Why do some people think that there's hidden symbols and

Yes.

His trademarks are pacing and subtlety. Eyes Wide Shut is my favorite movie to analyze. The Shining is more cryptic.

>>85111888
why can't you just watch the movie? why do you have to look for things that aren't' there?

File: albrecht-duerer-melencolia-1-high.jpg (1MB, 1820x2359px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1820x2359px

>>85111329
Why do some people think that there's hidden symbols and deeper meaning in this picture? Are they just too bored?

>>85111329
There's a documentary about his habit of taking pictures of places.

"Previous
In this section
The Stanley Kubrick Archive
Iron-on patch, A Clockwork Orange, c1971, The Stanley Kubrick Archive, University of the Arts London Archives and Special Collections Centre
Colour slide of a floating astronaut, 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Stanley Kubrick Archive, University Archives and Special Collections Centre
The archive of acclaimed filmmaker Stanley Kubrick is the largest archive held at the Archives and Special Collections Centre and one of the most unique cultural collections from the latter half of the 20th Century."

>>85111329
You should go to /tpg/.
Those faggots think there's meaning in the shape of a literal pile of vomit.

>>85111953
>*sob* WHY CAN'T PEOPLE JUST BE DUMB LIKE ME *sob*

>>85111953
It has to do with intelligence. You probably wouldn't understand it.

>>85111955
>comparing some 20th century movie director to renaissance art

>>85111329
Can I get a quick rundown on some of the alleged hidden symbols in his movies?

There really are elements of his films which are intended to provoke the viewer subconsciously or make subtle visual extensions of the narrative themes.

This is really provocative for mentally ill people, or folks who see every dot as part of an inferred constellation.

The hidden images are there; they're just intended to poke at your brain a bit though, not as evidence that the Jews faked the moon landing.

File: 1499983302732.jpg (93KB, 755x696px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 755x696px

Lmao at all the low IQ plebs who can't comprehend symbology congregating in this thread

>>85111987
>>85111989
it's not a matter of intelligence, I'm just wondering why people can't just enjoy a movie without picking it apart like some ultra nerd

>>85111953

I do, and I think afterwards, then I rewatch.

>>85112038
there are none, it's just a bunch of film students trying to make themselves seem smart

>>85112038
People are just looking into things too far

File: fetish.jpg (593KB, 800x1054px) Image search: [Google]

593KB, 800x1054px

>>85111329
conspiracy theories are vastly more appealing than the bleak reality of life

>>85112038
there's some weird carpet in the shining therefore jews landed on the moon using jet fuel

>>85112136
>>85112146
>>85112148
>>85112167
Oh, so it's just conspiracy theory shit. That's lame.

>this embarrassing thread
I swear on me mum /tv/ has the lowest average IQ of all the boards here

>>85112196
you must be a film """"""student""""""

>>85112030
>Duerer
>Renaissance

>>85112219
go ahead and enlighten us then.

>>85112254
And you must be a fucking brainlet pleb.

Also
>>85112279
>us
Just fuck off.

>>85111888

>2001

>Good pacing

>>85111329
Go and stick to Disney.

File: durer.jpg (100KB, 465x528px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 465x528px

>>85112257
>albrecht-duerer

>>85112393
Sorry if you have adhd, faggot.

File: disney_classic_mosaic_by_jeorje90-d5qlz18.png (712KB, 900x426px) Image search: [Google]

712KB, 900x426px

>>85112419
they're some of the greatest works of art

>>85112428
He was a medieval painter, you dunce. If anything he was a harbinger of renaissance

>>85112468
do you mean to tell me you enjoy watching objects move slowly across a screen for 2 hours straight?

>>85112512
>that list of disney fick shit
>some of the greatest works of art

>>85112570
Ok you fucking clown. I refuse to believe this isn't bait.
Name three to five movies you consider great cinematic achievements. I'll wait, you dipshit.

>>85112095
>it's not a matter of intelligence
>like some ultra nerd
Yeah, it sure isn't you waste of air.

>>85112644
easy:

The Testament of Dr. Mabuse, Brazil, Funny Games (origianl ver.)

>>85111955
>>85112030
>>85112257
>>85112428
>>85112545
I'm never going to tire on how intellectually capable people on this website are, yet act like complete and utter retards at the same time.

>>85112729
you don't know me

>>85112835
So you're telling me you are able to appreciate these but not the works of Kubrick?

If so, kindly go fuck yourself, you stuck up hipster

>>85112859
People only come here to shit on each other. Board culture on this board is mostly dead.

>>85112835
>Funny Games

By what you've said so far I guess it's fairly save to assume that you didn't understand this movie.

File: 011.jpg (100KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 1280x720px

can we turn this into a kubrick appreciation thread instead?

File: 492.jpg (81KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 1280x720px

>>85113143

kubrick was a high functioning autist that would reshoot scenes over and over until he thought they were perfect. some people don't buy that explanation, so they try to come up with elaborate theories for why he would reshoot scenes 70+ times. all the crackpot internet schizos come out and start going on and on about hidden messages. it's ridiculous.

the shining is the worst for this shit. it's a strange movie and kubrick was reshooting excessively. he was rewriting the story on a daily basis, redoing scenes 100+ times, basically going full autism mode. the truth is he did things like reshoot a scene 70 times to get a certain type of performance out of the actors, he was basically driving them off their shit and wanted to capture that on film to give the scenes a certain intensity.

File: tumblr_mmanvhPrRO1sq46xwo1_1280.png (1MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x720px

>>85113225

File: 17e14d40-c736-4f56-8041-9c18cc5d4dea.jpg (97KB, 1560x1021px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 1560x1021px

>>85113280

File: 11354fc864ccd845580a8fa84ff72540.jpg (109KB, 1194x728px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 1194x728px

>>85113336

>>85113280
Damn. I really have to rewatch this some time.

>>85113370
This as well.

>>85113235
If I was Jack Nicholson I would have told that nerd to cut the shit.

>>85113397
jack is already insane, kubrick only needed one take for his scenes

>>85113397
Maybe he knew an artist when he saw one. Unlike you, plebstain.

>>85113440
Kubrick was probably intimidated by Jack's alpha-ness and took it out on poor Shelley Duvall.

If Kubrick had a deeper message he wanted to convey in his movies, why make it so convoluted to the point of, after years and years, people having no consensus on what the message was?

Doesn't that defeat the purpose of a message?

>>85111955
Totally different. This is laden with symbolism and ideas, and the artwork depicted is a vessel for these ideas to be passed from the creator to the audience. There is little surface-level aesthetic pleasure to be had.

However, you can enjoy a Kubrick movie for its excellent cinematography, script and pacing without needing to worry about a deeper meaning.

A better comparison would be Duerer and Tarkovsky.

>>85112428
kylo ren?

>>85113393
I watch all of kubrick's movies once a year

>>85113523
because muh illuminati

>>85111329
So what if they do? If it makes them happy why does it matter? Aren't movies supposed to be open to interpretation anyway?

>>85111329
>Kubrick: It’s not a message that I ever intend to convey in words. 2001 is a nonverbal experience; out of two hours and nineteen minutes of film, there are only a little less than forty minutes of dialog. I tried to create a visual experience, one that bypasses verbalized pigeonholing and directly penetrates the subconscious with an emotional and philosophic content. To convolute McLuhan, in 2001 the message is the medium. I intended the film to be an intensely subjective experience that reaches the viewer at an inner level of consciousness, just as music does; to “explain” a Beethoven symphony would be to emasculate it by creating an artificial barrier between conception and appreciation. You’re free to speculate as you wish about the philosophical and allegorical meaning of the film—and such speculation is indication that it has succeeded in gripping the audience at a very deep level—but I don’t want to spell out a verbal road map for 2001 that every viewer will feel obligated to pursue or fear he’s missed the point. I think that if 2001 succeeds at all, it is in reaching a wide spectrum of people who would not often give a thought to man’s destiny, his role in the cosmos and his relationshop to higher forms of life. But even in the case of someone who is highly intelligent, certain ideas found in 2001 would, if presented as abstractions, fall rather lifelessly and be automatically assigned to pat intellectual categories; experienced a moving visual and emotional context, however, they can resonate within the deepest fibers of one’s being.

>>85113896
yup, he sounds like faggy film student

>>85113976
yup, you're a brainlet never-was

Damn dude, are you sincerely this dense?