Summer Moviethon 2016: The Shining

July 6: #22, The Shining

“Red rum. Red rum. Red rum.”

I've seen The Shining a few times, so this time around I watched the international version, which is actually trimmed down from the US version but is said to be the one that Stanley Kubrick prefers. It seems strange for a guy that gleefully made us watch monkeys hop around for 20 minutes in 2001: A Space Odyssey to be so willing to edit his work, but okay. I looked at the stuff that was cut out and aside from one line between Jack and the bartender in the hotel, I could see his point.

The main difference with the international version is that with some of the fat cut out from early in the film, we go from, “Hmm...this doesn't seem right” to “What the fuck GET OUT OF THERE LADY” in much less time. I don't think it hurts the film, but your mileage may vary.

Anyway, The Shining is one of my favorite Kubrick films because it really shows what a genius he was and how he could have been a great director in any genre. He effortlessly builds tension right from the opening credits with some really nice establishing shots of the Torrance family driving past the lake in their humble little car, not knowing what they're in for. A creepy feeling permeates just about every moment of the film, from the low-angle shots following Danny Torrance on his big wheel rides through the hotel to Jack's hallucinations in the bar and ballroom later on.

Kubrick really excels at filling the open spaces of the hotel with a sense of dread, as you feel like every room in the hotel may hold some sort of terrible secret, not just room 237. Classic shots such as the two little girls in their dresses (and the alternating shot of their dead bodies strewn about the hall) and the cascading river of blood from the elevator are complemented by creepy little touches such as, oh, the natural insanity of Jack Nicholson's eyebrows.

Creepy child actors are a mainstay in modern horror, especially with the flood of PG-13 paranormal flicks we've seen in the last couple of decades. They all owe some royalties to Danny Lloyd, who nails it as one of the creepiest kids in horror history as Danny Torrance. Danny's alter-ego Tony and the believable way in which he reacts to his heightened awareness of the threats within the hotel are essential to the film's success.

The same is true of Shelley Duvall, who was quite literally subjected to psychological torture by Kubrick during the filming of the movie. Kubrick famously made Duvall perform over 100 takes of the scene in which she tearfully confronts Jack with a baseball bat, which is said to be a world record for a scene that contains spoken dialogue. He also supposedly told the other members of the cast and crew to shun her so she'd feel isolated throughout the filming.

Now, you may be like some of the detractors of The Shining, which include the book's author, Stephen King. King wanted a more assertive Wendy Torrance, and yes, Duvall is a complete mess throughout. But that's what Kubrick wanted and I don't think you can say it's unbelievable for the time period and situation.

"Winter is coming."

You've either seen The Shining or you haven't, and if you haven't, you really, really need to. If you have, we all know how it goes down and Kubrick and the small cast handle every part of it to near perfection. Kubrick's choices here don't seem as self-congratulatory as in some of his other more showy films, and we still get wonderful work such as the seamless transition between Jack staring at the model of the hedge maze to an overhead shot of the maze itself, with Wendy and Danny in it. This and Full Metal Jacket represent Kubrick at the peak of his powers.

Grade: A

Summer Moviethon 2016: Spartacus

July 5: #21, Spartacus

“In Rome, dignity shortens life even more surely than disease.”

At 197 minutes long, Spartacus is not for the feint of heart. I wasn't exactly pumped to spend two movies' worth of time watching one film that I didn't expect to have aged well when I'm already far behind pace in my goal to watch 150 movies in 90 days, but I set out to watch every Stanley Kubrick film and to do so, I had to watch Kirk Douglas chew scenery for three-plus hours.

Spartacus is every bit a predecessor to later epics like Braveheart and Gladiator, where one brave man who just happens to have a chiseled jaw and movie-star looks rises above the other thousands of people who share the exact plight to lead an epic struggle for justice and/or freedom.

It also is a strange film for Kubrick to helm, looking back now. At the time, Kubrick had done Paths of Glory and seemed well-suited for the task, but after seeing his work in the 70s and 80s, having him film the 1960 equivalent of a summer blockbuster seems very strange.

Kubrick wasn't allowed to have the control over this film that he always enjoyed having with his other productions, and it shows. While Kubrick takes advantage of the setting to display some nice cinematography in the early slave scenes, much of the film is pretty paint-by-numbers. This film lacks the biting satire and thought-provoking themes of his other work, although the story of slaves revolting against their former owners and Rome itself fits well within Kubrick's other work that criticizes authority figures for treating the “little people” with disregard.

If you didn't like Kirk Douglas in Paths of Glory, you'll despise him in Spartacus, as he really cranks up the grandstanding in this one. Although Douglas can veer towards insufferable in the big moments where he seems to be reaching for an Oscar nomination, he succeeds when provided with moments of levity and to a lesser extent when forced to build a romance from scratch with fellow slave Varinia, played by Jean Simmons, who is pretty but also a blank slate here.

Oh, and you also get to see Kirk Douglas look like a sunburned, leathery version of Marv from Sin City

There's a lot to love about Spartacus, though. There's some really witty writing, such as when the delightfully slimy Batiatus (Peter Ustinov) orders a slave to serve “the second best wine...no, the best, but small goblets!” for the arrival of Crassus. Sure, the slaves become expert fighters by alternatively jumping over and ducking under logs, but we can forgive that, because Kubrick's shots of thousands of slave soldiers migrating through Rome are wonderfully done, particularly when considering that something so epic as those moments or the huge battle later on would be largely done with CGI now.

Kubrick manages to break out of his constraints long enough to make some nifty directorial choices, too. The best moment that comes to mind is when corresponding army leaders Spartacus and Crassus make their speeches to their soldiers, with the speeches being interspersed with one another to contrast the styles and motivations of the two men. An eerie trip through the field of bodies left in the wake of the battle also makes an impression.

Spartacus is far from perfect, but it does tell a great story that affects the viewer, even after all this time. It's a long trip, but it's a worthy one.

Grade: B

Summer Moviethon 2016: Paths of Glory

July 3: #20, Paths of Glory

“I'm not afraid of dying tomorrow, only of getting killed.”

Filmed in the very early part of Stanley Kubrick's career, Paths of Glory is a surprisingly tight, concise film that like all of Kubrick's war films, doesn't focus on the macro-level of war but instead zooms in on the fallout of a particular conflict.

This one is similar to Dr. Strangelove in that it serves as an indictment of military leaders for viewing their soldiers as little more than pawns. This is a point that Kubrick really hits you over the head with, as General Georges Broulard plans what is essentially a reckless suicide mission where by even his own estimation, 60% of the French soldiers involved will die.

Broulard leaves it to General Mireau to go from there, and Mireau's initial resistance to the plan is washed away when a possible promotion is hinted at. As Mireau, George Macready is an outstanding villain, mostly because he balances the coward's mentality of wanting others to take the blame for his actions with the egotist's belief that he deserves to be held above such criticism. Mireau hides behind palatable defenses based on patriotism, duty, and courage instead of allowing the truth of his own cowardice and ambition to show.

Mireau's foil is Kirk Douglas as the brave, much-beloved Regiment Colonel Dax, who fearlessly leads the doomed charge when the time comes. He also takes it upon himself to defend the men from three companies who are arbitrarily picked to answer to charges of cowardice when they and their peers stop advancing when the feebleness of their efforts in the battle become clear.

Douglas plays it pretty straight as the strong-jawed, prototypical 1950s film hero, and his performance mostly works. He gets a moment later in the movie to raise his voice in righteous defiance and relishes it just as much as you'd expect. It's a performance that seems pretty dated and pandering now, but it's well-suited to the film. The movie's battle sequence, which was not filmed with a big budget and hasn't really aged well, doesn't really hold the film back, either.

"Well, I've got my gym teacher whistle and my tiny pistol. I'm ready to storm the hill!"

Overall, Paths of Glory makes a lot of points similar to Dr. Strangelove, and even if the latter was the better film, it's an excellent movie in its own right. The three doomed soldiers hold pivotal roles and play them well, even though Timothy Carey's Private Ferol is way over-the-top at times. You still feel for the condemned trio and Kubrick uses sympathetic directing to really make their plights hit home when the time comes. This was the film where you can really see the type of career Kubrick was going to have.

Grade: A-

Summer Moviethon 2016: Lolita (1962)

July 2: #19, Lolita (1962)

Or, Next on Jerry Springer: I Love My Stepdad, Or, Roman Polanski's Favorite Kubrick Film

Let's cut to the chase: Lolita is loooooonnnnng. Yes, a lot of Kubrick's films are long, but perhaps more than any of them, Lolita feels excessively long. That's just one of its flaws, along with an extremely annoying collection of performances by Peter Sellers (who was really good in Dr. Strangelove, which is also the name of the character he seemingly debuts when he appears as the mysterious psychologist here), and the fact that Kubrick was hamstrung by censorship that wouldn't allow him to tell the story in the way that the book apparently does.

Lolita, of course, is the story of a grown-ass man who falls in love with a very young teenage girl, despite being a 40-something college professor himself. After seeing the young Lolita in her bathing suit during a tour of a house where Lolita's mother is seeking to rent out a bedroom, Humbert decides to rent the room despite the Mom coming onto him quite aggressively.

The film contains some pretty amusing innuendos. Sure, Kubrick couldn't show Humbert and Lolita kiss (they probably shouldn't have cast an actual 14-year-old to play Lolita, even though Sue Lyon is pretty good throughout), but he tries to make up for it when Humbert says that he thinks it was Lolita's mother that it was “her cherry pies” that made him want to rent the room. There's also a strong insinuation that Lolita's mom is down for some wife-swapping.

The best line in the film comes when Humbert has insanely decided to marry Lolita's mother just so he can stick around and be in her life a little longer, only to be faced with the sad reality of having to fulfill his husbandly duties. Charlotte tells Humbert that she loves him so much that when he holds her, she goes “as limp as a noodle.” Humbert deadpans back, “I know the feeling.”

"Who you gonna call? Child Lusters!"

The film starts with the aftermath of the situation and goes from there, which is a good way to go. It leaves you with a mystery to piece together and the resolution is pretty good, too. The evil actor angle is really silly and everything probably could have played out without it.

I mentioned that Kubrick wasn't able to be very faithful to the book, which is apparently much more explicit, but in some ways, that works. I like that Lolita doesn't really do much to spur Humbert on early in the movie, because it places the blame squarely where it belongs – on Humbert for being a creeper. It's better than in films like The Crush, where a girl who looks like she could pass for 18 flirts non-stop with the male lead and ends up undermining the whole thing and making it a “evil seductive teen” story instead of a “weird 40-year-old creeper with an obsession” story.

In this salacious scene from Lolita, a 40-year-old man watches a teenager hula hoop. BAN THIS FILTH!

 However, there's a very abrupt shift when Humbert picks his new step-daughter up from Camp Climax (yes, really) and she talks to him like they're an item. It's the kind of scene that sticks out like a sore thumb becaue none of what came before led organically to it. It feels like an earlier scene where the two become closer was cut or changed and the car ride was left in, even though it no longer makes sense. Still, it's an entertaining film, there's a thought-provoking message here about the danger of getting what you want and it's cool to see Kubrick stretching his legs in the early stages of his career.

Grade: B