Talk:Stanley Kubrick/Sandbox

Currently unsourced or possibly unnecessary material from the Stanley Kubrick page is going to be stored here until they can be better used, per discussion on the talk page.

---

The stuff at the bottom of this current list is more self-evidently disposable than the upper stuff, although much of the upper stuff is shrinkable.--WickerGuy (talk) 20:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Some meaningful section titles and a TOC for this storage room would help. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Taken from awards section

All Kubrick films from Paths of Glory to the end of his career were nominated for at least one Golden Globe or Oscar (along with several BAFTA nominations) with the notable exception of The Shining which is not only the least honored of Kubrick's films since 1956's The Killing, but was actually nominated for the infamous Razzie award. (However, this was the first year of the Razzies which at that time was run out of one person's home and was voted on by less than 10 people, rather than the large international committee that votes on it today.) --> Not sure this is needed.

Ironically, at least two published books, The Wolf at the Door by Geoffrey Cocks and Kubrick, inside a film artist's maze by Thomas Nelson, consider The Shining to be a kind of master key to Kubrick's whole body of work in which all of Kubrick's philosophical preoccupations merge into a grand synthesis. --> Needs to be ref'd and then probably put somewhere more relevant.

Well, the books are cited, although the pages are not. It's pretty much the entire thesis of the first book and the subject of a whole chapter in the second. However, this is directly linked to the previous note about The Shining being the least-awarded of Kubrick's films. The two items go together.--WickerGuy (talk) 20:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

This could be shortened to read

With the exception of 3 early works made when Kubrick was languishing in obscurity, all of his films have been nominated for at least one Oscar or Golden Globe, with the notable exception of 1980's The Shining, which was actually nominated for the infamous Razzie for worst film. Ironically, two published books [put all info inside citation] consider The Shining to be a kind of master key to Kubrick's whole body of work in which all of Kubrick's philosophical preoccupations merge into a grand synthesis

--WickerGuy (talk) 20:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• Hmm, I think it just reads awkwardly to start talking about The Shining under the awards section. I don't think there should be any analytical stuff there - literally just mentioning his awards. It is an interesting point, so it should stay in the article, but with the other stuff about the film. And I'd say you just need to find the page on each book where they summarise the argument and cite that.--Lobo512 (talk) 10:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• In the case of Nelson, we can cite the chapter on Shining. In the case of Wolf, it really is the thesis of the book as a whole! Specific pages wouldn't mean anything.--WickerGuy (talk) 13:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

In the science fiction world, Kubrick has thrice won the especially coveted Hugo Award, a prize mainly for print writing and only secondarily for drama production. He also received four nominations (with one win) of the science-fiction-film-oriented Saturn awards from the Academy of Science Fiction for The Shining, an award that did not exist when Kubrick won his three Hugos.# --> Is this definitely notable enough to mention?

This is certainly notable for science-fiction fans. They are the two most coveted awards in Science-fiction.--WickerGuy (talk) 20:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• I added the Hugos for now, the other section is just so clunky. I think the whole awards section needs to be reworked to be honest - if we're gonna mention everything a whole new sub article may as well be created. He did receive a lot of rewards so I think that would be best. --Lobo512 (talk) 10:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• You're right, it's clunky, but it also grates to mention Hugos without Saturns. In sci-fi TV and movies, they're equally prestigious. Should find a rewrite--WickerGuy (talk) 13:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Taken from Strangelove section

At the time Dr. Strangelove was released Peter Sellers was still mainly a British comedy actor, relatively unknown in the United States. Most American viewers did not initially realize that Kubrick had cast him in three roles, all with distinctly different appearances, accents, and personalities. --> Should go to the film page.

Probably belongs on film page, but MIGHT be rewritable as

Due to Peter Sellers relative obscurity in the US at the time, most American viewers did not initially realize he was playing three roles, all with very different accents and appearances.

Restored in much shorter form. An important element of impact of film--WickerGuy (talk) 03

11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• Like I said, I still don't think it needs to be mentioned. --Lobo512 (talk) 10:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• Well, it's part of a larger pattern, that Kubrick was so important in introducing Sellers to American audiences, even though PS's big explosion to fame occurred in the 1964 Pink Panther films. It's one thing if you see a move like Mouse that Roared as a showcase for Sellers expecting to see Sellers in eight roles . It's another thing to see a movie in which a vaguely known Sellers is in the cast and sit through almost all of the film without realizing Sellers is playing 3 characters.

Taken from Space Odyssey section

SO design

Manufacturing companies were consulted as to what the design of both special-purpose and everyday objects would look like in the future. In a filmed press conference before the Los Angeles premiere of the film, later released as a DVD extra, Arthur C. Clarke predicted that a generation of engineers would design real spacecraft based upon 2001 "...even if it isn't the best way to do it." The film also is a rare instance of portraying space travel realistically, with complete silence in the vacuum of space and a realistic representation of weightlessness.

This is disjointed, and the influence ON the spacecraft in more notable than Clarke's predictions about its influence.

What about

Manufacturing companies were consulted as to what the design of both special-purpose and everyday objects would look like in the future. NASA consultants were hired to design the look of the spacecraft. The film is a rare instance of realism in space travel, with silence in a vacuum and a realistic depiction of weightlessness.

---WickerGuy (talk) 20:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• Yeah I guess it could go back in, since it was all such revolutionary stuff Kube was doing. Again, it really should be referenced though. At the moment, anyone in the world could have written that and just made it up out their arse, you know?--Lobo512 (talk) 10:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• All this material is easily referenced from the film article, but I would prefer to mention the broader generalization that SK tried to make space travel realistic without focusing on realistic weightlessness, though silence in a vacuum might be more important to mention.--WickerGuy (talk) 13:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Restored only biz about scientific realism of space travel through consultation with NASA. Discarding Clarke's projection on design and all manufacturing stuff. Realistic space travel is the most notable item.--WickerGuy (talk) 18

56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

SO Music

Kubrick also used music by contemporary avant-garde Hungarian composer György Ligeti, although some of the pieces were altered without Ligeti's consent. The appearance of Atmospheres, Lux Aeterna, and Requiem on the 2001 soundtrack was the first wide commercial exposure of Ligeti's work.

First wide exposure of GL is somewhat important. Specific soundtrack list should definitely GO!!

I suggest Rewrite as

Kubrick also used music by contemporary avant-garde Hungarian composer György Ligeti; it was the first wide commercial exposure of Ligeti's work

and restore

Restored in much shorter form.--WickerGuy (talk) 03

11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

SO criticism

Artistically, 2001 was a radical departure from Kubrick's previous films. It contains only 45 minutes of spoken dialogue, over a running time of two hours and twenty minutes. The fairly mundane dialogue is mostly superfluous to the images and music. The film's most memorable dialogue belongs to the computer HAL in HAL's exchanges with Dave Bowman. Some argue that Kubrick is portraying a future humanity largely dissociated from a sterile and antiseptic machine-driven environment. The film's ambiguous, perplexing ending continues to fascinate contemporary audiences and critics. After this film, Kubrick would never experiment so radically with special effects or narrative form; however, his subsequent films would still maintain some level of ambiguity. --> This whole section reads like original research, and maybe be too much detail for the SK page anyway.

The fact that comparison is made with prior SK movies makes this somewhat of a candidate for THIS article, but it could be reduced. Omit discussion of HAL's dialogue, and what specific reviewers say.

I suggest Rewrite as

Artistically, 2001 was a radical departure from Kubrick's previous films. It contains only 40 minutes of spoken dialogue, over a running time of two hours and twenty minutes. The fairly mundane dialogue is mostly superfluous to the images and music. The film's ambiguous, perplexing ending continues to fascinate contemporary audiences and critics. After this film, Kubrick would never experiment so radically with special effects or narrative form; however, his subsequent films would still maintain some level of ambiguity.

and restore.--WickerGuy (talk) 20:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Second half of shortened version restored to article.--WickerGuy (talk) 03

11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• Cool just try and find a ref if you can. --Lobo512 (talk) 10:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

SO Kubrick on

Dont know if this should be on the SK page, maybe it could be briefly summarised: Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey are numerous and diverse. Despite having been released in 1968, it still prompts debate today. When critic Joseph Gelmis asked Kubrick about the meaning of the film, Kubrick replied:

They are the areas I prefer not to discuss, because they are highly subjective and will differ from viewer to viewer. In this sense, the film becomes anything the viewer sees in it. If the film stirs the emotions and penetrates the subconscious of the viewer, if it stimulates, however inchoately, his mythological and religious yearnings and impulses, then it has succeeded.

Totally unnecessary for this article. Jettison completely. Except for maybe one sentence "Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey are numerous and diverse"--WickerGuy (talk) 20:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• Let's just leave it. --Lobo512 (talk) 10:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed to eliminate

Misc notes

I also just noticed you took out the discussion of cinematographer Geoffrey Unsworth to Space Odyssey without storing it here, but that's probably well and good.

This page is harder to access given that it is preceded by a backslash(\)--WickerGuy (talk) 00:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I also noticed you took out discussion of Nabokov publishing his own Lolita screenplay. Just as well.--WickerGuy (talk) 13:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

- - - - - - - - - -

Taken from bio section

Christiane Susanne Harlan (b. 1932 in Germany) belonged to a theatrical family and had trained as an actress. During her marriage to Kubrick, Christiane concentrated on her career as a painter. In addition to raising Christiane's young daughter Katharina (b. 1953) from her first marriage, the couple had two daughters, Anya (1959–2009) and Vivian (b. 1960). Christiane's brother Jan Harlan was Kubrick's executive producer from 1975 onward.

• Is this not convered in his personal life page? --Lobo512 (talk) 11:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC) I think describing her as "a german actress" is sufficent for her mention in the 1950s section.

Taken from AI section

Many critics found the film to be a peculiar merging of the disparate sensibilities of Kubrick and Spielberg. In a mostly positive review, Tim Merrill wrote

Finally, Steven Spielberg has made a film that is not for everyone. And we have Stanley Kubrick’s ghost to thank for it. Let’s also pause for a moment to consider how unique is this union of two legendary directors: the Eccentric Recluse meets the King of Hollywood. Spielberg and Kubrick, two filmmakers whose styles and sensibilities stand diametrically opposed, are master technicians with vastly different notions about the nature of humanity.

• I don't think this is needed on the SK page. --Lobo512 (talk) 12:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• I'm 50/50 about this- radically undecided. There's a case for and a case against. Stay tuned. I have to go to work now.--WickerGuy (talk) 13:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Aspect ratio in toto removed

Dare I suggest that everything in this section just be transfered to each relevant film page? This is the sort of thing that only technical film buffs are interested in, and I think it just clogs up the page. It would be interesting to summarise Kubrick's preferences for aspect ratio at some point, since it obviously affects the film considerably and is a big decision in the filmmaking process, but all this "X film had a ratio of X that was later changed to X with X DVD release" is just too much. --Lobo512 (talk) 12:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

We might be able to develop a brief bare-bones basic summary of controversy existing, but remove all discussion of both specific ratios and DVD releases. This should either be a separate article or in film articles.--WickerGuy (talk) 13:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Could we move it all here until a summary has been written? I really think it's clogging up the page right now. --Lobo512 (talk) 13:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

In the words of Joyce's Molly Bloom, Yes, oh, Yes.--WickerGuy (talk) 13:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Pasted text:

There has been a longstanding debate regarding the DVD releases of Kubrick's films, specifically regarding the aspect ratio of many of the films. The primary point of contention relates to his final five films: A Clockwork Orange, Barry Lyndon, The Shining, Full Metal Jacket, and Eyes Wide Shut.

Kubrick's initial involvement with home video mastering of his films was a result of television screenings of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Because the film was shot in 65 mm, the composition of each shot was compromised by the pan-and-scan method of transferring a wide-screen image to fit a 1.33:1 television set.

Kubrick's final five films were shot "flat"—the full 1.37:1 area is exposed in the camera, but with appropriate markings on the viewfinder, the picture was composed for and cropped to the 1.85:1 aspect ratio in a theater's projector.

The first mastering of these five films was in 2000 as part of the "Stanley Kubrick Collection", consisting of his last 8 films. Kubrick oversaw the video masters in 1989 for Warner Home Video, and approved of 1.33:1 transfers for all of the films except for 2001, which was letterboxed.

Kubrick never approved a 1.85:1 video transfer of any of his films; when he died in 1999, DVDs and the 16:9 format were only beginning to become popular in the US. Most people were accustomed to seeing movies fill their television screen. Warner Home Video chose to release these films with the transfers that Kubrick had explicitly approved. In 2007, Warner Home Video remastered 2001: A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange, The Shining, Full Metal Jacket, and Eyes Wide Shut in High-Definition, releasing the titles on DVD, HD DVD, and Blu-ray Disc. All were released as 16:9 transfers, preserving the theatrical 1.85:1 aspect ratios for all of the flat films except A Clockwork Orange, which was transferred at the aspect ratio of 1.66:1. In regards to the Warner Bros. titles, there is little studio documentation that is public about them other than instructions given to projectionists on initial release; however, Kubrick's storyboards for The Shining do prove that he composed the film for wide-screen. In instructions given to photographer John Alcott in one panel, Kubrick writes: THE FRAME IS EXACTLY 1.85–1. Obviously you compose for that but protect the full 1.33–1 area.

More confusion results regarding Kubrick's non-Warner-distributed titles. During the days of laserdisc, The Criterion Collection released six Kubrick films. Spartacus and 2001 were both native 70 mm releases (exhibited in their roadshow engagements at a ratio of 2.20:1) at the same ratio as their subsequent DVD releases, and The Killing and Paths of Glory were both transferred at 1.33:1, despite the latter being hard matted extensively. Both pictures were theatrically projected at an aspect ratio of 1.85:1.

Dr. Strangelove and Lolita were also transferred at 1.33:1, although Strangelove exhibits a number of hard mattes at a ratio of 1.66:1 in second-unit footage. This is sometimes falsely attributed to the use of stock footage in Strangelove. Both films were presented theatrically at ratios of 1.85:1.

The DVD versions of The Killing and Paths of Glory released by MGM Home Entertainment retained the same 1.33:1 aspect ratio as the laserdisc versions, while the Criterion Collection DVD and Blu-ray editions of the two films feature a 1.66:1 aspect ratio. The initial DVD releases of Strangelove maintained the 1.33:1, Kubrick-approved transfer, but for the most recent DVD and Blu-ray editions, Sony Pictures Home Entertainment replaced it with a new, digitally remastered anamorphic transfer with an aspect ratio of 1.66:1. All DVD and Blu-ray releases of Lolita to date have been at a uniform 1.66:1 aspect ratio. The Blu-ray edition of Barry Lyndon presents the film in a 1.78:1 aspect ratio.

Laserdisc releases of 2001 were presented in a slightly different aspect ratio than the original film. The film was shot in 65 mm, which has a ratio of 2.20:1, but many theaters could only show it in 35 mm reduction prints, which were presented at a ratio of 2.35:1. Thus, the picture was slightly modified for the 35 mm prints. The laserdisc releases maintained the 2.20:1 ratio, but the source material was an already-cropped 35 mm print; thus, the edges were slightly cropped and the top and bottom of the image slightly opened up. This seems to have been corrected with the most recent DVD release, which was newly remastered from a 70 mm print.

Tentative rewrite for possible restoral

There has been a longstanding debate regarding the DVD releases of Kubrick's films, specifically regarding the aspect ratio of many of the films, as early versions were often released only in cropped standard screen format.

Kubrick died just as widescreen television sets and widescreen or letterboxed DVDs were becoming far more common. DVDs and the 16:9 format were only beginning to become popular in the US. Most people were accustomed to seeing movies fill their television screen.

With the exception of 2001: A Space Odyssey, Kubrick had authorized only cropped and screen-fitted transfers of his films to videotape. When he died in 1999, Warner Home Video chose to release these films with the transfers that Kubrick had explicitly approved. In 2007, Warner Home Video remastered 2001: A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange, The Shining, Full Metal Jacket, and Eyes Wide Shut in High-Definition, releasing the titles on DVD, HD DVD, and Blu-ray Disc. These were in widescreen format, preserving the theatrical screen ratios.

Similar problems attended the various video releases of Kubrick's earlier non-Warner films. During the days of laserdisc, The Criterion Collection released six Kubrick films. Spartacus and 2001 were both released in widescreen, but The Killing and Paths of Glory were released in standards screen 4:3 ratio in spite of the original versions being widescreen. The DVD versions of The Killing and Paths of Glory released by MGM Home Entertainment retained the same standard screen ration as the laserdisc versions, while the Criterion Collection DVD and Blu-ray editions of the two films are widescreen. The initial DVD releases of Strangelove maintained standard screen Kubrick-approved transfer, but for the most recent DVD and Blu-ray editions, Sony Pictures Home Entertainment replaced it with a new, digitally remastered widescreen version.

All DVD and Blu-ray releases of Lolita to date have been widescreen.

Earlier widescreen releases of 2001 were slightly cropped due to being transferred from a 35mm print, but this was corrected in the most recent DVD release.

Even shorter rewrite!!

There has been a longstanding discussion regarding the aspect ratio of the DVD releases of Kubrick's films, as early versions were often released only in cropped standard screen format. Kubrick died just as widescreen television sets and DVDs and the 16:9 format were becoming fairly common in the US. Most people were still accustomed to seeing movies fill their television screen.

With the exception of 2001: A Space Odyssey, Kubrick had authorized only cropped and screen-fitted transfers of his films to videotape. When he died in 1999, Warner Home Video chose to release these films with the transfers that Kubrick had explicitly approved. In 2007, Warner Home Video remastered five of his later films in High-Definition, releasing the titles on DVD, HD-DVD, and Blu-ray Disc. These were for the first time in widescreen format, preserving the theatrical screen ratios.

Similar issues attended the various video releases of Kubrick's earlier non-Warner films. During the laserdisc era, The Criterion Collection released six earlier Kubrick films, bur released only Spartacus and 2001 in widescreen on laserdisc, although others had been widescreen in theatres. Initial DVD releases of The Killing, Paths of Glory and Dr. Strangelove (some by Criterion, some by MGM, and some by Sony) were standard 4:3 screen, while later releases were widescreen.

Earlier widescreen releases of 2001 were slightly cropped due to being transferred from a 35mm print, but this was corrected in the most recent DVD release.

Two problems jump out: 1) It's OR, and 2) it seems to have little to do with the subject of this article, which is supposed to be a bio. Why not add it to some article about widescreen films? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, OR is fixable re finding sources. However, your second objection carries some additional weight. I suppose it relates to SK insofar as his high level of personal control of his films affected his releases. I certainly don't plan to put this back right away. We originally removed it, since it stood out like not just a sore thumb but a very swollen sore thumb [6] from the rest of the article, and a minimal condition for putting it back would be to radically trim it down.

My main aim was to remove all mention of precise ratios limiting myself to standard screen and widescreen, and to remove most mention of specific films.

THinking cap still on- material not at this time restored. As Dana Carvey's version of George Bush, Sr. would say "Wouldn't be prudent. Not at this JUNCTure".--WickerGuy (talk) 12:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

PS the original poster of this material (wayyy before I became a WP editor is summer of 2007) is correct that there is an extensive, longgggg online discussion about this, mostly on bulletin boards that we can't use as sources, but which is interesting to follow. (Some user says "I'm more interested in Nicole Kidman's aspect ratio (nudge, nudge, wink, wink).") Kubrick's admin assistant on his last 4 films, Leon Vitali, gave a whole interview on just this topic, which actually we could use as a source, at [7] so I feel obligated to somehow work this in, but only as a healthy thumb [8]

Vitali's interview may help us avoid the WP strictures against WP:synthesis--WickerGuy (talk) 13:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

My personal stance is that the article will not be at a loss if no mention is made of this at all. I dunno, maybe we should make a request for input from other editors. --Lobo512 (talk) 17:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I entirely agree with Lobo512 that the article will "not be at a loss" without this, but am trying to brainstorm some entirely different method and style of introducing the material that will smoothly flow. In absence of any stellar ideas, I ain't movin it back.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe a way to tie the subject in to the bio is to discuss Kubrick's strong preference for keeping aspect ratios the same as the original. There are references that discuss his being "upset" at many of the transfers of his films to TV format, or to changing his cineramic productions to pan-and-scan or similar altered ratios. He was able to prevent some of his films from being modified, so his preference, - in effect, promotion - of widescreen is probably notable. He was also the first director to use Dolby noise reduction. I think shifting the focus to Kubrick and his personal visions, and only lightly discussing the technical details about ratios and audio, would help the bio more. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Taken from Eyes wide shut

Because of Kubrick's secrecy about the film, mostly inaccurate rumors abounded about its plot and content. Most especially, the story's sexual content provoked speculation, some journalists writing that it would be "the sexiest film ever made." The casting of then celebrity-actor supercouple Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman as a husband-wife couple in the film along with Kubrick's characteristic secrecy increased the pre-release journalistic hyperbole.

In the United States and Canada, digitally manufactured silhouette figures were strategically placed to mask explicit copulation scenes so as to secure an R rating from the MPAA. Outside the US, the film was released uncut, in its original form. The October 2007 North American DVD reissue also contains the uncut version.

Kidman notes that "Stanley's expectations of people were not really high," adding, however, that his wife, to whom he had been married for over 41 years, "was the love of his life. He would talk about her, he adored her, something that people didn't know. His daughters adored them . . . I would see that, and he would talk about them very proudly."

• Comment: This is about Stanley, but it would be a nice quote to go on the personal life page. --Lobo512 (talk) 18:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Co-star Nicole Kidman explains that while some critics describe the film's theme as "dark," in essence "it is a very hopeful film." During one interview in the documentary, Stanley Kubrick: A Life in Pictures, she states that Kubrick was indirectly stressing the moral values of "commitment and loyalty," adding that "ultimately, Eyes Wide Shut is about that commitment." Sydney Pollack, who acted in the film, adds that "the heart of [the film] was illustrating a truth about relationships and sexuality. But it was not illustrated in a literal way, but in a theatrical way." Michel Ciment agrees with Kidman, and likewise notes the positive meaning underlying the film, pointing out how some of it is voiced through the dialogue, and suggests that the words "resonate like an epitaph" to Kubrick:

Kubrick, shortly before his death, for the first time in his career, offers us a glimpse of the light at the end of the tunnel, the dawn at the end of the nocturnal journey . . . Alice [Kidman] learns the lesson of her and Bill's emotional odyssey: "Maybe, I think, we should be grateful . . . grateful that we've managed to survive through all of our adventures, whether they were real or only a dream."

• This is so far the only body of removed material that I think should go back. It links together Kubrick's death, his personal attitudes re optimism vs. pessimism, and his final film all together in a meaningful way.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree. I'll add back some abbreviated details to support the biographical vs. film aspect ratio.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Hoaxes, mock hoaxes, and conspiracy theories

The material below was moved for discussion per talk. IMO, most of the material reads like a major digression from the biography. It discusses numerous theories, mostly written in a verbose blog format. I agree with User:‎Binksternet that some sources are weak, at best. In any case, most of this is about and by eccentric writers speculating and creating unproven theories related to the films. This giant section could be summarized in a few sentences, and I question whether any of Kubrick's published biographies discuss any of these. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

As Kubrick and Kubrick's family were vocal in their reaction to the Conway Kubrick impersonation hoax (SK being amused while his wife was disturbed) and it was the subject of an entire feature movie (with John Malkovich playing Conway), it is certainly notable, and an integral part of Kubrick's biography. And it IS mentioned in John Baxter's biography of Kubrick, Michel Ciment's study of Kubrick (one of the four or five most famous studies), and in the book Stanley Kubrick: essays on his films and legacy by Gary Don Rhodes, so yes, this is discussed in "published biographies".

Kubrick's surviving family (wife and brother-in-law/producer) were involved in and co-operated with the post-Kubrick Karel mockumentary (all the footage of Jan Harlan and Christianne Kubrick was filmed for it with their co-operation), and as such I think it is certainly notable, although it is not mentioned in published books on Kubrick. (The film was made about 3 years after Kubrick's death.)

I am less certain about the rest. "RationalWiki" is a wiki devoted mostly to skepticism, debunking pseudo-science and conspiracy theories. They have devoted their entire article on Stanley Kubrick to the remainder of this material, the alleged moonlanding hoax and alleged Illuminati conspiracy. The fact that after not one but two "hoaxes of hoaxes" (tongue-in-cheek allegations of SK's involvement in faking moonlandings) a real documentary making the same (rather silly) claim should subsequently emerge seems quite interesting to me, but may not be sufficiently encyclopedic for this article, and could be discussed in fuller form simply at WP's moonlanding conspiracy article (and/or the Space Odyssey article) and in much shorter form here.

I believe that unreliable sources are permitted on WP as sources about themselves or their views. We can cite anything from Pravda or Free Republic to establish that P or FR actually said something, although it is good to establish notability from other sources. That is how RationalWiki used "Kentroversy papers" and the other conspiracy sites, but I recently added the material from "cracked.com" to establish notability.--WickerGuy (talk) 07:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Shortening this material would be reasonable. Beyond that, incorporating it better into the biography would be helpful also, as it's clearly not "legacy" related, one hopes. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The Conway material is definitely bio, and not really "legacy". I suppose in some very broad sense of the term "legacy" the conspiracy theories might be considered such, but not at all in the sense of something bequeathed to the world (good or bad) by Kubrick himself. I think the best thing is to put all of the Conway stuff back as is, definitely shorten the moonlanding material, and refer readers to longer sections on same in other article(s), and I'm not sure about the Illuminati stuff.--WickerGuy (talk) 08:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I thought you wanted the Conway material incorporated into Kubrick's biography. The material I added on Frank Rich was to give the material more weight, and the material in the original version (which you also deleted) on the response of Kubrick and his family is IMO essential to making the material notable at all!! You seem to have both removed the material that makes the Conway story non-trivial and then moved it to a section which you labeled "trivia". This is the very first edit of yours I have seen that seems to me to be significantly ill-advised.--WickerGuy (talk) 19:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

All of the sections titled by decade primarily relate to his films for that period. Hence, including a lead paragraph for 1990s which digress and detail the eccentricities of a criminal impersonator, his rationale for growing a beard, along with comments by others about this silliness, seem totally out of place. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not really sure where to place it in the article, then. I thought somewhere in the bio was a good place. It's not really a "conspiracy theory", but Kubrick and Kubrick's family were affected by the matter and commented on it, and as I have noted one full book biography and one major study of his works thought it worth discussing. BTW, that's his rationale for not having a beard. (SK had not been beardless since the mid-60s. Conway's failure to resemble Kubrick was more credible if he claimed to have shaved.)--WickerGuy (talk) 02:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd vote to keep it on the shelf called "trivia" until someone, maybe during a wild burst of creativity, comes up with a section topic. When they do, we can also move other similar material to it, like this paragraph:

"The video for pop singer Lady Gaga's song Bad Romance was found by Daniel Kreps of Rolling Stone magazine to be heavily influenced by the filmmaking style of Kubrick.[204] Lady Gaga has also introduced a few concerts with a hip-hop styled remix of the electronic version of Purcell's Music for the Funeral of Queen Mary that opens the film Clockwork Orange which also is used in her mini-movie The Fame. Finally, her song Dance in the Dark has the lines "Find your Jesus, Find your Kubrick".--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Ummm, shouldn't the Gaga thing be in the section on the influence of Kubrick on other filmmakers?? However, it would be much much improved if we did a couple of sentences on Kreps' analysis of the influence of Kubrick, and shortened the rest. The grossly corpulent overly verbose middle sentence could be shrunk to read "Lady Gaga has also used a hip-hop remix of the electronic version of Purcell's music that opens the film Clockwork Orange in both concerts and her mini-movie The Fame." --WickerGuy (talk) 03:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The main issues on the Alan Conway material

1) Stanley Kubrick and his wife commented on the matter.

2) A prominent NYT journalist was excited by the prospect of an interview with Kubrick and was temporarily fooled by Conway. (See also new note just below.)

3) Conway has been covered in two major books on Kubrick, and has been the subject of extensive media coverage in his own right such as for example [9]

These three items are what raise the Conway material beyond the level of trivia (certainly far less trivial than a line or piece music in the Gaga paragraph- though a discussion of the overall influence of Sk' style on Gaga's videos is less trivial).--WickerGuy (talk) 04:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I have just added that Kubrick's personal assistant was both instrumental in tracking down Conway and wrote the screenplay for the film about Conway. I have also given the section a name. It might still be good to move it.--WickerGuy (talk) 04:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Hate to keep being a downer, but almost all of the reasons you gave for why this is "beyond" trivia, strike me as solid reasons why this episode is nothing but trivia. Understand, I have no doubt Kubrick's wife "commented on the matter," or that some journalist got "excited." But it does not fit in the section for the same reason mentioned earlier, that a lead paragraph for 1990s should not include an episode about some eccentric clownish impersonator.

If you look at all the decade sections, they all focus primarily on each of his films during that period. The 1990s section, likewise focused on his last film only. However, with your edits, the 1990's now cover two subsections: one about some weirdo impersonator; and another about his final film. They both appear in bold-faced sub-heads. Do you actually feel both subjects deserve the equal weight your placement gives them? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you are entirely correct on the placement issue. I was only arguing for its placement in the article per se, not its placement here. It is re its position in the article per se that I am arguing the material is significant. BTW, Frank Rich is a fairly prominent journalist, BTW. He the chief theatre critic of the New York Times at the time he was conned by Conway. It really doesn't belong in the bio section.--WickerGuy (talk) 08:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

A thought

Just as there is a separate article on the "Paul is Dead" theory about the Beatles, all this could go in a separate split-off. If you go to the "Paul is Dead" article, and click on "What Links Here", you find that allegedly there is a link to it in the main article Beatles, but I can't find it. Presumably, the list of of links is generated by WP software, but I can't find the link.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC) I have removed the Conway material from the main article and posted the current version below. As previously noted, it now has new material noting that Kubrick's personal assistant aided in tracking Conway and wrote the screenplay for the Malkovich movie about him.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

---

Current version of Conway

Kubrick impersonator Alan Conway

In the mid-1990s, a con artist named Alan Conway convinced several people in the London entertainment industry that he was Stanley Kubrick, promising either film roles or exclusive interviews, and getting sexual favors. In 1993, Conway temporarily deceived New York Times theatre critic Frank Rich, who contacted executives at Warner Brothers, who had known about the con without knowing the impersonator's name. Michel Ciment notes this hoax was not difficult as Kubrick had been both very reclusive and bearded for the past 20 years, and Conway had no beard claiming to have recently shorn it off. When Kubrick was informed by his lawyer, Kubrick was said to be fascinated, while his wife Christiane was mortified. Conway was tracked down in part through the efforts of Kubrick's personal assistant Anthony Frewin, who went on to write the screenplay for the 2006 film Colour Me Kubrick based on these incidents starring John Malkovich as Conway.

---

See also: 2001: A Space Odyssey (film) § Mock hoaxes and Conspiracy_Theory

In the mid-1990s, a con artist named Alan Conway convinced several people in the entertainment industry that he was Stanley Kubrick, promised them roles in forthcoming films, and promised exclusive interviews to journalists. Kubrick's own noted reclusiveness dates from the mid-1970s, so by the mid-90s relatively few people knew what Stanley Kubrick looked like. When Kubrick's lawyer informed him of this, Kubrick was said to be fascinated by the idea, while his wife Christiane was mortified. This series of incidents was the basis for the 2006 film Colour Me Kubrick starring John Malkovich as Conway.

In 2002, the French film maker William Karel (after initially planning a straight documentary on Stanley Kubrick) directed a hoax mockumentary about Kubrick and the NASA moon landing entitled Dark Side of the Moon. He had the cooperation of Kubrick's surviving family and some NASA personnel (all of whom appear using scripted lines) and using recycled footage of members of the Nixon administration taken out of context. The film purported to demonstrate that the NASA moon landings had been faked and that the moon landing footage had been directed by Stanley Kubrick during the production of 2001: A Space Odyssey. When the film was shown to a group of undergraduate sociology students taking a course on conspiracy theories, many of them mistakenly believed that this was an earnest and serious film. Furthermore, moon-landing hoax advocate Wayne Green cited the film as evidence for his views apparently believing the excerpts of interviews with Henry Kissinger, Alexander Haig, etc. (taken out of context in the film) were really talking about a moon landing hoax. Nonetheless, the second half of the film contains several giveaways that the entire film is a hoax in jest. Australian broadcaster SBS television aired the film on April 1 as an April fools' joke, and again on 17 November 2008 as part of Kubrick week.

An 1995 article promoting a similar mock hoax about Kubrick faking the Apollo landing also deceived many readers (in the sense of their believing the author was a bona fide conspiracy theorist). The article was posted originally on the Usenet humor news group 'alt.humor.best-of-usenet', but later reproduced in other venues not devoted to humor. The original article (with correct attribution) can be read at "www.clavius.org", a website devoted to debunking moon landing hoax theories.

An entirely sincere documentary film making the same claim as Karel's "mockumentary" was released in 2011 by conspiracy theorist and occultist Jay Weidner entitled Kubrick's Odyssey: Secrets Hidden in the Films of Stanley Kubrick; Part One: Kubrick and Apollo. The film was self-released on DVD by Weidner's company "Sacred Mysteries". The science magazine Discovery reviewed an earlier article by Weidner on which the film was based as "bunk" but "oddly compelling" and "strangely fascinating".

Another recurring conspiracy theory surrounding Stanley Kubrick is that he was a secret member of a massive Freemason-Illuminati organization and hid clues of its existence in most of his films. Theorists claim Kubrick disclosed too much in Eyes Wide Shut and was subsequently assassinated. This theory has been proposed in various forms at conspiracy theorist Alex Jones's website "Prison Planet", at "Wake up From your Slumber", and by Kent Bentkowski at his "Kentroversy Papers" website.Cracked.com listed this as #1 in their list of 5 Absurd (But Mind Blowing) Pop Culture Conspiracy Theories.

Kubrick Family in Moon Landing Mockumentary Film

Moved the following two sections here since they are out of place for multiple reasons: 1) Each section is a major heading in the TOC, making it appear equal in significance to section 1, Biography. 2) They are both related to the massive Hoaxes and Conspiracy stuff earlier which maybe someone can find some new section for. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I think I intended these to be at the tail end of the bio section. This is all that remains of the Hoaxes and Conspiracies stuff. Maybe they can be grouped together. It's really a matter now of just finding the correct location of this stuff in the article, unless it is dropped altogether, IMO.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

You're right, this stuff shouldn't have major headers (equal in importance to bio), but I can't seen any good subsection for it other than "Legacy" (an imperfect choice) or grouping them together under a new main section on "conspiracy theories". Again, it's really a question of just finding the right place, unless it is dropped.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

---

In 2002, with the cooperation of Kubrick's surviving family, the French film maker William Karel (after initially planning a straight documentary on Stanley Kubrick) directed a hoax mockumentary about Kubrick and the NASA moon landing entitled Dark Side of the Moon. The film purported to demonstrate that the NASA moon landings had been faked and that the moon landing footage had been directed by Stanley Kubrick during the production of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Karel also had the co-operation of some NASA personnel (all of whom appear using scripted lines) and used recycled footage of staff of President Richard Nixon. Among many giveaways (mainly in the second half) that the entire film is a hoax in jest, there interviews with people named after characters in Kubrick films, such as a film producer named "Jack Torrance". Nonetheless, when the film was shown to a group of sociology students studying conspiracy theories, many mistakenly believed that this was a sincere and serious film. Furthermore, moon-landing hoax advocate Wayne Green cited the film as evidence for his views, apparently believing the out of context footage of Nixon staff was really about a moon landing hoax. Australian broadcaster SBS television aired the film on April 1 as an April fools' joke, and again on 17 November 2008 as part of Kubrick week.

An earlier 1995 tongue-in-cheek article promoting essentially the same mock hoax about Kubrick also deceived many readers. It was originally posted on the Usenet humor news group 'alt.humor.best-of-usenet', but later reproduced in venues not devoted to parody.

Earnest Kubrick Conspiracy Theories

An entirely sincere documentary film making the same claim as Karel's parodic "mockumentary" was self-released on DVD in 2011 by conspiracy theorist and occultist Jay Weidner entitled Kubrick's Odyssey: Secrets Hidden in the Films of Stanley Kubrick; Part One: Kubrick and Apollo. The science magazine Discovery reviewed an earlier article by Weidner on which his film was based as "bunk" but "oddly compelling" and "strangely fascinating".

Another recurring conspiracy theory surrounding Stanley Kubrick is that he was a secret member of a massive Freemason-Illuminati organization and hid clues of its existence in many of his films. Theorists claim Kubrick disclosed too much in Eyes Wide Shut and was subsequently assassinated. Cracked.com listed this as #1 in their list of 5 Absurd (But Mind Blowing) Pop Culture Conspiracy Theories. Although the book The Complete Idiot's Guide to the New World Order claims to be skeptical of the actual conspiracy theories, it takes at face value the claim that Masonic symbolism is woven into Eyes Wide Shut.

Chief innovations in technique

The subsection below is placed here since most of it is presented in a style unrelated to "Legacy." It's packed with minutia about hardware, mostly redundant from an earlier section, and should be summarized. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

---

Kubrick's most notable innovations in filmmaking technique are arguably:

1) The usage of slit-scan photography to create the StarGate sequence in 2001: A Space Odyssey. Previously used to create image distortions or blurriness, Kubrick and special-effects supervisor Douglas Trumbull pioneered the use of slit-scan to achieve a sophisticated animation, by photographing backlit transparencies of brightly colored floral designs. This earned Kubrick his only personal Oscar, awarded for special effects.

A similar technique was subsequently used to create the 1970s title sequence of the television series Doctor Who.

2) The perfection of front-screen projection technology in the Dawn of Man sequence in 2001: A Space Odyssey. These scenes were filmed in a studio with a projector to one side projecting an image of an African desert (actually filmed in Spain) which bounced off a polished plate of glass at a 45 degree angle in front of the camera, and was projected against a highly reflective screen made of Scotchlite at the back of the studio. The projector and camera had to be closely aligned so that the camera would not pick up the shadows of the actors against the back-projected images. Front projection had been used before Space Odyssey on the Japanese film Matango on its yacht scenes, but was first used on a large scale in Space Odyssey. For such a large-scale scene, Kubrick did not believe that matting or rear-projection would create a sufficiently realistic effect. Kubrick built a special 8x10 projector for this sequence. The technique is discussed in detail in an article in American Cinematographer.

Front-screen projection was used after Kubrick on the James Bond film On Her Majesty's Secret Service and in Superman for the flying scenes.

3) Kubrick used an ultrafast Zeiss lens made for NASA (for spy satellites) to photograph the candlelight scenes in Barry Lyndon using only actual candlelight as a light source. In an interview with Michel Ciment, Kubrick relates how he felt that most films containing a scene with candlelight looked phony. There was an artificial off-camera light source that flickered to create the appearance of candlelight. However, many paintings from the 19th century captured the visual texture of a scene in candlelight more realistically, and it was this effect Kubrick wished to achieve.

4) The Shining was among the first half-dozen films to use the then-revolutionary Steadicam (after the 1976 films Bound for Glory, Marathon Man and Rocky), and was Kubrick's first use of it. This is a stabilizing mount for a movie camera, which mechanically separates the operator's movement from the camera's, allowing smooth tracking shots while the operator is moving over an uneven surface. It essentially combines the stabilized steady footage of a regular mount with the fluidity and flexibility of a handheld camera. The inventor of the Steadicam, Garrett Brown, was heavily involved with the production. Brown published an article in American Cinematographer about his experience, and contributed to the audio commentary on the 2007 DVD release of The Shining. Brown describes his excitement taking his first tour of the sets which offered "further possibilities for the Steadicam". This tour convinced Brown to become personally involved with the production. Kubrick was not "just talking of stunt shots and staircases". Rather he would use the Steadicam "as it was intended to be used - as a tool which can help get the lens where it's wanted in space and time without the classic limitations of the dolly and crane."

Response from critics

This section is moved here pending rationale for inclusion under Legacy section. It's logical to include comments by others about Kubrick and the legacy his films gave the industry. However, most of the text is related to specific films, and therefore belong in the film's article. Most of the comments, IMO, also seem to overly accentuate negative impressions by random film reviewers, with overly-long paragraphs over-weighted with cherry-picked comments, few of which have any bearing on "legacy." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree with all of this.--WickerGuy (talk) 20:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments.

There are really three sections to this

The first section is about an overall (negative) pattern on the part of highly prominent New York critics Sarris and Kael (Unlike Ebert who alternately gave SK's films positive and negative reviews, AS and PK were consistently dismissive). Their comments on specific films might be trimmable. Kael's comment on EWS is IMO notable for being made long after she retired.

Second section (two paragraphs) may be overly long but Dublin critic Lynch and Merrill are commenting on Kubrick's work as a whole (Both are simultaneously both praising SK and speaking ill) and should up to a point be retained . (Lynch is quite well-known in Ireland, if not in America. Merrill is a slightly more arbitrary choice. His views echo Lynch.) This second section contains no critique of specific films, but the quotes might be overlong.

The final section opens remarks with how opinion is divided on SK but is mostly about the frequent shift of opinion on SK's films usually from initially negative reception to subsequent positive reception. (The transition from one to the other is very awkward re the writing.) Odyssey and Shining are cited specifically as examples of a broader trend. Perhaps their role as examples could be made clearer. In general this last section is the most desperately in need of rewriting.

We're lacking a critic who consistently praises Kubrick all the time, but I don't really know of any off hand.

My next edit will be a proposed rewrite placed here, below old version.--WickerGuy (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: rewrite, I agree it flows better. However, it's mostly a rearrangement of the cherries, but they still taste just as sour. Giving 100-word quotes by mostly unknown commentators like Paul Lynch, Tim Merrill, and Ronnie Lankford creates filler only. I'm not sure that their quotes would even be of value to a blogger. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

WW, Paul Lynch is actually very well-known in Ireland!!!!! Wrote for the now-defunct but once-huge Sunday Tribune and still writes for half-a-dozen other major Irish papers, and and served on the jury twice of the Jameson Dublin International Film Festival. Here's his personal website [10]. Merrill writes for Film Threat, an underground webzine which mainly covers independent film and likes to cop an attitude. I chose him more because he seemed to succinctly summarize in a nutshell what some others think, but I agree Merrill is not per se notable. Lankford is making a summary historical observation about other critics, not stating his own view!! Lankford is mainly a writer and teacher of music, and writes reviews of documentary films as a sideline. The quote comes from his review of the documentary Stanley Kubrick: A Life in Pictures. Of the three, I think Merrill is the most dispensable, but I strongly hold that Lynch's lack of exposure in the USA should not count against him.

In general, the quotes were chosen to cover three bases. 1) Great mesmerizing photography, but cold narrative (Lynch). 2) Kubrick's films are worth repeated viewing- one always sees new things in them (Merrill) and 3) Earlier negative reviews of Kubrick tend to be forgotten in the wake of later glowing reviews (Lankford).

Back to the keyboard.--WickerGuy (talk) 22:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Addendum

Ronnie Lankford also writes a LOT of book reviews, for multiple print magazines, although his film reviews appear only online at "documentaryfilms.net". He is arguably far better known as a book reviewer and musician than as a film reviewer. Still, he's really summarizing the history of other critics.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Addendum 2

I now recall that I used the Tim Merrill quote because it is from what I think is the single best review of Spielberg's film A.I. I ever read, certainly containing the most in-depth analysis of how that film mixes and melds (sometimes without success) the sensibilities of Kubrick and Spielberg I have ever seen. It's just a hugely intelligent review! I honestly don't see the problem with quoting it at least more briefly.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Addendum 3

The "who" template is meant to be used when no source is given at all, saying "some people", not for when a sources reliability or notability is being questioned.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Addendum 4

My quote from Paul Lynch (exactly as I abridged it) was used as the header of a web-collection of Kubrick moving gif images at filmmakeriq.com [11], which has been reproduced in other places with slightly different images in some. I guess someone found it notable.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Addendum 5

Merrill's venue Film Threat went from print to web only in 1997, but has announced this summer it is once again going to have a print edition, apparently first issue was planned for this past September. They are still considered a primary lead source of news and reviews on independent and underground cinema (they noticed reviewed Quentin Tarantino before anyone else did) if not necessarily mainstream cinema. It was announced last summer (2010) at the Sundance Film Festival that they were sold to a new owner in for quite a high sum--WickerGuy (talk) 00:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

In summary

The purpose of this section is to cover a wide range of reactions to Kubrick as possible. It could be supplemented with material from Roger Ebert's panel discussion of four film critics that he did on his show right after SK's death. I'm not sure this is cherry-picking, since that term is usually indicates skewing evidence to just one point of view, and I was trying to cover the spectrum of views.

Paul Lynch is one of Ireland's top film critics, even if he is unknown in the USA. (member of Dublin Film Critics circle & jury member of Dublin Film Festival and his reviews appear in about half-a-dozen prominent Irish papers). The quote from Lynch has already made it into some other blogs, abridged exactly the way I did here, so it was probably taken from here. Ww, you're just wrong in doubting the quote "would even be of value to a blogger". It's been picked up by more than one blogger already!!!!

Merrill's venue, Film Threat, is considered one of the leading sources of info and criticism on independent non-mainstream cinema, although Merrill is not himself a well-known name.

Lankford is just summarizing the history of criticism, not expositing his own views.

I just don't see what's wrong with using these people. Maybe we need more of the folks from Ebert's panel (all of whom are based in Chicago) or the guys on the panel discussion at moviegeeks--WickerGuy (talk) 03:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm of the total opposite opinion of your summation: The purpose of this section is to cover a wide range of reactions to Kubrick as possible. I don't believe this is remotely possible for Kubrick. Thousands of reviews in leading publications are made for each of his films. There are books about just his films. There are movies about Kubrick with interviews by known experts and people who knew and worked with him. So why are we filling the section up with 100-word quotes by relative unknowns, like underground film webzine writers and music teachers?

I don't really think it makes sense to have any section titled "Response from critics." If the "response" is to films, and made by notable reviewers, they should be kept with the film's article. Otherwise, they should be left out, IMO. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, first of all, numerous critics have made general comments about Kubrick's work as a whole (including the three I am citing- two of the three are in articles specifically about SKs work as a whole and the third is from a review of AI), and other critics (especially the negative Sarris and Kael) were extremely consistent in their response to Kubrick over the years, and Sarris also made remarks characterizing SKs work as a whole. True, there is no comparable section in the WP articles for most film directors (not even the critic-dividing David Lynch), but a notable exception in WP is Steven Spielberg#Praise and criticism which I think is a model of the right way to do it. That section quotes both some prominent critics (like Kael) and some relatively obscure ones (such as Ray Carney). This section could use some more prominent commentators, but I picked them because they seemed to embody/exemplify and neatly sum up broader critical trends about SK (and were well-written- Merrill's whole essay is IMO superb), not because of their prominence. The section could be improved if we could get quotes from Kubrick experts that sum up the sweep of critical opinion (experts who have mulled over hundreds of reviews), rather than just our own isolated picks of who seems to sum them up. But I certainly think a section like this is doable.--WickerGuy (talk) 08:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, as an example of what Lankford is saying, it could be noted that both Ebert and Sarris did a radical about face on a Kubrick movie (Sarris on Odyssey & Ebert on Shining). Again, Lankford is generalizing about other critics.--WickerGuy (talk) 14:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Ultimately, the weakness of this section is that it fails to really establish (via expert opinion) that the sample quotes are exemplars of broader trends (though I think they are). However, if that can be done, then I think re the above mentioned Steven Spielberg#Praise and criticism a section of this kind can be put in the article.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

---

Many of Kubrick's films initially received lukewarm reviews, only to be hailed as major and seminal classics decades later. Film critic Andrew Sarris was consistently highly dismissive of Kubrick, often considering him as impersonal and misanthropic. In his 1968 book, The American Cinema, Sarris said Kubrick had "a naive faith in the power of images to transcend fuzzy feelings and vague ideas". Pauline Kael was more positive towards Kubrick's earlier work (giving one of the most glowing reviews of anyone of Lolita), but shared Sarris' view of his latter films. She derided A Clockwork Orange as being exploitative and as inverting Burgess' meaning", and criticized The Shining for being a cheat with "static dialogues" lacking the " scary fun or mysterious beauty" of other horror films, but instead being obsessed with metaphysical issues that she felt bogged the film down. Long after she retired she publicly denounced Kubrick's final film Eyes Wide Shut as utterly ludicrous, although in the same interview she defended Kubrick's Lolita as far better than the 1998 remake.

Dublin-based film critic Paul Lynch both commends the arresting power of Kubrick's images while concerned that Kubrick has an unfeeling ivory-tower approach to life. In the same essay, he wrote both

With colour, Kubrick found an alacrity and an arrest in his images that began to transcend the subject material of his stories...Those widescreen shots seem to push the natural boundaries of the screen, to absorb every photon of light. Kubrick wanted to do to his audiences what he did to Alex in A Clockwork Orange: to peel back our eyelids until we are forced to see every beam from the projector. He did not want us to blink... There is a cold pedantry to his work, an unfeeling, ivory-tower vantage that, when married to the analytical care he took with his craft, can leave you feeling a little cold towards his films.

Acknowledging Andrew Sarris' above-quoted dismissal of Kubrick's over-reliance on images, Lynch acknowledges that the images indeed are, profoundly potent.

Film Threat's Tim Merrill is more generous stating

Kubrick probably created a higher percentage of masterpieces than almost any other director; he only made thirteen features in his lifetime, after all. One never fails to revisit his films, even the ones that may have seemed unworthy at the time of their release. Any Kubrick film is always worth watching again, even if only in pieces – there is something new to discover every time....We take for granted that every last one of Kubrick’s films was overflowing with big ideas, themes and questions.

Writer Mark Browning has noted that critics seem divided between those that consider him "immensely profound" or "just plain pretentious." Likewise, Tony Mills in the Sunday Times Book review said he is "depending on who you ask either the greatest film director since Orson Welles or...a hypnotically pretentious fake". Initially, Roger Ebert gave a poor review of The Shining which now Ebert has canonized in his series of reviews of great films. It has been argued that this frequent shift in opinion is due to the consistently idiosyncratic and unconventional character of his filmmaking style, and this also accounts for his enormous influence on the film community. (See section Opinions of filmmakers below.) Ronnie Lankford notes "It is fascinating, when reflecting upon Kubrick, how many times he made a seminal film." which approached subjects in a new way. In the same essay he writes,

...critical opinion has always lagged behind when it came to Kubrick. Look up 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) in the average movie guide. Most call it an innovative masterpiece and forget to mention that a number of critics hated the film when it was released. Kubrick’s films have often been groundbreaking, controversial, and misunderstood. But critics who dare to question his artistry usually have to eat their review.

As for Kubrick's own opinion of the critics, he once said: "I find a lot of critics misunderstand my films; probably everybody's films. Very few of them spend enough time thinking about them. They look at the film once, they don't really remember what they saw, and they write the review in an hour. I mean, one spent more time on a book report in school."

Proposed rewrite

[Not a lot of trimming in this rewrite, but it flows a lot better]

Kubrick's films have both divided critical opinion, and many of his films initially received lukewarm reviews, only to be hailed as major seminal masterpieces decades later. This frequent shift in opinion on specific films from has been attributed to the consistently idiosyncratic and unconventional character of his filmmaking style, which also accounts for his enormous influence on the film community. (See section Opinions of filmmakers below.) Writer Mark Browning has noted that critics seem divided between those that consider him "immensely profound" or "just plain pretentious." Likewise, Tony Mills in the Sunday Times Book Review said he is "depending on who you ask either the greatest film director since Orson Welles or...a hypnotically pretentious fake".

Kubrick's most consistent detractors were New York critics Andrew Sarris and Pauline Kael. Sarris often considered him as impersonal and misanthropic. In The American Cinema, he said Kubrick had "a naive faith in the power of images to transcend fuzzy feelings and vague ideas". Pauline Kael was more positive towards Kubrick's earlier work (giving one of the most glowing reviews found anywhere of Lolita), but shared Sarris' view of his latter films. She derided A Clockwork Orange as being exploitative and as inverting Burgess' meaning, and criticized The Shining for having "static dialogues" lacking the "scary fun or mysterious beauty" of other horror films, but instead being obsessed with metaphysics. Long after retiring, she publicly denounced Kubrick's final film Eyes Wide Shut as utterly ludicrous, although in the same interview she once again spoke well of Kubrick's Lolita.

Among those who simultaneously admire Kubrick and feel he has limitations is Dublin-based film critic Paul Lynch. He commends the arresting power of Kubrick's images while concerned that Kubrick has an unfeeling ivory-tower approach to life. He writes

With colour, Kubrick found an alacrity and an arrest in his images that began to transcend the subject material of his stories...Those widescreen shots seem to push the natural boundaries of the screen,...Kubrick wanted to do to his audiences what he did to Alex in A Clockwork Orange: to peel back our eyelids until we are forced to see every beam from the projector.... There is a cold pedantry to his work, an unfeeling, ivory-tower vantage that, when married to the analytical care he took with his craft, can leave you feeling a little cold towards his films.

Acknowledging Andrew Sarris' above-quoted dismissal of Kubrick's over-reliance on images, Lynch acknowledges that his images indeed are, profoundly potent.

Tim Merrill of Film Threat' is more generous than Lynch arguing both that Kubrick created great masterpieces and even his weaker films are always worth revisiting.

Kubrick probably created a higher percentage of masterpieces than almost any other director; he only made thirteen features in his lifetime, after all. One never fails to revisit his films, even the ones that may have seemed unworthy at the time of their release. Any Kubrick film is always worth watching again, even if only in pieces – there is something new to discover every time....We take for granted that every last one of Kubrick’s films was overflowing with big ideas, themes and questions.

Ronnie Lankford notes as Kubrick's work is re-assessed, earlier negative views of his films are often forgotten.

It is fascinating, when reflecting upon Kubrick, how many times he made a seminal film....critical opinion has always lagged behind when it came to Kubrick. Look up 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) in the average movie guide. Most call it an innovative masterpiece and forget to mention that a number of critics hated the film when it was released. Kubrick’s films have often been groundbreaking, controversial, and misunderstood. But critics who dare to question his artistry usually have to eat their review.

As for Kubrick's own opinion of the critics, he once said: "I find a lot of critics misunderstand my films; probably everybody's films. Very few of them spend enough time thinking about them. They look at the film once, they don't really remember what they saw, and they write the review in an hour. I mean, one spent more time on a book report in school."

Second proposed rewrite

Kubrick's films have both divided critical opinion, and many of his films initially received lukewarm reviews, only to be hailed as major seminal masterpieces decades later. Writer Mark Browning has noted that critics seem divided between those that consider him "immensely profound" or "just plain pretentious." Likewise, Tony Mills in the Sunday Times Book Review said he is "depending on who you ask either the greatest film director since Orson Welles or...a hypnotically pretentious fake". This frequent shift in opinion on specific films from has been attributed to the consistently idiosyncratic and unconventional character of his filmmaking style, which also accounts for his enormous influence on the film community. (See section Opinions of filmmakers below.)

Kubrick's most consistent detractors were New York critics Andrew Sarris and Pauline Kael. Sarris often considered him as impersonal and misanthropic. In The American Cinema, he said Kubrick had "a naive faith in the power of images to transcend fuzzy feelings and vague ideas". Pauline Kael was more positive towards Kubrick's earlier work (giving one of the most glowing reviews found anywhere of Lolita), but shared Sarris' view of his latter films. She derided A Clockwork Orange as being exploitative and as inverting Burgess' meaning, and criticized The Shining for having "static dialogues" lacking the "scary fun or mysterious beauty" of other horror films, but instead being obsessed with metaphysics. Long after retiring, she publicly denounced Kubrick's final film Eyes Wide Shut as utterly ludicrous, although in the same interview she once again spoke well of Kubrick's Lolita.

Among those who simultaneously admire Kubrick and feel he has limitations is Irish film critic Paul Lynch. Acknowledging Andrew Sarris' above-quoted dismissal of Kubrick's over-reliance on images, Lynch acknowledges that his images indeed are, profoundly potent and arresting, while expressing concern for Kubrick's "unfeeling ivory-tower approach to life. He writes "Kubrick wanted to do to his audiences what he did to Alex in A Clockwork Orange: to peel back our eyelids until we are forced to see every beam from the projector"

[Wikiwatcher1 is not really going to want to include this particular paragraph]

A more generous appraisal of Kubrick comes from the independent film review webzine Film Threat (in a review of AI). Tim Merrill argues both that Kubrick created great masterpieces and even his weaker films are always worth revisiting.

Kubrick probably created a higher percentage of masterpieces than almost any other director; he only made thirteen features in his lifetime, after all. One never fails to revisit his films, even the ones that may have seemed unworthy at the time of their release. Any Kubrick film is always worth watching again, even if only in pieces – there is something new to discover every time....We take for granted that every last one of Kubrick’s films was overflowing with big ideas, themes and questions.

Notable about-faces regarding Kubrick's work were Andrew Sarris' initially negative dismissal of 2001: A Space Odyssey as pretentious and boring; he reversed his opinion on a second viewing. Similarly, Roger Ebert initially gave a negative review to The Shining on his television show, but now lists it on his "Great Movies" page. Likewise, Roger Ebert has noted a general shift of critical opinion on Barry Lyndon, writing ""Barry Lyndon," received indifferently in 1975, has grown in stature in the years since and is now widely regarded as one of the master's best"

Ronnie Lankford notes as Kubrick's work is re-assessed, earlier negative views of his films are often forgotten.

It is fascinating, when reflecting upon Kubrick, how many times he made a seminal film....critical opinion has always lagged behind when it came to Kubrick.[Concerning Space Odyssey...] most call it an innovative masterpiece and forget to mention that a number of critics hated the film when it was released. Kubrick’s films have often been groundbreaking, controversial, and misunderstood.

As for Kubrick's own opinion of the critics, he once said: "I find a lot of critics misunderstand my films; probably everybody's films. Very few of them spend enough time thinking about them. They look at the film once, they don't really remember what they saw, and they write the review in an hour. I mean, one spent more time on a book report in school."

Writing style

Writing style

Kubrick wrote or co-authored the screenplays to all of his films except for Fear and Desire (his first film) and Spartacus, but always adapted his screenplays from previously existing novels (except for Killer's Kiss). However, Kubrick was noted for often making moderate changes in characterization or plot structure which greatly altered the tone of the story. Notable changes from the source material in Kubrick's films include:

1. In Lolita, Kubrick omits all mention of Professor Humbert's previous infatuation with underage girls, makes the character of Lolita much older, and greatly expands the role of Clare Quilty, a much more perverse child molester than Humbert. This has the effect of making Humbert far more sympathetic. As a result of all three of these changes, Greg Jenkins writes "A story originally told from the edge of a moral abyss is fast moving toward safer ground"

2. Kubrick converted Peter George's straight Cold War thriller Red Alert into his macabre black comedy Dr. Strangelove and gave it an entirely different conclusion. He began to see comedy inherent in the idea of mutual assured destruction as he wrote the first draft, saying:

My idea of doing it as a nightmare comedy came in the early weeks of working on the screenplay. I found that in trying to put meat on the bones and to imagine the scenes fully, one had to keep leaving out of it things which were either absurd or paradoxical, in order to keep it from being funny; and these things seemed to be close to the heart of the scenes in question.

3. In A Clockwork Orange Kubrick made the writer victimized by Alex, F. Alexander, an elderly man speaking standard English, while in the book he is a very young political activist, who speaks the same odd slang as Alex and his droogs. In Burgess' novel, Mr. F. Alexander is a contemporary of Alex, while in Kubrick's film he is a contemporary of the Minister of the Interior whose legislation initiates the use of the brainwashing Ludovico technique.

4. The most discussed change in The Shining (and certainly the one most objected to by author Stephen King) is Kubrick's omission of Jack Torrance's return to sanity at the end of the novel, and relatively sympathetic character at the opening of the story. Kubrick also cut all hints that the hotel is itself sentient, while adding the element that the hotel was built on a Native American burial ground. The most famous scenes in the film, such as the revelation of the contents of Jack's book, the apparition of the twins in the hallway, Jack's encounter with the ghost of the dead woman in Room 237, and the chase through the hedge-maze have no counterpart in King's novel. Critic Mark Browning concludes that the King novel is about a haunted house, but Kubrick's film is about a haunted man.

5. In adapting The Short-Timers into Full Metal Jacket, Kubrick expanded the material set in boot camp, which is about 20% of the novel, into fully half of the film. Many viewers find this early material the most memorable in the film. Richard Jenkins believes this is consistent with Kubrick's general desire to explode the standard narrative conventions of film, as this results in the film appearing to be two short stories with the same characters told back-to-back.

6. In adapting Traumnovelle into Eyes Wide Shut, Kubrick shifted the story from Vienna in the 1900s to New York City in the 1990s. In the novel, the husband and wife are Jews in a very conservative and anti-Semitic city, while in the film the husband is a fairly conventional WASP upper-middle-class professional in contemporary New York City. In the novel, the secret society upon which the husband stumbles is quite small, whereas in the film it encompasses a large section of the city's social elite. Kubrick has also significantly altered both the events at the mansion party and in the wife's dream as to notably change the tenor and mood of the story. Critic Randy Rasmussen suggests that the character of Bill is fundamentally more naïve, strait-laced, less disclosing and more unconscious of his vindictive motives than his counterpart, Fridolin.

In a book-length study of how Kubrick adapts novels to the screen, writer Greg Jenkins derives the following generalizations about Kubrick's screenplays:

1. Regardless of how a novel may begin, Kubrick launches his adaptation of it with a heavily visual sequence that immediately and purposefully seizes our attention.
2. Where it suits his purpose, Kubrick expunges parts of the original, including some characters, episodes, and swatches of dialogue.
3. Addressing himself to the portion of the narrative that remains, Kubrick distorts, reorders, and conflates many of its components.
4. Although skilled with words, Kubrick is equally skilled with and devoted to images, and he tells his stories as visually as possible.
5. In general, Kubrick lowers the amount and intensity of violence found in the original.
6. As Kubrick remakes the original narrative, he tends, with some exceptions, to simplify it.
7. Kubrick makes his heroes more virtuous than the novels' and his villains more wicked.
8. Predominately, Kubrick imbues his films with a morality that is more conventional than the novels'.
9. Kubrick's films are more obviously laced with moments of moderate-to-high drama than are the source materials.
10. From time to time, though it countervails his mainly reductive thrust, Kubrick expands one or more aspects of the original narrative.
11. Now and then, Kubrick invents his own material outright, and imposes it on the new narrative.

Most of this stuff repeats things that are already discussed under the individual films. IMO, anything here that is deemed important enough should go in the section under the appropriate film. A writing style section might be nice, but as it is, this section doesn't add much. A lot of this stuff just common sense, and it applies to any film adaptations of novels, so it doesn't seem to be relevant to Kubrick. Puddytang (talk) 21:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I rolled some stuff from Lolita, Dr. Strangelove, and the Shining back into the discussions of the films. I'd like to put some of the stuff from Full Metal Jacket back in, but I'm concerned that it is innaccurate because the citation seems to point to Greg Jenkins, but the text says Richard Jenkins Puddytang (talk) 22:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)