A person stable enough to leave the fiction on the screen and not have long term problems because of the movie. "A Clockwork Orange" is not a normal movie. Because it so thoroughly manipulates the viewer it can, and sometimes does, have a lasting impact on the psyche of those that are unable to shrug off the mental trauma. It is NOT an age thing at all. Both my granddaughters could handle the impact but when they asked about the "restricted" folder I have. (No I do not have porn) I explained that the movies there are disturbing in one way or another and, if they want to see one, I will allow it but I must watch with them and they must be willing to ask questions after the film ends. So far the only movie they wanted to see from that folder was "Night of the Living Dead." I might add that "Pulp Fiction" is in there as well. What gets a movie in that folder has nothing to do directly with violence or nudity it is what I believe will be the impact to young minds. "Porky's" is in there too along with "Carnival of Souls" and the original "Nosferatu" but "Starship Troupers" is not. As I said there is nothing they cannot watch but there are some that I make sure they watch, if they do, with full ability to ask and discuss what they watch. I have a huge and varied library of something over 6000 movies and I enjoy them immensely. My granddaughters can see any they want because I believe that forcibly restricting restricting their access to movies or books or ideas would cause more harm than free access ever could. My eldest granddaughter has been reading over my shoulder and wants me to add: "According to the last psychologist that talked to us we are two of the most stable girls she has ever met. So grandpa, mom and dad must be doing OK." They get examined by psychologist pretty often because they travel a lot and get exposed to a LOT of different cultures. Since the youngest was born they have lived in four different countries.
Couldn't agree more. I am afraid this is where our movie culture diverge, guys, because I've seen almost all of Stanley Kubrick's movies and almost all of Quentin Tarantino's movies (I guess, for each one of them, I am not missing much more than the 2-3 films they have made at the debut of their respective careers)
I have, I think, seen everyone of both. I will say that all of Tarantino's movies were all REALLY good to great. But some of Kubrick's early offerings, such as "Killer's Kiss" and "Flying Padre" were weak but showed flashes of what he was to become. I also did not like "Barry Lyndon" but that, I believe, was more the fault of the basic story and the actors. I have also seen every Hitchcock movie and some of his work such as "Jamaica Inn" were not as good as others.
These are indeed the ones I haven't seen and, after what you say, I am even less motivated to seek for completeness. I quite liked "Barry Lindon" (and the soundtrack is amazing), although I'll surely admit that it's not my favourite Kubrick's movie. Didn't see "everything" by him, but I've seen quite a lot of his movies, including some old black-and-white masterchiefs as "Rebecca". "Vertigo" is very close to being my favourite all-time movie, but many other Hitchcock's works are very close to its quality.
It is definitely the best film ever set in San Fransisco. I actually like "Rear Window" and "North by Northwest" better but just because I like them better does not mean they are better. He is known as "The Master of Suspense" and that reputation is well earned. I almost feel that his reputation was damaged for a lot of people by two of his greatest films: "Psycho" and "The Birds." Those two crossed between "horror" and "mystery" and "suspense" and most people focus on the "horror" part. BTW: In "The Birds" he used sound in a way it had never been done before to build tension. In the scene where the school is about to be attacked and the children are singing every cut to the lady sitting on a bench is on a major note in the song and every cut to the build up if the birds is on a minor note. Since, almost from birth, western minds are conditions to minor note meaning sinister or danger that causes the birds to become super endowed with "evil" or "danger." Also in "Vertigo" he used a camera technique that had never been used before: In the scenes where the detective looks down the staircase shaft and experiences vertigo Hitchcock visually shows that by using a wide angle lens and simultaneously pulling the camera rapidly back and zooming the lens. This actually produced feelings of vertigo in viewers in theaters some even requiring medical attention. It is a little less effective on the TV screen but it still works. And lastly this from Hitchcock: "Television has brought back murder into the home - where it belongs." Alfred Hitchcock
Well, of course, most of the best known's Hitchcock's works are veritable masterpieces: the fact that I mentioned "Vertigo" doesn't mean that the ones you mentioned aren't close, along with others as "The Man Who Knew Too Much" or "Notorious" or "Spellbound". I also like a lot some little less-heralded films by him as "Rope" (correct me if I am wrong, but I guess it's less known that the others I just mentioned).
Yes, Rope is somewhat lesser known. It also has a unique feature that both sets it apart and makes it very interesting: It was shot as one long cut. When it needed a change of reels Hitchcock sometimes used the technique of moving in on "smooth" features like the back of a sports coat or some such. The movie actually runs just a little less than the real time of the drama. Also "The Man Who Knew Too Much" was the only movie Hitchcock remade. The first was in 1934 and the second was in 1956. Hitchcock remade that movie because he felt he did not do it justice on the first make. Also he felt the cast he had available was much better, particularly James Stewart replacing Leslie Banks in the title roll, for the second film. He really appears to have been correct as the 1956 film is clearly better and cleaner and tighter than the 1934 one. I cannot think of any other director that made a film twice.
Apart from the "one cut" thing, I like the fact that the movie respected the three Aristotelian unities of dramatic tragedy (unity of action, of time and of place: just a single action filmed in a same apartment within the 24 hours limit). By definition, a film with James Stewart is better than the same film without James Stewart.
I’m surprised that some enterprising photoshop artist hasn’t gone to town on this in a non flattering way
Flying Padre is a 9 min doc short (maybe you meant Fear and Desire?) and Killer's Kiss has post-synched sound which is off-putting to modern audiences, It's hard to fault Kubrick when his next two films were The Killing (one of the greatest noirs and greatest heist pictures) and Paths of Glory (one of the greatest war films)!
Yes, I know that "Flying Padre" was a short film but I believe it shows that even the best directors can really screw up at times. It was quite horrible. At least I felt it was. Kubrick was a great director but even the greatest sometimes produce a stinker. That is true for both Actors and Directors. Hitchcock made "Waltzes From Vienna" and "Juno and the Paycock" which were quite bad. Dustin Hoffman stared in "Ishtar" and "Outbreak" which were pretty horrible. Just because a movie was bad does not mean that the actor or director was bad. For those people, including Kubrick, it is the whole body of work that matters not any one movie. BTW: I do not think that Lalas ever fulfilled his bet. That lowers him even further as far as I am concerned and I did not think he actually could sink lower. He is just a poor excuse for a human and has no redeeming values. In other words he is the almost human equivalent of pornography.