Talk:Stanley Kubrick/archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Numerology

Removed from the main article by User:Revolver:

Kubrick reportedly died exactly 666 days before January 1, 2001, a fact noted by trivia buffs and conspiracy theorists. [1], [2].

Hey, I wasn't doubting whether Kubrick died exactly 666 days before the year 2001. That's probably true. I didn't remove the sentence because I doubted its truth -- I removed it because it's irrelevant. People play with numbers all the time and if you take enough combinations, you're going to come up with coincidental things like this. Are we going to start putting references to every single irrelevant numerological thing that someone finds?? Revolver

Well, it makes the reader to laugh (or, at least, this is true for me) :) Is there any better way to end an article from writing something funny? Optim 03:52, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I added the info in Number of the Beast (numerology). Optim 03:56, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Of course not. But this is one which is noted by trivia buffs and conspiracy theorists. Anthony DiPierro 04:35, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Well, usually these are the ONLY people who note such crap, so I don't see what difference that makes. Revolver 19:59, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
If people are noting something, wikipedia should report it. Anthony DiPierro 20:52, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
How many people are really noting this? I think the number is pretty low. Just because there are a lot of websites devoted to something, doesn't mean a lot of people are noting it. I would bet there are thousands of other things "noted" by similarly minute portions of the populations...do we make a note of all of these? Revolver 21:28, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
If it's a verifiable NPOV fact, yes, we do. Anthony DiPierro 21:30, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
But that's where I disagree with you -- NOT every verifiable NPOV fact has a place on wikipedia. I could believe that aliens captured Stanley Kubrick's body and whisked him away, and "convince" 10 of my friends this was true (or to say it was true), then it would be a verifiable fact that the 11 of us believe and note this; do we deserve mention?? Wikipedia is not a dictionary, not a source vault, not a place for random (true) lists, not a place for random bits of information, not a place for everything. Lots of verifiable NPOV facts get thrown out on the VfD page all the time, so that doesn't make sense as an argument to me. There are at least half a dozen numerological factoids about Kubrick that certain people take very seriously...should we list all of them here? If not all of them belong here, do they deserve their own article? I think it would be shot down in 2 seconds flat on VfD if I made an article called "Facts about Stanley Kubrick noted by trivial buffs and conspiracy theorists". I don't think the number of people who note these things warrants it being mentioned on the Kubrick page...it DOES warrant it being mentioned on the numerology or conspiracy theorist articles, because it's part of a larger thing (the whole thing really has to do with people believing in numerology, it has almost NOTHING to do with Kubrick per se). So, put it on the numerology article, put it on the conspiracy theory article, but I don't think it warrants being here. Now, I'm not going to change it back, because I don't want to get into an edit war; I just want to state my case for the record before moving on to other things. Revolver 00:11, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps not every verifiable NPOV fact has a place on Wikipedia. But this one does have a place. In fact, it has multiple places. One of them is right here. As for your alien question, no, that wouldn't belong on Wikipedia. It would not be a verifiable fact. The number of days between Kubrick's death and January 1, 2001 is a verifiable fact. As for your list of what wikipedia is not, you're mixing in reasons for articles to be deleted with reasons for facts to be deleted. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but a good encyclopedia entry commonly starts with a dictionary definition, for example. Obviously an article called "Facts about Stanley Kubrick noted by trivial buffs and conspiracy theorists" would be shot down. But then, so would "List of birth and death dates of people named Stanley Kubrick." That's not an argument against the fact itself being in the article. I think it does warrant being here. As much as his date of birth or date of death or that he "owned and resided at Childwickbury Manor in the district of St Albans" or that he was "interred in Childwickbury Manor." As for not starting an edit war, that's good, because it's been added by three people now and only removed by you. Anthony DiPierro 00:26, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Should all half a dozen factoids about Kubrick be mentioned here? Maybe. What were you thinking? I wouldn't want to put his sign, since this isn't something very unique to Kubrick. But that's just a guess about what you were talking about. Anthony DiPierro 00:30, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
No, the aliens thing isn't verifiable. But it's verifiable that TEN OF MY FRIENDS BELIEVE IT'S TRUE. People believe false things, but reporting that they believe false things is considered okay, because it's verifiably true that that's what they believe. What if my 10 friends believed some random, irrelevant TRUE fact about Kubrick? Would that warrant inclusion. And no, I DON'T think all half dozen factoids belong here. In any case, obviously people don't understand my argument. The "666" thing is not something unique to Kubrick. IF YOU LOOK LONG ENOUGH, YOU WILL FIND THAT MANY FAMOUS PEOPLE ARE RELATED TO FAMOUS EVENTS BY THE NUMBER "666", KUBRICK IS NOT UNIQUE IN THIS ASPECT. So, if his sign is not okay to put here, neither is "666". The BELIEF of the factoid is important because people believe it; the fact itself is RANDOM and has nothing to do with Kubrick. I find the fact that people actually think the "666" factoid is on some kind of similar level as where Kubrick was born, lived, raised, and interred to be frankly, laughable. If that's the level of quality these articles are going to be written at, fine...I'll go back to writing and editing math articles until other more serious contributors and thinkers come here and take this stuff down. Goodbye. Revolver 02:03, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Verifiability doesn't mean that something could conceivably be verified by someone somewhere. In the case of this fact, it is trivially verifiable by anyone who wishes to do the math (assuming you accept the date of his death, you do, don't you). Comparing it to a theory by 10 of your friends is not anywhere near the same thing. Besides verifiability, that would fail Wikipedia:No original research. Go have fun with your math articles. Anthony DiPierro 13:55, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
What if my 10 friends believed some random, irrelevant TRUE fact about Kubrick? Would that warrant inclusion? Do you even read what I write, or are you able to understand it? If 10 of my friends believe a VERIFIABLE, TRUE thing, this is not just a "theory". As I've said, I'm not debating the VERIFIABILITY of the 666 fact, if you'd bother to read what I say; I'm debating the verifiability of NUMEROLOGY. The ONLY reason this fact belongs here is if you believe in numerology, otherwise, it ONLY belongs on the numerology page. The only exception is if enough people believe the 666 fact has significance that it has a major effect or influence on Kubrick or his work, and this is patently false. Revolver 22:28, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Are you all really this superstitious or something? I just can't figure out why people think this is important, that it has anything to do with Kubrick. Revolver 02:05, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Just noticed that my edit of the notorious 666 paragraph pretty-much takes it back to as it was after an earlier edit by Optim. I am a newcomer to Wikipedia, but I'm confident that the "Completely trivial coincidence" heading, and the "Wow!" have no place in a thoughtful article. I would prefer the paragraph not to be there at all, and had hoped that my leaner version would be acceptable. Since Optim's version was basically the same and the tabloid stuff was put back in, I guess my edit is doomed also. Gary Jones 13:41, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

Apparently the contributors to this article are either unable or unwilling to grasp my argument, so let me spell it out in painstaking detail.

  • POINT 1: Only true, verifiable facts belong on wikipedia.
  • POINT 2: Simply being a true and verifiable fact is not sufficient to warrant inclusion -- e.g. the records of police blotters are not considered worthy of inclusion. Also, not every true and verifiable fact belongs on every article. A true, verifiable fact about Mickey Mouse has no place in an article on quantum physics, or vice versa.
  • POINT 3: This is the important point -- THERE ARE ONLY 2 REASONS WHY THE '666' FACTOID BELONGS ON KUBRICK'S PAGE, AND HERE THEY ARE:
    • REASON 1: The '666' factoid is relevant to Kubrick himself, in other words, the '666' factoid tells us something about Kubrick as a person, artist, filmmaker, or world figure, or else it has had a direct effect of Kubrick's life as a person or artist, and this effect needs to be explained. I claim that none of these criteria are met, and the ONLY way you can believe that the '666' factoid, by itself, is relevant as described above, is if you believe in numerology. The reason for this is, as I said above, you can find endless occurrences of the number '666' in reference to world figures, artists, dates, times, etc., etc. The existence of this particular '666' factoid has NOTHING TO DO WITH KUBRICK. THIS FACT IS THE FUNDAMENTAL FACT THAT REFUTES NUMEROLOGY. If you refuse to accept this, I don't know how to convince you. Go on believing in fairy tales.
    • REASON 2: The only other possible reason the '666' factoid might be relevant would be if the PHENOMENON OF PEOPLE THINKING IT IS IMPORTANT is ITSELF important enough to warrant inclusion. This means a lot -- it means not only that there must be a significant number of people who believe the fact is important (and by implication, believe in numerology in general), but it also means that this phenomenon, this group of people, HAS HAD AN EFFECT ON KUBRICK'S LIFE, ART, INFLUENCE, OR PERCEPTION BY THE WORLD. I claim that none of these things was greatly affected (if at all) by some general belief in the '666' factoid. If you can give me some true, verifiable evidence that Kubrick's life, work, art, or perception were affected by some phenomenon of a group of people believing the '666' factoid was important, please show me. My understanding is that this is a freak, fringe observation (one finds barely a handful of matches on 'google') that the mainstream that studies Kubrick doesn't even acknowledge, let alone believe is important.

Since NIETHER of these 2 reasons exist, there is no reason for it to be there.

In closing, I just want to say that a LOT of people are going to coming to wikipedia in the next several months and years, and as long as stuff like this is present on articles, it will continue to give people who want to call wikipedia a joke ammunition. I don't care if I'm ****ing people off, someone needs to stand up and say something. Revolver 22:48, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Point 3, reason 2 is the heart of the issue, of course. Anyone who wants to add this bit of trivia back to the article should address it before doing so. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 12:21, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Decided to delete the 666 paragraph. My earlier edit was a wishy-washy attempt to appease the people who seem to think the 666 factoid has a place here. I've now taken the bull by the horns and deleted the damned thing. If anyone really thinks it belongs here, well feel free; I'll not edit it again. Gary Jones 12:15, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)

Personally when I am reading a Wikipedia article I expect to find trivia info. It's very useful, especially for the creation of quizzes etc. I don't see why people keep deleting the 666 paragraph, but since I have noted this fact on the 666-article, I hope those who are interested will find it from the search. Optim·.· 12:24, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It is less inappropiate at the 666 article than it is here. May be a reasonable compromise. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 12:39, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Spartacus rewording

I'm having trouble parsing this sentence: Kubrick's one attempt to adapt to the Hollywood "epic" film, Spartacus, is considered a great film itself, but Kubrick was at odds with both the cast (especially its star Kirk Douglas) and the crew. Is Spartacus an attempt at adapting to a film? Was it Kubrick's only attempt? What is being adpated to the epic film?

Is the following a better sentence? Spartacus was the result of Kubrick's one attempt to adapt himself to the Hollywood-style "epic" production, and although it is considered a great film in and of itself, Kubrick was at odds with both the cast (especially its star Kirk Douglas) and the crew. Wikibob | Talk 13:39, 2004 Mar 20 (UTC)

I removed the porche material, it was not any sort of policy violation but I fail to see the relevance. Re-include if it is necessary (people who have this on their watchlist or others). GrazingshipIV 02:52, May 14, 2004 (UTC)

Homage section

I suggest a section on the many homages to Kubrick from film-directors. As when Stanley Kubrick in 2010: Odyssey Two is shown on the cover of Time Magazine, as the Soviet premier (and Arthur C Clarke as the U.S. President.).

Template:Kubrick

Template:Kubrick

I'm planning to personally update the articles for each Kubrick film, especially adding to those outside of the Kubrick Collection (short films, Fear and Desire, Killer's Kiss, The Killing, Paths of Glory, Spartacus), and add this template to the bottom of each page. Any comments or template changes? --Max Terry

I like this template, except for the inclusion of A.I., which is (in my opinion) too much a Spielberg movie to be listed simplistically as a Kubrick feature film. I would recommend changing '(Posthumously)' to something like '(based on Kubrick screenplay)' or just '(screenplay only)'. The Singing Badger 18:05, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Good point. Rather than even mentioning A.I., which ended up a definite Spielberg film, in the template, I think I'll list his 13 features, 3 shorts, and a link to Uncompleted/Abandoned Projects, an article which will discuss all projects planned, but never completed by Kubrick personally (from The German Lieutenant to Napoleon to Blue Movie to A.I., and everything in between). This will be Uncompleted Kubrick films. --Max Terry 21:18, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

EWS conspiracy

I'd like to know whether or not anyone can source the Eyes Wide Shut conspiracy theory mentioned under "Kubrick's death and influence." The way the blurb is written suggests to me that it's anecdotal and seems to have been rather hastily added. There seem to be "Masonic" conspiracy theories about every subject under the sun; is there any reason to repeat this (presumedly) wildly speculative hogwash? Unless someone knows where this came from perhaps it should be deleted. Bumhoolery

I agree, this anecdotal, unsubstantiated text full of weasel words is now removed, - Wikibob | Talk 23:44, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC):
However, film scholars believe that if Kubrick had lived to see the film's release, he might have edited the film less. Conspiracy theories purport an alternate ending that would have much more serious implications to the perception of this film due to its nature in masonic sex ritual. Some claim his death as no accident, an inside job due to revealing too much symbolism of the nature of said secret society, much like what's said about Mozart's Magic Flute. One may ask if it is his only work on dealing with the subject of such symbolism to gain insight on this matter.

"Trivia" section

I weeded out the "Trivia" section. I must say that that earlier "666" thing gave me some doubts: if a matter as simple as that can be a cause of wrangling...

I will try to give sufficient reasons for my extensive edits. Let's start with the most important one:

At present, the Kubrick article leans far too heavily to the personal side of things. Instead of collating (true and untrue) bits of biography, we should concentrate on providing a clear overview of Kubrick's filmmaking career, i.e. what makes his films noteworthy and unique.

In developing a Wikipedia article, I see the "Trivia" section as a list of relevant tidbits that should be incorporated to the main article at a later date. Conversely, I do not see the section as a mandatory part of Wikipedia articles (cf. regular encyclopedias).

So, most of the stuff that remains listed under "Trivia" is accurate, uncontested biographical material.

I also created the subsection "Unsubstantiated tabloid rumors", which serves to collect all of that junk (Oops, is this POV? Revert, revert!) under one roof.

I removed a number of entries:

  • After the completion of The Shining, actor Jack Nicholson vowed that he would never again work with Stanley Kubrick, who he found extremely difficult to work with.

Creative differences, avowals and subsequent refusals of said avowals are a common occurrence in the arts, and esp. in the film industry. This entry clearly refers more to the (caricatured) man than to the work. In the case of Nicholson, we find both the negative 1980s comments, and the positive ones found in SK: A Life in Pictures, where Nicholson says he and Kubrick kept in touch after The Shining and talked about further collaborations.

  • From the 1970s onwards, he was often described as a recluse, but he frequently socialized with people (though mostly on his own idiosyncratic terms), and was often involved with minutiae regarding the treatment of his films and his estate. During the 1980s he was involved in a fractious dispute with neighbors to his property in Hertfordshire.

Parts of this entry could be salvaged, but as it now stands, it merely has the appearance of a cluster-fuck. The key components seem to be: 1. "often described as a recluse" 2. "often involved with minutiae" 3. "a fractious dispute with neighbors"

1 is related to the whole "eccentric recluse" myth, a myth that should be discussed: the origins, propagation and debunking (by family and biographers, etc.) of the rumors should perhaps be addressed in a section of its own. The Baxter "biography" seems to have a lot to do with the growth of the myth.

Component 2 talks about SK's perfectionism and level of control, while 3 reports a petty and, as far as I know, unsubstantiated rumor. In any case, neighborly rows are not uniquely Kubrickian. :)

  • Both Brian Aldiss and Fredrick Raphael who worked for several years with Kubrick on projects testified to his eccentric working and personal habits (including eating desserts with his main course at meals) though Kubrick's aides have disputed their accounts. The journalist Jon Ronson has been given access to Kubrick's extensive files and reports that in preparation for Eyes Wide Shut he had an aide photograph every front door in the Islington area of London.

The word "eccentric" is saturated with POV. "Wow, he used to mix desserts with main courses! That's crazy, man." The comment based on the Ronson article should be used when discussing SK's perfectionistic approach to the preparation of his films.

To summarize: I'm a new user, and I would like to help create a great Stanley Kubrick article. I'm trying to be bold so that we might have something solid to build on. If it turns out that most of the people interested in Kubrick are just lazy rumormongers, I will conclude that the current Wikipedia format is not worth the effort. 195.148.74.159 18:40, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Some of that should probably be re-instated. The Jon Ronson bit about photographing front doors, and the bit about being "involved with minutiae regarding the treatment of his films and his estate" is certainly true, eg the repainting of an NY cinema before it could show one of his films (may have been Clockwork Orange). Also, I don't think there's enough discussion of his expatriate status. Having to film Full Metal Jacket, Lolita or EWS in Britain is part of what makes them unusual. There's already a comment about NY "not looking like NY" in EWS (that's because its London!). JW 23:00, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Old "lead" section

Maybe some of this proves useful at a later date (esp. the quotes):

Stanley Kubrick (July 26, 1928 - March 7, 1999) was a Jewish-American film director born in The Bronx, New York City who lived most of his life in England. His films are highly acclaimed for their technical perfection and deep symbolism. As a director he was legendary for relentless perfectionism. Several of his films were extremely controversial upon release for their supposed thematic repugnance and stark portrayal of sexuality and violence.

Explaining his theory of the role of director, Kubrick told Joseph Gelmis: "A director is a kind of idea and taste machine; a movie is a series of creative and technical decisions, and it's the director's job to make the right decisions as frequently as possible." Describing his aesthetic approach to Michel Ciment, he said "I think that one of the problems with twentieth-century art is its preoccupation with subjectivity and originality at the expense of everything else... Though initially stimulating, this soon impeded the full development of any particular style, and rewarded uninteresting and sterile originality." 213.250.75.193 20:40, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Uncompleted Kubrick films (a keepsake)

A long list of uncompleted Stanley Kubrick films remain after the director's death in 1999. For a noted perfectionist, who would spend the vast majority of his time on pre-production, and had a career spanning forty-eight years, this is hardly surprising. Some of the most notable projects include I Stole 16 Million Dollars (which would have starred Kirk Douglas), Napoleon (infamously "the greatest film he never made"), The Aryan Papers (a Holocaust story postponed because of Schindler's List), and A.I. (eventually completed by colleague Steven Spielberg).

Short films (archive of redirected stubs)

The reason the early short films of Stanley Kubrick are remembered at all is because, well, they are the early short films of Stanley Kubrick. They were initial stabs at filmmaking by a future master, and there just isn’t enough weight behind them to justify individual articles.

Furthermore, the most interesting things that can be said of any of these three shorts all relate closely to SK’s biography, and commentary on the films would work better as a part of the main article.

Day of the Fight is a 1951 short subject documentary focusing on prize fighter Walter Cartier during the height of his career. It was the first picture directed by Stanley Kubrick.

The knock-out scene was not filmed by Kubrick himself, as he was reloading a negative cartridge in his camera at the time of the blow.

Flying Padre is a 1952 short subject documentary about a priest who flies around in a small airplane to reach every little farm in the countryside of New Mexico. It was the second picture directed by Stanley Kubrick.

The Seafarers is a 1953 promotional film produced by the Seafarers International Union to encourage membership. It was director Stanley Kubrick's first color film, third (and final) short, and lone commercial effort.

Re: Pending tasks

I personally agree with everything you've layed out regarding the pending tasks, and have redone the first section. 213.250.75.58, I like what you did with the opening section, your prose, so feel free to go over and smooth out what I just added. Anyone can and should obviously. If there are any issues with what should/shouldnt be done, or with what I added in particular, raise them here please --Clngre 20:39, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Also, is his fathers name Jacques or Jack? I've heard both numerous times --Clngre 20:41, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
Hi Clngre. I'll go over your prose in the near future - it's pretty good, but I think it could edited so that the text itself would paint us a picture of SK section by section. The current version kind of presupposes that the reader knows what a legend Kubrick was, etc. Know what I mean?
I too am a bit confused over his father's name. My best bet is that his birth certificate said 'Jacques' but he went by the name of 'Jack'. I think he could be refered to as Jacques (Jack) Kubrick, or something. 62.148.218.148 17:14, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I know what you mean about progressively building him up, I think that's a good idea. I do think that we should constantly address and support our final conclusion, whatever that may be. For instance, if the crux of his identity and role in cinema is his independance, perfectionism, creativity, etc, we should constantly reaffirm that and build up evidence. There should definately be a clear and concise theme throughout. I can't say with certainty what exactly that should be, but I do support the idea of putting a lot of weight on his spirit of independance; to me that seems like one of his most unique and defining characteristics --Clngre 17:29, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
True. But we don't want to go over the top and write a hagiography. The facts should speak for themselves. We don't need to sugarcoat them.
I'm not sure, but I think that the early life is now sketched out perhaps in too much detail! (I also spotted a few clear factual errors; for example, SK had two daughters with his third wife.) Are you OK with me cutting off the bits and pieces I feel are perhaps too trivial?
The Kubrick article is clearly building up critical mass! Good work. Best, 62.148.218.148 17:49, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I know that the early life section it disproportionately large, but the other sections have yet to be expanded. It was just too much to do all at once. Nevertheless, bloat is bloat, so feel free to trim whatever you'd like. I don't mind at all, you dont have ask me, the article obviously comes first. I'll contribute what I can, but I so far trust your opinion and knowledge more than my own, so lead the way --Clngre 18:03, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Biography rewrites

I've begun rewriting the biography. Note that some of the stuff mentioned in the earlier version will come up later on in the revised text.

Later on, a new section should be added:

Style / Stylistic trademarks

  • "Non-submersible units" (Editing, storytelling, playing with time, adaptation)
  • Narration (by voiceover and title cards/intertitles, irony, points of view, perhaps interest in language: inventive slang (FMJ and ACO), banal chit-chat (2001 and The Shining), etc.)
  • Tracking shots (camera movements)
  • Zooms (perhaps "Camera work" would be a neat umbrella term for tracking shots, zooms and SK's use of light, mise-en-scene and space in general?)
  • Music (classical and pop)
  • Actors (acting styles, frequent performers, stars, cameos by family members)

Etc. This is just something to think about; we don't need to add any kind of skeleton structure yet. 195.148.74.159 21:05, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Barry Lyndon

Yes the film has its passionate defenders, but, there is other evidence that refutes the normal putdowns of it. Yes, it was a flop in the U.S., but was a major success in Europe in 1975, and did win two Acadamy Awards. Yes, as with all of his films money was spent, but, I have never seen the terms 'wildly overbudget' applied to this film. Yes, Ryan O'Neal garnered criticism for his performance, a wildly fluctuating Irish accent being the chief one (often missed is that Redmond Barry was one of Thackery's anti-heros, which made O'Neal's casting somewhat appropriate), but his career was not brought to any kind of halt by this performance as he was in five films in the next four years. And yes, many critics at the time pounded it. This is one of the unique features of Stanley's films - mostly loathed at release - admired later - eventually, unable to comment on the history of cinema without mentioning them. It is, perhaps, a prime example of the Hegelian dialectic in practice. MarnetteD | Talk 03:35, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Final "Abstract Sequence" of 2001

This is one of the odd legends of this film, because if you watch it even 2 or 3 times, and read Clarke's book, you will see a very linear journey after Dave leaves the Discovery in the remaining pod. After the "space tunnel" (or garage) beginning you continue to move from a galaxy, to nebula, to solar system, to planetary, to surface skim journey that leads to the final 'Bowman' aging sequence. MarnetteD | Talk 15:17, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Kubrick's Nationality

Kubrick took out UK citizenship some time before he died - it was mentioned on the BBC reports of his funeral. 194.6.112.92 10:02, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fixing image

Could someone fix the image of Kubrick at the top of the page? I'm not very familiar with infoboxes, so I have no idea how it's done. Appears to have been messed up by the recent MediaWiki update?? --Comics 1 July 2005 23:34 (UTC)

American / British

In the first line it is reported that he was "an American film director", and he is listed in the Category:British film directors, not Category:U.S. film directors. Any consensus? How about Anglo-American film director? --Tony Hecht 15:44, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Kubrick surely ought to be classed as American. Although he lived in Britain for much of his life, all his major films were made for American studios (usually Warner Bros.). The Singing Badger 16:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)