Stanley Kubrick: A Life in Pictures (2001)

A Captivating View of the Artist

As an unabashed fan, I think this documentary of Kubrick's life and work is almost as good as his films. 'Nuff said. July 16, 2008

Fine as a portrait of a family man, but the definitive Kubrick doc has yet to be made

This is more of a polite remembrance by family, co-workers, and fellow directors than a critical commentary on Kubrick the man or director. It certainly succeeds in giving us a snapshot or two from Kubrick's family album and allowing us a glimpse of Kubrick the family man as opposed to Kubrick the filmaking machine, but I think whats missing is a sense of what makes him so unique as a director. A lot of people mention things like his unique use of tracking shots in Paths of Glory, and in The Shining but this doc is light on analysis and really sheds very little light on the reasons for Kubrick's massive & lasting impact on cinema.

I am a huge fan of Kubricks films. I count Lolita, Dr. Strangelove, 2001, A Clockwork Orange, & The Shining as among my favorite films. Buts its very difficult to pinpoint exactly what it is that makes a Kubrick film such a singular thing. I suppose what makes Lolita, Strangelove, Clockwork & The Shining so good is that, along with Kubrick being at the top of his game, these films also happen to feature excellent actors at the top of their game. One cannot imagine Strangelove without Peter Sellers or George C. Scott or Slim Pickens; one cannot imagine Clockwork without Malcolm McDowell; and one cannot imagine The Shining without Jack Nicholson. But some of the other films feature actors that seem poorly chosen. Ryan O'Neal was simply a bad cast for Barry Lyndon, and Tom Cruise was perhaps an odd choice to play the lead in Eyes Wide Shut. What this tells me is that even if everything else about a film is brilliantly conceived, if the actors aren't right the film just doesn't work. Thats obvious enough I suppose, but its especially obvious on a Kubrick film because there are so few of them, and therefore so much is at stake in each one. I am also tempted to say that the best Kubrick films are the ones that start with the best source material: Nabokov's Lolita, Southern's Dr. Stranglelove, Clarke's 2001, & Burgess' A Clockwork Orange. I think theres certainly an argument to be made there.

But what makes a Kubrick film a Kubrick film to me (and this quality is in both his most successful & least successful work) is the feeling that he is both a classicist & a nihilist at the same time. He is a classicist in that he values objectivity, the cold detached look that a cold detached thing like a camera can give. And he is a nihilist and by this I mean that his work conveys the idea that as humans we may try to assign meaning to things but that ultimately these attempts amount to nothing. His films are very attractively shot voids or vacuums where human meaning is overwhelmed by a feeling of insignificance. But, there is an undeniable attraction and beauty in Kubrick's vision. And a usefulness for it. Like going outside on a very cold day, it keeps the mind sharp.

But that kind of analysis/conjecture is not what you get with this documentary. What is here that is valuable and that maybe slightly changed my view of Kubrick is that Kubrick, although often viewed as a recluse, seems to have been at his best when most in touch with the popular imagination. Though the documentary doesn't really say anything negative about Kubrick, I couldn't help thinking that what made the later films less successful was the fact that the later ones were made by a man who was no longer in touch with the popular imagination. (By the way Truffaut has some fascinating things to say about the connection between an artists and the publics imagination.) For instance, I've grown to appreciate Eyes Wide Shut, but its certainly not a film that endears itself in any way, nor makes any attempt to connect with the viewer, in any way. Most people that do like the film tend to offer their interpretation of what Kubrick is doing in the film and make an argument for it. I suppose I remain unconvinced about the arguments I've heard about Kubrick's intention and the ultimate meaning of the film. I think possibly its a film about an artist meditating on the distance that art places between himself and actual life. Perhaps.

This documentary was made essentially to try and alter the publics perception of Kubrick, and it maybe accomplishes this PR goal. But I think theres a much deeper documentary to be made that explores the relationship between the art and the life and gives equal attention to each. For me this documentary is too reverent, and there's way too little analysis. It does not dig deep enough into the mind behind the films or the films themselves so it leaves one feeling vaguely dissatisfied.

June 14, 2008

Absolutely fascinating portrait of one of the greatest of film artists....

This is an absolutely fascinating documentary, not only for Kubrick afficinados, but for fans of art, cinema, and life itself. It's a very well made, entertaining, informative, and surprising film. The press/critics were fond of painting Kubrick with a massive brush, saying he was a nutcase/recluse who was afraid of germs and flies. It simply was never true. Kubrick just never liked talking to the press. That means he's quite sane and would rather concentrate on his filmmaking and his family. There's some wonderful home movies of him with his three daughters (especially charming is some footage of them banging away at the piano and instructing their father about life and things), and with his third wife who remained with him until he died, Christianne (a wonderful painter and the actress who sings the beautiful song at the end of Paths of Glory). There are many, many interviews with actors, technicians, assistants, and even composers. The most fascinating interview, at least to me, was the modern composer Gyorgy Ligeti, whose music was used in 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Shining, and Eyes Wide Shut (the piano music in that film was composed by him). The film, directed by Stanley's brother in law, Jan Harlan (and executive producer on many of his films), really opens the door to show a great artist and a family guy, not some madman screaming at the walls like Howard Hughes (Kubrick was often compared to Hughes by many critics). I always say the more I read about artists, the more I like them, and this film really is quite wonderful. I'm also glad that Warner Brothers released this on its own. Before, it was only available in one of their Kubrick box sets. For any fan of cinema, you really need to see this one. December 7, 2007

Portrait Of An Enigmatic Filmmaker

Stanley Kubrick is one of those film directors around whom speculation has always swirled. He was never comfortable in the Hollywood system; he chose, from 1960 until his death in 1999, to live and work in England; he rarely gave interviews; and in comparison to many other filmmakers, including those that admired him, he made relatively few movies. And yet, it is all those very things that made him a legend in his line of work. All of that, plus his close-knit family life, are explored in great detail in STANLEY KUBRICK: A LIFE IN PICTURES.

In this lengthy but fascinating documentary made by Kubrick's brother-in-law Jan Harlan, we get to see how Kubrick grew from a budding Bronx-born photographer at Look magazine into his early efforts at filmmaking; his relationship with producer James B. Harris that produced three stunning films (THE KILLING; PATHS OF GLORY; LOLITA); the frustrations of working on SPARTACUS, the only film of his that wasn't firmly under his hand; and the often difficult subject matter he chose to make films about. Fellow directors Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese, Alex Cox, and Woody Allen share their thoughts on Kubrick's iconoclastic brand of filmmaking, while collaborators like Michael Herr and Arthur C. Clarke share their experiences on working with him. And so many others here give us a glimpse into what made Kubrick tick, including his wife Christiane.

This documentary is about as thorough a portrait of a filmmaker as there has ever been, and that's no small feat given how enigmatic Kubrick often seemed to be. His view of humanity may not have been particularly ideal as he depicted it in his films, but that's because the reality of humanity is itself often not ideal. And just to think of the wide range of topics the man covered: bizarre love stories (LOLITA; EYES WIDE SHUT); horror (THE SHINING); epic science fiction (2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY); political satire (DOCTOR STRANGELOVE); 18th-century manners (BARRY LYNDON); Vietnam (FULL METAL JACKET)...not many filmmakers today, except for the great ones like Spielberg and Scorsese, can boast of such accomplishments in so many different genres and subjects.

Kubrick may no longer be alive, but STANLEY KUBIRCK: A LIFE IN PICTURES ensures that his legacy will be an enduring one for all time. Highly recommended viewing. November 26, 2007

The few people who really knew Kubrick helped to make this documentary...

Who was Kubrick? Few people can answer that question with a certain degree of certitude. After all, Stanley Kubrick (1928-1999) was a very private person, someone who didn t give too many interviews and whose work is often defined as outstanding but ambiguous.

All the same, do not worry. The few people who really knew Kubrick, for example his family and a few close friends, helped to make "Stanley Kubrick - A Life in Pictures", an engaging documentary that tells us about his life, influences, films and odd habits. Jan Harlan, the director, was not only his longtime executive producer, but also his brother-in-law.

I certainly doubt that after watching this dvd you will have a clear picture of who Kubrick was, but I am sure you will end up knowing quite a bit more about him and his movies. Furthermore, you will enjoy watching a well-made and highly interesting documentary, that is worth both your time and your money. Heartily recommended!

Belen Alcat April 14, 2006

More reviews at Amazon.com ...