Xixax Film Forum

The Director's Chair => Stanley Kubrick => Topic started by: Gold Trumpet on January 27, 2003, 10:59:18 PM

Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: Gold Trumpet on January 27, 2003, 10:59:18 PM
Full Metal Jacket, is likely the best example of all the limitations Kubrick had as a director after gaining so much power, that he could take 7 years to make a film with no fear of wasting time. The film lacks the emotional passion of Kubrick, last shown a long time before in Dr. Strangelove. With his career following Dr. Strangelove, Kubrick became more interested in formula and structure than anything else. Now, don't get me wrong, some of my favorite Kubrick films have come from this period, but Kubrick seemed unfit to be directing stories of more emotion, such as Full Metal Jacket.

Full Metal Jacket is a brilliant conceived film that acts as an anti narrative to how war films played out. When the movie divides itself into two, and presents the first as a harrowing account of boot camp, what is expected is that the boot camp will lead to an intense war with all the promises of boot camp realized. The movie understands the war perfectly and acts it out as hope gone and shows the myth of war played out. When heroic fighting is expected, the movie givesa bunch of soldiers sitting around, bored and talking of everything they will do when they fight. The movie paints the Vietnam War as a media war that promoted these kids to being heroes when they were just kids in a mess of a war with no direction of what to do. Kubrick shows all this with excellence.

The major flaw with the movie, and for Kubrick post Dr. Strangelove, is that it can never fully succeed on an emotional level. Full Metal Jacket suggests lack of humanity in its title, but is very much of humanity with its final lesson, and that is the lesson of how hard it is to kill someone point blank. It is a very emotional thing but I can't help but notice how distant and cold Kubrick is in showing it. Even the build up to it seems lacking of what it deserves because the movie was so much focused on showing the irony of what Vietnam actually was and wasn't. With a movie like Apocalyse Now, you got a sense of freedom within the movie of anything could happen technically and emotionally. With Full Metal Jacket, you do not. What I would have wished was another director who would have extended the second part of the movie that would go from showing the ironies of the war and evolve into a personal story of the soldier, Joker. I think making it longer would have made the audience understand that war was not a blood fest of violence, but a mess on a different level, and with a personal story of one soldier going through it, the idea of how hard it is to kill someone would have been better realized.

With exception to 2001 and Barry Lyndon, all of his films post Strangelove seem lacking of freedom both technically and emotionally. The two films I named were movies fit for what was done in their themes. I still admire all these films, I just think they were never fully realized at all.

~rougerum
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: life_boy on January 28, 2003, 01:30:08 AM
Well, that's like.....your opinion, man.
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: Pwaybloe on February 06, 2003, 09:34:30 AM
Yeah, his opinion-stains are all over this place.  I need to smack him with the newspaper next time.  Bad dog.
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: Ghostboy on February 06, 2003, 10:01:21 AM
Full Metal Jacket is my least favorite Kubrick film. The first half is brilliant, and then it just kinda lopes along with the war scenes, which I don't think are that involving. I wish the whole movie had taken place at the boot camp.

However, I do think Eyes Wide Shut is one of his more emotionally accessible films. I thought it was a lovely look at the ambiguities of love and marriage.
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: RegularKarate on February 06, 2003, 12:48:10 PM
Quote from: GhostboyFull Metal Jacket is my least favorite Kubrick film. The first half is brilliant, and then it just kinda lopes along with the war scenes, which I don't think are that involving. I wish the whole movie had taken place at the boot camp.

That's always the most disapointing and often view of that film.
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: Cecil on February 06, 2003, 06:50:22 PM
full metal jacket is a masterpiece
Title: Full Metal Jacket
Post by: Recce on February 06, 2003, 07:27:06 PM
Yeah, Full metal Jacket is the best. I think my favorite Kubrick film. I don't know what the Golden trumpet guy is talking about. The scene with the sniper dying is probly one of the most emotionnal moments in film history. It's jsut because Kubrick stretched his scenes out to near awkward proportion, it throws some people off.
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: Gold Trumpet on February 06, 2003, 09:19:06 PM
you may think it was powerful, but I all i noticed on how focused the shooting of those scenes were. When Kubrick should have shown more freedom in showing the action, he did not. The shot of the sniper shooting the soldier and the effect of it was blatantely obvious to what it was trying to do that you wished he would have had more freedom in showing the end. The rest of the movie made sense for the formulas because it matched the themes but the end is where the humanity kicks in to reveal the final truth and there is an obvious difference in emotion between the final of Apocalypse Now and Full Metal Jacket.

~rougerum
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on February 06, 2003, 09:30:07 PM
Quote from: The Gold Trumpetthere is an obvious difference in emotion between the final of Apocalypse Now and Full Metal Jacket.

A Kubrick movie has nothing to do with conventional emotion, though... you should know that.

I think the sniper scene is one of the best war scenes ever, and Full Metal Jacket is close to being my favorite Kubrick movie.
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: Gold Trumpet on February 06, 2003, 10:05:32 PM
Ah, but I never said convential emotion, my point was to how much emotion was lacking at a very emotional time in the movie. You guys can argue all you want but a trademark of many Kubrick films is how involved his characters seem to be. Many times it is for good purpose, but when it comes to a time when something emotional is happening, it should be there. I didn't feel that at all as I felt the last third of the movie to discovering and killing the assasin was one of the barest ideas for drama of any Kubrick film and I never felt Kubrick actually bringing himself to show any more emotion.

~rougerum
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on February 06, 2003, 10:09:32 PM
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetAh, but I never said convential emotion, my point was to how much emotion was lacking at a very emotional time in the movie.

You still haven't defined the emotion you seek as being unconventional or at all related to other Kubrick emotions, so I'm still assuming you're thinking about conventional emotion.
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: Gold Trumpet on February 06, 2003, 10:17:30 PM
OK, if you want to call showing the emotional force of someone who talked that they were a killer but when throw into a war situation couldn't live up to it as he saw his only friend killed by a sniper that gripped him with fear and then being forced to perform a mercy kill as his first kill convential emotion? Then yes, trying to show that honestly is what I would want. My definition of the emotion Kubrick shows is to play with the idea of it instead of actually going into it. Full Metal Jacket is a movie set up in anti-narrative and the lack of emotion works well with the themes to the point, but when the movie crosses over to show the honesty of how hard it is to kill someone, then it becomes another movie and should be showed that way. Spitting it out as showing convential or unconvential simplifies Kubrick's movies, and you should know that.

~rougerum
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on February 06, 2003, 10:29:03 PM
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetSpitting it out as showing convential or unconvential simplifies Kubrick's movies, and you should know that.

The problem with that argument is that "unconventional" is a pretty unlimited term, so I'm only excluding one kind of emotion, because I think we've both established that Kubrick doesn't use conventional emotion.

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetThen yes, trying to show that honestly is what I would want.

Again, I think you're thinking about conventional honesty, conventional emotion, etc. You have yet to compare FMJ's emotions to the emotions of another Kubrick movie.

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetMy definition of the emotion Kubrick shows is to play with the idea of it instead of actually going into it. Full Metal Jacket is a movie set up in anti-narrative and the lack of emotion works well with the themes to the point, but when the movie crosses over to show the honesty of how hard it is to kill someone, then it becomes another movie and should be showed that way.

I think all the conflicts you mentioned are not necessarily conflicts. Kubrick "goes into" and idea by playing with it, in his own way. "Anti-narrative" (or unconventional narrative) does not exclude emotion.. in fact, it can use it far better than conventional narrative. You could actually say that emotion by its nature is anti-narrative, and a movie like Mulholland Drive is narrated by a turbulent succession of emotions and moods. I think if you let go of needing a conventional narrative to support everything you feel about a movie, you might find that "showing the honesty of how hard it is to kill someone" the way Kubrick does actually works well without narrative support, and its emotions are richer, in a more abrupt and visciously realistic way.
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: Gold Trumpet on February 06, 2003, 10:52:02 PM
Saying unconvential/convential describes nothing in his films though.

It's not comparing the emotion, but the approach to showing the emotion instead. I can claim first half of Shining, Eyes Wide Shut, some of A Clockwork Orange. What I am saying is that his approach to material of emotion is lacking, like he doesn't really want to fully bring us in into the world. It's Kubrick's style of his later period, and keeping the performances down to a point where you don't feel them showing their characters fully. Sometimes this deals with the themes, like I said it does for much of Full Metal Jacket, but at the end, the movie changes and the performances and shooting do not.

If you really think I need a convential narrative to support everything I feel about a movie, then you have never read a word I have said on anything. My point, is very simple and will remain simple, Kubrick's anti narrative in story and emotion works fine for the entire movie until the movie storywise makes the decision to get out of anti narrative and show an emotional honesty for its ending. My problem lies in the ending when the movie didn't follow up on what the story had become.

~rougerum
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: ©brad on February 22, 2003, 08:38:57 AM
Quote from: The Gold Trumpetyou may think it was powerful, but I all i noticed on how focused the shooting of those scenes were. When Kubrick should have shown more freedom in showing the action, he did not. The shot of the sniper shooting the soldier and the effect of it was blatantely obvious to what it was trying to do that you wished he would have had more freedom in showing the end. The rest of the movie made sense for the formulas because it matched the themes but the end is where the humanity kicks in to reveal the final truth and there is an obvious difference in emotion between the final of Apocalypse Now and Full Metal Jacket.

~rougerum

shown more freedom? How so?

FYI, Martin Scorsese and Oliver Stone both commented on the 'sniper scene' in FMJ as being 'expertly done,' and I think Stone and Scorsese know a bit more about photography...
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: Gold Trumpet on February 22, 2003, 12:18:18 PM
You know what, if you want to buy that argument cbr that since they are professionals and would know more than me on a subject, then why don't we close all topics of discussion and instead search for things said on every possible subject to the movies by different various directors. I admire both directors, but they are wrong in this situation.

When I say more freedom, I mean Kubrick should have been much more up for bringing up the environment than just relying it on the shooting of the sniper. Kubrick's camera work is stiff in this sequence, which doesn't bold very well for bringing in a threatening reality when it only reminds me of the problems of the older movies that really did buy into the Eisenstein theories of how to shoot a movie. Also, the movie only tries to add smoke to the environment to make it have a feeling of an ominous or threating one. Apocalyse Now was the ultimate in creating an atmosphere that seemed ready for anything to happen. Kubrick, on the other hand, directs with such a focus on shooting every single thing in one way that the idea that anything can happen may be gone. You may be watching more for the formulas to play out than anything else. But see, I love Full Metal Jacket and its anti narrative approach to the subject, but thing is, at the end, the movies does decide to make it a realistic look to the horrors of war and it just felt like Kubrick couldn't bring up the feeling to match the idea. Relying only on a trick shot of a sniper shooting didn't work, but maybe if there were more feeling and ideas placed within the scene, it could have been good.

~rougerum
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: ©brad on February 23, 2003, 07:58:29 AM
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetI admire both directors, but they are wrong in this situation.


~rougerum

Look bud, you can say/think whatever you want, you just make sure you preface it with "in my opinion."
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: Gold Trumpet on February 23, 2003, 02:24:31 PM
nah. Everything I say is my opinion anyways so why state the obvious.

~rougerum
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: phil marlowe on February 23, 2003, 03:12:20 PM
Quote from: The Gold Trumpetnah. Everything I say is my opinion anyways so why state the obvious.

~rougerum

I agree. There are little reason to all that IMO "crap"( i really don't mean "crap" but in lack of a better word i use it) in such cases. If a post isn't the product of ones opinion, then i don't know what. But i have to say, when everybody else allways state the "in my opinion" thing, then you may sound a little too confident.
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: Cecil on February 23, 2003, 03:36:00 PM
you dont even need to put "in my opinion," which i agree comes off as too confident, just:

I admire both directors, but i think they are wrong in this situation.
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: ©brad on February 24, 2003, 05:26:20 AM
I definitely get the "Golden Trumpet knows all" vibe when you make blatantly arrogant comments like "they are both wrong in this situation."
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: Gold Trumpet on February 24, 2003, 06:27:40 AM
thats fine

~rougerum
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on February 24, 2003, 08:53:55 AM
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetRelying only on a trick shot of a sniper shooting didn't work, but maybe if there were more feeling and ideas placed within the scene, it could have been good.

That scene is beautiful for its simplicity, and I think it's the best scene in the movie. Its coldness makes it perfect. The fact that the soldiers don't cry for the soldier that has just been shot, but instantly run in for revenge, is what makes the scene what it is. A deeply emotional scene at that point would have destroyed the "atmosphere" that you keep talking about. Do you really think heavy conventional emotion would have worked with that scene? It works only because these are emotionless people who have nothing but instinct left.
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: Gold Trumpet on February 24, 2003, 04:12:56 PM
No, no no about it being about emotionless people who have nothing left but instinct. That's not the point at all, the point is to show of how hard it is for someone to kill someone and with the sniper scene, face the threat of being killed. Kubrick alluded to this point many times within interviews of how hard it was to kill someone. It is bringing the ant narrative feeling to a point of final feeling, where all the talk and bullshit of what everyone will do in war is gone, and now the reality is set upon them through trying to deal with a sniper. My feeling is that I never felt the threat of the sniper nor the feeling of them being in danger. I would have preffered a heightened atmosphere for accomplishing that, and with the evidence that they started to use smoke to set the scene of danger (classic Kurosawa trademark), it was obvious that they were going for that. My meaning is that the rest of the movie does have the coldness of anti humanity because these kids have never really been tested with the horrors of war, that is, until the very end. But a point must be said, in that Animal Mother is already gone and to an emotionless state. The hero, Joker, obviously isn't.

And stop attributing my demands to correcting a scene as making them "convential" following with emotion or some other detail of a movie.

~rougerum
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: ©brad on February 25, 2003, 07:27:26 AM
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetNo, no no about it being about emotionless people who have nothing left but instinct.
~rougerum

I agree with JB. You see this is exactly what I think the main theme of Full Metal Jacket is. GT, you are entitled to your opinions and you can post whatever you want, but this "I'm right you're wrong" shit is childish and it makes it hard for me to take any of your posts seriously. They come off as frustrated ranting of a stubborn film know-it-all. I'm just surprised how you can't see this, if you are the somewhat intelligent person I think you are, I think you could be a bit more mature, i.e. "Ok Jeremy, you think that, but I think it's totally different." Is that so hard? I mean, how do you know exactly what FMJ is about? There's no one answer. Films are open to interpretation. Kubrick's intentions could be quite different than what I or anyone else gets from the film. I mean, this is film analysis 101 folks!
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: Gold Trumpet on February 25, 2003, 09:44:11 AM
I'll try to be nicer as i disagree with everything. Also, this could be room for you to stop insulting people. I remember Duck Sauce yelling at you for that and examples of it all over the board.

~rougerum
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on February 25, 2003, 11:41:40 AM
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetNo, no no about it being about emotionless people who have nothing left but instinct. That's not the point at all

What about "the stare"? What about standing over the dead body? It was the final act in their dehumanization.
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: Gold Trumpet on February 25, 2003, 12:18:22 PM
You are right, when that point comes, it is the final process of dehumanization. But, the points leading up to that point should not be of a dehumanizing tone. It should be of a more realistic threat that is filmed like there is danger to these kids. The stare at the deady body after Joker's killing is what the realistic threat should accomplish, but thing is, I didn't buy it that it was much of a threat and would have liked a bigger built up scene because the movie feels like it just ends. Gene Siskel complained that the only problem with the movie is that he would have liked more and I agree, because I don't think the movie really accomplishes that final irony of how killing someone makes you into this or that. I think the introduction of the sniper scene is badly handled and also the threat of the sniper scene itself too. I would have wanted more of a feeling that though the movie did have these themes, that the sniper scene would have more a point of destination then just being thrown in there.

~rougerum
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: ©brad on February 25, 2003, 12:51:33 PM
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetI'll try to be nicer as i disagree with everything. Also, this could be room for you to stop insulting people. I remember Duck Sauce yelling at you for that and examples of it all over the board.

~rougerum

If Duck Sauce were to yell at me for anything it would probably just make me do it more. I don't really remember insulting anyone seriously, I'm sure it was done in a humorous manner, and if it was perceived in a different way, my bad.
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on February 25, 2003, 01:53:49 PM
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetYou are right, when that point comes, it is the final process of dehumanization. But, the points leading up to that point should not be of a dehumanizing tone. It should be of a more realistic threat that is filmed like there is danger to these kids.

But doesn't the distant tone help us know what they are (or aren't) feeling? I would think much less of the movie if Kubrick showed us an emotional battle scene, Jerry Bruckheimer-style. As for your desire to see a "realistic threat"... don't you think if the soldiers had viewed the threat more realisticly, they wouldn't have run in one by one, killing themselves? When you try to apply convention to Kubrick again and again, it just doesn't work.

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetI don't think the movie really accomplishes that final irony of how killing someone makes you into this or that.

Someone takes a Kubrick comment and (because he says so little about what his movies really "mean") applies it with too much ego, saying "this is supposed to be about this, but it does that, so I don't like it." The greatest artists in the world have surprised themselves, and I think it's a mistake to dwell on that one intention. And I think dwelling on that last scene as the meaning of the movie itself is a little too narrowly focused... it was just the last phase... obviously they had accomplished a lot in dehumanizaing themselves in boot camp, and that scene is just one part of it, the final act, and then they can sing the mickey mouse song with a clear conscience.
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: Gold Trumpet on February 25, 2003, 05:12:43 PM
First off, stop giving my arguments the name of trying to make the movie convential. Again you said something of convention with my intention, with Jerry Bruckheimer. How many times do I need to say this? I'm not going for convention, but trying to find a better way to bring out the themes with Kubrick's movie.

For your first argument, there is no need for the soldiers within the battle to realize the threat as a more realistic one. That would actually be off putting for the film since it is an exploration of what they assume and don't really know. You instead make the audience aware of how bad it will be for them and let the soldiers go into it to discover it.

My using a Kubrick quote was not because I discovered the truth of what the finale means through him, but it only confirmed my prior beliefs and was able to give me a hindsight on what he better wanted to say. Full Metal Jacket is not a movie like 2001: A Space Odyssey where more thought of ones own is applied in determining importance or meaning. To get Full Metal Jacket is quite easy so I am arguing in the case of it to be shown better.

My main points within the movie are this 1.) the movie obviously at the end was a personal journey for Joker to learn how hard it is to kill and become dehumanized from the experience and 2.) I agree on what it does but thought it could have suited itself better if it made that fact more apparent as a personal story, because as recollection calls, the movie just jumps into the sniper scene and seems off putting in giving effect and 3.) the sniper scene is so thin itself in bringing fear upon the soldiers to understand the horrors of war that it doesn't seem benefiting to the ideas in play for the movie.

~rougerum
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on February 25, 2003, 06:33:35 PM
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetI'm not going for convention, but trying to find a better way to bring out the themes with Kubrick's movie . . . To get Full Metal Jacket is quite easy so I am arguing in the case of it to be shown better.

Anyone who tries to improve a Kubrick movie is destined to fail.

Quote from: The Gold Trumpetinstead make the audience aware of how bad it will be for them and let the soldiers go into it to discover it.

So.. separate the audience from the soldiers? How would that improve our emotional connection with them?

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetI agree on what it does but thought it could have suited itself better if it made that fact more apparent as a personal story

Focusing on Joker more than he already does would dilute the broad statements Kubrick's making. There's no reason to focus on him and make it a "personal story" because he's not much different from all the other soldiers. So we would learn something about Joker's background, that he has a wife and kids at home, that his parents disowned him, that his friends protested the war as he left to fight in it... is that what you want? That whole idea reeks of convention (I don't think you're getting past that yet) and I don't think I could handle that much cheese, especially in a Kubrick movie.
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: Gold Trumpet on February 25, 2003, 10:24:45 PM
Why is it that when I say something, you always imply something else?

And about trying to make a Kubrick movie and being destined to fail. I would have agreed with you there, but only when I was 17 or something. Now, I don't even consider Kubrick a main source of inspiration but someone who made some great movies.

It's not really a separation of them from our care or following at all, but giving us information that they don't know. This has been done in many movies and novels and never before has been disputed as removing connection anything. And your argument is even farther removed when it is applied for just one scene.

Personal story would not necessarily involve a background story, which I wouldn't do at all anyways. It would involve a more personal exploration of Joker himself going through the war focusing on his situation and the build up to the sniper scene. You didn't argue my comments on how the sniper scene almost seemed dropped in instead of placed as a proper ending to the story. My suggestion is to just extend the narrative to a point where it is felt that there is an escalation to the sniper scene, the very first scene of threat put upon the soldiers and the revelation for Joker on how it is to kill someone. The audience would feel the scene of threat much more if there was a better heightened storyline leading to it. That's a common understanding for the movies in playing a scene to the best you can, but the sniper scene seems more dropped in than placed properly. That's all.

~rougerum
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: Cecil on February 25, 2003, 11:17:25 PM
this is, without a doubt, the stupidest thread ever. the mere suggestion that kubrick has "limitations," especially in full metal jacket, is ludicrous.
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: Duck Sauce on February 26, 2003, 01:54:58 AM
Quote from: cecil b. dementedthis is, without a doubt, the stupidest thread ever. the mere suggestion that kubrick has "limitations," especially in full metal jacket, is ludicrous.

Although I cant agree about the limitations of Kubrick, I have very much enjoyed reading this thread. The FMJ sniper debate is one I pray never ends. I like reading things that I am not intelligent enough to conclude on my own.
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: ©brad on February 26, 2003, 06:57:54 AM
It's like watching a tennis match- back and forth...
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on February 26, 2003, 08:52:27 AM
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetWhy is it that when I say something, you always imply something else?

Because what you say always implies something else.

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetYou didn't argue my comments on how the sniper scene almost seemed dropped in instead of placed as a proper ending to the story.

It was abrupt, because it was the third act of the movie. It's like an episode, and I think it works. Your argument could be made about the transition from boot camp to war, and I would have the same response.


Quote from: The Gold TrumpetThe audience would feel the scene of threat much more if there was a better heightened storyline leading to it.

Do you think we're supposed to feel threatened and emotional? I think we're supposed to feel cold and confused.
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: ©brad on February 26, 2003, 09:02:06 AM
Very nice return by Mr. Blackman as he takes the lead. Mr. Trumpet, it is still your serve, love-30.

I'm afraid I have to wait until next week to see how the match ends. Heading off to Barcelona for the weekend with a senorita. Hope everyone has a good week, cya tuesday.

-cbr
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: Pubrick on February 26, 2003, 09:13:41 AM
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanI think we're supposed to feel cold and confused.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frsd.gsfc.nasa.gov%2Ftennisclub%2Fimages%2Ftennis.women.1887s.jpg&hash=cc430bb9a50d4117232b7a6d8db83fd278108424)

let's call that match point, shall we ladies?
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: Derek on February 26, 2003, 09:26:08 AM
Not to be anal, but hey, look at the thread I'm posting in....but shouldn't it be The Gold-en Trumpet?
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: Gold Trumpet on February 26, 2003, 03:30:51 PM
The movie is not really staged as a three act play at all. In many interviews before this movie was made, Kubrick always saw movies as just a three act play extended and found it to be a cliche. And frankly, I believe this more to be a two act play, with the very realized pure nightmarish situation of boot camp realized and then a toned down war experience that goes against what people would expect in a war film. Kubrick wanted to show the contrasts of what expectations of war were and what they really were. For much of the second half, Kubrick accomplishes it but then to finish the irony of the idea on how hard it is to really kill someone, I think his pacing and extension of the second half works against the build up to that moment. And also, the sniper scene happens during the second part purely for the reason that it is during Joker's first tour of duty, which dominates the second half and there is no indication within the second half to suggest a full third act to be taking place.

I think confused is correct, but that could have been shown through a killing where Joker had to bring out his agression of killing in a way that was not as nice as the mercy killing he did on the sniper who begged him to do it. Cold would come through our indentification of Joker for what he did, in the sense we feel he did something wrong or it was a brutal situation where brutality in its purest form had to place. For all these emotions to be the end result of what we feel for the character of Joker and the army, the characteristics I said must be in play first in the scene.

~rougerum
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: Gold Trumpet on February 26, 2003, 03:33:24 PM
And Derek, from the book where I got the name The Gold Trumpet, it uses quotes where it does suggest golden trumpet instead, but word use in the book itself relating to the characters were kept at The Gold Trumpet.

~rougerum
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: MacGuffin on February 26, 2003, 03:35:59 PM
Has anyone read the novel, The Short Timers? How faithful is Jacket to it?
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: Gold Trumpet on February 26, 2003, 03:50:48 PM
Prolly not very faithful since the author of the book, while the novel was being adapted by Kubrick and author Michael Herr, went through a great depression and fought to get his book back even I think. Then, he ended up killing himself. What likely is really brought from the book mainly is overall storyline and a few ideas, but Kubrick prolly adapted it with other Vietnam books in mind too.

~rougerum
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on February 26, 2003, 03:57:14 PM
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetI believe this more to be a two act play . . . there is no indication within the second half to suggest a full third act to be taking place.

You said the sniper scene felt abrupt and removed from the rest of the movie, and I sort of agree... so in that way I think it's a third act, although it's more related to the second act than the first. But every scene in the second act is so short and happens so quickly (the first scene of the second act is even cut short), and what I claim is the third act is just one very long scene. The second could represent observation, and the third could represent action. I think there's a comparison being made not only between the first act and the others, but between the second and the third.

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetCold would come through our indentification of Joker for what he did, in the sense we feel he did something wrong or it was a brutal situation where brutality in its purest form had to place. For all these emotions to be the end result of what we feel for the character of Joker and the army, the characteristics I said must be in play first in the scene.

I felt he did something wrong.. at least that he was in the wrong situation, and definitely a "brutal situation." So for me, both of your critera were met. If it wasn't cold for you, and it wasn't emotional, then what is it?
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: Gold Trumpet on February 26, 2003, 05:12:26 PM
I still don't think it is really the third act because all through out the second act, you get different scenes and the relations of them to each other don't really flow and thats the same with the introduction to the sniper scene, so since it follows how every scene already takes place in the second act, I can't see it how it clearly definable as a third act. The idea that it is the one that takes action and thats what makes it distinguishable is an interesting one, but I still don't agree because with the flow of dialogue and ideas through out the second one, it is evident Joker has met war and is still snubbing the idea of it being brutal and it is acting like a lead in to this point. I think a lot of the ideas are ideas that are lead in for what is discovered with the first killing by joker. The second act basically takes on a similair idea and the killing is the finishing off of the final irony.

I agree it was emotional, but not as effective as previous movies. One scene in a movie that as a younger person always to watch was the scene in Apocalyse Now where the boat stops a smaller boat with a family transporting food and a child runs to get something and is instantly killed by soldiers when it was found he was trying to just get his dog. That for me, was shocking and hard to face and even still watch to this day. A mercy kill on a soldier, albeit a female one, who is near death anyways, seems less severe so in weighing this movie with others similiar in story and seeing greater impact, I would have rather something else more shocking and off putting.

Also, that question brings up one of the original points i made where I always felt it was harder to feel Kubrick's movies over others. In all his movies, his shooting is always completely controlled to a point you know what to expect in way of him shooting and know his camera movement will never change drastically. In Apocalypse Now, as with much of the 70s independent film movement, there seemed a freedom in camera movement and observing a more realistic reality. I think with Kubrick still recreating worlds, like he did on FMJ, there is less an impact on us believing we are in Vietnam. I don't know if anyone else felt this, but I knew of how Kubrick used a destroyed construction site in london to recreate Vietnam and can't help but just think of this instead of thinking of Vietnam itself. Knowing that made it harder for me to realize the set as actually being Vietnam. It just felt like a destroyed construction site that had some minor things (graffiti art, posters, and trees) added to make it seem like Vietnam when other movies where showing the real thing that was putting this to shame in a lot of ways.

~rougerum

~rougerum
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on February 26, 2003, 07:28:40 PM
Quote from: The Gold Trumpetso since it follows how every scene already takes place in the second act, I can't see it how it clearly definable as a third act.

I think this "act" argument is getting ridiculous. I see that one scene as a third of the movie, and you see it as yet another incoherent disjointed part of the second act. How more subjective can we get?

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetA mercy kill on a soldier, albeit a female one, who is near death anyways, seems less severe so in weighing this movie with others similiar in story and seeing greater impact, I would have rather something else more shocking and off putting.

I don't think the real impact comes from the killing, and I think you might be looking for "the horror" in the wrong place. I see it in Joker's face, not in the sniper's face. I see it in the agonizing stupidity of the soldiers running in one by one to get killed, not necessarily the "horror" of the threat they're facing. One of the great agonies of that scene is that the soldiers might know they're going to getting picked off one by one, but they're doing what they've been trained to do, and they can't do anything else.

Quote from: The Gold Trumpetobserving a more realistic reality

That's an absurd desire, especially if you claim to like surrealist filmmakers like Kubrick. You can look for "realism" again and again, but when you're there, how will you know it?


Oh, by the way GT, wanna have another political debate? We could turn this tennis match into bare knuckle boxing.
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: Gold Trumpet on February 26, 2003, 08:14:10 PM
I'll agree on the first one there. enough of it.

I always thought the scene of them running in one by one and getting picked off was because they had no clue what to do. It seemed all of them were in a situation of being faced with combat, and just panicked because they never met that situation yet in Vietnam and so just acted with all they did know. Maybe it is what you are saying in just different words. My whole problem with the entire scene and it being threatening is that it never really seems to liberate itself on anything being possible. I'll make reference to another movie with different intentions, but Saving Private Ryan during the battle scenes had that manic feeling of anything being able to happen and there was more of a feeling that anyone could be killed within that mess. I think Kubrick's problem with the last threat is that the threat seems as controlled as any camera movement or type of acting by the actors during the rest of the movie. I'm not necessarily looking for just more realistic, but something more reflecting of the idea of the mess that was attributed to the Vietnam war itself. I wanted a scene that was better handled and better aimed at feeling more threatening because I felt very little as I saw a bunch of guys completely scared by one person killing them off one by one as they walked up. Simple logic would show they go completely around the other side to corner the sniper (which they did) so it seemed like an easy situation to handle. Also, you saying on how the sadness is that they were forced to go in and be killed. Well, yes its true but only a few were killed and they changed their routine on how to do it and got through that problem. The main point was Joker just being able to do that mercy kill. Sorry, but none of this really seemed effective in being threatening to me as a viewer and as some effective in showing the coldness that Joker had become in killing her. Or any other emotion that was important.

Realist reality may not have been the right one, but calling Kubrick a surrealist isn't either. Kubrick's only reason for making Full Metal Jacket is because he could. He hates to travel outside of london for long periods of time like in filmming, but if her feels the only way he can get the best location possible is through shooting on the real actual place, then he will easily do it. He just thought he got it best through the sets of london, though I disagree and felt nothing really from them then just being a destroyed construction site of sorts.

Naw, politics is messy messy business and leads to fights. I remember the last one being about michael moore and I do disagree with most of his politics but the amusing thing is, I have more in common with him than anyone else here. I still like the guy and was a fan of his show on bravo some odd years back.

discussion about the legitimacy of the upcoming war with iraq could be fun though.

~rougerum
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: budgie on March 02, 2003, 12:08:11 PM
Quote from: Jeremy Blackmanobviously they had accomplished a lot in dehumanizaing themselves in boot camp, and that scene is just one part of it, the final act, and then they can sing the mickey mouse song with a clear conscience.

Did you consciously use the word 'accomplished' there, Jeremy?

I'm seduced by the lure of an Iraq debate.
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on March 02, 2003, 03:56:28 PM
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetRealist reality may not have been the right one, but calling Kubrick a surrealist isn't either.

Eyes Wide Shut, 2001, A Clockwork Orange, The Shining... not surreal? I think most Kubrick movies try to create a "super-reality," and Kubrick said that filmmaking should not be taking a picture of reality, but taking a picture of the picture. The drawn-out FMJ scene reminds me of the drawn-out duel in Barry Lyndon. Are you going to tell me that the repeated slow motion sequences had nothing to do with surrealism?

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetNaw, politics is messy messy business and leads to fights.

We wouldn't want one of those, would we...

Quote from: The Gold Trumpetdiscussion about the legitimacy of the upcoming war with iraq could be fun though.

Quote from: budgieDid you consciously use the word 'accomplished' there, Jeremy?

I'm seduced by the lure of an Iraq debate.

You return once again only to make me question myself... I think it's a sign... more of that, please...

Let's do it. You want to start GT, or I should I? Someone jump in if you want to.
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on March 02, 2003, 04:40:38 PM
Okay, I'll start. Let's play a game.

Identify the following quotes. George W. Bush or Adolf Hitler?



"I believe that Providence would never have allowed us to see victory if it had the intention after all to destroy us at the end."

"We do not claim to know all the ways of Providence, yet we can trust in them, placing our confidence in the loving God behind all of life, and all of history."

"We must take the battle to the enemy... we will lift this dark threat from our nation and the world."

"The world will not help, so the people must help themselves. Our own strength is our source of life. That strength the Almighty has given us to use; that in it and through it we may wage the battle."

"I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice."

"The liberty we prize is not our gift to the world: it is God's gift to humanity."


sigh... okay, since nobody wanted to play, here are the answers: Hitler, Bush, Hitler, Hitler, Hitler, Bush
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: Gold Trumpet on March 02, 2003, 05:21:11 PM
Your assesments of Kubrick's reality are correct, but they still not are of the genre of surrealism really. They are, more or less, idenfitications of the reality of film in the first place. Luis Bunuel is considered the surrealist as a comercial director, now if you do think his career and how farther than it is of many filmmakers, assigning him role as the commerical surrealist seems odd but films as surrealism take on a very obscure role in movies that are hardly known or talked about. Kubrick's reality, like many filmmakers, is inspired by instead of really occupation of the genre. And to argue Full Metal Jacket own qualitification for being of a super reality worth of other Kubrick movies, I disagree and say it doesn't. I don't mind super reality, but make it effective before using it.

I'll start. My belief is that war is a necessary action, but I will not be pigeonholed into supporting everything Bush is planning. There are some aspects of the war, on both fronts, that are completely ridiculous. The main one being in the wealth of money through acquisition of oil from the aftermaths of the war. If I am correct, then I remember reading in the Wall Street Journal in late January of how oil companies have already chosen areas on where they will drill. That I do not agree with, but thing that most people won't say, is that France is withholding from supporting of war for many reasons, a big one being of the good deal they have with Iraq in getting oil themselves. The main thing that ruins the viens of all countries in this day and age is money, and it is definitely here within this war.

That doesn't mean though that this war is without reasons. It is. Everyone will admit Saddam Hussein is a terrible man, but the argument for not removing is that he is holed up in his country with nothing really to do. He doesn't even control all of his own country so since he is contained (unlike Hitler) then there is no real need to go to war with him. That is true, but in only some elements. As an extension to the original plan of campaigning a war on terror, Hussein does fit into that role and can be justly removed for that. Hussein is the biggest financier of terrorism within the Middle East. He has hid terrorists in his country for protection rights. I believe this to be completely true as I've seen every single expert on the political situation of the Middle East be dragged onto tv shows and say the simple facts that Saddam Hussein is the biggest contributor of money for terrorism and has aided in hiding terrorists. Through his role of aiding terrorism, he can and should be removed for that reason. With the Middle East being a country with tough regimes and little money, Hussein is a big man who does have a lot of money compared to others of the area.

Now, for his role in building weapons of mass destruction. He is doing it even though he is nowhere near the process of what is happening in North Korea. This fact can't be something to give him amnesty in not being dealt with. North Korea is as far along that I read a news report suggesting that their large weapons could maybe go as far as hitting Japan at the present moment. Not the United States. Iraq can be dealt with in a matter of weeks without really fully being brought to even a full war. Then attention can be brought up North Korea. North Korea is a position though of very shaky ground. They are lobbying for more support in the UN while facing many US warships and military watching them just in South Korea. For the present period, it seems unlikely North Korea is to do anything drastic because if they do, even China will likely pull out of support for them and the world will be against them.

What should happen is this, the bombing of Iraqi communications buildings, intelligence and military buildings. A systematic bombing of Iraq with the sole purpose of removing Saddam Hussein from power. Also, help should be given to rebellion forces within Iraq to bring upon an upheaval of the government. Once Saddam Hussein is taken from power, either shoot, jail or put him into exile. Also, he has a couple of crazy kids. Kill them too. Nothing more than that really needs to be done. An engagement so minor it doesn't even qualify for being called a war. Now, the aftermath is the big thing. Since I am not much of a fan of the UN for ignoring violations Hussein has done against their treaty from Guld War that just kept Hussein in power, I feel the UN should keep strict super vision upon the devlopment of Iraq in an actual good way. USA has been apart of too many removing of governments and little care in the rebuilding. With the UN bringing upon strict regulations, then it will be brought to fault if Iraq gets out of control like so many other countries have done after seeing an old oppressive government be removed. The focus for this war needs to be more about the removing of an old government and building of a new one. Not just removal and recovery of money.

And to be honest, I don't mind Bush. Bush follow suits on every politician who just wants to keep power. I don't really endorse him nor dislike him. The sad thing about politics these days is that no one is wanting to make change for the better. "If you want enemies, propose change." -Woodrow Wilson. But, if you want to talk about a recent president I very much hate, then speak of Bill Clinton, who swore by democratic idealism but played make everyone happy politician instead. He is a sham of a president that smiled better than actually do anything.

~rougerum
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on March 02, 2003, 07:21:32 PM
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetYour assesments of Kubrick's reality are correct, but they still not are of the genre of surrealism really.

One person's surrealism is another person's realism. Even the founders of surrealism had different opinions about what it is (think Miro vs. Magritte).

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetMy belief is that war is a necessary action

Is that a general statement? i.e. war is required for peace?

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetThe main thing that ruins the viens of all countries in this day and age is money, and it is definitely here within this war.

I agree with you about the French. But there is obviously opportunism on both sides.

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetAs an extension to the original plan of campaigning a war on terror, Hussein does fit into that role and can be justly removed for that. Hussein is the biggest financier of terrorism within the Middle East. He has hid terrorists in his country for protection rights. I believe this to be completely true as I've seen every single expert on the political situation of the Middle East be dragged onto tv shows and say the simple facts that Saddam Hussein is the biggest contributor of money for terrorism and has aided in hiding terrorists.

Do you actually trust TV news? Tony Blair (and he has admitted this) plaigarized a section of the doctoral thesis of an American grad student. He found it on the internet. He used that in a speech, and gave the information to Colin Powell, who praised it and used it as evidence in his famous UN speech. The paper was 12 years old, and the college student who wrote it has since denounced its facts and arguments. Read more here (http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200302/10/eng20030210_111456.shtml).

What you're hearing on TV is that Saddam supports the families of Palestinian suicide bombers (which he absolutely does), who are not exactly synonymous with Al Qaeda, or other groups that would attack the U.S. on a large scale. Saddam and Bin Laden have historically been ideological enemies (apparently Saddam is an "infidel" and a "socialist"). Saddam's support of Palestinians is only opportunism to gain sympathy in the Arab world, and his main interest is for his own power within his own country... putting his fate (and his weapons) in the hands of terrorists who dislike him would not exactly lead to his own stability.

The CIA and FBI (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/02/international/middleeast/02INTE.html?ex=1044853200&en=b0a7399a9308374c&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE) and British (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=375403) intelligence doubt the Al Qaeda links.

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetWhat should happen is this, the bombing of Iraqi communications buildings, intelligence and military buildings.

Here's what's going to happen (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/01/25/1042911596206.html). 800 missiles in the first 48 hours will rain on the densely populated city of Baghdad. According to the Pentagon, "There will be no safe place in Baghdad." This is going to be an urban war.

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetAlso, help should be given to rebellion forces within Iraq to bring upon an upheaval of the government.

That's relatively hopeless, since years of sanctions have weakened them. The rebellion forces were many times stronger in the first Gulf war.

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetAn engagement so minor it doesn't even qualify for being called a war.

Tell that to the innumerable civillians who will inevitably be killed by our bombs.  If we killed more that 3,000 civillians in Afghanistan, a sparsely populated wasteland, what do you think it's going to be like in Iraq?
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: Duck Sauce on March 02, 2003, 08:22:33 PM
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman
What you're hearing on TV is that Saddam supports the families of Palestinian suicide bombers (which he absolutely does), who are not exactly synonymous with Al Qaeda, or other groups that would attack the U.S. on a large scale.

How do we know that these suicide bombers wont eventually attack the US on a large scale. I mean I know its possible to believe that anybody could, but dont they seem more likely to?


The thing about this war is that not very many people really "want" it, some think it is necessary. I for one don't want a war and think we should first do everything we can to prevent it, but if worst comes to worst I think we have to in order to protect ourselves in the future. I certainly dont have the answers, but if we dont goto war, what should we do?
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: Gold Trumpet on March 03, 2003, 03:36:59 PM
I believe for this situation of Saddam Hussein, that war is means for achieving stability in Iraq. But no, not a general statement.

Very good JB on finding that news story to debunk mine......but the thing is, after the Gulf War, Hussein had to sign an agreement (forget actual name) verified by the UN to follow certain rules and do certain things to just be in power, since some in US wanted him out after that, but agreed to keep him in with him signing this and following it. Hussein broke it when throwing out weapons inspectors through out the 90s during various times. This was a clear violation of that agreement. The UN ignored it though for the most part, not doing anything to really stop Hussein in throwing the inspectors out. This is very similiar to a trend that happened with Germany after WW1. Germany was given harsh restrictions in the Versailles treaty that basically dictated to them in how many men and equipment they could have in each part of the military. Germany was to follow the restrictions and the League of Nations (precursor to the UN) was to enforce it. Germany did not follow, and began to build its army while the League of Nations, knowing of it, still ignored it. The rest is history. Now, do not dare bring an argument of that I claiming Hussein will do what Hitler did or these results will be of the same consequences in how bad it can be. Thing is, who knows. The fact remains in all of this is that Hussein, who was only able to keep power through following restrictions, did not and by the understanding of history, needs to be removed because the thing is, he has power and freedom to do something. It mat be developing weapons for other countries or organizations to use, but it will and more importantly, can be something. Its obvious Hussein is developing weapons and did violate the mandates that was set up upon him to keep power. These facts are undeniable and instead of waiting for people to die in some way, he can be removed now.

And your concerns for the Iraqi civilians are good and all, but Hussein will have to be dealt with at some time. Maybe not even him, maybe it will be through one of his son's, but it will happen. And the more time that is brought on waiting, the more that Hussein will go about killing his own people. An Iraqi refugee went on tv recently and said these words, "Saddam Hussein is like a cancer to the middle east. I hold him responsible for 1 million dead in the last 20 years for wars and killing of his own people." Then the man went into describing how he was tortured by Saddam's men in the late 1980s. It is sad, but innocent people will be killed to resolve this situation. The longer they wait to do it, the more people that will be killed. Hussein can't be dealt with, in my opinion, through political manuevers or something Gandi like. Just the way it is.

~rougerum
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: Sigur Rós on March 03, 2003, 04:17:36 PM
The man is extremely old. Let time deal with him. He's probably dead in 5 years. Wait....1-2-3...and he will die, think about it, then "We" the western-world won't have all of the muslim-world against us. Plus the Iraqien civil-people won't have to be bombed to death by the US. Surely they are suffering now but a war is not the solution, they cant eat the bombs. It will just course even more suffering to the people. His dead will cause and end to the Iraqien dictatorship, but a assination ordered by the American Goverment wont. Even if they assasinated him who should replace him? The people won't accept a leader placed by America. This would lead to a civil-war.

Anyway it's all about money and oil!.........god damn capitalism!........Anyway Xixax is about film.....but Kubrick's Forum would be the right place to discuss this :)
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on March 03, 2003, 05:39:57 PM
Quote from: Duck SauceHow do we know that these suicide bombers wont eventually attack the US on a large scale. I mean I know its possible to believe that anybody could, but dont they seem more likely to?

That might eventually happen, but don't blame them for what they haven't done. Don't worry though, I think we've found a way to accelerate the process.

Quote from: Duck SauceThe thing about this war is that not very many people really "want" it

Yes, I'm sure Bush has deep moral concerns about military action, and the incredible amount of money he's recieved from the war industry had nothing to do with his gluttonizing the defense budget and starting the missile defense system. In fact, he's probably pondering civillian casualties as we speak (15 minutes per person).

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetAnd your concerns for the Iraqi civilians are good and all, but Hussein will have to be dealt with at some time.

This is the worst possible time I can think of, when Arab hostilities are at an all-time high, and North Korea is filling their lunchbox with nuclear goodies. And have we ever had a president who was more diplomatically disasterous? The only reason we have to take care of Iraq now, in preemptive war, is to stop the inspections before they work, and to get the timing right with Iraq so that when it's reelection time we can be in the middle of the next war. (or maybe the third installment of a trilogy!)

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetIt is sad, but innocent people will be killed to resolve this situation. The longer they wait to do it, the more people that will be killed.

The people of Iraq are not empowered because A they have a brutal dicator (as does much of the world) and B years and years of sanctions, and years of blocking real humanitarian aid. It's estimated that 200 Iraqis die per day as a direct result of sanctions.

And the end does not always justify the means. This atmosphere of desperation has been engineered.

I won't even go into the fact that you didn't have the decency to spell Gandhi's name right.
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: Duck Sauce on March 03, 2003, 05:42:23 PM
Quote from: Sigur RósThe man is extremely old. Let time deal with him. He's probably dead in 5 years. Wait....1-2-3...and he will die, think about it,

How old is he? 65ish? He could live 30 more years, and in that time attack. You are saying we should just rely on hoping that he gets sick and dies?

Quote from: Sigur Rós
then "We" the western-world won't have all of the muslim-world against us.

Especially groups like Al Qaeda

Quote from: Sigur Rós
Plus the Iraqien civil-people won't have to be bombed to death by the US.

Yeah, we could let them do it to us.

Quote from: Sigur Rós
Surely they are suffering now but a war is not the solution, they cant eat the bombs.

Ok, what is the solution then? Hoping he has a heart attack next week?

Quote from: Sigur Rós
It will just course even more suffering to the people. His dead will cause and end to the Iraqien dictatorship, but a assination ordered by the American Goverment wont.

When he dies, one of his sons will step in, who potentially could be worse.

Quote from: Sigur Rós
Anyway it's all about money and oil!.........

And about making sure that Saddam doesnt help destroy another part of the US. While I do believe that there is opportunism, Iraq does not have that much oil, that is why they invaded Kuwait in the 90s, and if there is a war, Iraq is going to be lighting the fields on fire. I know it can be argued that we will gain power and controll of the Middle East, but that is an issue I dont agree with.

It is obvious Sigur Ros that you dont really know shit about this topic. Leave it to the informed like JB to support the anti-war side. Dont mistake my comments for being for a war, but I am for getting rid of Saddam.
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: Gold Trumpet on March 03, 2003, 06:06:19 PM
Yes, JB, North Korea is farther along the process of developing nuclear weapons than Iraq is to anything, but I've said that and I think Iraq can be dealt with in a matter of weeks, then onto North Korea. But it seems silly that some men walking around Iraq (which is the size of California) will prove to be any good. Evidence suggests Iraq is doing its best to be non cooperative and even Hans Blixer is not really believing Iraq is doing much. How much more time does Iraq need? They gave a report saying they had no weapons and now are in the process of "destroying" some. Well, Iraq knows when some nuclear warheads were found and it went against the report, they were caught with their pants down and had to do something. Honestly, the best policy for them, if they were really smart, was to admit to all the weapons right at the beginning and send USA searching for reasons to go to war.

The second argument is just trying to find justification for the dictatorship of Iraq. A dictatorship is wrong either way.

And talking about quotes, here's one from one of my favorite shows, Pardon The Interruption, which I just got done watching: "No justice, no peace."

And, sorry, GANDHI.

~rougerum
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: Sigur Rós on March 04, 2003, 03:59:06 AM
You guys are seriously being manipulated by your goverment, and your CNN, BBC....etc. This is just like the Iraqien people you don't get the truth....so don't think you do! Very few realises how the americans makes up storys about Iraq. Like back in 1991 when they entered Kuwait because they claimed that Iraq had attacked Kuwait. This was later proved to be untrue! America claimed that Iraq has attacked with no less then 200.000 men but sattelite-photos showed only a few thousand......hmm credibility....I dont believe any "facts" from America!
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: Sigur Rós on March 04, 2003, 04:00:44 AM
By the way I think Saddam is 73 years.
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: Pubrick on March 04, 2003, 06:43:30 AM
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsimpsons.metropoliglobal.com%2Ffotogramas%2F1f09%2F05.jpg&hash=3c14f87ee02b40cf3ff91164ab177c642b1cb002)
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: budgie on March 04, 2003, 10:01:26 AM
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman
You return once again only to make me question myself... I think it's a sign... more of that, please...


Much as I like to 'make' you question yourself, that isn't only why I return.

However, the question is whether you ever answer when I make you question?
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on March 04, 2003, 10:22:30 AM
Quote from: budgiethe question is whether you ever answer when I make you question

I don't know how to answer that.

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetThey gave a report saying they had no weapons and now are in the process of "destroying" some.

I don't think any country that admits it has a military will say it has no weapons... The issue is weapons of mass destruction, and the missiles they're destroying right now are not nuclear, they just exceed the UN's range (Iraq argued that the missiles will not go as far with a second guiding system attached). Of course Iraq has weapons of mass destruction... we sold them to Iraq in the 80s, that's how we know. And of course they're not in Baghdad.. they're underground, in the middle of the desert. Iraq is using them as collateral, and I don't think Saddam would ever use them unless he wants his nation and his leadership to be destroyed, or if he knows that's inevitable.

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetThe second argument is just trying to find justification for the dictatorship of Iraq. A dictatorship is wrong either way.

Yes, I'm trying to justify a dictatorship.  :roll:  ... Of course it's a bad thing, but the end does not always justify the means. There are many similar bad situations in the world... does that mean we can solve the world's problems simply by dropping bombs?

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet"No justice, no peace."

It feels good to oversimplify things, doesn't it?
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: Duck Sauce on March 04, 2003, 10:55:47 AM
Quote from: Sigur RósYou guys are seriously being manipulated by your goverment, and your CNN, BBC....etc. This is just like the Iraqien people you don't get the truth....so don't think you do! Very few realises how the americans makes up storys about Iraq. Like back in 1991 when they entered Kuwait because they claimed that Iraq had attacked Kuwait.

What a breakthrough, do you know anything about the United States other than what you have seen in PTA movies?

Quote from: Sigur Rós
This was later proved to be untrue! America claimed that Iraq has attacked with no less then 200.000 men but sattelite-photos showed only a few thousand......hmm credibility....I dont believe any "facts" from America!
Prove it
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on March 04, 2003, 10:57:49 AM
Quote from: Duck Saucedo you know anything about the United States other than what you have seen in PTA movies?

Do you know anything about the United States other than what you have seen on CNN?
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: Duck Sauce on March 04, 2003, 11:00:32 AM
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman
Quote from: Duck Saucedo you know anything about the United States other than what you have seen in PTA movies?

Do you know anything about the United States other than what you have seen on CNN?

I don't watch CNN. You are quick to take offense from anybody who doesn't believe everything is one big conspiracy.
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: Gold Trumpet on March 04, 2003, 11:14:26 AM
Not just simply dropping bombs, but removing a government. Sorry to say that has to come in order to remove this government, but it does. Its funny though how you took that and basically put it in a context that all is being done is dropping bombs when the situation involves dealing with an oppressive government who has a leader who violated the mandate that kept him in power after the Gulf War. Instead of dealing with the unquestionable things of what he can do in the future, why not get rid of him now? You put the removal of Hussein as just dropping bombs on a country to solve problems, now how does it feel yourself to simplify things yourself? My whole purpose in this argument is the arguing that the government of Iraq needs to be removed. You really are not arguing that the Iraqi government shouldn't be removed. If there is a way to remove it without mass civilian casualities, then tell me. If not, your dancing around this subject will prove entertaining only for some time.

~rougerum
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: phil marlowe on March 04, 2003, 12:13:50 PM
You oughta stop this discussion right now. You make poor GT make such nastyass long posts that he doesn't have the time post in other threads.
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: Duck Sauce on March 04, 2003, 01:25:24 PM
Quote from: Phil MarloweYou oughta stop this discussion right now. You make poor GT make such nastyass long posts that he doesn't have the time post in other threads.

I know, we all know we arent going to get anywhere on this topic.
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: phil marlowe on March 04, 2003, 01:36:09 PM
Typing training.
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: Sigur Rós on March 04, 2003, 02:15:54 PM
All you need to know about USA are in Boogie Nights :-D No, let's stop this discussion. Just didn't think all you film-guys had enough space in your hearts for bombs.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.librepresse.com%2Fsciences%2Fbombe.3.jpg&hash=5bbf8e61b10791bf8ce7d3f6cf0558c3da29359d)

Turned on yet???[/img]
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on March 04, 2003, 02:41:48 PM
Quote from: Duck SauceI don't watch CNN. You are quick to take offense from anybody who doesn't believe everything is one big conspiracy.

I was using CNN as a synecdoche for the mainstream media as a whole, and I think you are too quick to believe your government's own propaganda.

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetNot just simply dropping bombs, but removing a government.

You can remove a government and break down its power by means other than physically blowing it up.

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetIts funny though how you took that and basically put it in a context that all is being done is dropping bombs

Well, it seems to be preferential to just about everything else, doesn't it? What do you think Bush would prefer... a drawn out, BORING diplomatic and inspections process, or a simple flattening of the landscape?

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetInstead of dealing with the unquestionable things of what he can do in the future, why not get rid of him now?

You could use the "why not?" argument for a lot of things (why not annex Canada, why not send all the Palestinians to a remote island, why not install puppet governments across the middle east) but I think I already gave you my reasons.

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetYou put the removal of Hussein as just dropping bombs on a country to solve problems, now how does it feel yourself to simplify things yourself?

I don't think I simplified anything... the situation is complicated and our government's solution (bombs) is unsuitably simple for such a complicated situation. I don't think it would be possible for me to simplify Bush's solution beyond it's present state.

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetYou really are not arguing that the Iraqi government shouldn't be removed.

That's more of an ideology than a process or an action. The action that you are arguing for is bombing. The action that I'm arguing for is pressure and inspections. There's no way that you can say that inspections aren't working. You could argue that they aren't working fast enough, but that would only reflect your impatience and your gullability to the manufactured atmosphere of desperation.
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: Gold Trumpet on March 04, 2003, 04:21:54 PM
I would be completely for an inspections process, if I believed it could actually work. First off, Iraq saying they have no weapons at all is completely bogus and everyone knows it. Further more, nuclear war heads were discovered by inspectors with Iraq saying a big "oops". Reports are all coming back of Iraq being very uncooperative with the inspectors, who say it themselves, about revealing information. Even the scientists within Iraq are said to not be really disclosing everything they know. Speculation likely suggests the scientists are under the gun on what to say and how to say it. They could be even soldiers posing as them. But c'mon, this has been a ten year long process of multiple times of inspectors coming to inspect for weapons and most times before, they being thrown out and now most signs saying there is very little cooperation and now they are wrapped in a mess of a political debate of whether or not to destroy the missiles that have been discovered. The problem with the weapons inspections is that one must give trust over to Iraq in fully revealing the weapon capabilities they have. Any means of taking the government out to fully investigate without use of military force is nonexistent. Iraq's history suggests no trust can be given at all. And this isn't talking about allowing 6 more months to a process that has only had time of a few months for investigation. The process of trying to inspect Iraq has been a ten year one with little success. Sorry if I feel 10 years is time enough. And even if I were to say more time is needed, nothing suggests Iraq is suddenly going to roll over and be completely cooperative at all.

~rougerum
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on March 04, 2003, 05:38:38 PM
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetFurther more, nuclear war heads were discovered by inspectors with Iraq saying a big "oops"

Hmm. Tell me more about these nuclear warheads. They found empty cartridges that can be filled with chemicals, but when did they find nukes?

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetEven the scientists within Iraq are said to not be really disclosing everything they know

What, did they say, "okay, I'm going to tell you almost everything I know, but I'm going to keep one thing secret" ? ... The UN has been able to pressure scientists into giving untaped, unmonitored, private interviews.


Quote from: The Gold TrumpetSpeculation likely suggests the scientists are under the gun on what to say and how to say it.

I would say that's a fact... What do you think would happen if a scientist said "psst.. we have weapons of mass destruction"? We would use that as a reason to go to war. I think the scientist interviews were doomed from the beginning, anyway. The more pressure, the more time, the more we'll find and the weaker they will become. The more we find, the more Saddam will be forced by the world to admit his other possessions. If we start finding bigger stuff, he's not going to say, "okay, fair enough, you found that... but there's nothing else! I swear!" The entire world would be skeptical. More pressure.

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetBut c'mon, this has been a ten year long process

And we have never been able to anything even close to what we're doing now, and Iraq has never been more cooperative (that's the result of pressure, not Iraq's free will). Pressure works.

Quote from: The Gold Trumpetthey are wrapped in a mess of a political debate of whether or not to destroy the missiles that have been discovered.

Actually, that's completely incorrect... they have already destroyed many of them, and are destroying more as we speak, with strict UN supervision. They have agreed on a timetable/schedule with the UN.
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: Gold Trumpet on March 04, 2003, 09:45:00 PM
Thank you JB in correcting me on some statements of accuracy. After posting, I was second guessing myself on if it was nuc war heads or actually some other weapons found. But I still debate that, yes, Iraq is making more progressing in being forthcoming because of some weapons being found and the idea of war closer than ever, but how much can UN pressure really accomplish? I think the UN pressure is mainly succeeding at the moment only due to the likelihood of an incoming war happening. When war was not really of thinking to definitely going to happen, Iraq was same old Iraq. Also, even if the pressure continues against Iraq, is it a gurantee that all illegal weapons will be confiscated and we will even know that they were? My point is that even though ground may be gained, there is still a thing where trust has to be put upon Iraq in knowing all what they say is actually the truth. Also, is the government of Hussein to remain even though he clearly violated mandates set up by the UN and United States through out the 90s that was the only reason he exists now? Isn't it still best within the context of the mandates he violated for him to be removed as the mandates have said. And for this very situation, "No justice, no peace" is not oversimplification at all. The thing is, with the Hussein government, you have Hussein in there and then his son coming to power, who Hussein is to have said is even crazier than him. I think the UN needs to accept the fact that this government has violated its own mandates and remove him according to those violations.

~rougerum
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on March 06, 2003, 09:53:06 PM
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetMy point is that even though ground may be gained, there is still a thing where trust has to be put upon Iraq in knowing all what they say is actually the truth

Sometimes you have to give up on expecting the complete truth from dictators. So what is it, tell me the truth or die? No wonder Europeans see Americans as "uncivilized cowboys."

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetAlso, is the government of Hussein to remain even though he clearly violated mandates set up by the UN

Do you see the irony in us defying the UN in order to punish Iraq for defying the UN?

Quote from: The Gold Trumpetremoved as the mandates have said

I don't remember any UN resolution mandating or threatening the removal of Saddam. Resolution 1441 said that he should be disarmed, but set no timeline or consequences. In fact, several European nations asked Bush to promise that the language in 1441 would not trigger the threat of war, which Bush promised (so they would sign on) only to say the opposite a few days after it passed.

In the opening statement of his press conference, just a few hours ago, Bush said Saddam "provides funding, training, and safe haven for terrorists" (none of which he has credible evidence for, most of which he hasn't even tried to prove). He reminded us that September 11 could happen again as a direct result of Saddam staying in power, and repeatedly used the phrases "the dictator" and "weapons of terror." His response to the peace protestors? "I realize there are people who don't like war."

Not only is there a direct strategy of creating fear, and a disgusting amount of misinformation and speculation as fact, but isn't there an obvious pattern of double standards? We threaten to make the UN irrelevant if it does not agree with us, and say that its support is important, but that we won't take no for an answer. We say that the North Korea situation should be solved diplomaticly, yet refuse to talk with North Korea.

My biggest worry right now is the North Korea war, because I think the Iraq war is inevitable (within the next 2 weeks, definitely). We're going to say, "Look how much time we've already given North Korea. We've been patient with their hostilities long enough."
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: Duck Sauce on March 06, 2003, 10:22:50 PM
JB, what should the US do short of converting to communism?
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on March 06, 2003, 11:10:24 PM
Quote from: Duck SauceJB, what should the US do short of converting to communism?

I know I'm not supposed to take that seriously, but to paraphrase budgie, that is sooo lazy. First of all, Marxism, socialism, and communism are all different things, and when you say "communist" you evoke memories of Stalin, Castro, Kim Jong Il.. all essentially fascists. And what does communism have to do with war aggression anyway?

If you really want me to answer your question (I'm reluctant, cause this is straying from the war issue), I don't think we should be communist (which I don't think can work on a large scale anyway), but we should be more like a socialist democracy. Take Canada as an example, take much of Scandinavia.
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: Duck Sauce on March 06, 2003, 11:47:31 PM
Yeah, I was just kidding around with the communism stuff, but I honestly would like to hear what you think should be done about the war issue, what should be done with Hussein.

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman
I don't think can work on a large scale anyway), but we should be more like a socialist democracy. Take Canada as an example, take much of Scandinavia.

Why should we do this?
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: av8raaron on March 07, 2003, 04:17:23 PM
Quote from: Jeremy Blackmanwe should be more like a socialist democracy. Take Canada as an example, take much of Scandinavia.

That is absurd to the point of being offensive, not to mention contrary to the freedoms that people have fought and died for that set America apart.
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: Gold Trumpet on March 07, 2003, 05:42:38 PM
Your first comments makes no sense in what you want diplomacy to accomplish. If diplomacy was to work, it would work in bringing out all the illegal weapons that it is suppose to do. Much of the world against war, do look to Saddam as being a tyrant and that diplomacy (weapons inspectors, UN pressure) will do the job of removing the illegal weapons that US claims war only can do. But I am at fault with that reasoning since it is trying to bargain with a government on the mind set of one near Nazi Germany. It's a no win situation, and I do not believe it will do the job. The fact that Iraq has weapons and scientist with the freedom to work on them for purposes unkown is most at question here. You don't even seem to be really arguing that point at all even.

Well, it is something set by Iraq, but was also something co signed by USA because they dealt with the war specifically. It may be ironic, but that's not the important argument. The important argument comes down to bringing down those laws. Your responce gets down more to the muddle of the UN vs. USA in general than anything else.

The mandates was a signed agreement by UN-Iraq-USA in what Iraq had to do for its government to keep power and not be removed by US agression in the Gulf War being fully realized in some generals of USA getting what they want, with the Iraqi government being removed but had to settle woth an agreement, that included that through out the 90s, weapons inspectors by the UN would be given full access to investigate Iraq for pocessing any illegal weapons. Iraq, on the other hand, did not comply and threw out the inspectors on many occasions. The US government, with Clinton as president and unwilling to committ to any big agression towards Iraq, only did a few small bombings on isolated areas of Iraq. Bush wasn't willing to committ either on anything war either when first entering, but post september 11th, has.

I don't care what Bush says even if it being politicized because even with this war, there is still reason. Bush's words are for public appeal in the aftermath of September 11th. If Bush did not have Iraq violating weapons inspections that was the only thing keeping him in, then I would be of a different opinion.

UN has been irrevelant for the US for its entire history. US basically created the UN. FDR gave it its name. US campaigned hard to get 2/3 of its headquaters by funding 85% of all its activities, which US still does to this day, but with a big debt piling up, wants less responsibilties financial wise with US. Even the current leader of the UN, Kofi Anan (misspelling?), is in power today mainly because of USA, who found major disagreements with the last, who was more radical and against the US. So US campaigned hard and got him removed.

I do agree the North Korea is a much more dangerous situation that needs a lot of diplomacy to it because the enemy is a greater risk. I don't think USA will treat that situation at all like this. Or, well, I hope it doesn't.

~rougerum
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: Pubrick on March 09, 2003, 04:13:14 AM
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstudents.vassar.edu%2Fmacohen%2FMax%2520Comic%2520-%2520Pre%2520Emptive%2520Strike&hash=503051f54830e908efd8ce67ae8464c64fcd2782)
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on March 13, 2003, 12:24:07 AM
http://xixax.com/viewtopic.php?t=783&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: Gold Trumpet on March 13, 2003, 10:02:05 AM
Iraq is on the title of that thread, but it really doesn't talk about it.

~rougerum
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: Him on March 14, 2003, 09:44:49 AM
i was listening to this breakfast show on the radio this morning (xfm 104.9 in the uk, if you must know) and they had this political song-writer who was supporting paul weller on his tour this evening. he had an audience with this high up politician who was making an impassioned speech about how much they believed in the need to take action against iraq, to the point where they would go in without the backing of the u.n.

"how about without the backing of the u.s.?"












(that was the sound of silence.)
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: SiliasRuby on May 27, 2005, 01:17:14 PM
I just love when they are singing the Micket Mouse Theme song. Also, the early 60's rock and roll is just classic in this film.
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: cowboykurtis on June 01, 2005, 10:18:29 PM
for those eyes who haven't read:

Kubrick Takes His Time

      3/29/98
      The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Director Stanley Kubrick has a reputation for beaucoup takes and
overlong shooting. He kept Nicole Kidman and Tom Cruise for more
than a year working on "Eyes Wide Shut" in England.

Vincent D'Onofrio, who's starring as one of "The Newton Boys" and
did "Full Metal Jacket" with Kubrick, knows full well what they went
through: "I remember over a year ago I was flying in a plane and
there  was an article in the airline magazine about Nicole Kidman and
how she'd  gotten a house for six months in England. And the first
thing that came  to mind was, `She'd better get a longer lease.' "

D'Onofrio was there for 13 months shooting "Full Metal Jacket"
and appeared in less than 40 minutes. Matthew Modine, the star,  was
there a year and a half.

Still, D'Onofrio says he'd love to work for Kubrick again.
"I'd play a waiter for him. He's one of the only guys left that
you can say `he's a genius' and you're not b.s.-ing. He's a
filmmaker.  There are not a lot of them that exist."

D'Onofrio says he thinks it takes Kubrick so long because there
are days when he just can't work creatively.

"If Stanley Kubrick wants to take a year and a half to make a film
and if one day he wakes up and doesn't know what to do, doesn't know
how to shoot the scene, doesn't want to go to work because he
doesn't  want to fail, then he doesn't. What I saw was that. I saw
him confused  at times and not wanting to do something if it wasn't
going to work."
 
 
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ on June 01, 2005, 11:33:11 PM
I may be crazy, but didn't D'Onofrio give Kubrick shit because he felt he was typecast after FMJ?
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: cowboykurtis on July 20, 2005, 05:19:02 AM
in the newest issue of GIANT MAGAZINE (with Mischa Barton on cover) there is a huge and fantastic spread on Mathew Modines Full Metal Jacket diary - lots of great photos.
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: MacGuffin on July 30, 2005, 10:21:41 PM
Quote from: cowboykurtisin the newest issue of GIANT MAGAZINE (with Mischa Barton on cover) there is a huge and fantastic spread on Mathew Modines Full Metal Jacket diary - lots of great photos.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.giantmag.com%2Fimages%2Fissue_06%2FBooks%2FFMJRedux%2F%2F06art_redux.jpg&hash=7b221b4abe4e5154bc16df60dc14664ab599724b)

FULL METAL REDUX
p. 70-77, JUNE/JULY ’05
As told to Bill Keith

Twenty years after shooting Kubrick’s Vietnam epic, Matthew Modine is set to publish Full Metal Jacket Diary, a journal of his photos taken on the set. Here, Modine gives us an exclusive preview.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full Metal Diary

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.giantmag.com%2Fimages%2Fissue_06%2FBooks%2FFMJRedux%2F06art_redux1.jpg&hash=eb3b005154fd44904c59502193304c6b495e5a11)

“This self-portrait is from the very end of filming, when we’re in boot camp. I’m on top of a camera truck, watching what’s going on and writing about it in my diary. I had a diary that I carried around with me every day and one that I kept at home. The diary I’m holding here is the one I used as the prop for Private Joker. I’m holding it in the scene at the mass grave when the colonel asks me about the peace sign on my uniform and the ‘Born to Kill’ written on my helmet–’What’s that on your body armor?’ ‘A peace sign, sir.’ ‘What’s that you’ve got written on your head?’ ‘Born to Kill?’ ‘What is that, some kind of sick joke?’”


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Private Cowboy

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.giantmag.com%2Fimages%2Fissue_06%2FBooks%2FFMJRedux%2F06art_redux2.jpg&hash=46b01c56217227a2ad10023cd7aeb324ecffd784)

“Early on in the shoot we hadn’t become, as they say, real salty yet. We were all still having fun with it, dressing up, putting on the costumes, going to work, carrying an M-16. Hoping today’s the day we’ll get to shoot the guns, make some noise and play soldier. We were instantly back in our childhoods, running around with friends and shooting BB guns. I think Stanley had a plan in shooting these scenes first. If nothing else, Stanley knew how to manipulate a situation to his advantage.”


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What’s Your Major Malfunction

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.giantmag.com%2Fimages%2Fissue_06%2FBooks%2FFMJRedux%2F06art_redux3.jpg&hash=7df2e47913397a6a0d68f49e82adead5ca13a4e5)

“Here, Lee Ermey is watching playback of himself choking Vince [D’Onofrio]. While Lee was originally hired to be a technical advisor on the film, Stanley had hired an actor to play the drill instructor, who would also audition the boot camp extras. But the actor would leave after a while when his throat got sore. Lee would step in and go fucking balls out, screaming and yelling and making up crazy shit. And he had bad breath from years of coffee, cigarettes and tooth decay. When Stanley looked at Lee on film, he decided to send the actor home. I mean you have somebody who is and somebody who is acting. It would have been silly to use an actor when you have that. Now Lee’s become kind of a caricature of his role in the movie. He’s even made a Gunnery Sergeant Hartman talking action figure. I called him up and said, ‘Hey man, I saw your doll...’ and he screamed back into the phone, ‘It’s an action figure, goddammit!’”
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: Stefen on July 30, 2005, 10:50:25 PM
QuoteNow Lee's become kind of a caricature of his role in the movie. He's even made a Gunnery Sergeant Hartman talking action figure. I called him up and said, 'Hey man, I saw your doll...' and he screamed back into the phone, 'It's an action figure, goddammit!'"

ahaha, that's rich. I can totally picture it. But the bad breath? What a bummer. This book is gonna be off the heezy fo sheezy.
Title: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: modage on September 10, 2005, 06:21:18 PM
Full Metal Jacket  (1987) 116min    
Tue, Nov 1 7pm*
*Q&A and booksigning with Matthew Modine
Directed by Stanley Kubrick
With Matthew Modine, Vincent D'Onofrio
Kubrick takes the viewer through basic training and tour of duty in Vietnam—his emotional detachment brilliantly conveying the dehumanizing qualities of warfare. Modine and D'Onofrio are excellent as polar opposites in boot camp, with drill sergeant R. Lee Ermey providing a fearsome foil.
http://www.bam.org/film/series.aspx?id=46
Title: Re: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: JG on February 25, 2006, 02:55:23 PM
So I finally bought Full Metal Jacket and rewatched it (apart of my revisiting Kubrick's life work).  It confirmed what I initialy thought of the film:  while still an amazing movie, Kubrick's worst (from what I've seen (not including Barry Lyndon (which (from what I hear) won't change my opinion very much) and everything pre-strangelove).   I'm interested, for those who share my views, would your opinions change if this came out, say, 1975, as opposed to when it did?  I just feel like a lot of the ideas had been done into the ground when the movie came out.   Platoon, Deer Hunter, Apocalypse Now.  For me, it's not nearly as complex and innovative as most of Kubrick's other work, and while they're are so many classic scenes, they just seem like a bunch of classic scenes stringed together.  The Vietnam section lacks direction until the sniper scene, where it completely redeems itself completely. Most of my complaints are the same tiresome complaints, but I'd be interested to hear someone who passionately thinks this is one of Kubrick's best refute what I say.    I haven't really read/heard a convincing argument.   

But man, that sniper scene.  Whew.  Classic. 

PS -- as I rewatch alot of Kubrick's work, would you guys mind if I bumped some of the old threads, starting some discussion?  I think it may be nice...

Discuss. 

EDIT:  Oh yeah, I forgot the reason I bumped this thread to begin with.  My question:  What was it that made Kubrick use so much pop music in this movie?  I'm pretty sure I read that he once said, "pop music is good and all, but why use that as a score when you have Brahm, Mozart etc?"   Anybody know what caused the change in heart? 
Title: Re: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: Pubrick on February 25, 2006, 10:52:46 PM
Quote from: JimmyGator on February 25, 2006, 02:55:23 PM
So I finally bought Full Metal Jacket and rewatched it (apart of my revisiting Kubrick's life work).  It confirmed what I initialy thought of the film:  while still an amazing movie, Kubrick's worst (from what I've seen (not including Barry Lyndon (which (from what I hear) won't change my opinion very much) and everything pre-strangelove).   
what in the hell are you trying to say. perhaps your inability to grasp the position this movie holds in the kubrick ouvre comes from your convoluted ranking system based on assumptions and after-thoughts bracketed to mask total ignorance on the subject. more logical paradoxes raised in only this little introduction: revisiting kubricks work implies you have visited it once, yet you say you havn't seen Barry Lyndon, which is even more perplexing because you all but instantly write it off based on what you've heard about it (from unknown sources, presumably authoritative enough on the subject to make you dismiss it outright).

so clearly you don't care enough to at the very least wait until you've seen ALL his goddamn movies before making such general statements as "kubrick's worst".

Quote from: JimmyGator on February 25, 2006, 02:55:23 PM
I'm interested, for those who share my views, would your opinions change if this came out, say, 1975, as opposed to when it did?  I just feel like a lot of the ideas had been done into the ground when the movie came out.   
what slightest iota does it matter if other films had been made before it covering the same event? you weren't even alive when it came out.  is there a limit to how many vietnam films should be made? according to your logic the better question would be: would you like it more if you SAW it before apocalypse now and platoon and whatever else you want to categorize it with.. 'them movies with guns about that war we lost'.  you don't even explain what was covered so brilliantly in the other films you mention to make your perceived themes of FMJ obsolete.. what the other movies did so well which FMJ did not as well.

Quote from: JimmyGator on February 25, 2006, 02:55:23 PM
For me, it's not nearly as complex and innovative as most of Kubrick's other work, and while they're are so many classic scenes, they just seem like a bunch of classic scenes stringed together.  The Vietnam section lacks direction until the sniper scene, where it completely redeems itself completely. Most of my complaints are the same tiresome complaints, but I'd be interested to hear someone who passionately thinks this is one of Kubrick's best refute what I say.    I haven't really read/heard a convincing argument.   
this makes no sense. "complex ... innovative ... classic" these are only cathphrases you regurgitate as if they carry meaning in any given situation. have you yourself presented a convincing or even an INTERESTING argument for why you think it lacks all these qualities, either in comparison to his other films or to the ones made by other directors?  what are the classic scenes, what made them classic, is it that you remember them being referenced in countless films like Jarhead for example? if the movie, in your opinion, "lacked direction" (another completely meaningless statement) in the vietnam section until it "completely redeems itself completely" in the sniper scene, why do you not conclude that the movie is a great one? i don't think anyone should bother with any counter argument in the form of a positive review.. have you even read the reviews and analyses over at http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/ ?

Quote from: JimmyGator on February 25, 2006, 02:55:23 PM
But man, that sniper scene.  Whew.  Classic. 
the insight you offer is staggering.

Quote from: JimmyGator on February 25, 2006, 02:55:23 PM
PS -- as I rewatch alot of Kubrick's work, would you guys mind if I bumped some of the old threads, starting some discussion?  I think it may be nice...
yes i do mind, if you continue with this kind of empty argument that is more about the lack of substance in your reviews then it's best we leave all other kubrick threads unsullied.

Quote from: JimmyGator on February 25, 2006, 02:55:23 PM
Discuss. 
for future reference, just saying "discuss" won't automatically create a worthy discussion. especially when the stimulus material is so disheartening.

Quote from: JimmyGator on February 25, 2006, 02:55:23 PM
EDIT:  Oh yeah, I forgot the reason I bumped this thread to begin with.  My question:  What was it that made Kubrick use so much pop music in this movie?  I'm pretty sure I read that he once said, "pop music is good and all, but why use that as a score when you have Brahm, Mozart etc?"   Anybody know what caused the change in heart? 
i'm not even gonna start with this one.
Title: Re: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: JG on February 25, 2006, 11:29:23 PM
Quote from: Pubrick on February 25, 2006, 10:52:46 PM
Quote from: JimmyGator on February 25, 2006, 02:55:23 PM
So I finally bought Full Metal Jacket and rewatched it (apart of my revisiting Kubrick's life work).  It confirmed what I initialy thought of the film:  while still an amazing movie, Kubrick's worst (from what I've seen (not including Barry Lyndon (which (from what I hear) won't change my opinion very much) and everything pre-strangelove).   
what in the hell are you trying to say. perhaps your inability to grasp the position this movie holds in the kubrick ouvre comes from your convoluted ranking system based on assumptions and after-thoughts bracketed to mask total ignorance on the subject. more logical paradoxes raised in only this little introduction: revisiting kubricks work implies you have visited it once, yet you say you havn't seen Barry Lyndon, which is even more perplexing because you all but instantly write it off based on what you've heard about it (from unknown sources, presumably authoritative enough on the subject to make you dismiss it outright).

so clearly you don't care enough to at the very least wait until you've seen ALL his goddamn movies before making such general statements as "kubrick's worst".


First of all, are you sure you read that right?  I'm not dismissing Lyndon as a bad movie, in fact, it's the opposite.  Based on the praise I've read of the movie -- here specifically -- I'm assuming I'll prefer it to Full Metal Jacket, a movie which seems (based on my reading) to be considered inferior to other Kubrick movies.  I haven't seen all of Kubrick's movies, so I'm revisiting most, and watching the others for the first time.  Based on what I've seen,  this is the worst.

Quote from: Pubrick on February 25, 2006, 10:52:46 PM

Quote from: JimmyGator on February 25, 2006, 02:55:23 PM
I'm interested, for those who share my views, would your opinions change if this came out, say, 1975, as opposed to when it did?  I just feel like a lot of the ideas had been done into the ground when the movie came out.   
what slightest iota does it matter if other films had been made before it covering the same event? you weren't even alive when it came out.  is there a limit to how many vietnam films should be made? according to your logic the better question would be: would you like it more if you SAW it before apocalypse now and platoon and whatever else you want to categorize it with.. 'them movies with guns about that war we lost'.  you don't even explain what was covered so brilliantly in the other films you mention to make your perceived themes of FMJ obsolete.. what the other movies did so well which FMJ did not as well.


you're right, i didn't phrase that well.  the point was this:  i don't think the movie gives a different spin/offers anything new to the "war distorts human values" theme.   now, maybe i'm missing something, which I probably am.  That is where you come in.  I know this is a movie you like a lot, so I'd be interested to read about what your thoughts on it. 

Quote from: Pubrick on February 25, 2006, 10:52:46 PM
Quote from: JimmyGator on February 25, 2006, 02:55:23 PM
For me, it's not nearly as complex and innovative as most of Kubrick's other work, and while they're are so many classic scenes, they just seem like a bunch of classic scenes stringed together.  The Vietnam section lacks direction until the sniper scene, where it completely redeems itself completely. Most of my complaints are the same tiresome complaints, but I'd be interested to hear someone who passionately thinks this is one of Kubrick's best refute what I say.    I haven't really read/heard a convincing argument.   
this makes no sense. "complex ... innovative ... classic" these are only cathphrases you regurgitate as if they carry meaning in any given situation. have you yourself presented a convincing or even an INTERESTING argument for why you think it lacks all these qualities, either in comparison to his other films or to the ones made by other directors?  what are the classic scenes, what made them classic, is it that you remember them being referenced in countless films like Jarhead for example? if the movie, in your opinion, "lacked direction" (another completely meaningless statement) in the vietnam section until it "completely redeems itself completely" in the sniper scene, why do you not conclude that the movie is a great one? i don't think anyone should bother with any counter argument in the form of a positive review.. have you even read the reviews and analyses over at http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/ ?

Just to clarify:  the movie didn't lack direction, a period in the second half felt like it meandered a little, and lacked the energy the rest of the movie had.   

also, i have been reading over a lot of the stuff over at that website, and i will continue to do so, but it shouldn't mean I can't ask stuff over here. 

Quote

Quote from: Pubrick on February 25, 2006, 10:52:46 PM
Quote from: JimmyGator on February 25, 2006, 02:55:23 PM
But man, that sniper scene.  Whew.  Classic. 
the insight you offer is staggering.


do you really want me to analyze what I thought was classic about certain moments?  i don't think there would be anything more senseless than bumping this thread to just add more praise to a scene that gets tons of praise already. 

Quote from: Pubrick on February 25, 2006, 10:52:46 PM
Quote from: JimmyGator on February 25, 2006, 02:55:23 PM
PS -- as I rewatch alot of Kubrick's work, would you guys mind if I bumped some of the old threads, starting some discussion?  I think it may be nice...
yes i do mind, if you continue with this kind of empty argument that is more about the lack of substance in your reviews then it's best we leave all other kubrick threads unsullied.

Quote from: JimmyGator on February 25, 2006, 02:55:23 PM
Discuss. 
for future reference, just saying "discuss" won't automatically create a worthy discussion. especially when the stimulus material is so disheartening.


i didn't think i was offering any new thought-provoking material, my complaints/concerns with the movie have been expressed before in other threads and in other reviews elsewhere.  i'm merely interested in reading a xixaxer's opinion on why Full Metal Jacket is one Kubricks best, if not the best. 

Quote from: Pubrick on February 25, 2006, 10:52:46 PM
Quote from: JimmyGator on February 25, 2006, 02:55:23 PM
EDIT:  Oh yeah, I forgot the reason I bumped this thread to begin with.  My question:  What was it that made Kubrick use so much pop music in this movie?  I'm pretty sure I read that he once said, "pop music is good and all, but why use that as a score when you have Brahm, Mozart etc?"   Anybody know what caused the change in heart? 
i'm not even gonna start with this one.

Quote

hmm...okay.  i'm assuming it was a stupid question, so i won't pursue an answer. 

***

if my post was really that stupid and devoid of any thought, then i apologize for wasting your time.   at the very least, i hope i cleared up a few things i said that confused you. 
Title: Re: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: Pubrick on February 26, 2006, 12:11:56 AM
Quote from: JimmyGator on February 25, 2006, 11:29:23 PM
First of all, are you sure you read that right?  I'm not dismissing Lyndon as a bad movie, in fact, it's the opposite.  Based on the praise I've read of the movie -- here specifically -- I'm assuming I'll prefer it to Full Metal Jacket, a movie which seems (based on my reading) to be considered inferior to other Kubrick movies.  I haven't seen all of Kubrick's movies, so I'm revisiting most, and watching the others for the first time.  Based on what I've seen,  this is the worst.
with all those brackets it's easy to misread. and yet you're still accepting these unknown opinions.. have you read anything in this site? FMJ is nowhere near being regarded as inferior.

Quote from: JimmyGator on February 25, 2006, 11:29:23 PM
you're right, i didn't phrase that well.  the point was this:  i don't think the movie gives a different spin/offers anything new to the "war distorts human values" theme.   now, maybe i'm missing something, which I probably am.  That is where you come in.  I know this is a movie you like a lot, so I'd be interested to read about what your thoughts on it.
who decided that's the one official theme that ANY of those movies deal with? if that's as much as you can fathom regarding either Apocalypse Now or Full Metal Jacket, there's nothing i or anyone can do, it's a modage-like matter of how you approach movies, and specifically the stringent set of ideas you think these movies hav to deal with.

Quote from: JimmyGator on February 25, 2006, 11:29:23 PM
Quote from: Pubrick on February 25, 2006, 10:52:46 PM
this makes no sense. "complex ... innovative ... classic" these are only cathphrases you regurgitate as if they carry meaning in any given situation. have you yourself presented a convincing or even an INTERESTING argument for why you think it lacks all these qualities, either in comparison to his other films or to the ones made by other directors?  what are the classic scenes, what made them classic, is it that you remember them being referenced in countless films like Jarhead for example? if the movie, in your opinion, "lacked direction" (another completely meaningless statement) in the vietnam section until it "completely redeems itself completely" in the sniper scene, why do you not conclude that the movie is a great one? i don't think anyone should bother with any counter argument in the form of a positive review.. have you even read the reviews and analyses over at http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/ ?
Just to clarify:  the movie didn't lack direction, a period in the second half felt like it meandered a little, and lacked the energy the rest of the movie had.   
just to clarify: read the whole sentence.

Quote from: JimmyGator on February 25, 2006, 11:29:23 PM
also, i have been reading over a lot of the stuff over at that website, and i will continue to do so, but it shouldn't mean I can't ask stuff over here. 
i never said you can't ask things. in this case one of things you are talking about is covered over there, and it seems you havn't been exposed to any reading of the film at all cos what you have said about it so far is really vague and insubstantial. if you had read any of the AMK articles about FMJ you would at least have been exposed to Jungian readings on it, and other great articles which deal precisely with the freeform direction exhibited in the middle of the film.

Quote from: JimmyGator on February 25, 2006, 11:29:23 PM
i didn't think i was offering any new thought-provoking material, my complaints/concerns with the movie have been expressed before in other threads and in other reviews elsewhere.  i'm merely interested in reading a xixaxer's opinion on why Full Metal Jacket is one Kubricks best, if not the best. 
what are these threads, where are these reviews. how bout this then: my opinion too has been expressed elsewhere, in journals, articles, essays, biographies, obituaries, and in my own posts.. great i just saved myself from ever having to eloborate on anything.
Title: Re: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: JG on February 26, 2006, 11:12:10 AM
**Let me preface this by saying that I already wrote a response earlier today, but then I accidentally exited out before I finished it.  I'll try and recapture what I said**

i'm not gonna reply quote by quote.  i stand by some of what i said, and i definitely stand corrected in some instances.  especially with that whole "vietnam section" thing -- how did i read over that?   :saywhat:  it's that kind of stuff that makes me look like an idiot on these boards.  i apologize.     

there are a few things i want to address:  i don't want you to think that i think that "war distorts human values" is "the one official theme that ANY of those movies deal with," it's not like i don't get these movies.   For example, this did not come as a revelation to me, I fully understood this while seeing the movie:   

Quote...suddenly the tension of the first part dissipates, the structure of the film loosens to the point of entropy and the narrative is set adrift, as if we were watching outtakes from a film whose story we haven't completely under stood. We follow Joker and Rafter Man from the placid corruption of Da Nang, broken only by a curiously anemic sequence showing the let Offensive, to the countryside around Hue, where they join a seasoned combat unit called the "Lusthogs" for an assault on Hue, overrun by the Vietcong. The drifting, fragmentary, anti-dramatic feeling of these sequences is heightened in the aftermath of the assault, when a television crew films the characters speaking in choreographed succession like actors in a bad Broadway play about Vietnam, then addressing the camera directly in inter views that recall a famous episode of TV's M*A*S*H.

It is only during the last minutes of the film that a sense of narrative progression returns: as the Lusthogs patrol the streets of Hue, they find themselves pinned down by an invisible sniper who turns out, when Joker penetrates her stronghold, to be a teenage girl. Cut down by Rafter Man's bullets, the sniper is slow to die, and only Joker is willing to put her out of her misery with a bullet through the head. Afterward, we see American soldiers marching at night silhouetted against a fiery landscape, singing the "Mickey Mouse Club" theme song, while Joker, barely distinguished from the horde by the last of a sparse series of laconic voiceovers, informs us that he is no longer afraid.

...and furthermore I understood what Kubrick was trying to do.  However, something still didn't feel right for me, although i can't quite pin point what.  i just knew that the movie as a whole didn't feel as effective as other kubrick movies.  I try to think -- well what exactly didn't I like?  I don't feel right just going to that site, reading some reviews and then just saying, "oh I get it now.  Wow what a good movie."  I want it to be more of an interactive process, y'know?  Likewise, I shouldn't change my opinion based a post, but I'm just trying to understand (which is not say I don't get the movie, y'know?). I know you consider the movie to be great -- one of your favorite movies of all time, correct? I'm interested to learn what makes you think the movie is as good and better than most of Kubrick's other works.  I understand that you feel there is no sense in trying to explain what made the movie so great to a person who is you perceive to be narrow minded.  I don't blame you.     But I'm not as hidebound as my vacuous posts would lead you to believe.  I do understand a lot of stuff -- it's not like I'm not getting it --  it's just that I suck at posting.  I forget to say a lot of stuff that I originally meant to say, and too often I assume that you guys will be able to see in my head and understand what I mean.  From now, I promise to make a point of trying to elaborate or not say anything at all. 

On that note, here's my last attempt to explain why I don't like Full Metal Jacket as much as the other Kubrick movie's I've seen (notice I'm being very careful with my choice of words):

The thing with Kubrick is I consider him, along with Bergman and Fellini, to me the most intellectual of all filmmakers. The guy works on a completely different level than anybody else.   When there's something that "doesn't feel right" in one of his movies, I think -- "what am I missing?"  after full metal jacket, I didn't get  the same feeling I get with other kubrick films, like I just saw something really important.  There's this certain level of grandiosity in his movies that I don't feel in full metal jacket.  I mean it's still an awesome, awesome movie, one I would recommend to anyone, but compared to other kubrick movies,  I didn't feel it's quite as good.  No, let me revise that :  not "not quite as good," not quite as important, y'know? 

And here's why, I think:  there have been other amazing amazing movies made about Viet Nam, focusing on  the dehumanization of man.  Not that it's necessarily the only theme, but one of the main ideas.  So many movies have been made about war, that Full Metal Jacket doesn't feel nearly as important, or necessary as his other movies.   It may not be fair or rationale, but I subconsciously judge the movie based on how many other movies have been made on the subject.  I think it's the same reason people didn't really care about Jarhead (although I didn't see it so it may be an unfair assessment)...  movie's like it, dealing with the same ideas, have been made so many times before.  As Roger Ebert said, I keep waiting for the Kubrick twist...

And when I don't feel it's as powerful or revelatory as other Kubrick movies, I try and figure out why?  Well, I'm having trouble doing that.   I suppose it's in my nature -- due to my teenage angst, of course -- to prefer a movie like A Clockwork Orange.  How did your view of Full Metal Jacket change over time?   I'm sure I will appreciate the movie more than I do one day, and I'm really digging that website over there, cause it does have a lot of interesting stuff. 

At this point I'm just gonna stop, cause I'm not saying what I want to say, and I'm blabbering.  My first version of this post was a lot better, I swear.  Oh well, I hope I explained myself a little bit, just to kinda make you understand...

Postscript -- You know you spend too much time at xixax when your incredibly frustrated cause you can't exactly say what you meant to say...I gotta spend less time here.

EDIT:  Wow, this is pretty painful.  I debated posting and taking back everything I said here, but I'd rather not remind everybody of this little debacle if I don't have to, so an edit for future browsing should do it justice...

Its only been a few months, but this should serve as a reminder of how much I've grown, even if over the span of two seasons.   What a half-baked explanation I gave.  I think I was in the habit of, and still occasionally slip back into to, forming an idea about a movie before I even watch it -- for what reasons I'm not exactly sure, maybe the concept of going against the grain and having an "original" opinion -- but this is certainly what happened here (also, see LTH's "cinema needs to be stirred" thread).  It drains any emotional response I might have had, as I'm only looking for reasons not to like it.     

Movies cannot be explained, and I'm grateful for that.  Its a distinctly intrinsic art form (most art is), so to be asked to explained the meaning of something is to miss the point completely.   With art, and especially with a Kubrick film (which are filled to the brimmed with ideas), you most first respond emotionally, and then intellectually.  Theme, and I think theres a quote from him regarding this, is secondary to creating an emotion in the viewer.   Subsequent viewings in the film revealed what I was missed the first time around, and also an emotional resonance which I refused to respond to. 

Yet along with my grammar and syntax, one of my biggest problems here at xixax is my fickleness, and this edit (and possible subsequent edits) only furthers that.   My malleablity on how I feel about film is not something I shy away from, however, because I think its a pretty big part of growing not only as a film lover, but as a person.  I think I need to be confident and strong in my feelings about film, but not at the sacrifice of maturing. 

The reason I post today is because of my concern that old posts like these invalidate anything I might say in the future, and I don't want to be remembered for opinions I don't whole-heartedly believe in. 

--JG, September 06
Title: Re: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: MacGuffin on January 27, 2007, 12:00:47 PM
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmoviesmedia.ign.com%2Fmovies%2Fimage%2Farticle%2F752%2F752971%2Fdelta-farce-20070103114318908.jpg&hash=7bea33b13d19e0cb81e5ccf9280306b4aaa2b91c)
Title: Re: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: Pozer on January 31, 2007, 12:14:42 AM
Private Joker: Are those... live rounds?
Private Gomer Pyle: Seven-six-two millimeter. Full-metal-jacket.
Larry the Cable Guy: (popping his head in) Git-r-done!

Private Joker: What do we get for ten dollars?
Da Nang Hooker: Every t'ing you wan'.
Private Joker: everything?
Da Nang Hooker: Every t'ing.
Private Joker: (to Larry the Cable Guy) Whaddya think, man? Ready to spend some of your hard-earned money?
Larry the Cable Guy: Git-r-done!

Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: How tall are you, private?
Private Cowboy: Sir, five-foot-nine, sir!
Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: Five-foot-nine? I didn't know they stacked shit that high!
Larry the Cable Guy: (under his breath) Git-r-done, sarge.

Title: Re: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: mogwai on May 29, 2007, 03:07:56 PM
full metal jacket - an re-enactment by brandon hardesty

http://youtube.com/watch?v=nEb-gSQpJp8
Title: Re: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: B.C. Long on October 28, 2007, 02:44:20 AM
I just rewatched this today. Am I the only one who thinks some of the acting was less than stellar compared to Kubrick's other body of work? Particularly Adam Baldwin and dare I say Vincent D'Onofrio.

When Vincent is in the bathroom it's like he's more concerned with making the those awkward facial expressions than delivering that dialogue convincingly. Even Matthew Modine seemed stale. I dunno, I guess I'm crazy.
Title: Re: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: Pubrick on October 28, 2007, 04:08:33 AM
Quote from: B.C. Long on October 28, 2007, 02:44:20 AM
I just rewatched this today. Am I the only one who thinks some of the acting was less than stellar compared to Kubrick's other body of work? Particularly Adam Baldwin and dare I say Vincent D'Onofrio.

When Vincent is in the bathroom it's like he's more concerned with making the those awkward facial expressions than delivering that dialogue convincingly. Even Matthew Modine seemed stale. I dunno, I guess I'm crazy.

there must be something in the air, that's the second time in as many days that someone has brought up "bad acting" in a kubrick movie.

but i'm not surprised, it's an easy target because apart from peter and jack his films have never been obvious oustanding acting vehicles. even tom got more attention for his ten minutes in mag than his hours (years) on ews. i find it difficult to address the issue because i don't think of movies in that tedious way of cutting it all up into departments.

regarding pyle in his last moments: i dunno. if that's how you see it there's no way to change that. the other dude who brought up bad acting said it about alice in ews when they're getting high. the best i can say is to watch it again, cos if it's one thing i can guarrantee about kubrick it's that while you might be caught up in that performance thing this time, your head should be in a completely different place next time. that's my experience.
Title: Re: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: B.C. Long on October 28, 2007, 12:48:13 PM
I think I know what you mean about Kubrick movies never being "outstanding acting vehicles". Kind of like how Terrence Malick movies have never been about memorable or witty dialogue. Dialogue is not something you remember when you come out of a Malick flick. I get that. I'm not disputing that FMJ was geniusly filmed, because it was. I was just taken aback by some of the acting, and I was surprised to see Adam Baldwin in FMJ, because he' s just a BAD actor on all accounts. The scene where him and Matthew are trading off insults. I felt like they were delivering their lines like they were in a script reading with all the other actors. The thing is, I don't have a problem with the acting in any other Kubrick film. Every performance is amazing. Tom Cruise, Malcolm McDowell, R. Lee Ermey, Peter Sellers, Jack Nicholson, James Mason, George C. Scott, Kirk Douglas, Ryan O'Neal, and Keir Dullea all give outstanding performances.

But the paradox is that Kubrick is such a perfectionist, he got exactly what he WANTED out of those actors in FMJ. What that is exactly, I'll probably never know. Unless Pubrick can explain it to me.
Title: Re: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: Gold Trumpet on October 28, 2007, 04:22:48 PM
Compare Kubrick to Robert Bresson. Both are similar directors as far as their approach to actors go. Bresson wrote about his ideas of actors being models in the larger scheme of a film. Kubrick didn't like to outline his thought process but essentially he had the same idea.

David Fincher, when making Zodiac, said he would do upwards of 70-80 takes for a scene. The purpose was to take away the pretensions of an actor and tear him down to giving a core, inner performance. Kubrick would allow actors to do scenes in many ways, but he did numerous takes to instill a repitition with the actor to make him get rid of his acting pretensions. Directors who base themselves on allowing an actor to do a scene in many ways will only do the maximum of ten takes. Limiting the takes to under ten means the director is relying heavily on the actor's personality. Most directors do this. Kubrick's shooting plan was to do the opposite.

Like pubrick said, the exceptions were Nicholson and Sellars. I think Sellars happened early in Kubrick's career, before he developed his filmic personality.  Then I believe Kubrick just loved Nicholson. The two talked about making films together as early as 1969 with the Napoleon project and as late as the mid 90s. If Nicholson wasn't a major star, the two would have made more films together. Nicholson even said he always expected to do more films with Kubrick.

The other exception, as far as takes per scene is concerned, is R. Lee Ermey. Kubrick said Ermey only needed 1 or 2 takes per scene. Kubrick justified this by saying Ermey was always prepared, but I beleive Ermey had the right personality for a Kubrick film. He wasn't an actor trained to look for the nuance in a performance, but a professional military man who knew the character out of pure being. It was the perfect fit.

Title: Re: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
Post by: Pozer on August 08, 2008, 12:36:52 PM
http://www.fridaypage.com/images/fridaypage/122107_fullmetalrudolph.wmv (http://www.fridaypage.com/images/fridaypage/122107_fullmetalrudolph.wmv)