, he did not succeed. his troops saw that it was a lost cause, so they did not advance and retreated. colonel dax's superior general mireau played by george macready, who saw the capture of ant hill as an opportunity to advance his career was outraged when the troops did not advance. mireau even attempted to fire at his own troops because they did not advance. since the mission was a fail, mireau wanted to execute 100 men for being cowards but this could not be done, instead, three random men were placed on trial and charged with cowardice and mutiny.

of course, the charges against the men are ridiculous. it was a suicide mission, they retreated because it was impossible to advance. because the charges are preposterous, colonel dax, who was an attorney prior to the war, decided to act as counsel for the soldiers. sadly, just like the mission, the odds were stacked against them. for example, one of the men was unable to advance because he was unconscious because another solider and fallen on him and knocked him out. however, the court wanted him to produce witnesses to prove that he was in fact unconscious. since they were in the middle of battle, he was unable to produce witnesses. in the end, colonel dax gave a compelling closing argument about how unjust the trial was, the soldiers were never formally charge, there was no record kept of the court proceedings and all in all, it was obvious that charges were made to prove a point versus seeking justice. but in the end, the soldiers were executed. also mireau was punished for his attempt on his troop, this resulted in dax being promoted which he did not want because he was insulted that his superior assumed that advancement was the reason he wanted to defend the soldiers, not justice. it demonstrated how immoral war really is.

"paths of glory" is an compelling anti-war film, which is why i think i enjoyed it. in fact, i learned on wikipedia that "paths of glory" was rumored to be banned in france because of its portrayal of the french army. in actuality, there was pressure put on the studio to not release it and as a resulted it wasn't released until 1975. germany did not allow it to be released in alliance with france and spain did not because of its anti-military stance (franco was not a fan.)

aside from the corruption among the generals. it was also sad to see innocent men killed for no reason. but if one thinks of it in a larger scheme that is what war is, innocent men being killed for lofty ideas like freedom or justice. i want to clarify that i support us troops and servicemen but i do not respect the governments that puts them in the position of war. i always think of "all quiet on the western front" when it is discussed why kings and leaders do not battle when they are the ones that benefit most directly from the winning of wars. instead wars are fought by young men who do not completely understand why they are at war. wars are fought but does anyone truly understand why? this reminded me of "1984" and how the "war" was fought as the means of economic benefit than the gaining of power, and the only ones that knew this truth was the inner party and not the people fighting the war.

soldiers are the ones that fight and suffer the most but governments treat them as insufficient. in the film, in the trials for the soldiers it was known that one of the soldiers did not advance because his general did not give orders too, yet that general was not charged for anything. why was this general not charged with mutiny? and we knew this solider to be a coward and drunk yet he was not placed before the court. he got away with due to the politics of military status. it sad because one associates the military with being upright since it fights for our freedom but there is corruption within it as well.

i think one of the most haunting scenes from this film is the image of the solider who was injured yet was tied, stretcher and all to the post to be shot for execution. all of this to make a point about mutiny and cowardice. here these men were willing to give up their life for france by being in the army but were executed because they could not complete a suicide mission. so sad and powerful.

i have been really impressed with kubrick's story lines and have started to realize that his works are based on novels. this was as was the shining, barry lyndon, a clockwork orange and lolita. i am not hating just observing. he is telling these stories filtered through his own eyes and adds to them so it's not like he is simply stealing someone else's genius. but with each film i find myself more and more excited about his othe films. i would just like to reiterate how much i enjoyed this film and looking forward to completing his catalog.

barry lyndon.

i had never heard of "barry lyndon" prior to the kubrick exhibit at the lacma. after viewing the caravaggio exhibit, my friends and i wandered the gift shop and checked out the kubrick items. i started to point out what i haven't seen and when i pointed to "barry lyndon", my friend lisa said it was boring. even with that warning i decided to give it a watch.

and lisa was right. it was boring. it was also three hours long. three hours long!!! so the movie is about the rise and fall of barry lyndon. the first half is a snoozefest but it started to get interesting when he meets lady lyndon. so pretty much the last hour of the film was good. also there is some foreshadowing that he dies childless and penniless so i looked forward to seeing how fate change for him. i also wanted to see his stepson get his revenge on him. so all of that got me interested in the movie whereas the first half did nothing to keep my attention.

the thing that surprised me is when i looked up this movie on wikipedia, the critics were all for it. magazines like time and village voice took polls and listed it as one of the greatest films of all times. scorsese said it was the best of kubrick's films! and the cover listed it as a winner of 4 academy awards: best art/direction, cinematography, costume design and scoring. i was surprised because like i said before the first half was quite boring.

but regardless of context the film was visually beautiful. the back cover explained that lens were pioneered to shoot interiors and exteriors in natural light. and that is one thing that is amazing in this film is the lighting. also all of the interior scenes with candlelight. everything looked like an oil painting from that era. some of the scenes seemed more like a work of art than a scene in a film. i bet sofia coppola would have given her left kidney for scenes like that in "marie antoinette".

the most beautiful scenes were with lady lyndon who was played by marisa berenson. she reminded me of emma rossum. here are some of my favorite scenes:

i am actually looking forward to see some of her costumes in the exhibit. i hope they have some. they should since those costumes won an academy award.

overall, i am glad i watched it once but will prolly not watch it again. i also feel that some of his other films are stronger contenders for "kubrick's greatest film".

the shining.

we didn't watching scary movies growing up. so never saw "the shining" until i was in high school and caught half of it on ktla one sunday afternoon. but i still knew all of the pop cultural references from "the shining" ie redrum, scary twins, "all work and no play makes jack a dull boy" and "here's johnny!!!" thanks in large part to that simpson's parody. so when i saw pictures of the twin's blue dresses at the lacma exhibit i figured i should finally give it a real watch and i did.

this movie is so freaking scary!!!! mind you, i knew how the story ends and i have seen all of the signature scenes and i was still scared. so scared that i kept lowering the volume and considered pausing the DVD because i didn't want to see what was going to happen next (and i knew what would happen next so there was really nothing to be afraid off.) i was relieved when danny covered his eyes during his second confrontation with the twins because i wanted to cover my eyes. lol. and i felt better knowing he was scared because to be honest his whole talking finger "tony" was creepy and if that creepy kid was scared than i shouldn't be embarrassed about my fear.

what made the movies so scary and suspenseful was the soundtrack. the music for the scenes were just too eerie. and kept me scared about what waited behind a door or down a hallway. also the lack of sound which reminded you just how empty the hotel was, like when jack was throwing the ball against the wall. one of the creepiest sounds was danny riding around on his big wheel, and when it went from carpeted sound to loud sound on the wooden floor. it was so scary because you knew those creepy twins were going to show up. (i hope the big wheel is on display at the lacma.)

wikipedia described this as psychological horror and that is the best way to describe it. it's not scary because things jump out at you but because it gets you thinking. you know what is going to happen and there is nothing you can do to stop it, you just have to watch it all go down. you know from the beginning during jack's interview with the story of the previous caretaker that the same fate is going to meet them. having this knowledge is what makes it torture to watch.

kubrick did a great job of building suspense and then cutting to random scenes. there were so many times that my heart was racing and then the next scene was "tuesday" and nothing more. and if you think about it other than the scenes of the twins hacked in the hallway, the creepy lady in room 237, and the killing of dick hallorann (which broke my heart when he died), there aren't many gory scenes. the scariest scenes are when you realize jack is going bat shit crazy. jack nicholson really did an amazing job, he was a cold hearted sociopath. when tells wendy, "i'm gonna not to hurt ya, i'm just going to bash your brains in", he said so matter of fact like it was a logical explanation (which it was in his twisted head). i also loved the scenes when wendy discovered his "writing" and i think what made it creepier was that the typing wasn't perfect but had typos and then when it was typed as if it was dialogue and paragraphs, it was like wow! he is insane!

and i remember jack's picture being in the 1921 photo from my first ktla watching of the movie. however, this time i interpreted the ending has jack being the reincarnation of the crazed caretaker. one reason being that jack told wendy how he felt like he was returning home when he first came to the hotel. and then jack's interaction with the ghost of the caretaker made it seem like his previous self was guiding him to repeat his fate. it seems far fetched but after looking on wikipedia, kubrick did mention that jack was a reincarnation.

regardless, of how you think the movie ends its still scary. and i will say one of the scariest movies according to me.

last but not least, i have to add what a fashion icon, shelley duvall was in this film! i wanted to wear everything she had one! the yellow native american jacket was my favorite! i loved the detail of brooch on her blazer when she first walked through the grounds. the purple coat she has on when jack screams at her was great. i also love her overall outfit too, i wish i could find a better pic but no luck. but so many cute outfits! i will have to copy some looks!

2001: space odyssey

what does it all mean?!?!? this was my initial thought i had at the end of stanley kubrick's "2001:  a space odyssey".  my second thought was what was with the weird baby in the sphere?  that was creepy.  i of course googled and it turns out (according to my favorite, wikipedia) kubrick didn't want there to be a meaning.  he wanted it to be open to interpretation.  so here is mine:

god is not like the judeo christain god.  also heaven is not some spirit realm but simply jupiter.  on jupiter, time faster than on earth, an earth year the same as like a 15 jupiter minutes.  this is why bowman ages so quickly after he lands on jupiter.  the home that looks like a persian home (if you have persian friends you know what i mean) that bowman enters is god's home.  god collects souls from earth and puts them on jupiter and then sends them back to earth as spirits as creepy babies. a little part hinduism and a whole lot of sci-fi.  also those black monoliths.  god throws them down whenever he needs life to accelerate aka creatures are lagging, so life can advance within a time frame he deems appropriate.   

so that is my explanation of "2001 space odyssey", please share yours in the comments!

continuing with my interpretation, the first monolith appeared because the prehistoric primates were not working at the pace god need them to.  at the rate they were going, we would have never became humans.  but what i really enjoyed that portion because it demonstrated what was needed in order for man to progress.  and that is meat. i read at the natural history museum of los angeles that the introduction of meat into prehistoric man's diet caused for their brains to grow.  and of course brain growth is important in the development of any species.  so meat actually is very important.  all vegans and vegetarians you should reconsider your current diets.  and of course this was seen in the film, first they discovered tools to help with hunting.  then with meat being their primary source of food, they became stronger and then ruled that little area!

ps one of my teachers had us watch the above clip.  it may have been mr. myovich.  i remember being like what, are we watching?  but now it makes sense.

and yes that cut from the bone floating in the air to the spaceship floating in space was spectacular.

sadly, kubrick's vision of 2001 was a lot better than actual 2001 did not include commercial space trips to the moon, or even spaceships that looked cool like his sets.  but there were some things that we now have in 2013, so we aren't that pathetic in terms of our technology.  though we didn't have any of this stuff in 2001.  first of all, skype/facetime!  seeing people facetime today is amazing, i can only imagine how amazed audiences were back in '68 when dr. floyd had a video phone chat with his daughter.  another thing is navigation, though not in spaceships but in cars.  i mean honestly imagine having to get directions from a map?  how tedious and confusing, navigation has seriously changed the world and how we drive.  last but not least on board the spaceship, i noticed that astronauts watched the news on tablets.  and i mean we kinda beat 2001 in terms of this, their astronauts had them but today our average joe has one, well if he can afford it.  the last thing i noticed, though it wasn't too technological was the food service for the flight to the moon.  it was juice. and oddly, enough juice is quite a trendy thing right now. with the diet crowd, juicing is the way of the future.  i think of all of the juiceries in la right now.  it might only be a fad but when you are drinking it, ti's kinda like the future.

this film was great because its a psychological thriller.  i mean HAL is scarier than that any villain, monster or killer.  it's a machine and when it kills, it has absolutely no remorse, cos it's a machine.  the scene where it kills the astronauts that were hibernating was simple yet brilliant.  all we watched were their vital signs diminishing but it scared me.  imagine being murdered while hibernating, you have no knowledge of your death.  you have no idea you are dying, how scary is that.  it's a lot when you think about it.  or when it killed the other astronaut that went to fix that battery thingy.  i mean i think that is the scariest death, floating out in space for all eternity.  can you imagine that?  it's endless, you just have to float.  i would hate to end up like that.  again too much to think about.  this is what i enjoyed most about HAL and his evil, was that on the surface it was weird but when you think about it, it's seriously frightening.

i am often told that this movie is boring but i thought it was brilliant.  and that is just the content.  visually and musically, this movie was amazing.  all of the scenes in space soundtracked by waltz are perfection.  i mean even with it being referenced so many time in pop culture, i still got chills when i listened to the music and watched the spaceships float through space.  it was just beautiful.

all in all, an extremely enjoyable film. and i look forward to seeing the "2001: space odyssey" portion of the lacma exhibit.

the killing.

currently, the lacma has a stanley kubrick exhibit.  i heard it's amazing but i haven't seen it, the reason being that i haven't seen all of his films.  i've seen "the shining", "a clockwork orange", "full metal jacket" and "dr. strangelove" but figured the exhibit would be pointless if i haven't seen them all.  now i am on a personal mission to see all of his films before the end of june (when the exhibit closes). 

to start my mission, i typed "stanley kubrick" into the catalog search engine and "the killing" was one of the first to come up, so i decided to check it out.  i wasn't sure what to expect.  considering the "ultra violence" of kubrick's films i have seen, i imagined that this movie was going to be quite gruesome.  but in fact it wasn't.  without giving too much away, there is some killing but nothing horrible.

"the killing" is the story of johnny clay, who is fresh out of jail and planning a heist.  sounds like "ocean's 11", the premises are the same but this is darker and better, but with less attractive men of course.  johnny plans on stealing money at the peak of a pony race.  i know, a pony race?  but he got 1.2 million which back in 1953 was a lot of dough.  the movie is how the heist goes down.  i don't want to ruin it for those of you who haven't seen it but let's say the ending was surprising, great, very clever and well done.

at the risk of sounding dumb, at first i thought the movie was a nod to the noir films of the 50's, kinda like "chinatown".  i loved that it was in black and white and the narrator's voice was perfect, very gumshoey.  however, it turns out that kubrick made movies for a time and that "the killing" was made in 1953.  and though i'm not an expert, it seems to embody film noir perfectly.  i took a history of los angeles course at ucla and film noir was covered in it. from what i can remember, film noir always has a femme fatale.  "the killing" continued with this traditon of women as evil, the heist goes awry because of woman, (played by marie windsor, who i thought was perfect and lovely).  

the dialogue and narrator definitely gave it that gumshoe, film noir vibe.  it was quick paced and clever and filled with great lines.

my favorites:

johnny to sherry: "you like money.  you've got a great big dollar sign there where most women have a heart."

sherry:  "it isn't fair. i never had anybody but you. mot a real husband. not even a man. just a bad joke without a punch line."

the film is really well done.  visually it is stunning, there are so many great scenes.  SPOILER WARNING:  STOP READING WILL RUIN THE TWIST IN THE MOVIE FOR YOU.

for example, when george shot sherry and he stands there with the birdcage next to him.  i also love when george falls and the birdcage does too and they lie side by side. that would make a lovely picture

or when clay changes into his outfit for the heist and he takes his time to make sure that the flower box is covered properly and placed carefully into the locker.

and of course the last scene with all of the money whirling around the airport.  amazing.  i have to add, i knew something was up, i wasn't sure why we watched that silly woman and her stupid dog at the counter, but then it all came together.

also the music was great, added an element of suspense and drama.  it made the most mundane scene interesting, like when johnny left his jacket and guitar case in the motel room.

i highly recommend it, especially if you plan on seeing the kubrick exhibit.  and if you hate it, it's fine, it's only 84 mintues so not that long of your life wasted. 

the edition i checked out also had "the killer's kiss" on it, i tried to watch but sadly had to return the dvd before i could.  (i had the dvd for two weeks, and didn't feel like checking it out for the third time.)

i watched like half of it.  i'm not sure the premise, i think it's about a boxer who falls in love with his neighbor.  i will say that it looked good.  the visuals were great, especially the b-roll around new york, like the store windows, especially the one with the doll swimming in the bowl of water. that series of scenes could be a collection for art gallery.

i also loved how when the neighbor shared her story (which was sad and beautiful) it was a voice over while the audience watched her sister, who was a ballerina dance.

i will prolly look for it online to watch and see it before the exhibit, so if you get the criterion version, please watch the second dvd.