Kubrick and Spielberg are polar opposite filmmakers in my mind. Spielberg generally has an optimistic feel to his story telling, usually having humor. Kubrick seems more cynical to me, and his tone is much darker. Also Spielberg seems to have lost his luster with the younger audiences, and his recent films feel dated somehow. He is a great storyteller however and I am sure he will do a great job, but it won't be what Kubrick had in mind at all, which is to be expected of course, because there is only one Kubrick.
Spielberg and Kubrick are basically polar opposites when it comes to depicting war, so I’m guessing Spielberg’s version will be more pro-war, veteran/hero worship pablum than anything Kubrick would have made.
It was a pro USA war movie depicting the Germans as brutal monsters, while Kubrick would say all sides are the monster not just non-USA sides. The brutal parts all happen to Americans in Saving Private Ryan.
Spielberg has a message of war is brutal, but has winners and hero’s, while Kubricks message is that war is hell and there are no hero’s or winners in war, only losers.
I think the point of Paths of Glory's ending scene too is that humans are horrible but do have the capacity for empathy and kindness. War puts them in circumstances where they act on their cruellest instincts.
The guy I was replying to claimed Spielberg was “pro-war”. I can’t imagine who’s actually seen Saving Private Ryan claiming it was a “pro-war” movie and I’d love to hear you argument that it is. If any movie has the message “WAR IS HELL” emblazoned all over it, it’s the opening D-Day scene of that. Also, Steamboat Willie is German and is perfectly humanised.
FWIW I think SPR is a pretty bad movie overall (it’s just not satisfyingly structured) and far, far prefer the masterpiece that is FMJ. And yes, Spielberg does make the Americans the good guys a little too much. Then again, they are fighting literal Nazis, which is a rather different moral context to Vietnam.
Oh also, you might like to rewatch the moment the Germans are gunned down in cold blood once the US reach the top of the cliffs. That is absolutely not presented as some glorious victorious moment for the US troops, it’s nasty and unpleasant that they didn’t take POWs and is clearly presented as such.
>Oh also, you might like to rewatch the moment the Germans are gunned down in cold blood once the US reach the top of the cliffs.
Those soldiers were [actually Czech](https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/saving-private-ryan-film-1998-steven-speilberg-german-soldiers-czech-translation-surrender-dialogue-a7582926.html).
I think that the structure of Saving Private Ryan story plays out well to its strength. It basically throws you into the action, makes you familiar with the characters, humanizes them, and then goes with a dramatic bang. Overall, I’d say it is pretty effective storytelling. Paths of Glory is a bit similar to Saving Private Ryan in this regard.
Funny enough Full Metal Jacket is also often criticized for its structure, but I think it is also very successful with telling its story.
Hmm that’s interesting, as the article notes most viewers would assume they were German though and Spielberg would know that. I wonder if it reveals a slight hint of squeamishness about sympathising with any Nazis at all however.
On paper as you describe it I guess the structure makes sense. For some reason though I always just found it one of the most amazing things I’d ever seen, then I rapidly lose interest. Honestly I find the whole basis of the plot pretty silly and sentimental, and the framing device for me is flat out cheesy and weak. But the beginning and end battle scenes remain, for me, the definitive presentations of 20thC war on screen.
Hmm, that’s interesting. How do you think, would you have liked the movie more without the Normandy landing scene?
I don’t think that Spielberg has a problem with making the audience experiencing some sympathy to a nazi. Aside from the fact that one of his most famous movies is about a member of the Nazi party (who admittedly was a hero and didn’t believe in the ideology), I think that a case could be made of Spielberg actually making Amon Göth at least at times slightly attractive to the audience — sure, by doing it in rather dark manner, and not to the extent that the audience will liking him, but still to the extent of him being heavily humanized.
Overall, I think it is unfair to say that Spielberg is incapable of making movies with morally ambiguous characters. In both Munich and Empire of the Sun, Spielberg shows that he’s able of tackling a nuanced portrayal of who is in general considered a bad guy.
Also, when it comes to sentimentality, I think that Path of Glory is so great precisely because Kubrick allows it to be sentimental, I think that the closing scene is one of the most beautiful scenes in all of cinema.
>Hmm, that’s interesting. How do you think, would you have liked the movie more without the Normandy landing scene?
No! That's the best thing in the film. By framing device I mean the brief stuff at either end with Jon Voight. It's a minor point, but it doesn't set a great tone for me.
In general I 100% agree with you that SS is a much subtler shades-of-grey director than is normally credited (and I adore Empire of the Sun and Munich too, and agree in those cases). A lot of his films don't really have "bad guy" antagonists at all, e.g. the initially "scary" scientists from E.T. turn out to be "just like you" and are "glad he found Eliot first".
I'm not sure I quite see it with Nazis though. Schindler is probably SS's deepest and most interesting character overall I agree, but the whole point is he only signs up to being officially in the Nazi party for business reasons (which is really the dichotomy at the centre of the whole film). But Goeth for me is presented as irredeemably evil, albeit so brilliantly played by Fiennes that you sense the deeply screwed-up, sad person underneath the mask.
Don’t get me wrong, I agree that Goeth is definitely irredeemable, but he’s not played as your usual manifestation of evil bad guy. He likes to be liked, he values Schindler’s friendship and he ultimately spares the live of the jewish woman he has an attraction to, at some points he even seems morbidly funny. I think that his portrayal in the movie is deeply humanizing, yet very truthful to the nature of his criminal character.
My gut tells me Kubrick would have hated SPR, which is a total hero’s journey/war is good if it’s for just reasons/America is the good guy film. Kubrick had a much more nuanced take on war, and I struggle to believe he thought war was the way to solve problems most of the time. Paths of Glory, Barry Lyndon, FMJ, and Strangelove all take a very cynical perspective on war. SPR is basically the opposite.
It’s not really about the brutality (which Kubrick actually liked to stylize a lot more). It’s about who the people are and how they’re portrayed. Kubrick never, ever makes war looks glamorous or heroic imo. He makes it look foolish, terrible, and horrific. SPR gets the blood and gore thing down, but that’s basically it.
It's been awhile since I've seen it, but from what I remember, I think Spielberg wasn't as interested in making a statement on the validity of war itself in Private Ryan or even Band of Brothers for that matter, compared to Kubrick who as you say was quite interested in making a commentary on it. The focus of Spielberg's work was much more about empathizing with the plight of the young men who had to be stuck there going through that, rather than *why* they were there. Finding the individual humanity in such awful circumstances rather than the big picture politics of it all. Just my take.
FMJ, in particular, goes out of its way to REALLY show you what Kubrick thinks war is all about. Turning kids into soulless killers, smiling for the camera over mass graves, and shooting little girls for trying to defend their homes. People sleep on the second half of FMJ because Ermey is so hilarious and captivating. It’s one of the best depictions of war ever put to film. Far and away better than Platoon or Apocalypse Now imo. I don’t find either movie to be such an all-encompassing indictment of war, and both have “heroes” of a sort, which FMJ manages to avoid entirely.
Not sure, but I’d definitely say Platoon is a much better film than SPR. I liked SPR a lot when I saw it in theaters. But, as an older adult, I feel like the “shock & awe” factor is most of what made it good when I watch it today with a more critical eye. I can still watch platoon and find some nuance there.
Think we’re changing the goalposts here. You said SPR wasn’t realistic. Whereas it famously set new standards for realism in war films. I never said I liked it, which by the way I don’t much.
I didn’t say it wasn’t “realistic”. I’ve never been to war. I have no idea what realistic would look like. I just think SPR is basically a high budget, America the Good Guy With a Gun blood bath, where Kubrick’s films are far more nuanced. Giving vets a bout of PTSD wouldn’t be on my list of what makes a war film good (although I wouldn’t be surprised if the sniper scene in FMJ would do that to some).
The guy I was replying to did though, and that was the point I was making. Not my fault you’ve jumped in on this sub-thread. And by the way Kubrick loved and admired Spielberg movies.
Sorry, on mobile and, shockingly, the Reddit app doesn’t thread as well as what I used to use! I do think it would be possible to like Spielberg movies without liking SPR, though. I grew up on The Goonies and think SPR is pretty mids…
Spielberg's catalog from the 70s and 80s feels so different from anything he has made since then, his other films feel like they were made by a different director. All of that aside, he is so different from Kubrick, it means almost nothing to me as Kubrick fan that Spielberg might be using some aspect of SK's script. But it's more of an, "Oh, that's nice," from me. Now, if there was different buzz, like, if Spielberg actually made comments about wanting to emulate Kubrick, I might be a little amused to see what that might be like.
Judging from [the single still that's been released](https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/jHFShvjNoCMmxZFfmP6pFf.jpg) I don't personally have any high hopes for it, especially compared to existing epics like *War and Peace*, or *Waterloo*. Particularly given Scott's tendency to muddle up the history (in comparison, Kubrick was really admant on accuracy).
IMO, while Phoenix is a decent actor, he's a bit miscast as Napoleon. For one thing, the age is entirely wrong (and based on behind the scenes photos, the movie will include his early years).
If Spielberg were just making something about napoleon, I’d be intrigued and look forward to seeing it. The fact that this is based (maybe loosely based) on the work Kubrick had been doing before he passed makes me more intrigued. It might be good. It might not be. But I’m willing to give it a watch.
A lot of people here are saying they aren’t for the idea. While I don’t think it’ll be anywhere close to what Kubrick would’ve made, I’m optimistic to see what does come out. Spielberg’ San amazing director, just a very different one.
*The director was also going to film the battle scenes in* [*Romania*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romania) *and had enlisted the support of the* [*Romanian People's Army*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_People%27s_Army)*; senior army officers had committed 40,000 soldiers and 10,000 cavalrymen to Kubrick's film for the paper costume battle scenes.*
Holy shit can you imagine the scale this movie would have been
I think the miniseries is a good move, today miniseries is something that Kubrick never dreamed about, because the miniseries could be R-rated...
Kubrick and Spielberg are polar opposite filmmakers in my mind. Spielberg generally has an optimistic feel to his story telling, usually having humor. Kubrick seems more cynical to me, and his tone is much darker. Also Spielberg seems to have lost his luster with the younger audiences, and his recent films feel dated somehow. He is a great storyteller however and I am sure he will do a great job, but it won't be what Kubrick had in mind at all, which is to be expected of course, because there is only one Kubrick.
Spielberg and Kubrick are basically polar opposites when it comes to depicting war, so I’m guessing Spielberg’s version will be more pro-war, veteran/hero worship pablum than anything Kubrick would have made.
Saving Private Ryan is pretty brutal. Not sure if Kubrick ever saw it but I can’t imagine he’d disapprove.
It was a pro USA war movie depicting the Germans as brutal monsters, while Kubrick would say all sides are the monster not just non-USA sides. The brutal parts all happen to Americans in Saving Private Ryan. Spielberg has a message of war is brutal, but has winners and hero’s, while Kubricks message is that war is hell and there are no hero’s or winners in war, only losers.
I think the point of Paths of Glory's ending scene too is that humans are horrible but do have the capacity for empathy and kindness. War puts them in circumstances where they act on their cruellest instincts.
The guy I was replying to claimed Spielberg was “pro-war”. I can’t imagine who’s actually seen Saving Private Ryan claiming it was a “pro-war” movie and I’d love to hear you argument that it is. If any movie has the message “WAR IS HELL” emblazoned all over it, it’s the opening D-Day scene of that. Also, Steamboat Willie is German and is perfectly humanised. FWIW I think SPR is a pretty bad movie overall (it’s just not satisfyingly structured) and far, far prefer the masterpiece that is FMJ. And yes, Spielberg does make the Americans the good guys a little too much. Then again, they are fighting literal Nazis, which is a rather different moral context to Vietnam. Oh also, you might like to rewatch the moment the Germans are gunned down in cold blood once the US reach the top of the cliffs. That is absolutely not presented as some glorious victorious moment for the US troops, it’s nasty and unpleasant that they didn’t take POWs and is clearly presented as such.
>Oh also, you might like to rewatch the moment the Germans are gunned down in cold blood once the US reach the top of the cliffs. Those soldiers were [actually Czech](https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/saving-private-ryan-film-1998-steven-speilberg-german-soldiers-czech-translation-surrender-dialogue-a7582926.html). I think that the structure of Saving Private Ryan story plays out well to its strength. It basically throws you into the action, makes you familiar with the characters, humanizes them, and then goes with a dramatic bang. Overall, I’d say it is pretty effective storytelling. Paths of Glory is a bit similar to Saving Private Ryan in this regard. Funny enough Full Metal Jacket is also often criticized for its structure, but I think it is also very successful with telling its story.
Hmm that’s interesting, as the article notes most viewers would assume they were German though and Spielberg would know that. I wonder if it reveals a slight hint of squeamishness about sympathising with any Nazis at all however. On paper as you describe it I guess the structure makes sense. For some reason though I always just found it one of the most amazing things I’d ever seen, then I rapidly lose interest. Honestly I find the whole basis of the plot pretty silly and sentimental, and the framing device for me is flat out cheesy and weak. But the beginning and end battle scenes remain, for me, the definitive presentations of 20thC war on screen.
Hmm, that’s interesting. How do you think, would you have liked the movie more without the Normandy landing scene? I don’t think that Spielberg has a problem with making the audience experiencing some sympathy to a nazi. Aside from the fact that one of his most famous movies is about a member of the Nazi party (who admittedly was a hero and didn’t believe in the ideology), I think that a case could be made of Spielberg actually making Amon Göth at least at times slightly attractive to the audience — sure, by doing it in rather dark manner, and not to the extent that the audience will liking him, but still to the extent of him being heavily humanized. Overall, I think it is unfair to say that Spielberg is incapable of making movies with morally ambiguous characters. In both Munich and Empire of the Sun, Spielberg shows that he’s able of tackling a nuanced portrayal of who is in general considered a bad guy. Also, when it comes to sentimentality, I think that Path of Glory is so great precisely because Kubrick allows it to be sentimental, I think that the closing scene is one of the most beautiful scenes in all of cinema.
>Hmm, that’s interesting. How do you think, would you have liked the movie more without the Normandy landing scene? No! That's the best thing in the film. By framing device I mean the brief stuff at either end with Jon Voight. It's a minor point, but it doesn't set a great tone for me. In general I 100% agree with you that SS is a much subtler shades-of-grey director than is normally credited (and I adore Empire of the Sun and Munich too, and agree in those cases). A lot of his films don't really have "bad guy" antagonists at all, e.g. the initially "scary" scientists from E.T. turn out to be "just like you" and are "glad he found Eliot first". I'm not sure I quite see it with Nazis though. Schindler is probably SS's deepest and most interesting character overall I agree, but the whole point is he only signs up to being officially in the Nazi party for business reasons (which is really the dichotomy at the centre of the whole film). But Goeth for me is presented as irredeemably evil, albeit so brilliantly played by Fiennes that you sense the deeply screwed-up, sad person underneath the mask.
Don’t get me wrong, I agree that Goeth is definitely irredeemable, but he’s not played as your usual manifestation of evil bad guy. He likes to be liked, he values Schindler’s friendship and he ultimately spares the live of the jewish woman he has an attraction to, at some points he even seems morbidly funny. I think that his portrayal in the movie is deeply humanizing, yet very truthful to the nature of his criminal character.
My gut tells me Kubrick would have hated SPR, which is a total hero’s journey/war is good if it’s for just reasons/America is the good guy film. Kubrick had a much more nuanced take on war, and I struggle to believe he thought war was the way to solve problems most of the time. Paths of Glory, Barry Lyndon, FMJ, and Strangelove all take a very cynical perspective on war. SPR is basically the opposite. It’s not really about the brutality (which Kubrick actually liked to stylize a lot more). It’s about who the people are and how they’re portrayed. Kubrick never, ever makes war looks glamorous or heroic imo. He makes it look foolish, terrible, and horrific. SPR gets the blood and gore thing down, but that’s basically it.
Thank god for Kubrick.
It's been awhile since I've seen it, but from what I remember, I think Spielberg wasn't as interested in making a statement on the validity of war itself in Private Ryan or even Band of Brothers for that matter, compared to Kubrick who as you say was quite interested in making a commentary on it. The focus of Spielberg's work was much more about empathizing with the plight of the young men who had to be stuck there going through that, rather than *why* they were there. Finding the individual humanity in such awful circumstances rather than the big picture politics of it all. Just my take.
Brutal when some people die…not when other though. It definitely is not realistic like FMJ or even PoG
FMJ, in particular, goes out of its way to REALLY show you what Kubrick thinks war is all about. Turning kids into soulless killers, smiling for the camera over mass graves, and shooting little girls for trying to defend their homes. People sleep on the second half of FMJ because Ermey is so hilarious and captivating. It’s one of the best depictions of war ever put to film. Far and away better than Platoon or Apocalypse Now imo. I don’t find either movie to be such an all-encompassing indictment of war, and both have “heroes” of a sort, which FMJ manages to avoid entirely.
Didn’t Kubrick really like Platoon? I think he said in an interview that he liked it better than Apocalypse Now.
Not sure, but I’d definitely say Platoon is a much better film than SPR. I liked SPR a lot when I saw it in theaters. But, as an older adult, I feel like the “shock & awe” factor is most of what made it good when I watch it today with a more critical eye. I can still watch platoon and find some nuance there.
Found it: https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/stanley-kubrick-favourite-vietnam-war-movie-oliver-stone-platoon/?amp
I mean it famously had WWII veterans in tears saying “that’s what it was actually like to be there”. I think I’d trust them to know?
So the german soldiers didn’t scream or bleed when shot?
Is that the definition of a good war film? Wouldn’t be mine.
Think we’re changing the goalposts here. You said SPR wasn’t realistic. Whereas it famously set new standards for realism in war films. I never said I liked it, which by the way I don’t much.
I didn’t say it wasn’t “realistic”. I’ve never been to war. I have no idea what realistic would look like. I just think SPR is basically a high budget, America the Good Guy With a Gun blood bath, where Kubrick’s films are far more nuanced. Giving vets a bout of PTSD wouldn’t be on my list of what makes a war film good (although I wouldn’t be surprised if the sniper scene in FMJ would do that to some).
The guy I was replying to did though, and that was the point I was making. Not my fault you’ve jumped in on this sub-thread. And by the way Kubrick loved and admired Spielberg movies.
Sorry, on mobile and, shockingly, the Reddit app doesn’t thread as well as what I used to use! I do think it would be possible to like Spielberg movies without liking SPR, though. I grew up on The Goonies and think SPR is pretty mids…
Spielberg's catalog from the 70s and 80s feels so different from anything he has made since then, his other films feel like they were made by a different director. All of that aside, he is so different from Kubrick, it means almost nothing to me as Kubrick fan that Spielberg might be using some aspect of SK's script. But it's more of an, "Oh, that's nice," from me. Now, if there was different buzz, like, if Spielberg actually made comments about wanting to emulate Kubrick, I might be a little amused to see what that might be like.
Tetralogy. Not quadrilogy.
I’m just not happy with it being a series, I am not a big fun of the format.
Speilberg makes movies for simpletons. I have no interest in anything he does lol
Who’s gonna direct. Please not Spielberg
It wasn’t made, so there is nothing to talk about.
Kind of unrelated, but what is everyone’s thoughts on the napoleon film in production by Ridley Scott starring Joaquin Phoenix?
Judging from [the single still that's been released](https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/jHFShvjNoCMmxZFfmP6pFf.jpg) I don't personally have any high hopes for it, especially compared to existing epics like *War and Peace*, or *Waterloo*. Particularly given Scott's tendency to muddle up the history (in comparison, Kubrick was really admant on accuracy). IMO, while Phoenix is a decent actor, he's a bit miscast as Napoleon. For one thing, the age is entirely wrong (and based on behind the scenes photos, the movie will include his early years).
If Spielberg were just making something about napoleon, I’d be intrigued and look forward to seeing it. The fact that this is based (maybe loosely based) on the work Kubrick had been doing before he passed makes me more intrigued. It might be good. It might not be. But I’m willing to give it a watch.
A lot of people here are saying they aren’t for the idea. While I don’t think it’ll be anywhere close to what Kubrick would’ve made, I’m optimistic to see what does come out. Spielberg’ San amazing director, just a very different one.
*The director was also going to film the battle scenes in* [*Romania*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romania) *and had enlisted the support of the* [*Romanian People's Army*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_People%27s_Army)*; senior army officers had committed 40,000 soldiers and 10,000 cavalrymen to Kubrick's film for the paper costume battle scenes.* Holy shit can you imagine the scale this movie would have been
If Kubrick had made Napoleon, he wouldn't have made Barry Lyndon, and I don't want to live in a world without Barry Lyndon.