There was only one Stanley Kubrick, a filmmaker who combined philosophy, virtuouso filmmaking and an icy, precise look at humanity and its foibles. Zoom-ins, steadicam shots work, and operatic use of music were the tools of his auteur brand of cinema. While there are certainly a few modern films out there films are referred to as Kubrickian, it is a significantly smaller number than those described as Hitchcockian or Spielbergian. Simply put, Kubrick was hard to even imitate, let alone emulate, or push forward his particular style and type of filmmaking. But cinema evolves by younger filmmakers taking large chunks (wholesale) from filmmaking legends; like any art or science (and film seems to be a curious hybrid of both.) If Quentin Tarantino is the neo-Scorcese, Brian DePalma was the neo-Hitchcock (wither DePalma lately?), and Guy Ritchie was (up until he went all block-buster-y with the more generic Sherlock Holmes) a sort of neo-Tarantino., then here are five directors who have made a film that can easily be described as Kubrickian, enough to position them (in my mind anyway) as neo-Kubrick hopefuls.
Mark Romanek (Never Let Me Go)
Maybe it is the source novel, a somewhat esoteric mystery in which the main character is significantly less aware of her surroundings and life-in-general than the reader, and how that can even translate to film that makes Mark Romanek’s Never Let Me Go such an unusual film. Either way, it puts its characters under a microscope examining what exactly is human, in the same way that Kubrick seemed to do so effortlessly from comedy (Dr. Strangelove) to crime satire (A Clockwork Orange) to costume drama (Barry Lyndon) to dream-like ordeal (Eyes Wide Shut.) Romanek manages to capture a timeless quality, a period piece but a science-fiction other-world at the same time. I find that similar to the timeless quality of many of Kubrick’s films, even the ones that are set explicitly in a certain time period (the Vietnam War in Full Metal Jacket) rather outside of history for the way they were filmed.
Nicholas Winding Refn (Bronson and Valhalla Rising)
New York Times Film Critic A.O. Scott described watching Nicholas Winding Refn’s unconventional biopic, Bronson, thusly: “The effect is a bit like Stanley Kubrick’s “Clockwork Orange” re-imagined as a one-man stage show and stripped of any political implications. Bronson’s crimes become a kind of performance art, and the film becomes, bizarrely enough, the portrait of a genius misunderstood and marginalized by a bureaucratic and hypocritical social order.” Indeed, there is certainly a colourful and manic energy on display that Kubrick seemed to shed as he moved into his later career. And then there is Valhalla Rising, a strange, hypnotic and meticulously controlled tone-poem with big image and big music characteristic of much of Kubrick’s work. Refn’s earlier films (The Pusher Trilogy, Bleeder) were a bit more rough and tumble, and a lot more intimate emotionally (particularly Pusher II and Pusher III) but recently, Refn has been digging into stranger philosophies with a more rigorous cinematic eye.
Gaspar Noe (Enter The Void, Irreversible)
Before the final ‘gut punch’ in Gaspar Noe’s Irreversible, the final cut is highlighted by a poster from Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey, the star-child on that poster being a nice visual nod to the unborn child revealed as unconventional plotting flows backwards in time. Irreversible does not get enough credit for its own analysis on how we process violent and genre style cinema, and how our reactions can be molded for the basic human need for closure (and revenge!) Noe took his love of 2001 and channeled it towards innerspace instead of outerspace with Enter The Void. Floating steadicam-esque camera work pushes forward anything realized by Kubrick in The Shining or Eyes Wide Shut. Many folks have described the unique experience of Enter The Void in that context. Noe’s epic may not have the ‘brains’ or philosophical heft of Kubrick’s but it more than makes up for it with a profound energy and unique visual look. I am not exactly sure where Noe is going to go after Enter The Void, but will his “A Clockwork Orange” follow his “2001″?
P.T. Anderson (There Will Be Blood)
That image above says it all, doesn’t it? Couple in the long silent prologue, the big unusual score (which is highly reminiscent of the music used in The Shining), the subtle but often use of zooming, the oblique commentary on the opposing philosophy of the family unit and capitalism, and the final “I’m Finished” line by Daniel Plainview echoes Alice Hartford, “Fuck.” in Eyes Wide Shut. There is no doubt that P.T. Anderson had Kubrick on the brain when putting together There Will Be Blood. As the director is often compared to Robert Altman (particularly for his multi-character films Boogie Nights and Magnolia and his off-beat romantic Punchdrunk Love which directly borrows music from Altman’s Popeye fiasco), it is rather shocking just how much Kubrick is on display here. If Anderson ever gets his one-man religion film to be starring Philip Seymour Hoffman off the ground, will he continue to mine Kubrick, or shift gears to John Huston (Wise Blood). Anderson has said that when he was making There Will be Blood, he would watch Huston’s Treasure of Sierre Madre on as a bedtime lullaby, but then the director has also commented, “We’re all children of Kubrick, aren’t we? Is there anything you can do that he hasn’t done?”
Jonathan Glazer (Birth)
Clearly the front runner here is Johnathan Glazer, his 2004 film Birth is pretty much the reason for this post in the first place. Although there are a few nods to Polanski in here not the least of which is the Rosemary’s Baby Mia Farrow hair-do on Nicole Kidman, and the sort-of-possession-or-something of Cameron Bright is also reminiscent of Friedkin’s The Exorcist. Yet Kubrick is the dominant factor. Ms. Kidman’s character bringing in a lit birthday cake, with the candles lighting the entire scene, is very reminiscent of the wonderful use of natural lighting Barry Lyndon. Slow Zooms abound throughout the picture, and the score and overall use of music (for instance, Wagner’s The Valkyrie during a critical scene of acceptance of the part of Nicole Kidman’s character). The opening epic tracking shot (supervised by the Garrett Brown, who all the critical steadicam work on The Shining), of a jogger moving through central park, with the tunnels acting as first the womb then the void. Before cutting to the birth of another boy. This sort of visual connection, obvious, yet subtle is very much of the Kubrick variety. It was recently pointed out to me that even the apartment where much of the goings on take place in Birth is #2001. Even the casting of Kidman is a nod towards Eyes Wide Shut, a film where her character admits to entertaining the idea of throwing her entire built relationship away on the power of a single impulse. All of these things add up to a lot of expectation on Glazer’s upcoming science fiction project, Under The Skin. While Sexy Beast is a fun and interesting movie, there was such a growth between that and Birth, not the least from a fair bit of emulation of Stanley Kubrick. Will Glazer continue to make this sort of sophisticated meld of philosophy, religion and science fiction?
Kiyoshi Kurosawa– I see a lot of Kubrick with this auteur.
Anyways, isn’t Tarantino more of the neo-DePalma/Truffuat than neo-Scorsese type of filmmaker?
My list:
PT Andersen: Neo-Scorsese/Altman
Tarantino: Neo-DePalma/Truffuat
Michel Mann: Neo-Melville
Neil Marshall: Neo-Carpenter
Wong Kar Wai: Neo-Godard
there is homaging the master and rivaling him in ambition. I think Aronofsky (with The Fountain) and everything Malick touches is Kubrickian in regards to ambition. Was Kubrick an imitator, or someone who tried to make his own cinema? I really like Birth a lot, and Glazer is neo-Kubrick in that film but he is imitating a style, not defining one. Malick may be repetitive with his style, but it is definitively his.
Another biggie you missed is Todd Field. He was a friend of Kubrick and his films, In the Bedroom and Little Children have the cold chill of Kubrick’s style in them. He also, like Kubrick, seems preoccupied with adapting books to make his name. Blood Meridian is next, and I cannot wait.
This post succesfully pissed me off. First of all, what’s the point of asking a question like this? Second of all; Nicholas Winding Refn. This is one of those jokes that gets ruined by people taking it seriously.
Thanks for your astute and provocative opinion on this Henrik. It’s a convesation starter, not a declaration! I may be out to lunch, but who knows where a conversation starting like this can go to readers (I dig the Kurosawa suggestion above) discovering filmography, or thoughts about film.
Rot, I really thought about Todd Field (having just watched Eyes Wide Shut, he is pretty awesome as Nick Nightengale), but I do not find his films have near the same feel, although Little Children is a lot closer than In The Bedroom…
I’m sorry I snapped.
By the way, I don’t think I’ve ever heard “Spielbergian”. Is it anything like “Ron Howardian”?
Noe might never make a film again, the dude probably dosen’t know what to do now that he thinks he’s made his 2001. PT Anderson is an candidate, he is my 2nd fav director behind Kubrick, but I ask of these directors, would you do a horror film? Would you make a comedy about the nuclear bomb and originally shoot a pie-fight for that film?
Unfortunately Romanek & Glazer won’t make many films and both aren’t batting .1000 they are frankly hit-or-miss, Refn has done something frankly better than playing the Kubrick card, he’s just made his 3rd film in 3 years with Drive, he’s a weird mix of Friedkin, de Palma and Scorsese even in output.
Its true we could do with a director who does play in every genre, and I mean seriously (Miike, Kitano whatever). A Name dosen’t jump to me, could say from now Anderson could be similar definitely, he made TWBB at 37yr, Kubrick made 2001 at 39yr, both films after comedies, if PT delivered The Master in 2012 that would’nt be too dis-similar to Kubrick’s Clockwork Orange in 1971 (my fav film). Oh and without doubt he visually is getting similar with especially TWBB, but still finding his own style.
Oh, good lord! Get over yourself, you pretentious, uneducated douche. Keep on imdb’ing and ripping from more intelligent writers, because you’re little more than an obnoxious dilettante.
What the hell is people’s problem with this post? It’s simply a conversation starter comparing some of today’s more interesting director and who might fill the shoes of an earlier auteur. “jenny from the block” (nice name by the way – very original) clearly just wants to feel superior to someone with some thought and creativity. Mommy didn’t love her enough. Where is your blog that has such interesting writing? Or right, you don’t have one because you’re a lazy twat licking troll
It’s just a stupid idea to take filmmakers and talk about how close they are to Kubrick, instead of talking about them in their own right. Even talking about how they compare to eachother, or some other arbitrary connection so that the list felt like it had a point. As of right now, it just seems like a jerkoff piece about how Kurt thought of Kubrick when he watched some films, complete with arbitrary critics’ quotes that somewhat support the connection.
Not to be a harpy or anything, but I wanted to defend having a problem with the post.
There was a time I would have put Neil LaBute in this category. IN THE COMPANY OF
STRANGERSMEN and YOUR FRIENDS & NEIGHBORS have clear Kubrickian influences. THE WICKER MAN and DEATH AT A FUNERAL not so much.I loved BRONSON but one of the issues I did have with it is that it impersonates too much of Kubrick’s style. There is a clear difference between PT Anderson using Kubrick as an influence to create something entirely his own, and simply mimicing a style.
I think that Henrik has a very good point. As an academic treatise, this article is rubbish, as a conversation-starter on a cinephile blog which follows on with several conversations on the Cinecast (Podcast), it makes sense to me….Also, having devoured a lot of Kubrick over the past 3 weeks, it was on my brain….and this is what spewed out into the internets….
So yea, you are sort of right, Henrik, but on the other hand, since it is pretty universal that Kubrick is one of perhaps the 10 greatest directors in the history of the medium, I find it strange that he doesn’t have as many emulators (or to be less Generous, imitators) as some of the others…
I suppose you could make a similar post for Bergman or Antonioni or Fellini…I just had Kubrick on the brain….
In The Bedroom is a perfect film, I know you disagree Kurt, but the care and calculation to telling a story is as much a part of it as you would find in a Kubrick film. It is not emulating a particular Kubrick film, but it has that same kind of ‘film thinking out every frame’ feel. It is cold, sparse, and compared to Rabbit Hole, which I think IS a solid film, but feels less disciplined, more of a grocery list of situations… In The Bedroom has more of a point than pure catharsis, it is also a what if ethical experience that provokes introspection.
I thought this was a really cool piece, and it’s definitely succeeded as a conversation starter (even if the conversation has been a litte agressive).
It’s a very strange comparison, but I always think of Danny Boyle as a sort of modern day Kubrick – their styles could almost not be more different, but I don’t think there’s been a filmmaker since Kubrick capable of tackling such a wide variety of genres as well as Boyle does
Except that Danny Boyle is waaaaay emotionally sappy, some might even say maudlin (especially if they’ve seen Millions, Slumdog Millionaire and That one he made with Cameron Diaz…). Whereas Kubrick is icy, precise and analytical. Boyle is all rapid-fire kineticism and pop music, Kubrick is ostentatious classical music or Opera and patient tracking shots (or zooms).
There is a clear difference between PT Anderson using Kubrick as an influence to create something entirely his own, and simply mimicing a style.
Like when PT Anderson mimicks Altman?
***SPOILERS FOR IN THE BEDROOM ***
***SPOILERS FOR IN THE BEDROOM ***
***SPOILERS FOR IN THE BEDROOM ***
***SPOILERS FOR IN THE BEDROOM ***
Rot, that ethical dilemma smacks a bit too much of ‘wish fulfilment’ – it seems to break the film for me. A film that was working well until it went all vigilante
***SPOILERS FOR IN THE BEDROOM ***
***SPOILERS FOR IN THE BEDROOM ***
***SPOILERS FOR IN THE BEDROOM ***
***SPOILERS FOR IN THE BEDROOM ***
It wasn’t wish fulfillment for Tom Wilkinson’s character, he is clearly scarred by the experience… he did it to save his marriage, and that is the ethical dilemma. Watch it again, there isn’t a second of fat on that film, everything builds to that last shot of him in bed. The script is one that should be studied. And it is the best Tom Wilkinson performance ever, possibly the best Marisa Tomei, not to mention Sissy Spacek.
I totally agree with Matt on Anderson and Altman. One of the elements of THERE WILL BE BLOOD that I enjoyed the most is Anderson shedding that Altman idolatry he had in previous movies. I know this is blasphemy with some, but I have always felt that Altman as a director was wildly over rated. While I can enjoy BOOGIE NIGHTS and MAGNOLIA for what they are, they do have the baggage of Anderson trying to immitate an Altman movie
Although PTA will potentially one day be my favorite director, he’s more of a Scorsese-Altman hybrid. Aronofsky is most similar to Kubrick for me due to his unique style and versatility.
PTA also borrows from DePalma, I just caught up with Carlito’s Way and there are aspects, including the entrance to the 70′s club that are eerily similar to Boogie Nights (including using the same actor, Luis Guzman, as a transitional foil between two parts of the party), the pool table scene where Carlito knows shit is going to go down, and he is waiting and watching like Wahlberg does in the drug deal gone bad.
There will not be another Kubrick there is only one.
First of all, I must say that I really enjoyed reading this post.
Kubrick is my favourite director of all time, and I think that almost every famous director tries to imitate his style.
For example, Spielberg’s movies “Minority Report” and “A.I.” have a very sort-of kubrickian feel to them in my opinion. Also, Tarantino based his first movie “Reservoir Dogs” on “The Killing”, and has continued to use the same style in all of his later films (Using music as a black joke, having a nonlinear storylines and dividing a movie into chapter, like say in Kubrick’s Barry Lyndon). Even the Coen brothers, Rob Zombie (I know that sounds weird by have you seen the music video of “Never Gonna Stop”?) and Tim Burton are influenced by Kubrick.
I also think that almost every music video that’s made nowadays owes a lot to Kubrick. And that’s particularly evident in the music videos of artists as diverse as Lady Gaga,Mylene Farmer ,Rob Zombie and Kanye West,
Of course, what you tried to accomplish in this post was to find a “heir” to Kubrick, an artist whose visual style is so close to this master’s that you can’t tell one’s movie from the other’s. But in my opinion, what’s even more interesting is when filmmakers not merely try to emulate Kubrick, but rather create a unique vision of their own that may be compared to the originality of Kubrick’s work. Like, say Cristopher Nolan’s “Inception” and Zack Snyder’s “Watchmen” have been compared to Kubrick’s work by some critics.
Of course there is never gonna be anyone else on Kubrick, but it’s quite interesting to observe his everlasting influence on pop cullture!
Kubrick is my all-time favourite director. In terms of his influence, I’d also include Thai indie director Pen-Ek Rattanaruang. His film Ploy reminded me of Eyes Wide Shut, in its themes (marital jealousy and sexual fantasy), its structure (confusion between dreams and reality; the slow pacing; the dangerous, illicit adventure and subsequent reconciliation), and even its score.