Customer Reviews

Cinema of Stanley Kubrick

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(6)

 

 

The main problem with this book is the overall sloppy job of writing. It is clear that the author failed to take notes during the films, for his descriptions are filled with incorrect statements about things as basic as the story and other errors. In his analysis of The Shining, for example, he spends a few pages recounting the plot. In doing so, however, he switches many of the events around and getting them out of order. Furthermore, he also has a habit of getting the names of characters mixed up, or getting the wrongs names altogether. If you're looking for a much better book on Kubrick, try Thomas Nelson's Kubrick: Inside a Film Artist's Maze.

I don't know why film critics think they can get away with this kind of thing. Imagine if somebody tried to "critique" a novel, a CD, or any other type of work by retelling the narrative (or lyrics, or whatever) in his own words. Dismissed without a second thought, needless to say. But film critics write 'em and get 'em published. To what end, I don't know.

That said, this book plumbs new depths in that it's ALL the author does. There's no technical background or critical apparatus at all, merely scene by scene retellings of the films along with a bit of blather about "themes". The book's errors have been mentioned, but it should be reiterated that these are of a number and level of ignorance that's truly jaw-dropping. (My favorite is Kagan's identification of the drunken Shriners of "Killer's Kiss" as "some kind of street entertainers".)

One of these days, Kubrick will get the film-by-film analysis he deserves. This one ain't even a beginning.

This book reads more like summaries of Kubrick's films than either analysis, or indepth reviews. It might be useful to anyone beginning to explore Kubrick's body of work, or anyone interested in having a mini-encyclopedia of cliff notes. Be warned that the book contains notes on all of the endings to Kubrick's films, so if you do not wish to ruin the endings, perhaps you shouldn't read it.

Not particularling illuminating or informative, at the very least it collects portions of commentaries from some of the best film critics (eg Pauline Kael). Beyond this there is not much positive to say. Often Kagan can't even provide accurate summaries of Kubrick's films (one example is that he confuses the identities of the condemned men in Paths of Glory, and this effectively renders his thematic analysis of that film useless!). Kagan also seems to miss the entire point of certain films. One wonders why he even bothered writing such a book.

Yes, Kagan does make some foolish mistakes in summing up Kubrick's films. However, this is a nice book for anyone interested in the late Stanley Kubrick, a film genius whose works ranged from sexual thrillers and science fiction epics to period dramas and war films. It contains some nice photos, as well as just enough information about each film. I bought it after seeing only three of Kubrick's films and it compelled me to see five more.

If I could give less than one star, I would. This book sheds no light on Kubrick's genius whatsoever. The majority of the book is a sort of Cliff's Notes on nearly every film Kubrick has made. The capsulation of these films are so brief and hollow, that he covers a work like A Clockwork Orange in a mere 20 pages. Not only that, but the book is full of errors when lines are quoted and references made. If you want a REAL book on Kubrick, read Mario Falsetto's works on this directoral master. I will use Mr. Kagan's, however, as a beer coaster.

If you're looking for a collection of poorly-written and badly inaccurate plot summaries of Kubrick's work set alongside a summary of critics' reviews of his films, this is the book for you. Really a terrible work. There's literally LESS here than you would get from watching the films yourself and consulting the some of the fine Kubrick sites on the web which collect far more insightful critiques verbatim.

I have a theory: Kagan needed to write a thesis. He decided that Kubrick's work demonstrated the repetition of certain themes, and decided to "argue" accordingly. He wrote synopsis' of all Kubrick's films, then added a few pages to the end of each to justify his [Kagan's] "arguments".

And voila -- a thesis, a C-, and next year it's the PHD...

This is sophomore stuff. If you want critical insight read Nelson; if you want Bio, read Lobrutto; scandal, read Baxter; character, read Herr or Raphael; general information, read Cimet or Walker.

Norman Kagan should get an "editing" credit rather than "author" credit. This book on the cinema of Stanley Kubrick is basically an accumulation of articles, interviews and reviews of his films and his life. Albeit some of it was interesting, the book is nothing I found original. At the end of each chapter, however, the author does take it upon himself to interpret the films in a manner in which he sees a destructive, non-sexual, non-emotional Kubrick. That of obsessive and homicidal. Attempting to make a "connection" in all the films which I believe is poorly attempted. I would move elsewhere to find word on Kubrick and his films.

Kagan's tome on the works of Stanley Kubrick breaks ranks with the films it seeks to illuminate by accomplishing something those works do not - Kagan's tome is terribly BORING and ultimately says very little about the subjects it hopes to explore.

Yes, the Third Edition covers every Kubrick film right up to Eyes Wide Shut, claiming to be the only book on Kubrick to do so. Even if that boast is true, it does very little to address the glaring flaws that make this book one to be avoided.

While all of Kubrick's films are covered, most of the text on each are rambling, haphazardly written summaries of the films' plots, information we presume a student of Kubrick will find wholly unnecessarily. Worse still, he often spends more time summarizing than examining; 21 pages are devoted to regurgitating the plot of Dr. Strangelove, for instance, with just 11 pages devoted to examining the film. Kagan throws a bit of editorial comment into those summaries, but such content is sparse and rarely enlightening.

The summaries are preceded by a brief - sometimes as brief as a paragraph or two - bit of text introducing the film. Generally speaking, entirely worthless.

Finally, each summary is followed by a half-hearted, and often too brief, attempt to examine the themes of the film and how Kubrick attempted to display those themes. Kagan manages to cut and paste portions of reviews that back his observations, but he rarely presents them in such a way to truly bolster his argument (or make the argument interesting for the reader), and for stretches one wonders just how much actual WRITING Kagan did. These thematic explorations are often so brief as to be frustrating, too. Barry Lyndon fans, for instance, will wonder if Kagan even SAW the film based on the two whole pages it gets.

In the end, however, the book fails because it offers the reader no real insight into the cinema of Stanley Kubrick. Not in the creation of these films; the production; the historical importance; the cinematic importance. Virtually nothing is offered on the history of these productions, how Kubrick went about creating each film, notes of interest, or reasons why the films stand out from the pack - things one would think are essential in a boom called "The Cinema of Stanley Kubrick."

So why two stars for a book so, well, bad? It is a valuable resource in that it summarizes some Kubrick films no longer readily available for viewing. Kubrick students may find some of use for this book in that, at least. Other than that:

SKIP THIS BOOK.