Quote:
|
Originally Posted by !@#$%!
is it? see i am not so sure of this. lancelot du lac? that movie is not about people. and au hazard balthazar is about a donkey! (and that girl, yes, i have forgotten her whereas the donkey is fresh in my mind). where bresson is more "personal" is where i like him less, eg. the country priest or mouchette.
|
Sure but Au Hasard is a story about the human condition (from a religious perspective) told using a donkey. It isn't rwally 'about a donkey', though. (IMO).
I just think with Kubrick, his emphasis on technical matters effectively treated humans as props. He treated them that way not because he saw people as props (necessarily) but because his directing style couldn't accommodate them any other way.
Quote:
|
on the kubrick end, i keep hearing it repeated about his characters, but what about a clockwork orange or full metal jacket or the killing or paths of glory? (i haven't seen lolita so i can't give an opinion on that).
|
ACO and FMJ don't have characters so much as cyphers. The most memorable 'character' in FMJ is a cartoon drill sergeant required to do no more than shout for an hour. That's less the case earlier in his career. I'll grant you The Killing and PoG have some very good characters ... but it could be argued that Kubrick hadn't quite become 'Kubrick' at that point.
Quote:
|
Kubrick chooses to have a passive/flat male character and casts accordingly
|
Then why choose such a dynamic actor as Tom Cruise? Love him or loathe him he's never gonna be first choice if you're going for a 'flat' performance. Harrison Ford is flat, Elijah Wood is flat. Tom Cruise couldn't do flat if his life (or a scene) depended on it.