Stanley Kubrick: A Life In Pictures

 

 

            Of the many types of documentaries, there are two that have been somewhat overlooked in our course. Most of the documentaries we’ve seen examined historical periods or events, or tried to make some sort of commentary on a social institution.

            It may be that the weightiness of these topics makes the documentaries more noteworthy; after all, a museum about the Holocaust has more overall significance than a 30-minute documentary about the making of Tommy Boy. But as technology changes and people lead an increasingly digital and mediated lifestyle, I foresee two types of documentaries becoming more important to a public that consumes popular culture.

            With so many households subscribing to cable and satellite TV services, many viewers are exposed to such niche networks as the History Channel and VH1. Many of these channels show biographical documentaries on subjects ranging from Queen Elizabeth to the Barenaked Ladies. Their subjects may not be important in the grand scale of the human condition, but viewers are interested in them, and as such these sorts of documentaries are increasingly important to consumers and thus worth examining.

The digital lifestyle is also proliferating a second type of documentary. The DVD format is on its way to becoming the new standard for home theaters. Many DVDs offer extra features, the most common of which is the “making-of” documentary. These pieces are usually between 30 and 45 minutes long and feature on-set footage, production stills, and interviews with cast and crewmembers. When done poorly, they amount to nothing more than glorified electronic press kits. When done well, they offer insight into the production process that can be genuinely interesting for fans of the film.

            Stanley Kubrick: A Life In Pictures is a recent film in the same vein as those “making-of” documentaries. Initially released as part of a nine-DVD set of Kubrick’s later films, the documentary examines the life and work of one of cinema’s greatest directors. The 142-minute long film is as much a biography as it is a “making-of” featurette since it spans Kubrick’s whole career. As a biography and a movie about movies, it is an excellent specimen of both genres.

            Tom Cruise, who starred in Kubrick’s final film Eyes Wide Shut, narrates A Life In Pictures. The film begins with a Cruise voiceover describing Kubrick’s childhood in New York City, intercut with interviews with Kubrick’s childhood friends. There are also numerous still photos and home movies of Kubrick as a boy, which serve to humanize a man known for his silence and distance. Cruise states that the purpose of the documentary is to examine the life of “a man who remained silent whether he was being applauded or damned.”

            When Kubrick was in his teens he picked up photography as a hobby, and within a few years he was shooting for “Look” magazine. A montage of Kubrick’s photos over fast jazz music give the viewer a sample of the work that would lay the foundation for a career in motion pictures. His photography background is mentioned repeatedly throughout the film, as it was the basis for many of the lighting and composition choices he would make in his films.

            As the film progresses, it tells the stories of Kubrick’s first few films, then his more well-known films like Spartacus and Dr. Strangelove, going all the way up through Eyes Wide Shut and Kubrick’s death months before the film’s release. Along the way it delves into unfinished Kubrick projects such as Napoleon and A.I., while also detailing events in his personal life, like his marriage and his demeanor at home.

            In addition to Cruise’s narration, interviews with Kubrick’s friends and colleagues tell the story of his life. While their stories are interesting, it is important to realize that the interviewees’ personal experiences with Kubrick influence the light in which they portray him. We haven’t come across this dilemma with other documentaries — we’ve always known that firsthand accounts are biased, but memories from personal interaction take the bias to a whole new level. A Life In Pictures would be a good addition to the course as a means to explore this dilemma, especially since Kubrick’s down-to-business, sometimes reclusive personality led to some charged memories.

            This film also suffers from the bias of director Jan Harlan, who was Kubrick’s brother in law and longtime producer. Since Harlan was involved in the making of many of Kubrick’s films, one must wonder how that influenced their portrayal in this documentary. His family ties to Kubrick noticeably affected the film as well: It is never mentioned that Kubrick had been through two divorces prior to marrying Harlan’s sister.

            The idea of objectivity is brought up several times in reference to Kubrick’s style. Paths of Glory and Full Metal Jacket are said to be “objective” in their manner of showing war without passing judgment on it. Director Martin Scorcese, interviewed for the documentary, says they are unique antiwar movies in that they let the audience make up its own mind about war.

            The documentary is not very stylized. It bears more resemblance to a standard A&E documentary than, for example, Crumb, with its talking-head interviews, stately narration, and use of memories of events instead of actual recordings of events. However, montages of clips from Kubrick’s films with classical music playing over them (a technique Kubrick often used) give the film a Kubrickian tone.

            This film is successful as a documentary in that it presents as thorough a retrospective on Kubrick and his films as one can get without sitting down and watching his entire oeuvre. It presents facts about the production of the movies and at the same time presents facts about Kubrick’s life. It uses original documents (on-set footage and home movies), which are essentially the source documents. For secondary documents, it uses footage from the finished movies and interviews with people who were present during events in Kubrick’s life.

Stanley Kubrick: A Life In Pictures is worthy of examination not because it does anything groundbreaking, but because it is a solid example of two underrepresented kinds of documentaries, the biography and the “making-of” documentary. The film’s subject was one of the greatest artists of the 20th century, and therefore is a valid topic for consideration. The film also raises interesting questions about subjectivity and bias, because Kubrick shot in an objective style yet this documentary is inherently biased by the interviewees’ relationships with the subject. As a well-constructed jumping-off point for these topics, it would make a good addition to the course.

 

Robert Reichle

rreichle@rice.edu

Updated 11-26-01