Support NeoGAF

[JB1981]

Taken from a Rolling Stone interview from the 80s where the subject of Full Metal Jacket came up.

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture...ne-interview-stanley-kubrick-in-1987-20110307

This is a different drill instructor than the one Lou Gosset played in An Officer and a Gentleman.

I think Lou Gosset's performance was wonderful, but he had to do what he was given in the story. The film clearly wants to ingratiate itself with the audience. So many films do that. You show the drill instructor really has a heart of gold — the mandatory scene where he sits in his office, eyes swimming with pride about the boys and so forth. I suppose he actually is proud, but there's a danger of falling into what amounts to so much sentimental bullshit.

So you distrust sentimentality?.

I don't mistrust sentiment and emotion, no. The question becomes, are you giving them something to make them a little happier, or are you putting in something that is inherently true to the material? Are people behaving the way we all really behave, or are they behaving the way we would like them to behave? I mean, the world is not as it's presented in Frank Capra films. People love those films — which are beautifully made — but I wouldn't describe them as a true picture of life.

The questions are always, is it true? Is it interesting? To worry about those mandatory scenes that some people think make a picture is often just pandering to some conception of an audience. Some films try to outguess an audience. They try to ingratiate themselves, and it's not something you really have to do. Certainly audiences have flocked to see films that are not essentially true, but I don't think this prevents them from responding to the truth.

What does GAF think of this perspective on storytelling? Is there something inherently superior about a movie that does not try to ingratitate itself with its audience? Let's compare, for example, the approaches of Steven Spielberg and Stanley Kubrick. Spielberg is a filmmaker who often will ingratitate himself with his audience. He is a master at making the audience feel a certain way about something. Isn't this a skill that takes a uniquely talented filmmaker to master? Is the emotion illicted from his films inherently inferior to the more opaque and sublte emotion found in Kubrick's works? Are they less true? Does every audience member want "truth" in the movies are do they want to be moved by a work of fiction?

 

[Stet]

Neither makes the film "better" or "worse". It's a directorial style and I'm glad we have both.

 

[Sub_Level]

The question becomes weirder when you realize society is influenced by what they see in movies and tv. So that initially artificial sentimentality possibly becomes reality by people replicating characters and behaviors they saw.

 

[TedNindo]

I prefer Kubrick's style imo. It doesn't come off as forced or manipulative. But this comes from a European perspective though. Where it is often seen as a very American thing.

I'm for less directing of the audience and making them craft part of the experience themselves internally. Provocing thought that in turn makes something move within instead of giving you everything spoonfed.

That's part of why everyone can have a different experience seeing works of Kubrick for instance. And why you can talk for hours with someone after seeing an experience like that.

 

[genjiZERO]

We need more Kubrick's and a lot fewer Spielbergs. Kubrick doesn't always succeed, but at least he doesn't treats his audiences like they are intelligent. There really aren't too many people like him today (Paul Thomas Anderson is the closest).

By the way, I had the opportunity to see 2001 in the theatre last weekend (I've seen it in a theatre once before). If you ever get that chance do yourself a favor and do it. It's positively epic.

 

[FrontalMonk]

First post nails it.

Sometimes I want to watch a movie that challenges me, and makes me think. Sometimes, I want to watch a movie that elicits a strong reaction, like a Saving Private Ryan. Sometimes, I want a random ass kung fu flick. Whether one is better or worse isn't necessarily relevant, is it?

 

[Sibersk Esto]

There's nothing inherently wrong with humanizing characters by making them sympathetic, but it's obvious when a movie goes for cheap emotional manipulation just to get a response.

 

[theignoramus]

There's nothing inherently wrong with humanizing characters by making them sympathetic, but it's obvious when a movie goes for cheap emotional manipulation just to get a response.

Crash.

 

[UrbanRats]

He mentions being "true to the material", which i think it's a key point here.
More than a matter of realism, it's a matter of honesty, it's not like Kubrick did super dry documentaries with minimal stylistic footprint, and cinema is always cinema.
However his works did have a crystalline and clear vision, regardless of how harsh or cruel they came off as, sometimes.
They felt honest, and that's the bottom line to me.. whether you're doing White Ribbon, Clockwork Orange or an animated fairy tale film, or a wacky comedy, you always have to bring that level of honesty to the screen.

 

[JB1981]

I saw Paths of Glory last night for the first time ever. Bought the Criterion blu-ray. I was struck by how emotional the ending was. I never thought I would see the day where Stanley Kubrick filmed a scene of hardened soldiers shedding tears to the voice of a beautiful woman.

 

[Pai Pai Master]

Crash.

Ugh that fucking movie

 

[Atrophis]

There's nothing inherently wrong with humanizing characters by making them sympathetic, but it's obvious when a movie goes for cheap emotional manipulation just to get a response.

Dog/child in peril. So fucking lazy. How about creating a character I give a shit about and then putting them in peril if you want to evoke an emotional response?

 

[Bobby Roberts]

Kubrick himself, in those quotes, doesn't seem to be saying one is inherently better than the other. Just that it's a question of the story's aim, and how you deliver it.

 

[The Technomancer]

The question becomes weirder when you realize society is influenced by what they see in movies and tv. So that initially artificial sentimentality possibly becomes reality by people replicating characters and behaviors they saw.

Maybe. And maybe not. Because our entertainment can inform our perspectives it can have the effect of "letting us off the hook". Look at some of the reactions to the end of the Wolf of Wall Street: people got pissed because the main character wasn't really punished for all of the awful shit he did. But why should he be? That's exactly as lenient as we are on similar people in real life. We run the risk of our media convincing us that we're better then we actually are, buying into our own myths

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

Crash.

ding ding ding

 

[theignoramus]

I saw Paths of Glory last night for the first time ever. Bought the Criterion blu-ray. I was struck by how emotional the ending was. I never thought I would see the day where Stanley Kubrick filmed a scene of hardened soldiers shedding tears to the voice of a beautiful woman.

That woman singing? He married her

 

[Real Hero]

'Certainly audiences have flocked to see films that are not essentially true, but I don't think this prevents them from responding to the truth.'

I wish more people realized this.

 

[JB1981]

That woman singing? He married her

Yes I knew that. She was hot as hell back then too.

 

[Maninthemirror]

Taken from a Rolling Stone interview from the 80s where the subject of Full Metal Jacket came up.

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture...ne-interview-stanley-kubrick-in-1987-20110307

This is a different drill instructor than the one Lou Gosset played in An Officer and a Gentleman.



So you distrust sentimentality?.



What does GAF think of this perspective on storytelling? Is there something inherently superior about a movie that does not try to ingratitate itself with its audience? Let's compare, for example, the approaches of Steven Spielberg and Stanley Kubrick. Spielberg is a filmmaker who often will ingratitate himself with his audience. He is a master at making the audience feel a certain way about something. Isn't this a skill that takes a uniquely talented filmmaker to master? Is the emotion illicted from his films inherently inferior to the more opaque and sublte emotion found in Kubrick's works? Are they less true? Does every audience member want "truth" in the movies are do they want to be moved by a work of fiction?

This is how Nolan designs his movies

 

[JB1981]

'Certainly audiences have flocked to see films that are not essentially true, but I don't think this prevents them from responding to the truth.'

I wish more people realized this.

Imagine if Kubrick made American Sniper, audiences would not have flocked to that lol

 

[Timeaisis]

There's room for both. There's always room for both. It's a preference, is all. Sometimes I'm in the mood for a movie that is entertaining, sometimes I'm in the mood for a movie that makes me think. Sometimes both. There's nothing inherently inferior with either, and it's up to the director to decide what a movie is going for. Both Kubrick and Spielberg are (were) great in their respective fields of moviemaking, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

 

[UrbanRats]

Maybe. And maybe not. Because our entertainment can inform our perspectives it can have the effect of "letting us off the hook". Look at some of the reactions to the end of the Wolf of Wall Street: people got pissed because the main character wasn't really punished for all of the awful shit he did. But why should he be? That's exactly as lenient as we are on similar people in real life. We run the risk of our media convincing us that we're better then we actually are, buying into our own myths

Why do some people want to be babysitted by movies (art in general) like they were 10? You're not watching a disney movie made for kids (and even then, there's an argument to be made about feeding kids dishonest views about the world, but that's more complex).
Like, if at the end of Man Bites Dog,

Spoiler

Ben didn't get killed along with the whole crew

, would people feel like the movie was some sort of endorsement of social violence and pure anarchy? Feels like something coming from a place of intellectual lazyness, more than honest concern.

 

[Anton Sugar]

Why do some people want to be babysitted by movies (art in general) like they were 10? You're not watching a disney movie made for kids (and even then, there's an argument to be made about feeding kids dishonest views about the world, but that's more complex).
Like, if at the end of Man Bites Dog,

Spoiler

Ben didn't get killed along with the whole crew

, would people feel like the movie was some sort of endorsement of social violence and pure anarchy? Feels like something coming from a place of intellectual lazyness, more than honest concern.

Some people (well, the general population, I'd guess) view cinema as escapist entertainment and little more than that.

 

[loaf of bread]

I don't know much about him and when I read the title I just said "Wait, I thought that guy was dead"

 

[BeatResetsTheWorld]

This is how Nolan designs his movies

I was going to bring up Nolan, but I knew people would start talking shit about how his character's "lack emotion" when I've always felt he just doesn't shove it in our faces. If you are able to sympathize with them, you'll feel whatever emotion they'll feel in the situations they're in, if not you just won't.

It's the directors job to get the audience to relate with the characters and naturally produce an emotional response, but other directors rather force whatever emotional response they're going for on you

 

[Bobby Roberts]

Sometimes, you wanna hear some bouncy, dumb-as-rocks Katy Perry singalong.
Sometimes you want Forty Six and Two to kick you in the chest
Sometimes you think Iron & Wine might be nice.
Sometimes Kendrick Lamar might do the trick.

So long as all of the songs you put on are well crafted works that go to the place they're intending to go, then they're working.

But if Kendrick Lamar tried to make Iron & Wine songs, then yeah, you're gonna have a problem.

 

[lazygecko]

Some people (well, the general population, I'd guess) view cinema as escapist entertainment and little more than that.

Regardless of such statements, popular culture does have a significant social influence in shaping people's world views.

 

[JB1981]

I was going to bring up Nolan, but I knew people would start talking shit about how his character's "lack emotion" when I've always felt he just doesn't shove it in our faces. If you are able to sympathize with them, you'll feel whatever emotion they'll feel in the situations they're in, if not you just won't.

It's the directors job to get the audience to relate with the characters and naturally produce an emotional response, but other directors rather force whatever emotional response they're going for on you

Nolan has far more in common with Spielberg as it relates to sentimentality/emotional trickery than he does Kubrick. I would say PTA with TWBB and The Master is more in line with Kubrick's style.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

Nolan has far more in common with Spielberg as it relates to sentimentality/emotional trickery than he does Kubrick. I would say PTA with TWBB and The Master is more in line with Kubrick's style.

Which is funny because when he first hit all anyone could do was compare him to Scorsese.

PTA's voice is like this weird blend of Scorsese/Altman/Kubrick, and he's figured out exactly how to synthesize that blend PERFECTLY.

 

[JB1981]

Which is funny because when he first hit all anyone could do was compare him to Scorsese.

PTA's voice is like this weird blend of Scorsese/Altman/Kubrick, and he's figured out exactly how to synthesize that blend PERFECTLY.

Yes you can see the clear Scorsese influence in Boogie Nights. I feel like PTA has evolved into something quite different at this stage of his career.

 

[Amir0x]

I think he's right on the money the way he describes it. He's not saying that characters in which excess sentimentality are a thing can't exist in this world or in the movies. He is saying that in many cases, this sentiment is not actually true to the characters or the story being told... that it's put in there to try to get the audience feeling sympathy or concern or whatever for the character in question, and that in doing so it actually subverts the believability of that person as written. And I think in such cases it is absolutely true that those characters and movies as written are inferior to those which remain consistent to their internal structure.

It's I suspect similar to the 'suspension of disbelief' theory. That you can have a movie involving the most insane, mind boggling shit possible and as long as it is consistent to the rules it is presenting of itself people will readily suspend their disbelief.

But the second you start writing in something that is narratively inconsistent with the rules you had presented before, people start to see the cracks in the façade. You could write about the planet of Pink Elephants and their plan to take over the Moon of Purple Bunnies, but if for some reason the Moon of Purple Bunnies had a few red Bunnies hopping around with no explanation, people would be confused and think less of the work.

 

[SamVimes]

I was going to bring up Nolan, but I knew people would start talking shit about how his character's "lack emotion" when I've always felt he just doesn't shove it in our faces. If you are able to sympathize with them, you'll feel whatever emotion they'll feel in the situations they're in, if not you just won't.

It's the directors job to get the audience to relate with the characters and naturally produce an emotional response, but other directors rather force whatever emotional response they're going for on you

It's not his characters that lack emotion, it's his films that lack characters.

 

[Tesseract]

sometimes i wanna work out the mammal, sometimes i wanna indulge the lizard

 

[RangerX]

Yeah that mawkish,saccharine sentimentality is why ET is one of my most despised films. A lot of spielberg's films are like that.

 

[UrbanRats]

Sometimes, you wanna hear some bouncy, dumb-as-rocks Katy Perry singalong.
Sometimes you want Forty Six and Two to kick you in the chest
Sometimes you think Iron & Wine might be nice.
Sometimes Kendrick Lamar might do the trick.

So long as all of the songs you put on are well crafted works that go to the place they're intending to go, then they're working.

But if Kendrick Lamar tried to make Iron & Wine songs, then yeah, you're gonna have a problem.

Again, it's all a matter of honesty and earnestness (i this a word?).

 

[John Kowalski]

I'm not particularly pulled towards any side of the spectrum, but i think that sentimentality (which i'm reading as the display of emotion and empathy) is a formal aspect like any other. It's probably one of the most subjective and contextual aspects of any work of art, and as authorial control increases and/or becomes more evident, it becomes more and more inescapable. Past a certain point it's not only the sentimentality of the movie that begs to be analysed, but the sentimentality of the author too, as well as the relationship between them. Personally, that's when things become more interesting, but until that threshold comes into consideration, eh. Like i said, i'm not particularly driven towards any one form of movie making.

As for the "truth" that cinema claims to represent, i'm just not a fan of the concept. Even as documents, movies are at best a suggestive reality, portraying an order that is betrays the real chaos of the events which is seeks to present. Each movie is a truth in and of itself, but never the truth is seeks to portray. IMO movies are the closest to their apogee as vehicles for expression when they choose to be symbolic rather than facsimile.

That said, i do really enjoy when characters are put through extremely emotionally stressing circumstances.

 

[jblank83]

What does GAF think of this perspective on storytelling?

Melodrama is bad writing, bad acting, and bad directing. It's insincere, fake, pandering. It's figuratively shoving a round eyed puppy into the camera, begging you to have "the feels".

Yes, that makes it bad, as all things insincere, fake, and pandering are bad (unless done jokingly or half knowingly).

 

[Bobby Roberts]

Again, it's all a matter of honesty and earnestness (i this a word?).

Its wordified enough for me to get you

 

[Jackben]

The question becomes weirder when you realize society is influenced by what they see in movies and tv. So that initially artificial sentimentality possibly becomes reality by people replicating characters and behaviors they saw.

I agree with this. They say art imitates life but I things aspects of human society have begun to imitate art on several levels.