Thought you might like this!

http://videosift.com/video/A-Stanley-Kubrick-Odyssey-A-Tribute

I recommend you all forget about the Kubrick / Spielberg melodrama and go read the source material. Brian Aldiss eventually wrote three short stories about David. In fact, in a foreword titled "attempting to please" he talks about Kubrick, Spielberg, AI, etc. It's quite interesting. Here, let me type out a bit of it:

"So why was 'Supertoys' not filmed? [...] My belief is that he [Kubrick] was basically mistaken. Obsessed with the big blockbuster SF movies of the time, he was determined to take my sorrowing domestic scene out into the galaxy. After all, he had wrought similarly to great success with [Arthur C.] Clarke's story.

But 'The Sentinel' looks outward to begin with. It speaks of a mystery elsewhere, whereas 'Supertoys' speaks of a mystery within. David suffers because he does not know he is a machine. Here is the real drama; as Mary Shelley said of her Frankenstein, it 'speaks to the mysterious fears of our nature'.

A possible film could be made of 'Supertoys' showing David facing his real nature. It comes as a shock to realise he is a machine. He malfunctions. Perhaps his father takes him to a factory where a thousand identical androids step off the line. Does he autodestruct? The audience should be subjected to a tense and alarming drama of claustrophobia, to be left with the final questions, 'Does it matter that David is a machine? Should it matter? And to what extent are we all machines?'

Behind such metaphysical puzzles remains the simple story - the story that attracted Stanley Kubrick - of a boy who was never able to please his mother. A story of love rejected."

"So, if you didn't like it, it's stupid Kubrick's fault and I had to do it that way. But if you now think it's great because you know it was the genius Kubrick's idea to begin with, then yeah, I would have come up with the exact same idea as that genius guy."

Wanker.

Kubrick's ghost is grumbling, "Blame that shit on me, you fucking..."

There is a stark difference between Stanley Kubrick films and Steven Spielberg.

With Kubrick, you get the sense that each shot is carefully constructed for the Art of it. Background colors, Framing, and the movement of the camera combine to make a Kubrick shot.

Spielberg certainly cares about telling a story, but I doubt the look of each shot matters nearly as much to him as it did to Kubrick.

In the spirit of spoon-feeding you the point (oh, the bitter bitter irony!) below is a sift containing a good example of a story of the holocaust as a "failure," one that deals with the crux of the issue Kubrick was talking about in the quote from the book Gilliam mentions. This PBS show is not a story about "a man can do what a man can do" in giving you comforting answers that you don't spend any time thinking about afterward.

http://videosift.com/video/PBS-God-on-Trial-the-Verdict

I think those opposed to seeing the difference think we Kubrickians are somehow saying Spielberg is bad. That's actually not what we're saying at all. We're saying we prefer to sit with questions rather than be handed easy answers.

If you fail to see the difference after this, then there's really no hope for your brain. Sorry.

That is all.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Dudes, you won't believe this, except someone sifted it around here....the "sappy" ending of A.I. was NOT Spielberg's idea...it was Kubrick's!


Be that as it may, I'd have been much more willing to endure Kubrick at the helm of that ending than Spielberg. What's written in the treatment matters less than you think. What matters is HOW the story is told. For instance, can you imagine a voice over narration explaining the ending of 2001? That's what Gilliam is describing here: the nice explanatory bow that wraps everything up. The "sap" at the ending of A.I. belongs solely to Spielberg, I assure you.

Dudes, you won't believe this, except someone sifted it around here....the "sappy" ending of A.I. was NOT Spielberg's idea...it was Kubrick's!

>> ^direpickle:
That's actually not true. I thought for sure that that was the case when I saw it too, but the whole thing with the aliens was all Kubrick.


Zow good find! That is odd. Despite my love for Kubrick, I still don't care for that last part. I actually didn't go on a second date with the gal I saw that movie with because she insisted it didn't go far enough to ensure the boy was happy, while I was disappointed they didn't "kill him off" to end the movie. I must admit that at the time I attributed that ending to Spielberg as well, but I still stand by that decision.


Besides, my wife would be really angry if I called her now.

>> ^Truckchase:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
The film A.I. started out as a Kubrick project, a project that Kubrick wanted Spielberg to direct, because he felt Spielberg's directing style would best fit the script. The film never got out of the development phase, because the effects technology of the time were not convincing enough for Kubrick's high standards. After Kubrick passed, Spielberg picked it up and made a very dark, beautiful and underrated film. One of his best IMO.I think Kubrick would have ended the movie when the boy freezes, but Spielberg just had to "wrap it up". I'm with you until that part of the movie, but then then he completely lost me.


That's actually not true. I thought for sure that that was the case when I saw it too, but the whole thing with the aliens was all Kubrick.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

The film A.I. started out as a Kubrick project, a project that Kubrick wanted Spielberg to direct, because he felt Spielberg's directing style would best fit the script. The film never got out of the development phase, because the effects technology of the time were not convincing enough for Kubrick's high standards. After Kubrick passed, Spielberg picked it up and made a very dark, beautiful and underrated film. One of his best IMO.I think Kubrick would have ended the movie when the boy freezes, but Spielberg just had to "wrap it up". I'm with you until that part of the movie, but then then he completely lost me.

The film A.I. started out as a Kubrick project, a project that Kubrick wanted Spielberg to direct, because he felt Spielberg's directing style would best fit the script. The film never got out of the development phase, because the effects technology of the time were not convincing enough for Kubrick's high standards. After Kubrick passed, Spielberg picked it up and made a very dark, beautiful and underrated film. One of his best IMO.

All of them are artists. All of them are entertainers. I dig all three directors. If I had to make a personal top 10 list, it would probably include The Shining, Raiders of the Lost Ark and Brazil. I don't see a reason to beat down Spielberg just because he is more commercial. Most commercial films suck. (Current box office champs: Tron 2, Yogi Bear, Narnia 3) Spielberg consistently puts out intelligent, meaningful films that can be appreciated by people of all walks of life - not an easy task.

That said, Gilliam's last 3 flicks were horrible. I hope his second shot at La Mancha goes well, the released footage from the 1st abandoned attempt looked really good.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Terry Gilliam, Spielberg, Schindler, List, Kubrick' to 'Terry Gilliam, Spielberg, Schindlers List, Kubrick' - edited by xxovercastxx

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Terry Gilliam, Spielberg, Schindler, List' to 'Terry Gilliam, Spielberg, Schindler, List, Kubrick' - edited by calvados

Sarzy: ever in the vanguard with all news cinematic. Well done, sir. Malick is more accessible than Kubrick while retaining all the contemplation and measured pacing. Thin Red Line is a fucking masterpiece.