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
Updated
11-26-01