Dear Filippo Ulivieri,
First and foremost, let me express my gratitude for the research you have done on Kubrick and the clarity with which you have presented it. It is the best thing have read in some time on Kubrick and something that helps me see the man in a clearer, if not newer, light. Somewhen within you seemed apologetic about your struggles with the English language, not the langue you were brought up with. You write clearly. To write a simple and clear sentence is one of the great challenges of any writer. You do that in a second language. I am impressed
First and foremost, let me express my gratitude for the research you have done on Kubrick and the clarity with which you have presented it. It is the best thing have read in some time on Kubrick and something that helps me see the man in a clearer, if not newer, light. Somewhen within you seemed apologetic about your struggles with the English language, not the langue you were brought up with. You write clearly. To write a simple and clear sentence is one of the great challenges of any writer. You do that in a second language. I am impressed
My first encounter with Kubrick movies was early in 1958 when three buddies and I from Birmingham-Southern College drove downtown to see a movie. A war movie! Let’s see that. It was at the old Lyric Theater, not among the top movie houses in Birmingham. We emerged in a state of shock. It was unlike any war movie we had ever seen. Actually, it was unlike any other movie we had ever seen. We loved it. If love is the right word.
Yes, that dates me. I was born in 1939, some 38 years before you. The upside of being this old is that I was able to see Kubrick’s work in Real Time.
But to return to, or get to, point. Your book.
I much appreciated your deconstruction of the Kubrick Mythology. I had assumed for manty years that such existed. I had figured out that SK had a mask, a disguise, an invented persona. Maybe some truth in it, but not pure truth. I like your discussion of how it was a self-constructed myth. So many directors did so. And not just directors. Faulkner. Garcia-Marquez. Pynchon. Salinger. I knew that what one saw on the surface was just that. Not the person. The image of the “true” Kubrick I get from your book is close to what I had imagined. I’m grateful to you for helping clear out some of the clutter.
I like your approach throughout. Research. Documentation. Don’t be distracted by revealed truth and opinion. Follow the facts, to the degree they can be determined. This really pays off in the section on the three writers vs. Kubrick, most especially in the one dealing with Frederic Raphael. I was most impressed with the careful way in which you examined Raphael’s big book on the matter and all other writings and interviews to find much of value in spite of the disdain in which Raphael is usually held. I thought you did a great job in recounting the Kubrick family’s dismay and reaction and while understanding where it came from not being seduced by it. I strongly suspect that had Kubrick still been alive he would have insisted on no response, as tended to be his default mode.
Your portrayal of a genius who used script and idea as a starting point to finding the work as he went along reminds me of Terrence Malick, another of my idols. For years I had sensed a kinship between the two, but I couldn’t explain why. Now that seems clearer in my mind.
The two Kubrick movies after Paths of Glory that give me the most trouble are Lolita and Eyes Wide Shut. That earlier one is filled with greatness but leaves me unsatisfied. I think my problem with Eyes Wide Shut is that Kubrick, as you mention, was not around for those last four months. My sense is that he kept on tinkering almost up to the time of release and sometimes beyond. I think of 2001 and The Shining. I will ever be grateful that I got to see the longer cuts of both. Although personally I preferred the longer cuts, I can see why they were shortened, and that shortening does not damage either. I think in both cases the cutting reflects his attention to both his studio and his public. As you say, he was not isolated from either.
I love Kubrick. I love Stephen King. I came to the latter in Real Time too, starting with Carrie. Whenever I talk or write about The Shining, I am always careful to label it as Kubrick’s or King’s. They are different beasts. I can understand, always did, why King became upset. Of course he protested too long and too much. But really, he should be grateful to Kubrick. Kubrick took his novel seriously. Until then King tended to be dismissed as a mere popular or hack writer. After this movie critics began taking his books more seriously. If Kubrick did, we can too! The movie, in spite of King’s dislike, helped break through that barrier.
Upcoming for me: watching Eyes Wide Shut again. Of course I have it on DVD, but I note that it is popping up on Turner Classic Movies now!
I’m fairly certain I saw S Is for Stanley some years back, but I’d like to see it again. It is apparently not available for streaming, and it is not listed on Amazon. So far, the only copy I’ve located on YouTube is in Italian with no subtitles, and my Italian is limited to a few items on menus. If you have any thoughts, send them.
I am so glad to have encountered your book!
All best wishes.
Jonathan May
Yes, that dates me. I was born in 1939, some 38 years before you. The upside of being this old is that I was able to see Kubrick’s work in Real Time.
But to return to, or get to, point. Your book.
I much appreciated your deconstruction of the Kubrick Mythology. I had assumed for manty years that such existed. I had figured out that SK had a mask, a disguise, an invented persona. Maybe some truth in it, but not pure truth. I like your discussion of how it was a self-constructed myth. So many directors did so. And not just directors. Faulkner. Garcia-Marquez. Pynchon. Salinger. I knew that what one saw on the surface was just that. Not the person. The image of the “true” Kubrick I get from your book is close to what I had imagined. I’m grateful to you for helping clear out some of the clutter.
I like your approach throughout. Research. Documentation. Don’t be distracted by revealed truth and opinion. Follow the facts, to the degree they can be determined. This really pays off in the section on the three writers vs. Kubrick, most especially in the one dealing with Frederic Raphael. I was most impressed with the careful way in which you examined Raphael’s big book on the matter and all other writings and interviews to find much of value in spite of the disdain in which Raphael is usually held. I thought you did a great job in recounting the Kubrick family’s dismay and reaction and while understanding where it came from not being seduced by it. I strongly suspect that had Kubrick still been alive he would have insisted on no response, as tended to be his default mode.
Your portrayal of a genius who used script and idea as a starting point to finding the work as he went along reminds me of Terrence Malick, another of my idols. For years I had sensed a kinship between the two, but I couldn’t explain why. Now that seems clearer in my mind.
The two Kubrick movies after Paths of Glory that give me the most trouble are Lolita and Eyes Wide Shut. That earlier one is filled with greatness but leaves me unsatisfied. I think my problem with Eyes Wide Shut is that Kubrick, as you mention, was not around for those last four months. My sense is that he kept on tinkering almost up to the time of release and sometimes beyond. I think of 2001 and The Shining. I will ever be grateful that I got to see the longer cuts of both. Although personally I preferred the longer cuts, I can see why they were shortened, and that shortening does not damage either. I think in both cases the cutting reflects his attention to both his studio and his public. As you say, he was not isolated from either.
I love Kubrick. I love Stephen King. I came to the latter in Real Time too, starting with Carrie. Whenever I talk or write about The Shining, I am always careful to label it as Kubrick’s or King’s. They are different beasts. I can understand, always did, why King became upset. Of course he protested too long and too much. But really, he should be grateful to Kubrick. Kubrick took his novel seriously. Until then King tended to be dismissed as a mere popular or hack writer. After this movie critics began taking his books more seriously. If Kubrick did, we can too! The movie, in spite of King’s dislike, helped break through that barrier.
Upcoming for me: watching Eyes Wide Shut again. Of course I have it on DVD, but I note that it is popping up on Turner Classic Movies now!
I’m fairly certain I saw S Is for Stanley some years back, but I’d like to see it again. It is apparently not available for streaming, and it is not listed on Amazon. So far, the only copy I’ve located on YouTube is in Italian with no subtitles, and my Italian is limited to a few items on menus. If you have any thoughts, send them.
I am so glad to have encountered your book!
All best wishes.
Jonathan May
RSS Feed