Thursday, February 25, 2010

Who's Wilder than Kubrick? So glad you asked.

Alright, so it appears that "A History of Nothing" has challenged "The Good Stuff" to a blog war. Right off the bat I think I should win based solely on the names of our blogs. Friend- it's on.

My dear friend Darcy Cameron and I rarely disagree on good films and nearly never miss a beat on what we feel are "the cinematic greats". The one topic on which we really can't find a common ground is Stanley Kubrick. Darcy hails Kubrick as the greatest filmmaker of all time. Don't be fooled- I know that Kubrick can back it up, and I know he's more than made his contribution. Truth is, I've just always been fairly indifferent to him. I don't particularly like, nor dislike him, I just havn't had much interest in watching his films.
Darcy has thrown "Dr.Strangelove" at me. "...only Kubrick could have done and gotten away with - a COMEDY about a general who orders a nuclear attack on Russia...keep in mind, this was made at a time when people were actually afraid of this sort of thing". That's a very valid point Darcy. Too bad Billy Wilder already set that precedent by releasing "Stalag 17" in 1953. This brilliant little war film is also a COMEDY depicting American POWs in Nazi prisoner camps. This was made at a time when even DRAMAS weren't being made about WWII as the subject was considered too "serious". Wilder took a serious and taboo issue, created out of a history of violence and rocked the proverbial casbah. Oh and it stars William Holden. Perhaps you've heard of him, he's only one of the most notable and brilliant actors in history.

Kubrick's got charisma. But Wilder had it first.

19 comments:

  1. Dr. Strangleove is funny not because it's a "comedy" or because of its subject matter, but because of how seriously every character in the movie takes themselves, not realizing they're being funny. Also, I don't see how you can be indifferent to Stanley Kubrick when the only film of his you've actually watched you loved.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Also, WW2 was over in 1953. The Cold War with Russia was in full force when Kubrick made Dr. Strangelove. Score one for Stan the Man.

    ReplyDelete
  4. WW2 may have been over but I think being one of the first to tackle NAZIS is little ballsier than tackling the cold war. Everyone knew about and talked the cold war, they LIVED it. It would be like saying that K.Big is ballsy for making the Hurt Locker or that Oliver Stone is ballsy for making World Trace Center. These might not be our favorite topics but they're far from taboo.

    And FYI: comedy is comedy is comedy. Call it a satire, call it a parody. If its funny its funny.

    ReplyDelete
  5. People didn't live through WW2? First or not, a comedy about Nazis made in 1953 is different than if one had been made in 1943. And the Cold War wasn't exactly something people just half paid attention to. There were bomb drills in schools. People thought they could be wiped out at any second. What a perfect time for a comedy about unstoppable nuclear destruction!

    If Wilder had made a hilarious comedy about Nazis winning the war and taking over the US when the outcome of the war was actually uncertain, that would have been comparable to what Kubrick got away with in Dr. Strangelove.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Disagree. "the Cold War wasn't exactly something people just half paid attention to. There were bomb drills in school". That's kind of my whole point. They lived it. So what if Kubrick made a satire about current events? With that argument you cuodl just as easily call Michael Moore a genius for releasing Farenheit 9/11. And I know you're not comparing Kubrick to Michael Moore.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Also- Wilder might have had greater success in making a comedy about Nazis DURING the war had he not had to flee europe as a refugee in the midst of the drama. Give the guy a break.

    ReplyDelete
  8. You say "current events" as it's the same as just living through the Bush administration. When Dr. Strangelove was made, people were genuinely afraid of having nuclear bombs dropped on their cities at any second. The threat was real. The fear was real. The outcome was uncertain.

    Rather than making a film that looks back after the fact, Kubrick made one that looks ahead, takes everyone's biggest fears about the situation, exaggerates them, makes them funny, and through the laughter ends up actually enhancing the fear. Could the world really come to this at the hands of a few bumbling idiots? Yes, yes it could. People are idiots.

    ReplyDelete
  9. And if you dismiss Kubrick making a satire about "current events" as if it's no big deal, what's the big deal about making a satire about a war that has already ended and the outcome is already known? No matter what that person does with his or her film, people can just look at it and say "well, at least it didn't really happen that way." Not so with Dr. Strangelove. It really could have happened that way. People were afriad it would. His film did nothing to put their minds at ease, that's for sure.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Haha, we're totally screwed. Why the hell are we laughing so hard?"

    ReplyDelete
  11. LOL. I"m not making an argument and then telling you that you can't make the same one. Your original argument was that Kubrick was ballsy for making the film at the time he did and if you take all things into consideration and evaluate everything at the time when it would have occured I think its fair to say(and I havn't even SEEN Dr Strangelove) that both films were bold for their times.

    Ijust don't think that Kubrick is completely original in making a film about global events as they take place. I mean there's a lot of people who think the world will end in 2012. Is Michael Bay more or less prolific because he shot the movie "2012"? The fact is, filmmakers have always pushed the envelope and worked political or global goings-on in their favor to stir things up. I'm not even discrediting Kubrick, I just don'tthink that's the MAIN argument you should be standing on.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Also I'll say it right now. The Shining is amazing. There. I think the shining did more to reinvent the horror genre than Dr Strangelove did to further the polictial satire.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I don't know that that's true, actually. Dr. Strangelove was incredibly influential, and received many Oscar nominations to The Shinin's zero. Not that that means anything. Many Kubrick films reinvented they way people made films. If you think The Shining reinvented horror, wait until you se 2001: A Space Odyssey. That film reinvented EVERYTHING.

    Also, my MAIN argument is not that Kubrick is ballsy for making a film about a sensitive current event. Just that the fact that it was a subject with a frightening and uncertain outcome is not totally irrelevant.

    ReplyDelete
  14. He's original not for his subjects,, but for his style. And the way he works with his actors, and encourages over the top surrealism to enhace the realism. Like Jack screaming like a maniac in The Shining. Or George C. Scott in Dr. Strangelove. Or Malcolm McDowell in A Clockwork Orange. He's just brilliant in every aspect of everything he does.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Between 1964 (Dr Strangelove) and 1999 (Eyes Wide Shut) Kubrick made a mere 7 films and personally received 13 Oscar nominations. And two of those films received no nominations. One of them was The Shining, which we all know is epic and amazing.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "He's original not for his subjects,, but for his style"

    We could have avoided this whole thing if you had only started with that. Obviously
    I can't contest this. Next time get to point Cameron. Seriously.

    Scorsese blog war? I think so.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I was only pointing out that the fact that he made Dr. Strangelove when he did is relevant. That's all. Not overly important to his (or the film's) greatness, but relevant in understanding its context.

    ReplyDelete