Hacker News Reader

Comment by l33tbro | Hacker News Reader

> In his films, Kubrick exists as a kind of deep state, while his fans are conspiracy theorists.

I love Kubrick, but does anyone else grow a little tired of the legacy management around him? With each generation of film fan, he's become the go-to-guy to project this archetype of the cinematic Godhead onto. Meanwhile, scores of equally detail-focused and enigmatic auteurs of his era slip through the cracks (eg, Visconti, Antonioni, Bresson, De Palma, to name a few).

Kubrick's unparalleled achievement will always be becoming a film-artist on studio dime (he established himself just before New Hollywood took off - and had cultivated enough of a mystique to carry-on after it crashed in the early-80s). But plenty of his contemporaries exercised the same degree of control that this article talks about, yet they're consistently overlooked because Kubrick became this meme of the cinematic Übermensch.

View on HN

But that's always how it works. A Kubrick, a Gates, a Bezos is one percent their efforts and virtues (without which there'd be nothing) and 99 percent being in the right place at the right time. Malcolm Gladwell (another example of this!) is glib but has talked about that in relation to the Silicon Valley titans: they were born at a historical moment, and were part of a small cohort (you mention four directors who didn't become 'Kubrick', not 4000) and among that cohort, their talent and effort lined up with good fortune.

You can say luck so long as you understand that ONLY luck won't get you this result. But among those with talent and determination, it's really fairly arbitrary who becomes the titans of art, industry, finance. You get good enough to meet the bar, and then it's up to Fate.

This is normal. It's more about what celebrity/stardom/ultimate merit IS, rather than what Kubrick is. It's a lot like internet virality. The pool of possibles is not large, but moderate: from that point onward it's luck and self-reinforcing prophecy. And again, you can't make a nothing into this sort of total winner because they must meet the bar first, they've got to earn their spot in the pool, but anyone in the pool would do as well.

Kevin Kelly has an interesting take on this in _What Technology Wants_ [1]. Essentially - that these sort of works were inevitable. If Kubrick, Gates, or Bezos hadn't made 2001, MS, or AMZ - someone else would have. Not _exactly_ the same thing of course, but something so similar as to fill the same spot in history. 2001 happened because 1968 was, in a sense, "ripe" for it. The book undoubtably explains it better. :-)

(Weird. This is the second book recommendation I've made on HN today... I swear I'm not a bot!)

1. https://www.amazon.com/What-Technology-Wants-Kevin-Kelly/dp/...

I think yours is the sophisticated view of progress rather than the naive "great man" theory. I subscribed to the "great man" theory that the great man pushed society's progress. Now I think that it is society's progress that creates the great man.

We are taught to think that there was something special or even superhuman about newton, turing, etc. But the reality is that they were one of many highly intelligent people working on the same problems created by society's progress. Even if they didn't succeed or achieve, someone else would have. But humans have an innate myth making imperative and a desire to hero worship so we create heros. But reality and history is far more complicated than the idealized myths we create. Without newton, we'd still have calculus ( leibniz, et al ). Without turing, we'd still have computer science ( Church, et al ).

> If Kubrick, Gates, or Bezos hadn't made 2001, MS, or AMZ - someone else would have. Not _exactly_ the same thing of course, but something so similar as to fill the same spot in history.

I'm willing to grant that this is true in one sense: having the right surrounding environment is necessary for the creation of some "great work". What I question is whether it's sufficient.

If some other filmmaker made the zeitgeist-equivalent to 2001, or some other entrepreneur made the zeitgeist-equivalent to Microsoft or Amazon, they would have done it differently, and differently enough that those differences, in and of themselves, would have had tremendous impact.

Have you watched the documentary "Boxes?"

https://imdb.com/title/tt1263704/

I think you really knock Kubrick without giving proper respect to his work ethic. And sure, luck is when preparation meets opportunity, but Stanley had the preparation part in spades, in a way that even many other successful "titans" probably do not.

You presuppose that individual determination is blind. How can you honestly look at an Amazon or Microsoft and say their impact on the world was essentially indeterministic chance? Amazon, especially, has had ample competition, yet the disparate decision making within each organization has resulted in disparate success.

Absolutely, I found especially annoying the statement in the article that says "films are never the work of an individual: they are products of a collective, and children of compromise." Well, Hollywood blockbusters for sure, there's scarcely a hint of directorship in those. But smaller or independent productions, which are not directed to the masses, are another thing.

Maybe what Kubrick did was to make movies that look like big Hollywood productions, with the big budgets and the polished look, but at the same time keeping the type of control and freedom that usually only small independents have. His movies are at the same time beautiful, extremely original, and very approachable- things that rarely go together.

As someone working in film I think that quote is quite good. Director is hugely important, but it really is about the team. Good director picks the players and aligns everyone, but it takes lot of people to come up with the creative decisions and solve all the aspects of the film.

Director is constrained by the input of the team and resources of the budget etc. those are the compromises which make the art.

Tbh, Stanley Kubrick is vastly overrated. Yes every one of his movies has great cinemotography, and is technically excellent, but many of his movies are not excellent as movies. Eyes Wide Shut, full metal jacket, and the shining are not 10/10 movies, and David Fincher, Harmony Korine, Charlie Kaifman have all created movies better than all those movies listed. The problem with Stanley Lubrick is because he has a style that is very attractive to viewers, and his movies are very accesible also, he gets massively overrated by a lot of casual film watchers, which is fine so are a lot of directors, but his hype has leaked even to actual film critics with years of experience. It also doesn't help that movies like Room 237 come out that jack of Stanley Kubrick and draw meaning out of things that had no meaning. Sad that people glorify Kubrick but don't even know who Charlir Kaufman or Harmony Korine are, even though both directors have created movies that are just as good as a lot of Kubricks films.

This is the first time I've ever heard Kubrick's work referred to as "accessible." If anything, the standard knock on him is that his movies are too distant and clinical for the average moviegoer; people admire 2001: A Space Odyssey, but they love Star Wars.

Well, they are sort of accessible- 2001 is particularly cryptic and slow paced, but it's still a high budget science fiction movie with spaceships and talking computers. While most people won't ever think of enduring the screening of a Bela Tarr movie.

I'm not sure I'd call Stanley Kubrick's movies accessible. Sure, there are less accessible movies out there, but also much more accessible ones. And accessibility is not a bad thing; movies are meant to be watched.

I personally find Kubrick's movies excellent. Rarely perfect, but often highly innovative in one area or another, and all completely different. They range from glacial 2001 to funny Dr Strangelove, to historical costume drama to brutal war movie, and he manages to capture the essence every time.

There are many other deserving directors out there, but it'd be nuts to not consider Kubrick among the greatest directors.

That's, just like, your opinion man.

I'm Enjoying my coffee.

Speaking of conspiracy theories, Kubrick's skills were so highly thought of that many people believe he had a key role in "faking" the moon landing.

https://variety.com/2016/film/news/stanley-kubrick-moon-land...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com