Talk:Stanley Kubrick

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Stanley Kubrick article.
Article policies
Stanley Kubrick is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to actors and filmmakers on Wikipedia.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.7
 This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Archive

To-do: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Establish SK’s cultural significance.
    • Provide evidence that the films are ”considered classics of 20th century cinema”, i.e. cite polls by Sight & Sound and other respected film magazines, etc.
  • Streamline and improve the prose.
    • I suggest we start at the top, and work downwards following SK’s life chronologically.
    • Any new biographical morsels should be added to ”Trivia” (a temporary storehouse) instead of prying a place for them in the main text. If, on the other hand, you have substantial material to add, feel free to edit the content accordingly.
      • Keep anecdotal (happenings on film sets) and interpretive (theories about the films) comments to a minimum: the interested reader can always go to the relevant film page for more information (at least in the future).
  • Expand ”Tabloid rumors” so that the section discusses all aspects of the ”Kubrick myth”: the origins, propagation and debunking of the rumors, and so on.
  • Add a few more images: screen captures from the films, poster artwork, etc. Discuss your choices before adding them to the page.
  • Try to provide citations for the information presented in the article


Contents

[edit] Network - 1976

According to Joe Eszterhas in his book “The Devil’s Guide to Hollywood,” Stanley Kubrick wanted to direct “Network,” but Paddy Chayefsky objected him. Does anyone know if this is a true fact?

[edit] The warnings at top of the page

“ Wikipedia:No original research is one of three content-governing policies. The other two are Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability. - from Wikipedia:No original research, which is official policy ”

It's not quantity that matters. It's quality.

You're not allowed to write He is widely considered one of the most innovative and influential filmmakers in cinematic history without backing up your words - and that particular statement is going to be hard to back up unless you can find a Harris Poll on influential filmmakers. What you can write is "Joe Schmaltz, film critic for the Chagrin Falls Daily Twit, describes Stanley Kubrick as one of the most innovative and influential filmmakers in cinematic history", if you back it up with citation of a Wikipedia:Reliable Source, which in this case would probably be a footnote to the URL of Schmaltz saying that on the Twit's website, or the date and page of the Twit on which he wrote that.

Wikipedia says that if a statement in an article isn't backed up with a citation, any editor who comes along may remove it. There's obviously been a lot of work put into this page, and it'd be a shame to have someone do that. What's less visible is that it's also a shame when users come onto the page and say, "Hey, this is all unsubstantiated blather, and ANYONE coming along could have written this. Can I trust it? No. I'll have to look elsewhere." If you cite your sources, then the user can click through on a few of them, see that they are valid, and will tend to trust the rest.

If you fix the "verifiability" problem, the "NPOV" problem tends to go away at the same time. It's a fact, not a point of view, that Joe Schmaltz has made a statement. The No Original Research policy says that Wikipedia is a tertiary source. We don't report what happened. We don't summarize what others say happened. We report what others summarize. If you're an expert on Stanley Kubrick, you should have little trouble finding the sources for opinions you want to cite. If you're not an expert, your opinions don't matter anyway. ClairSamoht 20:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Chill out. Do you have some demented hatred of Stanley Kubrick? Or do you just need to vent about something? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Benjamin Ben-Ze'ev (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Kubrick direct

If I enter "Kubrick" in the search box I am directed to this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kubrick


[edit] Great Work!

Just wanted to say thanks to all those who helped me make this article (I was the one who added Religion and Politics to the mix, and most of the quotes featured here). Just wanted to say it looks great! I know this isn't the sort of thing the discussion area is exactly for, but, seriously, there must be more info on Kubrick here than on most famous people in wikipedia! I agree fully! Just wanted to say I've been a huge fan of Kubrick for years and done much research on the matter and was HUGELY pleased and impressed with this article (specifically the religion and politics section) kudos on this page!!!

[edit] Character

I've removed the references to Kubricks out of control obsession with sex and the large pornography stash alegedly found in his home after his death as this is clearly untrue and I've never read anything to support the claim. I've also removed the line regarding communicating with actors via intercom when they came to his house. I believe this may actually have been a reference to how, when Spartacus was being remastered, Kubrick directed an actor dubbing in some lines of dialogue via fax. --Allseeingi 19:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

FWIW I recall reading in a newspaper obituary that he sometimes auditioned actors via intercom - probably in the Times (London), from memory. Ben Finn 22:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Politics

"This would indicate that Kubrick, in the grand scheme of things, and not to be overly simplified, could be said to lean to the Right side of the political spectrum." This seems to me a gratuitous non-NPOV comment, the reader can make it's own conclusions from the previous factual sentences. Removing it for now unless someone complains. Lost Goblin 20:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Clockwork Orange

I've moved the line regarding Kubrick's artistic freedom in regards to Warners to Clockwork Orange section from the Dr. Strangelove section as he did not make a film for Warners until A Clockwork Orange. --Allseeingi 16:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you removed it, as it was certainly NPOV. In my opinion, Kubrick seems like someone who can't easily be captured by terms like "Left" or "Right," despite the differences between his earlier and later films, and to include it seems like an attempt to pidgeonhole him.--FVZA_Colonel 01:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It's in the article that Burgess called A Clockwork Orange "Brilliant", and it's said that he did not actually hate it. However, as it seems to me that this is someone suffering from the common idea that anyone saying "Contrary to common belief" is telling the real truth, I will remove it, basing my doing so on an article by Blake Morrison saying that Burgess did not feel abgle to publicly denounce the film, thus saying that in an article. Zeck 17:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Timeless Wit?

"Kubrick's films, most of which were adapted from literary sources, are characterized by technical brilliance, inventive, often economical storytelling, and timeless wit."

Isn't that too vague? What is meant by "timeless wit"? Perhaps the last two words aren't the real problem however. I think saying that his films are characterized by those aspects is wrong and the sentence should read like this:

"Kubrick's films, most of which were adapted from literary sources, are highly regarded for their technical brilliance as well as inventive and economical storytelling." --Allseeingi 04:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

It is, but you forgot the last part. Timeless wit probably was meant to convey that the movies withstood the test of time (didnt become dated in 5-10 years). Bernard Elliot 22:00, 18 Nov 2006

[edit] Character

I think large portions of this section should be removed as they seem to be entirely speculative and not factual in the least.

Does the author of this section have any proof (by way of sources) for what they've written? - --Allseeingi 23:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I have made changes to the section which I believe are appropriate, and reflect, more accurately, Kubrick's life. I have read extensively on him and am willing to defend any of the information I added, and defend my removal of the speculative aspects of the section. --Allseeingi 22:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Shining

It seems to me that I read a while ago that, ironically enough, Stephen King had stated his favourite movie was The Shining, even though he was dissatisfied with it on the level of a film adaptation of his novel. Anyone else hear this? --Comics 18:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I've always heard that King hated Kubrick's version. He thought Kubrick knew nothing about horror films, and that Kubrick's version eliminated the humanism and family aspects which were at the core of the novel (Kubrick thought these elements were banal and silly). King was so dissatisfied with the film that he wanted it remade, his own way. He was one of the main forces behind the 1997 TV mini-series version, which was shot at the Stanley Hotel in Estes Park, CO--the actual hotel where King wrote the novel. King wrote the teleplay, served as third-unit director, still photographer, and made a cameo appearance as a band-leader in the TV version. Exacta 01:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

TV Guide, in their Holloween issue, recommends horror films to watch. Sometime in the late 1980's they quoted King as saying that, while he was dissatisfied with Kubrick's version, he had come to feel that there wasn't anyone who could have made a better adaptation of the his book. Of course, this was several years before he finally got the chance to be a part of the remake. I am just noting this to point out that his attitude has moved in various directions over the years. Another note, King did not write "The Shining" at the Stanley Hotel. He was inspired to write it when he stayed there with his wife during a cross country trip. It was during the off season and they had the hotel almost to themselves.MarnetteD | Talk 16:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out how horrendously cheesy and lame the tv version was. Hard to believe he thought that was a better adaption than kubricks.... oh well...

[edit] More youthful picture

How about a more youthful picture at the beginning of the article? Since Kubrick has passed away, it's not relevant to maintain the latest picture of him. How about one from a more critically acclaimed point of his career? (Strangelove, 2001, Clockwork Orange, Barry Lyndon). 24.7.145.61 06:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I would think anything between Barry Lyndon and Full Metal Jacket. This seems to be the image most associated with him and it's certainly what I think when Stanley Kubrick comes to mind.
I was thinking that this picture, from the early '70s, might suffice. I already have it on my hard drive, so if no one voices any objections in the next couple days, I'll probably just go ahead and put it in there. Thebogusman 18:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Content Table

Anyone realized that "show/hide" link at content table on the left does not work properly? (at least for me). Laurentis 13:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Laurentis

[edit] 2001: A Space Odyssey

The page currently says "Clarke also wrote a novelization of the screenplay, which was released alongside the film". I thought that the book was actually (mostly) written first, then the film script? The final book was released shortly after the film, but that was more a result of polishing than anything else. 2001: A Space Odyssey seems to confirm this. I'd make the change myself, but am not sure how to best phrase it. Mike Peel 15:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this link agrees and cites the actual words of Clarke and Kubrick. In fact it appears three wikipedia articles are consistent, but incorrect, in stating that Clarke wrote the novel from the screenplay and Kubrick wrote the film from the screenplay. The film article has: Kubrick and Clarke collaborated on the screenplay, from which Kubrick created the movie and Clarke wrote the novel version, the book article has: Kubrick and Clarke collaborated on the screenplay, from which Kubrick created the movie and Clarke wrote the novel. I have rewritten it as '"Kubrick collaborated with Arthur C. Clarke, adapting parts of Clarke's short story "The Sentinel", and together they first concurrently produced the novel that was released alongside the film, and then towards the end Kubrick simultaneously wrote the screenplay"'. Note that the book cover claims it is a novelisation of the screnplay, but I believe that is merely publisher's blurb. -Wikibob 17:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I know it's a complicated series of events to describe, but the current wording is extremely confusing. I'm not even sure it's entirely accurate either. Here is the basic timeline of events, as I understand them: Having read some of his stories, Kubrick asked Clarke to collaborate on a film. Clarke agreed. Kubrick chose The Sentinel as a starting point. Together they worked out the terms of their unique collaboration (though Kubrick made sure to stack the deck in his own favor): together they would write a novel, from which Kubrick would write a screenplay. The novel would appear after the release of the film, and would be labelled a novelization of the film, with authorship by "Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick" (Kubrick's name has since been dropped). Credit for the screenplay, in turn, would be: "Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke". Kubrick, for the most part, excluded Clarke from the production after he had lived out his use. The production was extended several times and Kubrick constantly revised his "outline" while filming. Clarke, having long since completed his work, grew increasingly impatient while waiting to see the fruits of his labor. Kubrick also forced the delay of the novel several times (even after the film was released), which frustrated Clarke who believed his contribution was being marginalized.... Now, how to condense this? Exacta 10:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish

Why is it important that Kubrick was Jewish? For instance, in the article on Hitchcock he is never described as a Christian. Neither is Akira Kurosawa described as a shintoist. I would understand it if Jewish themes were relevant to Kubrick's film-making, but I have yet to see any account of that.

Well, if it's importance that you're looking for, he was planning on making a film called Aryan Papers for a good amount of time and even wrote the script. The project was abandonned when he found out his friend Spielberg was to make Schindler's List. I'm not sure if it's of major significance or not, but does it hurt having it in the article? It is a biography after all. –Comics (Talk) 19:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
A lot of actor biographies on Wikipedia mention the actors' ethnic backgrounds, like Irish-American, German-American, etc. Therefore, the same ethnic information is reported in the Stanley Kubrick article. And before you reply with the irrelevant "Judaism is a religion, not a nationality" argument, there is an ideology called Zionism which considers the Jewish people to be a nation. Therefore Jewish American.WACGuy 06:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed this reference. That Kubrick was so profoundly atheistic or, as the article notes, naturalistic in his opinions and work, the idea of noting that he was technically Jewish in the opening line is misleading. As to the Jewish nationality argument, unless you're prepared to cite Kubrick as a "Polish Austrian Romanian French Jewish American Film Maker" then we should merely note his literal nationality rather than a litany of extraneous and, in this case, moot qualifiers. 83.70.180.202 22:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

he was jewish so that need to be told. who is it complaining about? someone who thinks to be jewish is a shame? some anti semitic that doesn't want to admit a jewish idol or someone who knows kubrick was really sick and disgusting and was just filling the world with disease and nonsense violence and tha's not good for the image of jewish people? could you please explain yourself? —This unsigned comment was added by 200.203.56.50 (talk • contribs) .

Kubrick's Jewishness is relevant insofar as there's a distinctive shared cultural sensibility among American Jewish artists of his generation (and a little younger) who were raised in middle-class/working class neighborhoods in Brooklyn and the Bronx or in Jewish enclaves in Southern California. Although their work is very different, it's obvious that Woody Allen, Philip Roth, Albert Brooks, Larry David, Lenny Bruce, etc. were incubated in similar backgrounds and had their sensibilities shaped by a lot of the same factors. It's one of things that's essential to putting the man's work in context.Andrewjnyc 16:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

christ, let's not trip out over this issue please! His father had a jewish background.. Ok, what about his mother? Where i come from that's more important in determining one's jewishness. By all accounts he had a secular upbringing and was a professed atheist in adulthood. IMHO, the article should mention his fathers roots, perhaps whatever his mother's were (again, was she jewish?), and leave it at that.

[edit] Too much opinion

This article is replete with opinionated statements, such as "played to chilling perfect", or "beautifully played", and other such descriptions of Kubrick's works. Though these may be the opinions of the majority, they are still opinions, and give this article a rather review-like feel. I've done some minor editing, but there's still a lot of work to do. 141.211.210.96 19:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The article makes a poor reading, mainly for the huge number of statements that are told to be a fact rather than a personal opinnion, its like a bunch of movie buffs wrote the entire article as a praise to Kubrick, not even the Lynch aticle is so indulgent. Here are some examples:
Eyes Wide Shut: " Far from an erotic thriller, Eyes Wide Shut proved to be a slow, mysterious, dreamlike meditation on the themes of marriage, fidelity, betrayal and the illusion versus the reality of sex"
"Proved"?, thats like an undisputable fact isnt it?. And what the hell does "dreamlike" mean?, such a criptic term. The whole phrase not only says very little, but what its actually saying is: "people who are really smart like eyes wide shut, just look at how many adjetives there is to describe it". Come on, good ol' Stanley was better than that.
"Eyes Wide Shut has improved its reputation with critics and audiences over time"
Citation needed.
Full metal Jacket: its basicly a fanboyish advertizing for Full Metal Jacket, here are some selected shameless adjetives and assumptions:
"It would be seven years until Kubrick's next film"
"punishing recruit training in order to release their repressed killing instincts"
"The second half of the film follows Pvt. Joker as he tries to stay sane in Vietnam."
"using his wit and sarcasm to detach himself from the absurd nature of war"
"but found a reasonably large audience" (is there something like an un-reasonable large audience?)
"The film does offer a markedly different and patently Kubrick-esque view of Vietnam"
" This adds a certain element of surreality"
There are others of course, but one or two examples make the point clear. It needs to be written in a rather more serious way than in its current "TEH RULZ" way. All phrases must have a source to back it up. Kubrick was a respectable and groundbreaking director, we all know that. Theres no need to either spice it up or justify him.

[edit] Character

Can anyone point me to where it was said that Kubrick had one of the largest porn stashes in the United Kingdom? I have studied Kubrick in depth and have never heard that before.

That would'nt be likely in my opinion because if you look at his portrayal of Sex in all his movies its always shown as something that is disasterous when not handled responsibly, like in Lolita or Eyes Wide Shut, or completely immoral (Clockwork Orange). The only scene that is purely sexual in content is the scene with the prostitute in Full Metal Jacket. Kubrick said he wanted to portray the way things are (in war), so that may explain it.

Some of his movies have no sex at all in them, Paths of Glory, Spartacus, 2001 A S O, Barry Lyndon, The Shining. 1-2 scenes appear briefly in Full Metal Jacket, Dr. Strange Love. In Paths of Glory for instance, the last scene shows a German woman singing to a group of drunk French soldiers a German song. The French troops react (out of basic Human compassion for the opposite gender) by singing along with her. Where are the sensational or pornographic themes that almost most modern movies seem to constanly abuse. He never seemed to lean that way, at least as an artist. I suspect that the rumor may have possibly been spread by folks in the Hollywood cliques that either saw him as closet Communist or not Liberal enough to "fit in" with Hollywood Elite. Bernard Elliot 21:35, 18 Nov 2006

[edit] Age of Sue Lyon during Lolita?

In the article, Sue Lyon is reported to have been 16 years old during filming, but in the article page about her, she is said to have been only 13 years old. Which is correct? --cslarsen 10:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Sue Lyon was 16 during production of the film. In Nabokov's novel Lolita is 12. Exacta 01:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

No, she wasn't. She was born on July 10, 1946 [1] and Lolita was filmed from November 1960 to May 1961 [2], which means she was 14 when it filmed. —Chowbok 16:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of Pop Songs

Introduction: and use of pop songs and classical music.

I haven't seen Barry Lyndon and some of his very early films, but from what I have seen, besides Full Metal Jacket, I don't recall the use of pop songs that much in any of his other films, if at all..and I can't imagine Barry Lyndon having pop music in it. So does use of pop soungs really count as a trademark?--Gяaρнic 19:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Strangelove: We’ll Meet Again by Vera Lynn. A Clockwork Orange: I Want To Marry A Lighthouse Keeper by Ericka Eigen; Singin’ In The Rain (Alex's versions and the Gene Kelly version); (Wendy Carlos’s music, although adapted from classlical, may still be considered pop). The Shining: Midnight, the Stars and You by The Ray Noble Band. Full Metal Jacket: Hello Vietnam by Johnny Wright; Chapel Of Love by The Dixie Cups; Wooley Bully by Sam the Sham and the Pharaohs; I Like It Like That by Chris Kenner; These Boots Are Made For Walkin by Nancy Sinatra; Surfin' Bird by The Trashmen; The Mickey Mouse March. Eyes Wide Shut: Baby Did A Bad, Bad Thing by Chris Isaak.

All the “pop” songs Kubrick ever used. As to whether his use of pop songs could be considered a trademark, I have no opinion one way or the other. I tend to think that his uses of “We’ll Meet Again” and “Singin’ In The Rain” are at the heart of the issue. They are the only two indisputably unique uses of “pop” music in his films, and the closest to universally recognizable trademarks. His use of the "Mickey Mouse March" in Full Metal Jacket is similar.

Exacta 04:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Depressing Movies

Shouldn’t it be somewhere in this article that many people feel that Kubrick’s movies are bloody depressing? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.180.247.62 (talk • contribs) .

To do so would probably be taken as introducing Point-of-View into the article in violation of WP:NPOV.
Atlant 16:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it could be formulated like “Many people feel…” or “Some people say…” in the article. It think it is wrong to completely skip this. 172.176.79.192 16:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

'Many people feel' is a weasel expression, which is discouraged in Wikipedia. What you need to do is found some published sources (books, reviews, articles, etc.) which describe Kubrick's tendency to make 'depressing' movies. The Singing Badger 16:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! We just "collided" as I tried to edit-in almost exactly the same thing, included below:
But then you're likely to run up against Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. Really, in the absence of careful studies with control groups and all that, whether or not Kubrick's movies are depressing is likely to remain a matter of opinion rather than fact.
Atlant 16:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the endings of 2001, Eyes Wide Shut, and The Shining are arguably optimistic, for example. The Singing Badger 16:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, 2001' is a perfect example, because one part of the people actually sees it as pessimistic, while the rest sees it as optimistic. The more important point for 2001, however are the scenes halfway through, where Dave and the other astronaut fly to Mars. In theses scenes, there is a profound sense of loneliness.

Another example of depressing works by Kubrick is Clockwork Orange. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.52.57.166 (talk) 13:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Character, Politics & Religion

These sections strike me as slight long and rambling, though with much good material. They could do with tightening up. Ben Finn 22:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Number of Takes (Hundreds?)

Slim Pickens says Kubrick would make "hundreds" of takes, and I recall much the same from television reports when Eyes Wide Shut was released. This seems an important factoid omitted from the piece, right?


Kubrick had always said that if he took hundreds of takes of every scene then he'd never get a film done. There were only a few times where takes went over 100.

---He has also stated, in perhaps an interview for Full Metal Jacket, which can be found at www.gustavhasford.com, that he feels actors over-exaggerate the claim, therfore, I suppose, implying that it is a myth enhanced by bitter actors, many of which we known to have been products of Kubrick productions. He says that the reason he does many takes is often attributed to actors not knowing their lines. It is a fact, not a myth, that Kubrick was indeed excessive, least of all in the amount of takes he required from his cast and crew, but the extent of his excess could indeed, and undoubtably is, a myth.

---Its a stretch but heres my thoery. Its often said that Kubrick was eccentric or slightly neurotic. His movies also have alot of Moral and Social commentary in them. He may have wanted his actors to develop such a strong familiarity with the screeplay and dialoge, that the actors would unwittingly convey a sense of a fairy tale to the viewers. Fairy tales ususally convey morals in which we are familiar with. He probably wanted his movies to convey their messages in a similar fashion. Its a pretty sketchy theory, but the man did have some odd streaks in him.

[edit] Eyes Wide Shut

Was EWS actually "completed under the supervision of Steven Spielberg" as the article claims? I was under the impression Kubrick died after it was finished. JW 11:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

203.49.197.101 12:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC) Spielberg supervised some of the post-production, I think mainly for the U.S. release, where the orgy scene was digitally altered. The film itself is as Kubrick cut it, however.

[edit] favorite movie?

i added a "citation needed" to the statement claiming that friends and family state that EWS was Kubrick's favorite film. this snippet from IMDB seems to refute it pretty well. "Stanley called me about two weeks before he died, as a matter of fact. We had a long conversation about Eyes Wide Shut. He told me it was a piece of s**t and that he was disgusted with it and that the critics were going to have him for lunch." 192.223.226.6 17:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Were 2001 Reviews Good or Bad?

From the "2001: A Space Odyssey (film)" wiki article:

"Upon release, 2001 received mostly positive reviews"

From the "Stanley Kubrick" wiki article:

"Initial reactions from critics were overwhelmingly negative"

A repair is clearly needed --Sailorlula 22:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barry Lyndon

Hi- Barry Lyndon is not set in the Napoleonic era- it is set during the Seven Years War (1756-1763).. the Napoleonic era is 1799-1815.

best,

RMB

  • The epilogue says: "It was in the reign of George III that the aforesaid personages lived and quarreled; good or bad, handsome or ugly, rich or poor, they are all equal now." George III reigned 1760-1820. But the drama starts with the Seven Years War, and ends in 1789, as can be seen on the annuity statement signed by Lady Lyndon in one of the last scenes. Thus, I agree that the reference to the "Napoleonic era" is rather inaccurate. leifbk 17:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Translation "née"

"née" (early life; "the first child of Jacques Kubrick and his wife Gertrude (née Perveler)")means born in French. In this context it probably means that his mother's maiden name was Perveler.

[edit] Character

I've gone ahead and removed the line, "Over time, his image in the media became that of, at best, a reclusive genius akin to Howard Hughes..." from the character section as it seems like an exaggeration to me. Kubrick may have been reclusive, especially during his later years, but certainly nowhere near the extent that Hughes was. Also, this section mentions later on that Ryan O'Neal speaks kindly of him but I was under the impression that he and Kubrick had a falling out after the filming of Barry Lyndon? A-OK 21:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Death Conspiracy?

Needs a section on his death. I was thinking the same thing 193.108.134.36 15:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I heard mention by Benjamin Fulford http://benjaminfulford.com/indexEnglish.html , that his death was suspicious. There were suggestions that he was involved in fake films of NASA's moon landings. I know this is on the potty end of the spectrum, but I have come to the conclusion that the world is mad. I'm sure Stanley will not be turning in his grave over this suggestion. If John Travolta, and Tom Cruse think we were put on this earth by space aliens (Scientology) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenu then my thoughts are fairly main stream! I'm not thinking he was abducted, rather more a political bumping off.

[edit] where was he born?

Why does it say in the beginning of the biography that he was born in The Bronx but in the infobox, he was born in Manhattan?

[edit] Individual film sections need to be trimmed

I think they encompass too much info for an overview of Kubrick. The information is certainly interesting but it makes the article unnecessarily long. It is better placed on each film's individual Wikipedia article. Agreed? --Steerpike 19:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spoilers of the movies

I haven't seen all of Stanley Kubrick's movies, and in some of the descriptions of them in the listing, I feel that some describe the main parts of them or spoil it for those who haven't viewed it.

      maybe you should see his movies then...they're all amazing.

[edit] Character

This section is highly unreferenced, unwikified, and unverified. I added up a clean up tag because it desperately needs to be fixed. Fistful of Questions 01:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Early Films

In the Early Films section the following appears:

"In 1951, Kubrick's friend, Alex Singer, persuaded him to start making short documentaries for the March of Time, a provider of cinema-distributed newsreels. Kubrick agreed, and independently financed Day of the Fight (1951). Although the distributor went out of business that year, Kubrick sold Day of the Fight to RKO Pictures for a profit of one hundred dollars. Kubrick quit his job at Look magazine and began working on his second short documentary, Flying Padre (1951), funded by RKO. A third film, The Seafarers (1953), Kubrick's first color film, was a 30-minute promotional short film for the Seafarers' International Union. These three films, and other short subjects, which have not survived, ..."

This is not correct. All three of these films have survived and are available on a DVD called:

  STANLEY KUBRICK COLLECTION 1951 - 1953

However, the quality on the DVD is not good. 63.194.208.34 03:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the comma is wrong, it should be "other subjects which have not". (That said, that DVD is a bootleg.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ThatGuamGuy (talk • contribs) 18:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Links to films' main articles

Shouldn't all the films have a link to their main articles? Eg:

Main article: A Clockwork Orange

This seems to be the standard way of doing things on Wikipedia. Also, the article is long, so maybe some of the information duplicated in both the Kubrick article and the film articles should be removed from the Kubrick article? Straussian 11:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Academy Award-winning at the introduction

I checked at IMDB. Kubrick received the only Academy Award on Best Effects, Special Visual Effects from 2001.

I am not sure this should put at the introduction in this way? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.8.90.105 (talk) 17:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Original Aspect Ratio?

I've heard rumors that Kubrick, altough filming in panavision/widescreen/whatever, he liked more the original academy ratio/Full-screen format. Most notably, The Shining wich was filmed (I think) in wide and re-released in full-screen (academy ratio) as his final, favorite version of the film. Did this happen to all of his films (filmed in wide) or was it just for the Shining?. I know this is not a Forum, but if some of this is true, I think it would be worth of mention. Vicco Lizcano 17:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC) (Tell me where I'm wrong)

I added a section about the aspect ratio controversy, which spreads through more than half of his filmography. Long story short, evidence regarding 'The Shining' seems to indicate that he shot it for 1.85:1, but kept the fullscreen (1.33:1) area safe. This is based on storyboards and comments from one of the editors (or possibly editor's assistants) which indicate that the reason the helicopter blade slipped in in the opening driving sequence is that they viewed the film on a Steenbeck which was matted to 1.85 with masking tape. People who argue that Kubrick preferred 1.85 extrapolate from these facts to apply them to all of his films. ThatGuamGuy 19:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)sean
Cool, thanks for the info. Vicco Lizcano 19:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC) (Tell me where I'm wrong)
Although I appreciate the information about the aspect ratios of Kubrick's films, its inclusion here in such detail doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the article. Perhaps someone could consider moving it to its own page? Just a thought. :)

Note that in Europe the most commonly used widescreen aspect ratio was 1.66:1 rather than 1.85:1. So many of his films shot open matte were probably shown in 1.66:1 in cinemas across Europe as opposed to 1.85 in the US. 89.196.42.243 03:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stanley Kubrick's Death

I read elsewhere that Mr. Kubrick was mesteriously murderd after completion of "Eyes Wide Shut" (1999). The current article, 3/14/07, mentions nothing about his death at all. Was his death tied in with The Freemasons "Jack The Ripper cover-up" as well?

68.34.34.250 00:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, you won't find any credible cites that say he was murdered. But if I'm wrong and you do find one, please feel free to bring it to our attention. -- JackofOz 14:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Alex Korova1.jpg

Image:Alex Korova1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 19:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] American-born British filmmaker?

This doesn't seem right to me. Was he really considered British? I was going to change it to "British-based", but that sounds even more wrong. "Britain-based"? Bleh. Somebody clear this up for me, please. --Closedmouth 15:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HD DVD & Bluray

Why is this in here? Shouldn't this information be more appropriate for each movie than in his own article? -- 66.92.0.62 09:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kurbick exhibition

Should there be a link to the Stanley Kubrick exhibition: http://www.stanleykubrick.de/ 67.180.29.122 05:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aspect Ratio Stuff

Those ratios should be in more understandable formats like 3:4 or 16:9. These ones might be more precise, but to the average layman, they're meaningless. I'm actually in this field, and the people I work with refer to ratios in the "16:9" way. I've yet to meet a person who calls it "1.85:1". Having to do mental arithmatic to reach understandable ratios sucks. Having to bust out a calculator to figure it out sucks even more. Howa0082 17:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Spartacus22.jpg

Image:Spartacus22.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:The shining heres johnny.jpg

Image:The shining heres johnny.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:The killing.jpg

Image:The killing.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:2001 spaceodissey.gif

Image:2001 spaceodissey.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Clockwork'71.jpg

Image:Clockwork'71.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Eyes shut.jpg

Image:Eyes shut.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Haley joel osment6.jpg

Image:Haley joel osment6.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers priority assessment

Per debate and discussion re: assessment of the approximate 100 top priority articles of the project, this article has been included as a top priority article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cquotes, blockquotes,images etc

I've replaced all the cquotes with blockquotes throughout the article. The curly quotes are not only overly designed and cutsey-pie as hell, from what I understand their intention was to be used only for "shout outs" and pullquotes which adorn an article as a design element (which makes sense, given their look), and not to be for quoted material inside an article.

I've also truncated "Strangelove" for the section title only (and the AI section title as well). There's no reason to have the full title in the section, when the complete title is repeated twice in the next two lines. All having the long title does is force the Table of Contents to be unnecessarily wide. This is cleaner. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 04:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I've also adjusted image sizes. Images which are too small to be seen or properly illustrate the text are a waste of space. Each image should be large enough to be seen, to make an impact, to work, without overwhelming the text. The picture in the infobox, for instance, needs to be about that large to see anything of Kubrick's facial features - anything much less and it's useless, better to replace it with a standard head shot (if such a thing exists for SK). Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 04:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion at the film project concerning an external link

Folks here might want to participate in a discussion here concerning a disagreement about an external link which was added to this article. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 04:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)