I'm in the hate category. And, I have all of Kubrick's films. He was very talented. I just thought it a bit...boring. Like Barry Lyndon, the scenes are masterful and beautiful, it's just they don't seem to go anywhere interesting. But, because I love him as a director, I'll have to watch it again. (His only film I've watched only once.) Now that I'm older, maybe some of the kink will make more sense.
Sorry in advance for the rambling text
I totally get that.. The first time I watched it I was very disappointed.. I thought it was a waste of time and didn't understand what anyone saw in it; I found it pretty pretentious.. The movie is very rich w/ symbolism and subtlety (which is where the real story takes place IMO), much more so than the others IMO, this movie really doesn't say what it's trying to say
Like all of his work really, w/ EWS there's a basic surface story (as well as the abstract dream story interpretation, which I still haven't bothered to get a grasp on), and a more revealing story that you'll only ever be able to see as clearly and as deep as you already understand the things it's alluding to (which there are several), and how they all tie together to reveal a bigger picture.. Just like a painting, a bunch of people can look at it and feel there's not much there, while others look at it and are able to see a whole world rich w/ detail and subtlety that's there for whoever is capable of seeing.. That's one thing I really love about this move, the most revealing/connecting details are
not highlighted, it's like an actual puzzle movie, full symbols and clues.. Even if there
were scenes that would provide better context that
were cut out, through the background detail and symbolism included in the frames of the rest of the movie, along w/ the actor's parts in it, the way it was designed, it should still be possible to more-less piece together the same picture.. IMO it had to be that way for him to say what he was trying to say, in a way that couldn't be disputed and edited out, since the references are subtle and come from the set/scene itself most of the time, rather than the actors lines etc, which IMO is why the movie comes off kind of flat and unimpressive, as if that can't be what he was going for, almost as if you're missing something, like it's pushing you to dig beneath the surface
... this movie is begging to be analyzed and dissected (and it has been extensively, by many people, and still is being), and almost needs to be, to really be appreciated IMO.... there's a very connected web going on in the subtleties of the scenes.. fascinating movie IMO.. Some questions to ask when watching to get things rolling.. Who is red cloak? Who owns the real estate on the streets much of the movie take place on? What is Saturnalia? What's w/ the rainbow references? and mirrors? How do prostitutes/sex slaves tie in? How does the fashion industry tie in? what do the symbol references mean in across different sets and scenes? Not everything can be answered in that movie AFAIK, but a lot can definitely be connected and made sense of w/o making huge leaps and stretches.. Out of all his work, EWS by far requires the most effort by the audience to truly appreciate IMO, while on the surface seeming to be nothing amazing; which is why you'll hear a lot of people hate it, especially compared to his other work.. It was always a relevant film IMO, but even more so today w/ all that's been coming to light
.. I'm actually going to see it again tonight on the big screen at a theater near by..
Personally, I love Barry Lyndon too (happen to still have it in my DVD player ATM), it's totally visually beautiful.. it is very slow though, but I imagine life moved at a slower pace back then
.. Timeless and tragic story of fortune and fame (as many are), and what normal people will do and go through to find themselves in the company of 'all the best people'..
IMO his movies play out and finish, and tend to leave behind a rich world to dive into, which only enriches the experience w/ multiply viewings..That's how his stuff just keeps getting better, or how it should IMO.. I own all of his work from Lolita onward, and love them all.. I'm gonna pre-order the new version of the Napoleon book too; comes out end of Feb.. Also, I've been meaning to see Paths Of Glory too, I understand it's pretty great.. Aside from that one, the only other ones I've never seen are Fear and Desire, and Spartacus, and I probably won't bother w/ those 2.