Frank Longo Member since Nov 18th 2003 86830 posts
Sat Mar-01-08 02:06 PM
39. "I wasn't emotionally removed from ANY of those characters." In response to In response to 38
>"If your story wanders around and you're totally emotionally >removed from what's occuring, then it's gonna be boring, it's >gonna be uninteresting, and it's gonna suck" > >Assassination of Jesse James, There Will Be Blood, your >beloved The Savages, hell, even No Country for Old Men could >be described like that to a certain extent. The issue isn't >the story; it's the characters. > >The foundation of "Eyes Wide Shut" was the characters. The >main conflict was an internal struggle and it was basically a >character piece with a loose mystery built-in. Once people >didn't care about the main character, thus not caring for his >struggle/conflict, the focus moved to the mystery which >supposed to bear the weight of the film. Add in the very slow >pacing and you have a film that is going to miss the mark with >most of the audience. >
The problem is Kubrick's style kept me from getting invested in the character in any way. I was totally hanging on every move that the characters in the films you named made. Maybe it's more than story... maybe it's the perfect storm of a meandering story, characters we didn't care about, and Kubrick's totally detached style.
>Personally, I thought "Eyes Wide Shut" was an intriguing >failure but to say the problem is just the story seems wrong. >I think you could remake the film using almost the exact same >story and come away with a quality film. (Ditto for AI)
Perhaps. It'd need a new script and a new director to execute said script.
There were additional problems with the film. But it begins with story. And the main point I wanted to make is I believe Kubrick often gets the pass since his films are well-shot and have a distinct mood. But that's simply not enough.