Stuff

Kubrick was intrigued by war and made many films on the subject.

Paths Of Glory is sometimes described as “anti-war”, but it’s hard to say that any Kubrick war films are explicitly anti.

Paths Of Glory highlights a true (ish) story from World War I. Having reached a stalemate on the front line, the generals order an attack that is doomed to failure. In the aftermath, when no progress has been made and lives have been lost, three soldiers are chosen to be executed as an incentive for the rest to, er, try harder in the future.

There’s more to the story, of course, but we just don’t want any spoilers.

Kirk Douglas plays Dax, who volunteers to defend the three men, even though he knows it is a lost cause.

Douglas is Douglas. There are some other familiar faces in the cast, and some memorable scenes. We always think that Kubrick would have loved a Steadicam as he took his camera through the trenches.

Have you ever read Nabokov’s book? Don’t be put off by the subject matter. It’s a great book.

How did they ever make a movie of Lolita? the posters ask. Well, easily actually.

Remove even the vaguest suggestions of any kind of sexual encounter. Tone it all down and make it a farce.

Sue Lyons, as Lolita, looks much older than the book suggests. She’s apparently a late teen. A relationship between a middle aged Humbert and her would be possible, if unlikely, even in those times.

She’s a late 1950s early 1960s American gum chewing spoilt brat from a single parent home, and it’s hard to imagine any chemistry between her and Humbert. Of course there isn’t, it’s just his infatuation.

James Mason is great, of course. He’s educated, polite, quiet and considered, a far cry from the Haze people.

The beginning of the film, set in Ramsdale, is a great study of American small town life. This is Trump country. But, when the road trip begins, it gets boring rapidly and outstays its welcome.

But what really spoils the picture is Peter Sellers who plays the role of Quilty as a Goon Show character, with silly voices and stupid disguises to match.

The film has its moments, but read the book.

The newer version, with Dominique Swain and Jeremy Irons, is more faithful to the book, but it’s still a bore.

You don’t often hear people saying nice things about Eyes Wide Shut, Kubrick’s last film.

Yes, it does have big names: Cruise and Kidman.

Yes, it was eagerly anticipated: this came out in 1999, and since Barry Lyndon in 1975, Kubrick had made just two films (Full Metal Jacket and The Shining).

Yes, Kubrick did die just days after its release.

Cruise plays a medical doctor who learns from his wife that she has had sexual fantasies and nearly had an affair. So he decides he’d like that, ambles round Islington, sorry New York City, not much happens and then they all go to Hamleys.

It’s a pretty unsubtle film in many ways. We saw it when it first came out and my companion remarked on the clunky photography, the unsubtle use of colours and the dodgy acting, Cruise especially.

Watching it recently to remind myself what it’s like, it’s a tough watch. What it means is not clear. There are reports of hundreds of takes of particular scenes, suggesting Kubrick was worse than ever and had no clue quite what he wanted to get.

Everyone was bored and dispirited by the end.

It’s hard to criticise, because it was Kubrick’s last film. Other Kubrick films were shortened or edited after release (eg The Shining and 2001) and maybe something would have been done to help this, but it’s unlikely it would have helped.

Some people have said the film as it is is a masterpiece. We’re not agreeing with that, but see it for yourself.