/lit/ - Literature

>>14999968
Stanley Kubrick is nothing without the books he adapted.

>>14999968
Homer.

>>14999974
This

>>14999959
Better than Catch-22 by leaps and bounds. But you have to read it at the right time in your life.

>>14999959
DUDE I'm about to blow my load. TOTES! FORREALZ. Intrinsica, here I come!

>>14999968
Clearly Pynchon
>>14999974
>who is shakespeare

>>14999974
>Implying Strangelove is an adaptation of failsafe

Saying Kubrick was nothing without the books is like saying Jimi Hendrix was nothing without his guitar. It's not about the story or the instrument, it's about what you make from it.

>>15000007
>Clearly Pynchon
new to /lit/, explain

>>14999974
Kubrick‘s The Shining is the only good version of the story

>>15000007
based

>>14999968
douglas adams, if we're being nice vonnegut

>>14999968
Pynchon

>>15000245
douglas adams has never written anything as beautiful as the moments Kubrick captured. This comparison makes no sense unless you've only watched doctor strangelove

As in, capable of technical innovation but utterly incapable of anything approximating humanity?

Probably Blake Butler.

that guy who wrote Emperor Theresa. He writes all his dialogue like a Stanley Kubrick film.

>>15000293
>utterly incapable of anything approximating humanity
most pretentious sentence on this board, and that's saying a lot. have you considered that you are projecting?

>>15000320

>when you can't attack the argument, attack the person making it

wish there was a Latin phrase for this

>>14999968
What exactly are you looking for? The obsessiveness? The depersonal, sterile characters handled with objectivity? Detail?

>>15000007
Based

>>15000320

His last good movie that was praised for anything other than technical innovation was Paths of Glory.

>>15000189
I used to be like you, anon.
I busted my ass for two years for a company, achieving incredible results in terms of profit margin.
At the end of the year, I was passed on for promotion for a colleague who did more "equity work" to improve diversity in the office.
That work was less time-consuming, and did not directly impact the chief goals of the company.
I left shortly after, and coworkers treated me like a traitor.

I used to genuinely believe in hard work and social mobility. It's the second time I've been burned out of a job, becoming a key player with little reward.
I no longer believe in hard work or fulfillment in career. I take personal responsibility for being a naive gullible idiot. It's just a paycheque, nothing more.

>>15000050
He has a nice variety of themes, not as wide as Kubrick, but definitely the quality. Yeah, I’m seconding Pynch

>>15000304
>>15000340
It depends on the school. if you can teach an AP English class in a private school, you can genuinely change lives (my career was personally changed by an English teacher in high school, even though I went into an unrelated field).
Seriously university-level assignments, essays, and discussions (good prep for college).
Even my Grade 7 English teacher at a well-ranked school continues to find fulfillment (I've since added her on Facebook).

So, I would guess it depends on the school. Interestingly, none of the best English teachers I know is openly a writer, but my high school biology teacher is a published fictional novelist.

Alternatives can be, join a quality book club, take a job with decent hours, and write on the side.

>>14999975
Read all of it. Thanks for the post OP.

>>15000344
Is he as sterile as Kubrick?

>>15000365
You looking for a romance novel?
Sometimes a man’s books are only as good as the readers allow

>>15000380
I was just asking about style.

>>15000365
Name one iconic Thomas Pynchon character. Oh wait, you can't. They're all cookie-cutter cartoons.

>>15000385
And I was just stalling.
I’ve only read descriptions. They’re weird, until Mason Dixon

>>15000321
"he doesn't have humanity in his work"
is not an argument for someone who wrote one of the funniest comedies in film history and a genuinely scary horror movie. I imagined you meant that his characters don't act like real people or something else that you only have your own feelings to elaborate on, so I didn't engage on purpose.

Let me guess, having named 2 movies that discredit your "argument" isn't logically sound either because you PERSONALLY didn't laugh or get scared. Projection.

>>15000332
How about beauty, wit, or tone?

Good technically writing but completely lacking the human element in his characters?

>>15000365
>>15000344
Pynchon is great at capturing human experience even if he glosses over it with a lot of satire.

>>15000502
Not to mention Paths of Glory, which is one of the most emotionally moving war movies.

>>14999968
me

A Clockwork Orange

>>15000528
Henry James?

>>14999968
Sean Goonan. Read The Foundation for Exploration. A bold and laconic philosophy.

Henry Fielding

>>15000365
no way! he can when he needs to be, albeit rarely. this is, of course, not a slight on kubrick's sterility at all...... that 'kubrick feeling' is distinctly amazing

>>15000391
pig bodine. a truly falstaffian character

>>14999968
shut up chris

Shakespeare or Goethe probably in terms of consistency and change in genre.

>>14999968
Richard Bachman

>>15000009
Strange love is an adaptation from a book dipshit simple google search can prove that

>>14999968
Cormac McCarthy no doubt. They both have the same personality pretty much. Biggest difference is McCarthy is a gnostic and Kubrick was an atheist.

>>14999974
Half the books he adapted into great films are either mediocre or shit

>>14999974
Except he dramatically changed the story of almost every adaptation. You should actually watch his movies and read the source material instead of just skimming through Wikipedia.

>>15000293
>if a movie doesn't have witty dialogue and a warm tint it lacks humanity
Stick to Tarantino pleb. Also, are you a woman? I've found that many who don't really get Kubrick are women or oversocialized men.

>>14999968
Reminder that "Barry Lyndon is Kubrick's best" is the clearest pseud-marker in existence. His fumbling imitation of a painterly style and period-piece aesthetics, mastered by Griffith half a century earlier, is as dull as it is derivative.
Shooting on 'le special NASA stem lens' is always brought up as if it were some empirical evidence of genius. It isn't unique. David Lean had a lens specially made just for one shot in Lawrence. Hitchcock had to do extensive modifications to create the Vertigo effect without having a zoom lens. Welles was one of the first to utilize 18mm in Touch of Evil. Jacques Tourneur did amazing things with filters and Technicolor to mimic watercolor vistas in Way of a Gaucho. To say nothing of what Griffith accomplished with 1910s technology.
But even aside from the over hyping of the film's technical aspects, Barry Lyndon is worthless. It's a Bresson-ified 30s costume picture incapable of escaping its lowbrow picaresque entertainment roots (dissertations about fate et al.) Just like everything with Kubrick, it's calculated to appease the middle and lowbrow. To make them feel as if they are experiencing culture, as if they are "learning" something profound. This is peak cinematic art for people that have never seen more than 20 films from 1900-1938 tops.

>15002350
Nobody falls for the epic >window bait anymore.

>>15002350
I don't give a fuck about lenses or the fact that older films are better, Barry Lyndon is still the only Kubrick film I really liked.

>>15002198
this. he literally made everything much much better and deep

>>15002350
Bro I just like Barry Lyndon

>>15002198
Quit crying over your pedestrian hack

>>15001526
The Shining didn't change horror. Full Metal Jacket/Paths of Glory didn't change war films. Barry Lyndon didn't change the period piece. 2001 didn't change science fiction. They were shat out and (rightfully) shat on and time kept moving forward.
You lack basic knowledge of film history. Quit parroting a bunch of dope headed Gen Xers who refuse to grow out of their adolescent idol. Jimi Hendrix isn't the peak of music either, that's what you people sound like. It's never anyone in the industry praising this clown, but the tasteless hobby-hopping tourists.

>>15002217

The guy was hyper-obsessed with camera lenses and lighting and nobody in 2001, Eyes Wide Shut, The Shining, or even Full Metal Jacket gave a performance that didn't feel like self-aware rote memorization

>>15000293
unless you’re actually just blake (sorry to hear about your wife dude), where should i start with him? he’s from the same area as me, roughly, and i wished i wouldve reached out to him irl before moving

>>15000320
dont feed the undergrad, this is a common opinion tossed around by tarantino fanboys via an old pauline kael review (who was a prick in her own right). these people have typically never watched eyes wide shut, let alone 2001 beyond the meme monolith interpretation

>>15000391
Byron the Lightbulb, Tyrone Slothrop, Oedipa fucking Maas, Roger Stone, Doc, are you kidding or just another pleb who hasnt even made it through the meme trilogy before posting on here?

>>15002350
Well I think film buffs would argue for the superficiality in BL to be its stellar achievement, that Kubrick actually made a film out of a book into a book, which, remember, is quite the departure from the overtly political/auteur driven aesthetics of Strangelove through Clockwork. It’s a technical innovation in vein with what he wanted to do with Napoleon, which is make a film into a living man.

>>15002350
But also i forgot to say welcome back griffithfag. I admire your ramblings and wish I had the passion you do.

>>15003286
>X movie as genre
pleb
>Never anyone in the industry
Are you retarded? Where the fuck do you think PTA, Egger, or Noe get their aesthetics? Even fucking Wes Anderson namedrops Kubrick as a specific influence.

>>15002350
>mastered by Griffith
First tried by, you mean. You’re a pseud non-artist who doesn’t understand art.

>>15003299

Scorch Atlas is decent, but Butler has that cloying "I have an MFA" aura about his writing where he tries to impregnate every sentence with profundity and it just comes across as flat and self-indulgent.

>>15000286
kubrick is peak its good because media says ite important. they need someone talented like him to give them legitimacy without being too radical that they cant claim his legacy

>>14999974
He mostly adapted mediocre books

>>15002350
PLEASE LET THAT IMAGE BE BAIT PLEASE GOD

>>15003543
actually it's peak filmmaking. when you think of all your opinions by first considering how the consensus views them, you end up denying good art or, worse, a frequent poster on /lit/ :3

>>15003584
>ackshyually
film is a degenerate art to begin with. the best filmmakere essentially just use it to present idealized theater (bergman esp). but even then going to a theater is more worthwhile

>>15003543
how does Kubrick give the media legitimacy? also how tf is he not radical? dr. strangelove depicts cold war military industrial negotiations as the games of retard manchildren, 2001 explores the Nietzschean overcoming of man via crucifixion at the hands of Intelligence (our most proud faculty), Clockwork suggests throughout the permeation of society’s of control at every level of impulse, Shining explores genocide and the disintegration of America, need I continue? If anything, you’re describing Welles and Hitchcock, who were predecessors Kubrick’s generation worked to undermine.

>>15003602
theatre ended with Artaud, get over it. also watch more films. Bergmans theatricality is an American import.

>>15003621
yes. they need criticism, just like how mass media has digested radical left wing politics to prevent them from posing a real threat. they need a cutting edge to make the rest of the shit they want you to consume seem real. then they can reference/build off/incorporate what he presented to make it seem as if its not absolute product
>>15003630
have an artaud anthology i forgot about, ty for reminder

>>15003286
>2001 didn't change science fiction.
Based retard.

>>15003653
Look, dude, I’m all for society of the spectacle/Marshall Mcluhan tier critical whatever but that has more to say about the preconditions of art as well as our receptive and critical apparatuses than it does the art (unless you want to start critiquing the notion of art as product in which case good luck no amount of fire power ive applied in my last eight years of reflection have gotten me out of that one). Yeah obvs this trickles down to affect the institutions which baptize art and those need reforming etc. but I still like to appreciate the aspects of the art-object that I can salvage. Pretty sure everyone else if of the same opinion, affectively.

tl;dr you’re trying to speak past the conversation. learn good faith.

>>15002350
>griffithfag is back

>>15002350
list top ten films of all time. Genuinely interested.

>>15003703
i get what u mean but i dont like film much to begin with so im harsher on it than other things. i think its impotent when compared to music, painting, books etc. but much more profitable atm so the media wants everyone to think its really deep when in reality its barely more worthwhile than vidya

>>15000344
>a nice variety of themes, not as wide as Kubrick
>pynchon
>not as wide as Kubrick
What the fuck are you doing on a literature board if you can't read?

>>15002196
Based.

>>15000007
What?

>>15003317
There's no discernible quality in Slothrop. Stuff just happens to him.

>>15000293
Have you seen Paths of Glory, nigger?

>>15002350
>people in a room with an open window
>a couple inside a carriage
>a woman with her baby
whoa what a plagiarist

>>15004188
Almost all of Shakespeare's plays (A Midsummer Night's Dream and The Tempest I think are the only exceptions) were based on earlier works. Both of them preferred to build off of earlier works and created works (excepting possibly Troilus and Cressida and Lolita) which radically transcend their sources.

>>15004235
in a world where people literally cant think in the visual language of cinema, yeah it is

>>15004200
1/5, make a case against the others faggot

>>15004540
even in the language of cinema, it isn't.

>>15004563
yes it is. that’s literally the point he’s making lmao.

>>15004550
You can't quantify negation, anon. There's no case to be made.

>>15004577
That's exactly why I'm saying it isn't. The couple in the carriagie could've been taken from that old film, who knows, but the room with an open window and especially the mom with the baby is quite a reach. All are relatively common shots.

>>15004200
He chad

>>15004578
Stop talking out of your ass like the first year philosophy bitch and tell me how any of the other characters I named are cartoon character or whatever the fuck your brainlet critique was. The burden of proof is on you fuckface.

>>15004635
Enumerate other examples between Griffith and Kubrick, then. Give griffithfag a bone to chew. He makes these graphics to substantiate his claims. Do your part.

>>15004643
I didnt say they were cartoon characters, that was another anon. All I said was that Slothrop doesn't any discernible qualities or characteristics. He's literally just a vehicle for plot points. I particularly liked Mexico and Jessica.

>>15002350
will check out Griffith. any other directors you recommend?

>>15005628
Kubrick

>>15004206

Have you endured any movie he made after Paths of Glory, sentient cumwad?

>>15000007
I was thinking this too, I’d also submit Nabokov.