Everything you know about Stanley Kubrick is wrong - Cracking the Kube Ep. 1

[@FunkyTony91]

Can’t wait to see all what you have to share with us.Thank you for sharing what you have learned from the archives.

[@filippoulivieri]

Thanks! 🙏🏻

[@TheStockwell]

I recently learned Kubrick faked the moon landings, but he didn't do it on a sound stage in Hollywood. He faked the moon landings on Mars - because the lighting is better there. Okay, I made that up. Also, I've subscribed to your channel. 😸

[@filippoulivieri]

You know that meme: Stanley Kubrick faked the moon landings, but it cost an insane amount of money because Kubrick was a perfectionist and insisted on filming on location. 😉 Thank you!

[@TheStockwell]

@@filippoulivieri Kubrick made Neil Armstrong take his "one small step" 93 times before he was satisfied. What a perfectionist. I'm looking forward to your upcoming videos. What keeps coming up is how, despite his being obsessed with creating the best possible films, Kubrick was an organized family man and almost disappointingly normal - except for being, you know: except for the fact that he was Stanley Kubrick! Best wishes to you from Vermont. 🍁

[@filippoulivieri]

@@TheStockwell you may find more about Kubrick's day-to-day life in my book, "Stanley Kubrick and me", the biography of his personal assistant, Emilio D'Alessandro. Thanks again!

[@leeboy2k1]

"Many a true word spoken in jest" Of course I'm being playful, but seriously, state one easily proveable empirical fact as to how and why it was impossible for Stanley to have been involved?

[@Hypersonicmind]

EXCELLENT! There was never a director so intensely focused- so much control- so much research (and with it, contemplation) and so much: PATIENCE!

[@Hypersonicmind]

he also knew a bit about cameras and film and light

[@filippoulivieri]

Thank you! And I totally agree

[@CorbCorbin]

He also just liked to mess with the conspiracy theorists, who came out of the woodwork, in the 80’s, after home video became something in every household. I love that Eyes Wide Shut, was both his biggest trolling, of those who look for symbolism and him revealing truths about the elite, snd satanic cults, within the film, as well as making a better adaptation, of a book he loved, Traumnovelle(Dream Story). He speaks about it, in relation to 2001 and The Shining, in the late 80’s, during an interview with a Japanese journalist, who was flown to England, brought to an office, then had the interview, with Kubrick, on a phone. He states very clearly how simple the meaning of the end of the film, after Dave enters the monolith, to the Space Baby, actually was. Along with answering a question about the last shot of Jack in the photo, in the Shining. He says that he doesn’t like to explain his movies, because it’s actually much more simple and boring, than what most people come up with on their own. It’s been on KZbin for many years, yet all the analysis channels, that are so confident in their breakdowns, on the meanings behind his films, never mention it. I think the ones who know about it, do this purposely, because it ruins their conspiracy theories. He really didn’t like home video, because he thought that it would lead to people watching over and over, until they see things that aren’t there at all, which was happening, as early as the first home video release of 2001 and the Shining. One example: the furniture and other items, which appear snd disappear, were simply continuity errors, either because of the set burning down, and having to be rebuilt, for certain scenes, or in reshoots, the items weren’t put back, but the best takes were ones that were continuity errors.

[@sianwarwick633]

My quibbles: How I love tautological statements 1:30 What year did the Stanley Kubrik Archive open ? Who curated or organized the materials ? Where is it ? As a layperson.... I would want to know the basics. Yes I can use wikipedia. The breadth of research is remarkable

[@stanleykubrickappreciation]

This is very good. I really enjoyed the presentation and the information. I look forward to future episodes. Well done Filippo.

[@filippoulivieri]

Thanks!

[@shivkammadari]

Hey man, good to see you made your original thesis article into video segments. I remember telling you back in 2020 or something about how I came to similar conclusions about kubrick's constructed image, how I found my way to your article which led to some really interesting discussions with you. Will be interesting to read your next book. I hope you use the questions I raised and the observations I came up with in our discussions too XD✌️

[@JWolfgango]

Thank you Filippo!! Can't wait to know more about the unrealised projects like Napoleon..

[@filippoulivieri]

Thanks for watching Gianluca. I’m writing a full account of the Napoleon production, it will take a while but hopefully it will worth the wait.

[@JWolfgango]

@@filippoulivieri for sure 🤩

[@dijanametlic6010]

Great talk, Filippo! I enjoyed it, and it's nice you rely on the new studies and generations of Kubrick scholars. Can't wait for more!

[@filippoulivieri]

Thanks so much, Dijana!

[@dijanametlic6010]

@@filippoulivieri 😊

[@antonyadler]

Absolutely wonderful Filippo, thank you and looking forward to future videos!

[@filippoulivieri]

Thank you for your comment, Anthony! Happy you liked it!

[@RosiesCottageBlog]

This is fabulous, really enjoyed watching Filippo and looking forward to more, thank you x

[@willemhopman4702]

Perfectly in-depth presentation, Filippo! Thank you for putting so much time and energy into who Stanley really was. Partly thanks to the enormous sources of information that have come loose in the last twenty years. I'm looking forward to your next presentation!

[@filippoulivieri]

Thank you Willem, much appreciated! Hopefully the next episodes will keep you just as satisfied 😉 Best!

[@markthomas3851]

I think that almost every film he ever made was a conversation with other films. 2001 is in conversation with Vertigo. Full Metal Jacket with Hamburger Hill and also Stripes. Barry Lyndon with ... I haven't a clue.

[@kubricksmith]

I was already a fan Filippo, as I hope you know but taking your detailed and evidence-based work to the mainstream is a great next step, maybe even a giant leap!

[@filippoulivieri]

Thanks! I hope the next episodes won’t disappoint

[@thezappa7373]

Fantastic! I look forward to more and more. Exceptional and concise.

[@filippoulivieri]

Thanks! Happy to hear you liked it

[@THEVNTGNETWORK]

Ciao Filippo complimenti, veramente un video originale.

[@filippoulivieri]

Grazie! Molto contento che ti sia piaciuto

[@harmonicresonanceproject]

Great content, I look forward to more. Thanks!

[@filippoulivieri]

Thank you! Episode two is online and the third will be streaming next week. Cheers

[@charlesco7413]

If Kubric removed dialog and narration from 2001, (are they somewhere in the archives? )

[@filippoulivieri]

Sorry didn't get your question. Please ask again.

[@matthewyip8695]

I saw another documentary that found Kubrick destroyed many extra clips , film and documentary... As a way to restrict the way his filmography is handled after his death. This KZbinr to me hit it in the head of the nail. Whatever extraneous is in his archives will not change what Kubrick narrowly wanted us the viewer to see. Almost like a legal case he put his films out there as a permanent record everything else was burnt or destroyed. It does make it a very specific discussion on the facts he did leave us and to not go beyond that scope to explore ideas he did Not choose and the possible reasoning why or why not. Genius.

[@marklentz4119]

Outstanding 😍

[@filippoulivieri]

Thank you Mark!

[@tonywords6713]

Thanks for this, Kubrick seemed to use public perception to his advantage, Ive had a similar thing where I have a larger than life persona then when people meet you theyre surprised you arent like whatever they heard

[@TheJnatch]

👍👍👍

[@filippoulivieri]

Thanks!

[@jeffreytaylor6257]

Well done sir. JT

[@filippoulivieri]

Thanks! Happy you liked it!

[@oshuhua]

I love how this video looks. It is so clear and with the narration it is also so convincing and persuasive.

[@filippoulivieri]

Thank you so much! I am always a bit wary of my English pronunciation but I am glad you found my delivery convincing. Thanks! Check my other videos if you like.

[@oshuhua]

@@filippoulivieri I’m delighted to get a personal reply from you. Thank you! Yes, for my part I have no difficulty in understanding your speaking voice, though I was referring to the content of your observations. Please do continue to share your findings! I’m so glad YT steered me back to the “Torrance eye-contact” video. I’m really enjoying all your content. I’m actually preparing to make a video essay about the same film :) All of my best wishes!

[@filippoulivieri]

@@oshuhua Thanks -- this time about the structuring and the presentation of the information, then 😊 Happy to hear that it worked well. I am revising the video essays for publication into a book, titled as the video series, Cracking the Kube: Solving the Mysteries of Stanley Kubrick through Archival Research. It will be out soon, check it out if you like my work on Kubrick. Thanks!

[@oshuhua]

@@filippoulivieri I’m a college literature professor and gosh if I get the chance to present a paper in Italy that would be amazing to see you present during the same trip.

[@oshuhua]

@@filippoulivieri I will!

[@GA-1st]

But, but, he WAS a genius! And just about every interview given by people who worked with or otherwise knew him have used that term. Is that not true?

[@filippoulivieri]

First we should agree on the definition of genius. In any case, I believe he was, but not in the sense that many have said, and not with the same reverence and awe. I am in awe at his work but I now see through the mythological image that he managed to create for himself. Check Episode 3 for more about this. Thank you for watching my series, and for your comments.

[@CorbCorbin]

Very cool.

[@filippoulivieri]

Thanks! Happy you liked it!

[@markwrede8878]

Ultimately he was governed by his desire to have boffo box office, but still have art and message contained.

[@filippoulivieri]

Many have the same desire, but I would argue he was the only to succeed balancing the two.

[@markwrede8878]

@@filippoulivieri I would argue as much for Fellini and Bergman,, although Kurosawa is the best of all. There is none that I would necessarily trust as philosopher, however.

[@filippoulivieri]

@@markwrede8878 very good names... but both Fellini and Bergman seem a bit more niche to me than Kubrick. He has a bigger place in pop culture, hasn't he?

[@markwrede8878]

@@filippoulivieri Truly the big K can only be matched by maybe Sergio Leone in that department. Those directors, and I think Kubrick himself despaired of pop culture, despite needing its receipts.

[@filippoulivieri]

@@markwrede8878 another good name of a director who had a long-lasting influence and is quite popular, but again it seems to me that Leone is different, because he did not want to tackle "the big themes" like Kubrick did. You wouldn't call Leone a philosopher, while many critics consider Kubrick one.

[@photocarcuro]

Italian subs?

[@filippoulivieri]

Ci sono, basta selezionarli. Grazie per l'interesse

[@matthewpaul6904]

The manufacturer of his own mythology is like Michael Jackson, only Kubrick was successful while the latter cemented himself as a loon.

[@santypk5]

Who the duck is/was Stanley Kubrick and why this was in my recommended videos 😂

[@jesustovar2549]

He was a brittish-american photographer, film director, producer and screenwriter (1928-1999), better known for his meticolousness, observance, perfectionist, his films are like symbolic puzzles, some of his movies are: Paths of Glory (1956) a film set in french trenches in WW1, Lolita (1962) based on Vladimir Nabokov's novel, Dr. Strangelove (1964) a black comedy about cold war, the epic and revolutionary science fiction film 2001: A Space Oddysey (1968), the disturbing, controversial and psychological A Clockwork Orange (1971), the long period drama Barry Lyndon (1975), The Shining (1980) based on Stephen King's horror novel, Full Metal Jacket (1987) a Vietnam War film, and the psychological sex drama Eyes Wide Shut (1999).

[@TerryUniGeezerPeterson]

Too bad the narration is so hard to listen to.

[@filippoulivieri]

I've put subtitles to compensate for my non-native English pronunciation. Thanks for watching anyway! Hope the content was worthy of your time.

[@TheStockwell]

I'm not having any problem with his accent, at all. His diction is quite good. I'm grateful he is making his presentation in English - the native tongue of Kubrick! 😺

[@johnryskamp2943]

One thing about Kubrick is true: his overriding concern in composing a shot, is symmetry. Just raise your index finger and put it in the middle of the screen. You will see what I mean.

[@filippoulivieri]

Kubrick and his one-point perspective is a well-known motif. See here: vimeo.com/48425421 It's amazing he managed to do so much with so little, isn't it.

[@johnryskamp2943]

Also, what about Kubrick the Jew? How does his Jewish background affect his approach? He was a Jewish director, like Ophuls.

[@filippoulivieri]

A Jewish reading of his life and films is a perfectly valid approach for criticism and analysis. It does not revolutionise anything in our perception of him, though. It may enrich it, or complement it, but in my opinion it does not causes a reorientation. This is why I haven't included this angle in my summary of the current Kubrick Studies. Again, thanks for your comment and interest in my video.

[@johnryskamp2943]

One thing is definitely true: money spoiled Kubrick. When directors have too much money, they become self-indulgent and the films get boing. It happened to Fellini, Kurosawa, even Godard. After Orange, all Kubrick's films stink. His approach simply collapsed. The lack of power and money always stimulates directors. He just turned into a slob.

[@filippoulivieri]

I think it was more about power, in the sense of not having anybody limiting his autonomy or giving him deadlines. Kubrick did not have unlimited budgets for his films, in fact he was very very careful not to spend too much WB money. All his films were carefully budgeted and many of his collaborators have said that the paid was fair, nothing substantial. Michael Herr even went as far as defining him cheap. I also do not think that his films post ACO stink, but this is a matter of taste and appreciation, and anyone is entitled to their opinion. If you care to elaborate, I'd be interested in fair and stimulating criticism of Kubrick's films. Thanks for your comment!