How do you discern intention from incompetence?

>>78872826
repetition

>>78872826
Autism

>>78872826
Boy, I really hope someone got fired for that blunder.

I wouldn't say this is "incompetence" but rather the aesthetics were primary in the first shot but the hallway was in a way that it had to be shot in reverse for other scenes or came from a necessity to reshoot.

Small things like this are rarely a sign of "incompetence" but necessity, time or indifference.

One time I was on lsd and checked into a hotel with that same carpeting. I considered saying something to the staff about how it could be bad for business but I thought it might be weird..

>>78872826
The movie is about something he faked. So of course he voluntary let obvious errors that make the film look fake like this or the impossible window of the chopper's shadow.

wtf I thought Kubrick was a perfectionist? fucking hack

there was clearly someone making sure that all the cars were in the same position and they would have obviously known that they were placed in different positions relative to the pattern. Also if they went to that much effort to make sure that the cars were in the same position they would clearly want the kid to be in the same position on the pattern. There is no way this wasn't intentional given the thematic relevance of doing such a thing in this particular film

>one scene is looking one
>other scene is looking the other way
>the kids just like "whaddaya want me to do"

>>78872900
It seems very odd considering they would have had to move all the props and align them the same way. Considering how peculiar Kubrick was about shooting does it not seem intended?

I've been saying Kubrick is a hack for over a decade. I'm so glad he died. Eyes wide shut may possibly be the worst movie of all time

>>78872978

> impossible window

That isn't an error, the hotel was designed to not be properly navigable and confusing.

>chopper's shadow.

Not even in the movie. It's literal bait.

>>78872997

>and they would have obviously known that they were placed in different positions relative to the pattern.

It these scenes could have been hours or even days apart in terms of when they were filmed and maybe even done by different people or a very busy person.

>>78873050

>It seems very odd considering they would have had to move all the props and align them the same way.

See my comment above, we have no idea how far these scenes were shot apart and it was probably a distinct amount of time.

>>78872900

uh, hun. This isn't a 2016 Disney expanded universe flick, this is a Kubrick film. The guy is known for doing 100 takes to get deliveries right, you really think they were on a strict deadline with this?

>muh shot continuity matters more than aesthetics
how to spot a plebian

>>78872826
>Act

>>78872826
You can't, that's the fun part.

>>78873079
>It these scenes could have been hours or even days apart in terms of when they were filmed and maybe even done by different people or a very busy person.

And yet the cars are all in the exact same spot. Really makes you think.

The pool balls moving in EWS was distracting

>>78873131

>have picture of previous shot
>see cars
>align cars

The toys are the most important thing here, him facing the other way is probably for a different technical or aesthetic reason.

Also getting delivery form an actor is not the same as making sure some irrelevant carpet is the same

>>78873079
I will agree shots could have been spaced apart IRL but:
>Same clothes, same props, same lighting, same everything
Really sounds odd that they would take a break when filming a scene confined to one location like that. And considering Kubrick's style as a director it really sounds odd to just have some guy do a reshoot without even noticing such a blatant discontinuity.

>>78872826
>make a horror movie
>whenever there's a mistake, just say ghosts did it

:^)

>>78873108
How would get the angle right ruin the aesthetic?

>>78873196

If you can't see a logical reason for him to be the other way or in a different location then it was probably done for other unknown technical reasons. Maybe there is something that simply prevented the next shot to be in the same place or maybe they were forced to do a reshoot well after.

Why do people have this attitude of "if its wrong it was done as a massive fuck up lmao" there could be hundreds of reasons why things might have to be the way they are.

>>78873113

But it's leaving me sleepless

how do we fix mindless kubrick cultists, /tv/?

>>78873275

OP here, I didn't really mean Kubrick is incompetent or a fuckup, I just meant with continuity errors being so common, how are you meant to discern any meaning from it IF it is intended? Basically you have to be considered one of history's greatest filmmakers to maybe have your work looked at at more than a surface level.

>>78873325
Start more blacked threads for them to hang out in

>>78873325

sorry I'll get back on making shit Rogue One threads and then complain about capeshit and star wars clogging up the board

>>78873349

Kubrick wasn't a god with infinite time. Christ these things happen in a long term complex project like a movie.

Sometimes they are mistakes, sometimes they are errors that are to insignificant to fix and sometimes they are intentional for whatever reason (be it technical or personal)

You cannot know until you ask the person who did it and kubrick is dead.

If you think "looking at a film on another level" is nitpicking the fucking carpet then you might just be a little delusional.

>>78873325
point me to 1 movie being discussed on this board right now that's better than a kubrick film

>>78872826
pretty easy actually

intention: the film is good on its own, without having to interpret underlying subtext and artistic intentions (see: Kubrick, Tarkovsky)

incompetence: the flick fails when judged solely as a piece of narrative, and its defenders must resort to pathetic "it was 2deep4u pleb, let me explain what really happened" arguments (see: Refn, Malick)

this is an interesting thread that actually discusses aspects of cinema. Thanks OP.

>>78872826
It was done on purpose by Kubrick. This scene is revealing that he knows about the Moon Landing hoax.

Look at his sweater and watch it with context of the rest of the scene.

>>78873325

>how do we fix mindless kubrick cultists, /tv/?

Impossible unless you wipe out the jewish race

>>78872988
He did this shit on purpose to subconciously fuck with you. The layout of the hotel makes no practical sense. It's entirely made to be wrong.

>>78873349
>you have to be considered one of history's greatest filmmakers to maybe have your work looked at at more than a surface level.

No, all you really need to do is cleanly establish yourself as competent before you start trying to "intentionally" make mistakes.

>>78873074
You have the worst taste imaginable

>>78873426

Let's say Kubrick DID intend something with the "fucking carpet", do you really think he intended the audience to personally ask him what the point of it was? If I'm to believe what you're saying then there is no point in looking at a film at more than a surface level, which really does a discredit to the art.

>>78873565
Got any tips on other 'competent' directors? Seriously asking.

>>78873608
if someone says PTA or Refn make sure to disregard his entire post

>>78873003
nice memeing, subtle

>>78873074

>I've been saying Kubrick is a hack for over a decade. I'm so glad he died.

kubrick's been dead since 1999, underage faggot confirmed.

Eyes Wide Shut release was not the same as Stanley's cut. We will never know what the complete movie was.

>>78873608
wes anderson

he has a vision, even if its the same vision of making every shot symmetrical with pastel colors, but he sticks to it vigorously and to good effect

>>78873003
Well played.

>>78873608
Any Jew with a vidya camera and a production studio will do, because that's all they are.

>>78874023
Sad to say I've only seen one film of his. Will check out more of them!

>>78873608
Sodebergh, Sorrentino, Wes Anderson, Scorsese, Tom Ford, Coens, Dolan

>>78873098
that's why in Barry Lyndon in one of the outdoor scenes the light keeps changing sides...
don't get me wrong i love his films but there are certain things he obviously didn't give a shit about

>>78873529
This, the scene where Danny rides his bike in a circle seem to be filmed on multiple floors too.

>>78872826
Kubrick was a hack

>>78873003
Nicely memed

>>78872826
Magic

>>78873349
Well he shot in chronological order and it took 70+ takes to the shot of the ball rolling into the circle, he had no time limit, and the set was designed to make the viewer unconsciously uncomfortable without noticing why on first viewing, so all of that combined leads it to pretty clear that the reversal of blocking was entirely intentional.