Author Topic: Ken and Stanley  (Read 5812 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline BoyScoutKevin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 520
Ken and Stanley
« Reply #1 on: December 23, 2009, 01:49:25 AM »
Since Iain has already mentioned Stanley Kubrick in association with Ken Russell, let me talk about some of the problems that I have with Kubrick's films that I have seen, which I do not have with Russell's films. But, first . . . Kubrick's films with which I have no problem.

"The Killing"
Technically, this is not his debut film. That'd be "The Flying Padre," but this is probably the first film of Kubrick's that most of us have seen. And I actually think it is a better debut than Russell's "French Dressing," which I must admit, I've seen only in bits and pieces, or Russell's "Billion Dollar Brain," which I have seen.

"Doctor Strangelvoe"
Which I find to be his most unrestrained film from beginning to end.

As for the problems I have with his other films . . .

"2001: a Space Odyssey"
I find it cold and emotionally uninvolving. Indeed, after first seeing it on the big screen, every attempt to watch it after that has left me turning it off by the half way point in the film. I've never found any of Russell's films to be that cold and emotionally uninvolving.

"A Clockwork Orange"
The problem I have with this film is that I find the character of Alex (Malcolm McDowell) a much more interesting character before he is "reformed," then after he is "reformed." I don't have that problem with the characters in Russell's films. Either I find them interesting or sometimes uninteresting. I don't find them interesting than suddenly becoming uninteresting.

"Barry Lyndon"
Some people have posted that the problem with this film is that the title character is played by Ryan O'Neal. I don't find that a problem at all or in any of the other actors. Though, some do better in their roles than others. What I find a problem is that the costumes and sets, and it may just be the way the film is shot, seemingly overwhelm the characters, so that they seem to disappear within the costumes and/or sets. I don't have this problem with any of Russell's films. Indeed, as outlandish as the sets may be in "The Devils" or the costumes in "Lair of the White Worm," the characters never seem to be overwhelmed by the costumes or sets in a Russell film.

And finally . . . the film of Kubrick's I wish I had seen, but have never seen.

"Eyes Wide Shut"
As from what I understand about it, it is one of Kubrick's only films to deal with the subject of sex. And I'd like to compare his take on sex to Russell's take on sex.