Ive never understood the concept of a pageturner tbh. No matter how it's written a book is still a book, it's gonna be a torturous slog to get through anyway
Keep getting responses like this and idk what theyre supposed to mean tbh. Is this not a reasonable description of an art form for which every work is in the best case the equivalent of watching a Lav Diaz film, without the entertainment aspect? I'm not saying we as a society can do away with books or don't need them. They are a necessity, just a painful one
Dude, I donāt even know how to begin or what to tell you! Itās just an absolutely brutal and depressing viewpoint to even consider having! Itās genuinely hard to wrap oneās mind around! Damn, Iām sure Iām sounding SUPER judgmental, but ā¦. yeah ā¦ I just donāt know what to say here! Not trying to condemn or shame or anything, but do you happen to have any neurological conditions, like dyslexia (or perhaps something like severe ADHD)? I guess I could see why it would be such a ātortuous slogā for you, if you did! I have fairly severe ADHD and thereās times reading can be a bit more of a struggle, so I could see someone really struggling! (Though the rewards have generally always been far and away worth those struggles!) I mean, I can understand certain genres being a slog (Harlequin Romance would certainly be one for me š), but to throw the entirety of literature and reading into that mind-frame is just ā¦ mind-boggling!
I like reading a lot more now than when I was younger. In school you are forced to read things you may have no interest in and it becomes a slog to stay awake trying to read it or even pretend you know whatās going on if discussed in class.
School killed reading for me for a long time.
I wouldnāt be so much into film if I enjoyed reading when I was younger.
I have had to read many books for school, and they are always a pain. Every page the gradual orangepeeling of skin from my scrotum. Devoid of joy and boundless in agony.
When I was 12-14 or younger I was reading way more books than I do now, because they were easier to read, alternatives to reading were fewer, and I had endless time to do so. Nowadays it's like, why would I waste years reading 1200 pages of Shogun when theres an amazing miniseries version right there which I can get through easily in just a few months or even weeks, if I have enough free time.
Not sure how this is controversial in the literal Criterion subreddit. Movies often cram entire novels into the smallest package thry can be fit into
The problem being the fact that we lose our imaginations as we age. And that no matter how amazing your imagination is, it takes like 5-10x longer to read a book than to consume roughly the same amount of content in any other form. Why spend weeks, months, or even years reading a book when you can probably find all the lectures of a Harvard course on the subject on YouTube, which you can watch within a week or two (or less) and fit that watchtime into your day to day schedule, without even encroaching much on your weekends?
I was referring to nonfiction books on that, as this post is about one. As far as fiction books go, I mean yeah its way easier and quicker to watch a movie or miniseries, or even a few seasons of a show which adapts a book, than to read the entire book
We don't lose imagination as we age, studies actually show we reach our peak of originality in our later years (think 60's). A lot of our greatest artists were on the older side, just look at Miyazaki!
Oh I was thinking it was because most of Kubrickās films were based on books so they assumed you were trolling by saying books are boring to read. Paintings take too long because photos, movies are going to be extinct because AI. Yet they all survive. Your take is extremely localized to your own preferences. You should be aware of it unless you really are trolling.
>No matter how it's written a book is still a book, it's gonna be a torturous slog to get through anyway
You couldn't have summarized the problem with modern society and culture more succinctly if you had wanted to.
>He complained that the book had āa summary of the good things about [each] movie followed by a summary of the bad points, which, in [Kubrickās] view, always outweigh the good on account of the overly emphatic way in which such criticisms are presented.ā
Alas, it's not a boldly revolutionary takedown of Kubrick
Itās funny to think how much money Kubrick lost for Cruise. He missed several casting opportunities locked up on the set of Eyes Wide Shut for like 16 months for movie that should have taken like 4.
I never got why people donāt like Cruise in it. I thought it was clever to cast him against type ā the movie opens with Cruise in full 90s Cruise mode, flirting with guests and being his normal charismatic self. And it makes it all the better once his entire worldview gets shattered and we see him try to smile through the pain
Iām listening to the audiobook Kubrick by Robert Kolker. Highly recommend it if you want to read something worthwhile on Kubrick.
I took some cinematography courses in college and my professor was Sol Negrin and he recounted a story to us of working with Kubrick in his early days on an Abraham Lincoln project and Stanley was popping his gun off behind the set, freaking everyone out. I never read that story anywhere, just heard about it from Sol. Couldnāt even find the project on Kubricks IMDb at the time. I was super giddy to hear the whole story retold in this book. Iām only a few chapters in, but Iād say itās pretty thorough so far.
Iām not sure how the subject of Kubrick came up. Maybe some students complained that we were analyzing more Welles and foreign films than Kubrick and Nolan. Sol called, āEyes Wide Shut,ā a piece of shit. I happen to like it, but always laugh at that while watching it.
He was a crazy person who made very famous people like Tom Cruise and Harvey Keitel do 100 takes of very basic scenes until those actors went a little insane.
I don't think negative criticism will affect his image. His films are masterworks of art. I don't really care if the man was a wacko.
Iām confused as to how Kubrick wouldāve had the ability to do this, especially since numerous books critical of him were published in his lifetime.
>Tantivy (Press) had signed an agreement with Kubrick stating that it would not publish anything āuntil such time as its entire contents have been approved in writing by me [Kubrick]ā.
>Hornick said: āI understood his legal agreement with the publisher entitled him to ensure the book was factually correct. I didnāt expect the whole book to be rejected.ā
>Kubrickās lawyers were clear: āIf ā¦ any attempt were to be made by yourself or any other publisher to publish the existing manuscript without his approval our Client will have no alternative but to accept our advice to take all steps as are open to him to prevent such publication and to seek redress for damages suffered.ā
By 1969, he had made movies critical of the social establishment and the limits of Western imagination. But he couldn't take criticism himself, only spew it out. Doesn't invalidate his movies, but what a baby to suppress somebody's book.
I remember reading about Slim Pickens experience while working on Doctor Strangelove. Kubrick used to build scenes up like a work of art. Adding or taking away until it looked right to him. He made him do 50 takes for one line. Pickens refused to work with him ever again after that
I never understood the notion that a film has to align with the book that it is adapted from. Ā What works on the page doesnāt necessarily translate to working as a cinematic experience.Ā I mean a book can have 100 pages of exposition. Ā You can adapt that to a tv series maybe but not a 2 hour film.Ā
I view the shining as its own creative work and not the film version of the book per se.Ā
Yeah, I wouldnāt want to die on that hill. Once you realize how many movies are adapted from books, it becomes an uphill battle.
I read 2001 it is nothing like the movie and vice versa. Iād rather watch the movie again.
Indeed. And where as books are providing content for your conscious thought process, the film version, especially a film like 2001 - through aesthetic and sound is going for something more visceral or subconscious or subliminal or meditative - something that the book may not be able to accomplish. Different medium, different objectives. Films may be intended to operate on you in a way that books cannot, and Kubrick exemplified that. Ā Ā
Exactly. Another interesting thought is a book like blood meridian which I just read for the first time this winter.
I couldnāt imagine that getting adapted properly into a movie, at least the normal Hollywood conventions of a film. It would have to be pretty out there.
Some people have brought up the idea of a miniseries like generation kill. The movie would need to be at least 3.5 maybe over five hours. Maybe something like a trilogy or duo like how dune is doing it.
The difference is Arthur C Clarke didn't act like a giant cry baby about it. In fact he enjoyed the experience of working with Kubrick and embraced that his book and the movie were different. He even wrote a separate book about it in which he described some of the alternative versions of the story that he and Kubrick kicked around. I had the book when I was a kid but my parents lost it when they moved house...
I mean, yes, you do understand the notion if somebody was adapting harry potter and instead of wizards they were all mutants with psychic powers you'd be rightfully wondering what the fuck you were watching. The shining isn't a bad movie but it is a bad adaptation and kubricks attitude towards it makes me care a lot less about his work as a whole.
Here is a bio for the book's author, Neil Hornick. The photo completely matches The Guardian's story for Magic Eye's publication.
Hornick has been involved in avant-garde theater for 60 years and sounds interesting. I can imagine him pulling off a worthwhile book on Kubrick. Their pursuits even sound related.
[https://www.unfinishedhistories.com/interviews/interviewees-f-k/neil-hornick/](https://www.unfinishedhistories.com/interviews/interviewees-f-k/neil-hornick/)
At first I was curious what Kubrick had against those pictures you have to stare at to see a shape form.
https://preview.redd.it/72k532efk2zc1.jpeg?width=1250&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=db320ca033846397a84e09c9df9e3cedbb8aeda0
I know he's dead, and he doesn't mind. I just think that when I'm dead, I'd like some personal wishes to be granted. It's how I would like my memory to be handled, so I think it would be right to do it for others too.
I'm not saying it's disrespectful for people to read it, it's just how I feel and deal with it. I don't see why downvote.
50 year old light criticism of Stanley Kubick, sure sounds like a page-turner
Ive never understood the concept of a pageturner tbh. No matter how it's written a book is still a book, it's gonna be a torturous slog to get through anyway
Yikes!! š„“
Keep getting responses like this and idk what theyre supposed to mean tbh. Is this not a reasonable description of an art form for which every work is in the best case the equivalent of watching a Lav Diaz film, without the entertainment aspect? I'm not saying we as a society can do away with books or don't need them. They are a necessity, just a painful one
Dude, I donāt even know how to begin or what to tell you! Itās just an absolutely brutal and depressing viewpoint to even consider having! Itās genuinely hard to wrap oneās mind around! Damn, Iām sure Iām sounding SUPER judgmental, but ā¦. yeah ā¦ I just donāt know what to say here! Not trying to condemn or shame or anything, but do you happen to have any neurological conditions, like dyslexia (or perhaps something like severe ADHD)? I guess I could see why it would be such a ātortuous slogā for you, if you did! I have fairly severe ADHD and thereās times reading can be a bit more of a struggle, so I could see someone really struggling! (Though the rewards have generally always been far and away worth those struggles!) I mean, I can understand certain genres being a slog (Harlequin Romance would certainly be one for me š), but to throw the entirety of literature and reading into that mind-frame is just ā¦ mind-boggling!
I like reading a lot more now than when I was younger. In school you are forced to read things you may have no interest in and it becomes a slog to stay awake trying to read it or even pretend you know whatās going on if discussed in class. School killed reading for me for a long time. I wouldnāt be so much into film if I enjoyed reading when I was younger.
You make me very sad.
Why? Should it not be the dact of how much books suck to read which makes you sad
Counterpoint, have you considered that you may be illiterate?
^(WHAT ARE THESE HIEROGLYPHS BEFORE ME??)
I have had to read many books for school, and they are always a pain. Every page the gradual orangepeeling of skin from my scrotum. Devoid of joy and boundless in agony.
Ahh see I didnāt even get to this post. Same for me, itās the school part of it.
Are you 14?
When I was 12-14 or younger I was reading way more books than I do now, because they were easier to read, alternatives to reading were fewer, and I had endless time to do so. Nowadays it's like, why would I waste years reading 1200 pages of Shogun when theres an amazing miniseries version right there which I can get through easily in just a few months or even weeks, if I have enough free time. Not sure how this is controversial in the literal Criterion subreddit. Movies often cram entire novels into the smallest package thry can be fit into
Counter-point reading is great if you have a good imagination.
The problem being the fact that we lose our imaginations as we age. And that no matter how amazing your imagination is, it takes like 5-10x longer to read a book than to consume roughly the same amount of content in any other form. Why spend weeks, months, or even years reading a book when you can probably find all the lectures of a Harvard course on the subject on YouTube, which you can watch within a week or two (or less) and fit that watchtime into your day to day schedule, without even encroaching much on your weekends?
People enjoy reading. Also not everyone cares about optimizing their media consumption
I mean in the same sense why watch a movie when you can have all the themes and plot broken down for you in a video essay.
I was referring to nonfiction books on that, as this post is about one. As far as fiction books go, I mean yeah its way easier and quicker to watch a movie or miniseries, or even a few seasons of a show which adapts a book, than to read the entire book
If anything, my imagination has gotten better as I've gotten older. Nearly 40 years old and have only ever found the works of Ayn Rand to be a slog
We don't lose imagination as we age, studies actually show we reach our peak of originality in our later years (think 60's). A lot of our greatest artists were on the older side, just look at Miyazaki!
š What a story Mark.
Bait
How
Unless you are like 15 acting like this is the first time you've heard that other people enjoy reading is incredibly corny
Oh I was thinking it was because most of Kubrickās films were based on books so they assumed you were trolling by saying books are boring to read. Paintings take too long because photos, movies are going to be extinct because AI. Yet they all survive. Your take is extremely localized to your own preferences. You should be aware of it unless you really are trolling.
>No matter how it's written a book is still a book, it's gonna be a torturous slog to get through anyway You couldn't have summarized the problem with modern society and culture more succinctly if you had wanted to.
Theres an innumerable wealth of problems with modern society and culture, the fact that books are painful is far from the worst of them
Pick up a copy of Breakfast of Champions and tell me it's a slog. The pages practically turn themselves.
You're not reading the right books brah
If you have hands any book is a page turner. I guess if you donāt have hands you can use your nubs. Or your tongue.
Nah, you read
What books are you reading
Nobody loves trolls.
Yeah i prefer reels myself
Had the time to update it for his entire filmography lol
>He complained that the book had āa summary of the good things about [each] movie followed by a summary of the bad points, which, in [Kubrickās] view, always outweigh the good on account of the overly emphatic way in which such criticisms are presented.ā Alas, it's not a boldly revolutionary takedown of Kubrick
Itās funny to think how much money Kubrick lost for Cruise. He missed several casting opportunities locked up on the set of Eyes Wide Shut for like 16 months for movie that should have taken like 4.
Thomas Cruise Mapother IV is doing quite well, methinks.
And Cruise wasn't even the right casting call.
You think he should have stuck with Steve Martin, as originally planned? I disagree, I think having Cruise as the lead makes it much funnier.
I never got why people donāt like Cruise in it. I thought it was clever to cast him against type ā the movie opens with Cruise in full 90s Cruise mode, flirting with guests and being his normal charismatic self. And it makes it all the better once his entire worldview gets shattered and we see him try to smile through the pain
Shouldāve done the compliment sandwich smh
Iām listening to the audiobook Kubrick by Robert Kolker. Highly recommend it if you want to read something worthwhile on Kubrick. I took some cinematography courses in college and my professor was Sol Negrin and he recounted a story to us of working with Kubrick in his early days on an Abraham Lincoln project and Stanley was popping his gun off behind the set, freaking everyone out. I never read that story anywhere, just heard about it from Sol. Couldnāt even find the project on Kubricks IMDb at the time. I was super giddy to hear the whole story retold in this book. Iām only a few chapters in, but Iād say itās pretty thorough so far.
I took a film class with James B. Harris and a writing class with Diane Johnson. They never talked about their connection to Kubrick, weirdly.
Iām not sure how the subject of Kubrick came up. Maybe some students complained that we were analyzing more Welles and foreign films than Kubrick and Nolan. Sol called, āEyes Wide Shut,ā a piece of shit. I happen to like it, but always laugh at that while watching it.
It was just published last week ago
He was a crazy person who made very famous people like Tom Cruise and Harvey Keitel do 100 takes of very basic scenes until those actors went a little insane. I don't think negative criticism will affect his image. His films are masterworks of art. I don't really care if the man was a wacko.
\* not crazy
He was a bit nuts. OCD at the very least.
Obsessive yes. Nuts no.
seems odd, but i don't know much about the man
Iām confused as to how Kubrick wouldāve had the ability to do this, especially since numerous books critical of him were published in his lifetime.
>Tantivy (Press) had signed an agreement with Kubrick stating that it would not publish anything āuntil such time as its entire contents have been approved in writing by me [Kubrick]ā. >Hornick said: āI understood his legal agreement with the publisher entitled him to ensure the book was factually correct. I didnāt expect the whole book to be rejected.ā >Kubrickās lawyers were clear: āIf ā¦ any attempt were to be made by yourself or any other publisher to publish the existing manuscript without his approval our Client will have no alternative but to accept our advice to take all steps as are open to him to prevent such publication and to seek redress for damages suffered.ā
By 1969, he had made movies critical of the social establishment and the limits of Western imagination. But he couldn't take criticism himself, only spew it out. Doesn't invalidate his movies, but what a baby to suppress somebody's book.
Everybody has an opinion. Team Kubrick all the way.
I remember reading about Slim Pickens experience while working on Doctor Strangelove. Kubrick used to build scenes up like a work of art. Adding or taking away until it looked right to him. He made him do 50 takes for one line. Pickens refused to work with him ever again after that
Finally, someone willing to roast this guy.
I don't care for him because I read the shining before I watched it and it's a hill I'll die on.
I never understood the notion that a film has to align with the book that it is adapted from. Ā What works on the page doesnāt necessarily translate to working as a cinematic experience.Ā I mean a book can have 100 pages of exposition. Ā You can adapt that to a tv series maybe but not a 2 hour film.Ā I view the shining as its own creative work and not the film version of the book per se.Ā
Yeah, I wouldnāt want to die on that hill. Once you realize how many movies are adapted from books, it becomes an uphill battle. I read 2001 it is nothing like the movie and vice versa. Iād rather watch the movie again.
Indeed. And where as books are providing content for your conscious thought process, the film version, especially a film like 2001 - through aesthetic and sound is going for something more visceral or subconscious or subliminal or meditative - something that the book may not be able to accomplish. Different medium, different objectives. Films may be intended to operate on you in a way that books cannot, and Kubrick exemplified that. Ā Ā
Exactly. Another interesting thought is a book like blood meridian which I just read for the first time this winter. I couldnāt imagine that getting adapted properly into a movie, at least the normal Hollywood conventions of a film. It would have to be pretty out there. Some people have brought up the idea of a miniseries like generation kill. The movie would need to be at least 3.5 maybe over five hours. Maybe something like a trilogy or duo like how dune is doing it.
The difference is Arthur C Clarke didn't act like a giant cry baby about it. In fact he enjoyed the experience of working with Kubrick and embraced that his book and the movie were different. He even wrote a separate book about it in which he described some of the alternative versions of the story that he and Kubrick kicked around. I had the book when I was a kid but my parents lost it when they moved house...
And let's be fair the Shining hardly works on paper
I mean, yes, you do understand the notion if somebody was adapting harry potter and instead of wizards they were all mutants with psychic powers you'd be rightfully wondering what the fuck you were watching. The shining isn't a bad movie but it is a bad adaptation and kubricks attitude towards it makes me care a lot less about his work as a whole.
No Barry Lyndon for you then.
Acceptable
Ooof.
I read the book first too but Kubrick clearly elevated the materialĀ
Here is a bio for the book's author, Neil Hornick. The photo completely matches The Guardian's story for Magic Eye's publication. Hornick has been involved in avant-garde theater for 60 years and sounds interesting. I can imagine him pulling off a worthwhile book on Kubrick. Their pursuits even sound related. [https://www.unfinishedhistories.com/interviews/interviewees-f-k/neil-hornick/](https://www.unfinishedhistories.com/interviews/interviewees-f-k/neil-hornick/)
At first I was curious what Kubrick had against those pictures you have to stare at to see a shape form. https://preview.redd.it/72k532efk2zc1.jpeg?width=1250&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=db320ca033846397a84e09c9df9e3cedbb8aeda0
The Magic eye: I'm about to end this man's whole career
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
He died like 25 years ago. Iām sure he doesnāt mind.
I know he's dead, and he doesn't mind. I just think that when I'm dead, I'd like some personal wishes to be granted. It's how I would like my memory to be handled, so I think it would be right to do it for others too. I'm not saying it's disrespectful for people to read it, it's just how I feel and deal with it. I don't see why downvote.