26 of 26 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Kubrick's odyssey finally realized, July 23, 2001
STANLEY KUBRICK: A LIFE IN PICTURES is as good a documentary as one can make, especially about a master film director like Kubrick. Dealing with his life from growing up in the Bronx to his last days making and refining EYES WIDE SHUT, LIFE IN PICTURES has interviews with cast members, production crew, writers, composers, etc. Jack Nicholson, Malcolm McDowell, Shelley Duvall, Tom Cruise among others are the actors interviewed. Wendy Carlos, musician who orchestrated the classical music in CLOCKWORK ORANGE, is also interviewed, as is Jan Harlan (producer and brother-in-law), Christina Kubrick (Kubrick's wife and a painter), Gyorgy Ligeti (composer's music used in many Kubrick films), and many more invaluable interviews.
There are also clips from every single Kubrick production, comments and revelations (particularly about CLOCKWORK's controversy in Great Britain), reaction from critics like Richard Schickel and other film directors such as Woody Allen and Martin Scorsese, and so much more. Anyone who is a Kubrick fan cannot be without this 21/2 hour documentary...invaluable only skims the surface, it is essential.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
15 of 15 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Thank you Christiana Kubrick, March 24, 2004
This review is from: Stanley Kubrick - A Life in Pictures Collectors Box Set (DVD & Book) (DVD)
A Life in Pictures is a superb and much needed documentary of the legendary filmmaker, Stanley Kubrick. The film follows the traditional format for biographical documentaries and starts with Kubrick's youth and his early influences. It progresses steadily through all of his films and finally to his death. The thing about this documentary, about one of the worlds most reclusive and misunderstood filmmakers, that makes it so good is the insight into his personal life, provided by his wife, Christiana Kubrick. I think that she understood some of the things that the fans would really be looking for in this film, and that is to say the glimpsing into the kind of man that Kubrick really was, behind the camera or at home. There are lots of great interviews and the film is very tasteful and respectfully done. This is definately one for the fans, but those who are just curious will also enjoy it. Thank you Christiana Kubrick for sharing this DVD with the fans.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
3 of 3 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Fine as a portrait of a family man, but the definitive Kubrick doc has yet to be made, June 14, 2008
This is more of a polite remembrance by family, co-workers, and fellow directors than a critical commentary on Kubrick the man or director. It certainly succeeds in giving us a snapshot or two from Kubrick's family album and allowing us a glimpse of Kubrick the family man as opposed to Kubrick the filmaking machine, but I think whats missing is a sense of what makes him so unique as a director. A lot of people mention things like his unique use of tracking shots in Paths of Glory, and in The Shining but this doc is light on analysis and really sheds very little light on the reasons for Kubrick's massive & lasting impact on cinema.
I am a huge fan of Kubricks films. I count Lolita, Dr. Strangelove, 2001, A Clockwork Orange, & The Shining as among my favorite films. Buts its very difficult to pinpoint exactly what it is that makes a Kubrick film such a singular thing. I suppose what makes Lolita, Strangelove, Clockwork & The Shining so good is that, along with Kubrick being at the top of his game, these films also happen to feature excellent actors at the top of their game. One cannot imagine Strangelove without Peter Sellers or George C. Scott or Slim Pickens; one cannot imagine Clockwork without Malcolm McDowell; and one cannot imagine The Shining without Jack Nicholson. But some of the other films feature actors that seem poorly chosen. Ryan O'Neal was simply a bad cast for Barry Lyndon, and Tom Cruise was perhaps an odd choice to play the lead in Eyes Wide Shut. What this tells me is that even if everything else about a film is brilliantly conceived, if the actors aren't right the film just doesn't work. Thats obvious enough I suppose, but its especially obvious on a Kubrick film because there are so few of them, and therefore so much is at stake in each one. I am also tempted to say that the best Kubrick films are the ones that start with the best source material: Nabokov's Lolita, Southern's Dr. Stranglelove, Clarke's 2001, & Burgess' A Clockwork Orange. I think theres certainly an argument to be made there.
But what makes a Kubrick film a Kubrick film to me (and this quality is in both his most successful & least successful work) is the feeling that he is both a classicist & a nihilist at the same time. He is a classicist in that he values objectivity, the cold detached look that a cold detached thing like a camera can give. And he is a nihilist and by this I mean that his work conveys the idea that as humans we may try to assign meaning to things but that ultimately these attempts amount to nothing. His films are very attractively shot voids or vacuums where human meaning is overwhelmed by a feeling of insignificance. But, there is an undeniable attraction and beauty in Kubrick's vision. And a usefulness for it. Like going outside on a very cold day, it keeps the mind sharp.
But that kind of analysis/conjecture is not what you get with this documentary. What is here that is valuable and that maybe slightly changed my view of Kubrick is that Kubrick, although often viewed as a recluse, seems to have been at his best when most in touch with the popular imagination. Though the documentary doesn't really say anything negative about Kubrick, I couldn't help thinking that what made the later films less successful was the fact that the later ones were made by a man who was no longer in touch with the popular imagination. (By the way Truffaut has some fascinating things to say about the connection between an artists and the publics imagination.) For instance, I've grown to appreciate Eyes Wide Shut, but its certainly not a film that endears itself in any way, nor makes any attempt to connect with the viewer, in any way. Most people that do like the film tend to offer their interpretation of what Kubrick is doing in the film and make an argument for it. I suppose I remain unconvinced about the arguments I've heard about Kubrick's intention and the ultimate meaning of the film. I think possibly its a film about an artist meditating on the distance that art places between himself and actual life. Perhaps.
This documentary was made essentially to try and alter the publics perception of Kubrick, and it maybe accomplishes this PR goal. But I think theres a much deeper documentary to be made that explores the relationship between the art and the life and gives equal attention to each. For me this documentary is too reverent, and there's way too little analysis. It does not dig deep enough into the mind behind the films or the films themselves so it leaves one feeling vaguely dissatisfied.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
![[Start the discussion]](http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/x-locale/communities/discussion_boards/start-new-discussion-sec._V192250339_.gif){kind=small}
