It would have been amazing to see what Kubby would have made of "A.I." which, thematically, is about a kind of absolute innocence in a world that doesn't know how to handle such an unfettered state of being. It's telling that the child hooks up with a gigolo, the picture of world weariness. And yet again we have to ask, as an android can "know" love, can it know "cynicism"?
I imagine "A.I." might have wound up a companion piece/bookend/coda - you name it - to "Eyes Wide Shut."
True - you can say this about Kubrick. When I first saw "2001" at age 8 it actually scared the #$% out of me - it was so spooky and it captured the opaque nature of infinity so well (helped in no small part by the use of Ligeti's shrieking "Requiem" and chilly "Lux Aeterna".
I guess I was just commenting on a different in aesthestic intent achieved by two great directors through similar means. There is something innocent about Tarkovsky, whereas innocence rarely has a place in Kub's cosmos.
@malows1234 I can only presume that Tarkovsky is less known/famous because his work IS so demanding at times - not in a coldly intellectual way, but in a recondite, philosophical way. There are many scenes in Andrey Rublev, Solaris, The Mirror, & Stalker which I don't have a handle on; they are superseded by the full effects of the films. Tarkovsky's vibe is pretty amazing - I often find the films stultifying and yet I go back again an again as if to a lover who keeps me by keeping me wanting.
@Autostade67 ya lol, but couldn't you say that about stanley kubrick too? and he is probably the most famous director of all time.although kubrick was possibly more intellectual than philosophical. although i think what made kubrick great is that he had a way to blend all the artistic and ambitious genius he had into a package that was so endearing to even mainstream audience, it was the way he packaged the meanings of his films that seperates kubrick from tarkovsky and more recently malick
The proper aspect ratio in which to watch this film is 1:33, not widescreen. It should be the shape of a non-widescreen TV or you are missing the top and bottom. You should never miss out on the original picture compositions of Stanley Kubrick.
No director (except maybe Tarkovsky, though his intent was less deliberate than Kubrick's here) - NO director has ever so arrogantly, blithely, and brilliantly made pure art out of the STATIC qualities of film. At a time when shooting and editing techniques (French Connection, Staer Wars) were adding more and more kinetic energy to films, Kubrick said, "Ha!" and made this slow, stately, meandering, stagey, and absolutely perfect film. There is nothing like it; it belongs to no category.
By "less deliberate" I simply meant that Kubrick was a much more sly director who created a formal distance from his subject matter. I think a lot of his shooting choices were very knowing & self-conscious (in the best sense of the word) - this accounts for that enthralling & sometimes maddening sense of emotional detachment from characters & situations. Tarkovsky's longeurs seem, not more naive, but an attempt at a kind of spiritual connection - both work, just with different effects.
@Autostade67 i think tarkovsky has all the strengths of kubricks weakness. but same goes for kubrick. although i must say kubricks eye for a visual style is practically unmatched by anyone else in the world. that man could have become the worlds greatest photographer if he weren't the greatest film director. Although its a shame tarkovsky is so ignored. why is it that he hasn't gained the deserved fame? it kind of pisses me off.
@tma291 But still a genius move as it does not degrade a bit the scenem but quite the opposite: it gives it more intimacy and a kind of dreamy atmosphere so suitable for the shy, discreet eye seduction. Don't you agree?
@Polybius3 No it's just the way it's lit. It's purely by candlelight. Stanley Kubrick got NASA lens' in with an f-stock of 0.7 to allow the light in. It has a lovely authentic effect :)
@Polybius3 The depth of field is very small with only their faces in focus, everything else is soft. The newly released Bluray disc or seing it at the cinema is probably the only way to do that scene justice.
The BlueRay aspect ratio sucks
ERRATICCHEESE2 6 days ago
Too bad most women don't gamble, otherwise I'd be picking up chicks like this every night.
soberchimera61 1 week ago
It would have been amazing to see what Kubby would have made of "A.I." which, thematically, is about a kind of absolute innocence in a world that doesn't know how to handle such an unfettered state of being. It's telling that the child hooks up with a gigolo, the picture of world weariness. And yet again we have to ask, as an android can "know" love, can it know "cynicism"?
I imagine "A.I." might have wound up a companion piece/bookend/coda - you name it - to "Eyes Wide Shut."
Autostade67 2 weeks ago
True - you can say this about Kubrick. When I first saw "2001" at age 8 it actually scared the #$% out of me - it was so spooky and it captured the opaque nature of infinity so well (helped in no small part by the use of Ligeti's shrieking "Requiem" and chilly "Lux Aeterna".
I guess I was just commenting on a different in aesthestic intent achieved by two great directors through similar means. There is something innocent about Tarkovsky, whereas innocence rarely has a place in Kub's cosmos.
Autostade67 2 weeks ago
@malows1234 I can only presume that Tarkovsky is less known/famous because his work IS so demanding at times - not in a coldly intellectual way, but in a recondite, philosophical way. There are many scenes in Andrey Rublev, Solaris, The Mirror, & Stalker which I don't have a handle on; they are superseded by the full effects of the films. Tarkovsky's vibe is pretty amazing - I often find the films stultifying and yet I go back again an again as if to a lover who keeps me by keeping me wanting.
Autostade67 2 weeks ago
@Autostade67 ya lol, but couldn't you say that about stanley kubrick too? and he is probably the most famous director of all time.although kubrick was possibly more intellectual than philosophical. although i think what made kubrick great is that he had a way to blend all the artistic and ambitious genius he had into a package that was so endearing to even mainstream audience, it was the way he packaged the meanings of his films that seperates kubrick from tarkovsky and more recently malick
malows1234 2 weeks ago
this scene is beautiful. very few words, but the music and the actors face´s speaks for itself. In my opinion one of Kubricks greatest talents.
EXPERIMENTALMAN 3 weeks ago
Masterful is an understatement. This is Genius.
blephen 1 month ago
And what is the name of the music ?
bobgrants1 1 month ago
Ok find it, it is : Schubert - piano trio in e flat
bobgrants1 1 month ago
The proper aspect ratio in which to watch this film is 1:33, not widescreen. It should be the shape of a non-widescreen TV or you are missing the top and bottom. You should never miss out on the original picture compositions of Stanley Kubrick.
auerstadt06 1 month ago
The "pace" of the film is elegant and reflects the time that is depicted....just gorgeous...
fairman1952 2 months ago
No director (except maybe Tarkovsky, though his intent was less deliberate than Kubrick's here) - NO director has ever so arrogantly, blithely, and brilliantly made pure art out of the STATIC qualities of film. At a time when shooting and editing techniques (French Connection, Staer Wars) were adding more and more kinetic energy to films, Kubrick said, "Ha!" and made this slow, stately, meandering, stagey, and absolutely perfect film. There is nothing like it; it belongs to no category.
Autostade67 2 months ago 18
@Autostade67 Thank you for your brilliant analysis. You are 100% on the mark.
joelzenny 1 month ago
@Autostade67 tru dat
blephen 1 month ago
@Autostade67 what exactly do you mean tarkovsky was less deliberate?
malows1234 3 weeks ago
By "less deliberate" I simply meant that Kubrick was a much more sly director who created a formal distance from his subject matter. I think a lot of his shooting choices were very knowing & self-conscious (in the best sense of the word) - this accounts for that enthralling & sometimes maddening sense of emotional detachment from characters & situations. Tarkovsky's longeurs seem, not more naive, but an attempt at a kind of spiritual connection - both work, just with different effects.
Autostade67 3 weeks ago
@Autostade67 i think tarkovsky has all the strengths of kubricks weakness. but same goes for kubrick. although i must say kubricks eye for a visual style is practically unmatched by anyone else in the world. that man could have become the worlds greatest photographer if he weren't the greatest film director. Although its a shame tarkovsky is so ignored. why is it that he hasn't gained the deserved fame? it kind of pisses me off.
malows1234 3 weeks ago 2
what movie is this?
nfltank55 3 months ago
@nfltank55 Transformers
Casarzino 3 months ago 4
We can all read from IMDB
TheCoolHandFluke 4 months ago
@tma291 But still a genius move as it does not degrade a bit the scenem but quite the opposite: it gives it more intimacy and a kind of dreamy atmosphere so suitable for the shy, discreet eye seduction. Don't you agree?
gilsonbicudo 5 months ago
@gilsonbicudo
I agree.
entranceive 5 months ago
Fun!
ETSubmariner 6 months ago
Amazing. But is there a drop in image quality during the card game scene?
Polybius3 7 months ago
@Polybius3 No it's just the way it's lit. It's purely by candlelight. Stanley Kubrick got NASA lens' in with an f-stock of 0.7 to allow the light in. It has a lovely authentic effect :)
StrawberryJungle 3 months ago
@Polybius3 The depth of field is very small with only their faces in focus, everything else is soft. The newly released Bluray disc or seing it at the cinema is probably the only way to do that scene justice.
tehvalli 3 months ago