“FRIGHTENED
OF MAKING THE MOVIEâ€
By
Raymond Benson
Of
all the filmmakers throughout the years in which we’ve had cinema, two have had
more books written about them than any other director. The first would be
Alfred Hitchcock. The second is Stanley Kubrick. The number of tomes that exist
for both is overwhelming. For Hitchcock, one can understand the depth of
material that can be mined, seeing that Hitchcock made over fifty films.
Kubrick, on the other hand, made only thirteen. One would think that no more
could be said about the genius Jewish kid from the Bronx who made good… but
that would be wrong.
Most
of the books about Kubrick deal exclusively with his work, because that’s
pretty much all we know about him. Stanley Kubrick was an intensely private
person, a family man who carved out a unique life for himself after moving to
the U.K. in the 1960s and making his movies there beginning with Lolita (1962).
He lived minutes away from the studios where his pictures were shot. Both pre-
and post-production was accomplished at his home. Craftsmen, writers, actors,
designers—they all came to him for meetings. Kubrick’s movies were
family affairs, in that members of his immediate family (his wife and three
daughters) all worked at one time or another on the movies, and he kept a
close-knit circle of employees who were considered “family.†There were no
scandals or personal controversies associated with Kubrick; hence, no
“tell-all†hatchet jobs are available. What “biographies†of his personal life
that do exist again end up focusing more on the films he made than what he did
from day to day.
David
Mikics, a Moores Distinguished Professor of English at the University of
Houston and columnist for Tablet magazine, has now presented the most
recent study of Kubrick’s work. How it differs from previous scholarly
publications is that it does include more recent discoveries from the
director’s archives that were unearthed since his death in 1999 and the
subsequent cataloging of his “stuff†by the University of Arts London and the
traveling exhibition that has enjoyed success around the world. For example,
there is more discussion about started-and-abandoned projects—at least more
titles than this reviewer has seen mentioned before in books (and this reviewer
considers himself quite knowledgeable in the subject). Among these titles are
H. Rider Haggard’s Viking epic Eric Brighteyes and a film about the game
of chess entitled Chess Story.
Mikics
does go through Kubrick’s filmography chronologically and offers insightful interpretations
of the works mixed with some production histories. Kubrick aficionados who have
read other books on the subject may not learn much new, but Mikics manages to
come up with some thoughtful analyses. Perhaps the most potent part of the new
book is Mikics’ chapter on Eyes Wide Shut, Kubrick’s last and arguably
most misunderstood final film. Very little has been written about this complex
and engrossing picture that still polarizes audiences (arguably, undeservedly!).
What Mikics fails to mention—like all other critics of Eyes Wide Shut—is
that the movie is an unfinished film. Think about it. Kubrick assembled the
completed cut of the film and viewed it for its stars, Tom Cruise and Nicole
Kidman, and a couple of Warner Brothers executives. Their responses were
extremely positive. Then… Kubrick suffered a massive heart attack and died only
a few days after the screening. At this point, the release date for the movie
was still four and a half months away! Anyone who has studied Kubrick and his
films knows that he edited his pictures up to the day of release and often
beyond it (he edited twenty minutes out of 2001 following the premiere,
and he edited a coda from The Shining after its opening weekend in North
America—and then deleted 25 minutes from it for the U.K. and European release a
couple of months later!). This reviewer has no doubt that Kubrick would have
continued to work on Eyes Wide Shut, tightening it, trimming it, and reducing its runtime by possibly as much as twenty to thirty minutes.
Still,
Mikics offers some interesting interpretations of this final work and how it is
indeed such a defining piece of celluloid in Kubrick’s life. He had wanted to
make the movie since the 1950s, but he was always being dissuaded (by his third
wife, Christiane, for instance) because he “wasn’t old enough yet.†At one
point, she is quoted as saying that Kubrick was “frightened of making the filmâ€
because it would hit close to his heart. Apparently, it did.
Stanley
Kubrick: American Filmmaker is recommended for cinema students and fans
of this iconic filmmaker.
CLICK HERE TO ORDER FROM AMAZON