Author Topic: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick  (Read 25175 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

MacGuffin

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 22985
  • Respect: +639
Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
« Reply #90 on: July 30, 2005, 10:21:41 PM »
0
Quote from: cowboykurtis
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.




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



“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



“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



“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!’”
“Don't think about making art, just get it done. Let everyone else decide if it's good or bad, whether they love it or hate it. While they are deciding, make even more art.” - Andy Warhol


Skeleton FilmWorks

Stefen

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 7777
  • smh
  • Respect: +191
Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
« Reply #91 on: July 30, 2005, 10:50:25 PM »
0
Quote
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!’”


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.
Let's go to a motel. We don't have to do anything -- we could just swim.

modage

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 10785
  • Respect: +727
    • Floating Heads
Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
« Reply #92 on: September 10, 2005, 06:21:18 PM »
0
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
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

JG

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1366
  • Respect: +53
Re: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
« Reply #93 on: February 25, 2006, 02:55:23 PM »
0
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? 

Pubrick

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 12170
  • on the not-face of it
  • Respect: +774
Re: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
« Reply #94 on: February 25, 2006, 10:52:46 PM »
0
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".

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.

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/ ?

But man, that sniper scene.  Whew.  Classic. 
the insight you offer is staggering.

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.

Discuss. 
for future reference, just saying "discuss" won't automatically create a worthy discussion. especially when the stimulus material is so disheartening.

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.
under the paving stones.

JG

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1366
  • Respect: +53
Re: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
« Reply #95 on: February 25, 2006, 11:29:23 PM »
0
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.


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. 

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

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. 

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.

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. 

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. 

Pubrick

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 12170
  • on the not-face of it
  • Respect: +774
Re: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
« Reply #96 on: February 26, 2006, 12:11:56 AM »
0
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
under the paving stones.

JG

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1366
  • Respect: +53
Re: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
« Reply #97 on: February 26, 2006, 11:12:10 AM »
0
**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
« Last Edit: September 17, 2006, 08:48:36 AM by JG »

MacGuffin

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 22985
  • Respect: +639
Re: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
« Reply #98 on: January 27, 2007, 12:00:47 PM »
0
“Don't think about making art, just get it done. Let everyone else decide if it's good or bad, whether they love it or hate it. While they are deciding, make even more art.” - Andy Warhol


Skeleton FilmWorks

Pozer

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 2289
  • Respect: +139
Re: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
« Reply #99 on: January 31, 2007, 12:14:42 AM »
0
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.


mogwai

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1208
  • Respect: +67
Re: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
« Reply #100 on: May 29, 2007, 03:07:56 PM »
0
full metal jacket - an re-enactment by brandon hardesty


B.C. Long

  • The Vision Quest
  • **
  • Posts: 202
  • Respect: 0
    • The Only Magic Left is Art
Re: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
« Reply #101 on: October 28, 2007, 02:44:20 AM »
0
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.

Pubrick

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 12170
  • on the not-face of it
  • Respect: +774
Re: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
« Reply #102 on: October 28, 2007, 04:08:33 AM »
0
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.
under the paving stones.

B.C. Long

  • The Vision Quest
  • **
  • Posts: 202
  • Respect: 0
    • The Only Magic Left is Art
Re: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
« Reply #103 on: October 28, 2007, 12:48:13 PM »
0
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.

Gold Trumpet

  • The Master of Three Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5783
  • Respect: +166
Re: Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick
« Reply #104 on: October 28, 2007, 04:22:48 PM »
0
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.


 

DMCA & Copyright | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy