I agree with Kubrick
When Spielberg asked Stanley Kubrick what he thought of 1941, Kubrick said it was "Great, but not funny." That says it all. Awesome to look at...funny as a migraine.
share... and he definitely wasn't kidding.
share
MovieChat Forums > 1941 (1979) Discussion > I agree with Kubrick
Yeah, Kubrick was well known for his comedies.
1 if you count Strangelove
You don't have to stand tall, but you do have to stand up!
And you've made exactly zero comedies, yet you still have an opinion... huh.
shareAnd you've made exactly zero comedies, yet you still have an opinion... huh.
Dr Strangelove is a comedy.
A Clockwork Orange, The shining and Full Metal Jacket are hilarious. I shouldn't laugh but I do. One thing about Stanley, he had a wicked sense of humour. share
One thing about Stanley, he had a wicked sense of humour.
____________________
If The Shining was supposed to be a masterpiece of modern horror, and this was Kubrick's own claim on his film apparently, why would he want his audience to laugh at it, when the intention was to scare? The thing is, Kubrick failed.
Now I find Barry Lyndon-75', to have a dry and wicked sense of humor to it and this was deliberate.
Don't eat the whole ones! Those are for the guests. 🍪
If The Shining was supposed to be a masterpiece of modern horror, and this was Kubrick's own claim on his film apparently, why would he want his audience to laugh at it, when the intention was to scare? The thing is, Kubrick failed.
I've never heard Stanley call The Shining a masterpiece of Horror but is it not better than the Stephen King endorsed remake? I feel the Shining is a masterpiece full stop. I laugh because of the constant bullying of Shelley Duvall and because she is so ugly. I would even go so far as to call her performance weak but it adds to the charm of the film. Nicholson is insane in this role and he makes me laugh just like I do when I watch One flew Over The Cuckoos Nest.
Check out the documentary called Room 237 and all the others on YouTube talking about Kubrick's use of symbolism in The Shining. These are very interesting though some of it I would take with a pinch of salt.
I think the true masterpieces of horror are Jaws (1975) Halloween (1978) Alien (1979) The Fog (1980) The Thing (1982) Silence of the Lambs (1990) Se7en (1995) 8mm (1999).
Now I find Barry Lyndon-75', to have a dry and wicked sense of humor to it and this was deliberate.
I find most of Kubrick's film have a wicked sense of humor. I wish he was still here today and perhaps making Napoleon with the technology we have today.
And just so you know I love a good Spielberg as much as I do a Kubrick. share
A poster on The Shining threads had made a citation about the masterpiece of modern horror tag being something that Kubrick was advised against doing by a studio exec, even before it opened. I think it was quoted in an interview with Clint Eastwood. I can try and find it if you like.
I don't care for The Shining much at all as a horror film or as a Kubrick film. I find it quite average and in spite of your comment about Shelly Duvall, I think she is the best thing about the picture and a wonderful actress.
Room 237 is an interesting doco, but yes, I take most of it with a grain of salt.
Kubrick did have a dry, black and wicked sense of humor in his films. He at the very least had his own style and stamp of Kubrick control on his films and that is what makes them interesting.
Don't eat the whole ones! Those are for the guests. 🍪
Check out the documentary called Room 237 and all the others on YouTube talking about Kubrick's use of symbolism in The Shining.If the audience does not see the supposed symbolism, nor cares, whats the point? He's only performing mental-masturbation. Or, "if a tree falls in the forest, and nobody hears it, does it make a noise?"
share
Well, Spielberg reciprocated the lukewarm response when he saw The Shining a few months later. When Kubrick asked Spielberg what he thought of it, Spielberg tried to think of all the nice things to say about it, but Kubrick could tell he was holding something back. He finally got Him to admit he thought Jack Nicholson's performance was too hammy and over the top. Unphased, Kubrick explained why he thought Nicholson's performance was great and exactly what he intended. Spielberg now cites it as one of his favorite films.
share"Jack Nicholson's performance was too hammy and over the top."
Probab the main reason why so many remembers this movie. If he was toned down, i don't think it would be as big as it is.
Exactly! Only a cinephile would see a film because of the director and there are more people out there that go to see a film for the actor than the director. How many people could care that Stanley Kubrick directed The Shining or recollect the other films he had done before, or even cared for that matter?
1941 was promoted on the coattails of Spielberg's Jaws and Close Encounters, but even then how many would many would have cared? They either want to see the film or not due to appeal value. Horror, like The Shining, has a more limited appeal unlike a comedy like 1941 which did far better business outside of the paranoid US.
Don't eat the whole ones! Those are for the guests. 🍪
You are right. Back when The Shining were made, director's weren't as known because of lack of Internet. I doubt any of them were much in interviews on EU TV channels too.
The only worldwide famous "thing" about The Shining on release, were Jack Nicholson.
1941 never became as big as The Shining, but maybe would if it were made 5 years later.
One of the first directors to sell movies on his name alone, were Steven Spielberg.
His name is also in many movies he weren't involved it, so they could do better on release than without his name on poster/cover.
In 1980's there was a common thought. If Spielberg name were on the cover, it had to be good. ;)
Yes, Nicolson and perhaps even the popularity of author Stephen King would have been the main reason to go and see The Shining and not Kubrick.
While 1941 cost $35mill to make and The Shining $19mill, they were both considered relative flops, and I don't think either of them had passed the $100mill mark. 1941 is listed as making around $92mill worldwide, The Shining made about $44mill US domestic, so I'd say worldwide it could have doubled this gross. I think 1941 still has a fair cult following for those into zany comedies and interested in Spielberg's earlier works, whereas The Shining is sold up as being part of the Kubrick oeuvre of cinema, rather than relying on King or Nicholson's names now.
Don't eat the whole ones! Those are for the guests. 🍪
The Shining became a success in 1980's in europe, so i guess it earned alot of money outside USA too.
Its a classic, but as you say. Now its a Kubrick movie, and not King/Nicolson which it were back then.
The shining were renamed here on release. Translates to "The hotel of evil" or something to make it a easier sell. Back then "The Shining" wouldn't be a seller name.
the last 2 decades, 95% of all American movies kept their original titles no matter what they are named. This makes it less confusing.
It was a bad thing when a movie on home video had different name from cinema, so it looked like they were two different movies.
Kubrick said it was "Great, but not funny." That says it all.
_______________________
Considering his The Shining was neither "great" or "scary", I would be hard pressed to give Kubrick's comments credence. At the very least, 1941 had a genuine sense of spontaneity to it that Kubrick's controlled and self-important manipulating productions lack. It took 7 months for Spielberg to shoot his epic and elaborate comedy. It would have taken Kubrick 7 yrs.
Don't eat the whole ones! Those are for the guests. 🍪