Rate Stanley Kubrick's reading list

Been going the Kubrick archives recently and thought it might be interesting to note down any time he referred to writers/books he admired.

>Wild Palms (Faulkner)
>General Introduction to Psychology (Freud)
>Albert Camus
>Nietzsche
>BF Skinner
>Calder Willingham
>Film Technique (Pudovkin)
>Kafka
>Lovecraft (notably his essays)
>Arthur C. Clarke
>Thackeray (originally wanted to do Vanity Fair over Barry Lyndon)
>Shelby Foote
>Richard III
>Alexsandr Oparin
>Harlow Shapley
>Fred Whipple
>Carl Sagan
>Marvin Minksky
>Hans Moravec
>Nabakov
>Arthur Schnitzler
>Carl Jung
>Catch-22 (Heller)
>Homer
>Dostoevsky
>Tolstoy
>Balzac
>Stendhal

And apparently he really didn't like Capote, Hemingway, or Tennessee Williams.

Pretty good

Seems like pretty standard shit, but why should I care about books an autistic filmmaker admired?

>Wild Palms instead of Absalom, Absalom! or As I Lay Dying

>Middlebrow entry level “auteur” reddit-flickmaker enjoys middlebrow entry level reddit literature

And the Sagan there...yikes

Middlebrow taste for a middlebrow director? Color me surprised.

>unique and sincere taste instead of Harold Bloom wannabe opinions that were handed down by somebody smarter than him

Decent. Didn't expect to see Minksky or Moravec on there but 2001 I guess

and this is the difference between Veeky Forums and an actual artist and individual like Kubrick. His taste was upper middlerow, but it was also his own, and so he didn't try to hide it or feign a false sense of erudition through obscurity or difficulty or cultural prestige. Kubrick was a realized individual, not somebody who aspired to be a realized individual--a man who enjoyed reading for the sake of reading itself

>not recognizing that those opinions are my own and the irony of defending someone who could be accused of the same

what are your highbrow directors?
>inb4 Antonioni and Bergman

This. Godard > Kubrick any day of the week.

>it was also his own, and so he didn't try to hide it or feign a false sense of erudition through obscurity or difficulty or cultural prestige. Kubrick was a realized individual, not somebody who aspired to be a realized individual--a man who enjoyed reading for the sake of reading itself
damn son. you just succinctly captured an idea I'd been struggling with for a couple weeks. cheers

>those opinions are my own
lmao

yeah, you just read his most critically acclaimed and well-discussed books "on your own." It's your independent, text-based, and vacuum sealed opinion that they're better than the Faulkner books you haven't read or thought about like Pylon or Mosquitoes

you fucking pseud

Literally commit suicide. Godard is a gimmicky hack on par with Gaspar Noe.

Bokanowski, Bromberg, Carroll, Kovalyov, Selwood, Snow, Svankmajer...the list could in fact go on

The vast majority of those aren't middlebrow, dunno why the fags itt are claiming otherwise.

You will always be miserable. You crave for more attention than the world could ever give you.

>Taste and opinions are relevant and not bourgeois escapism

literally nothing in cinema has exceeded Barry Lyndon

This. Other than Sagan and Clarke (they worked together, so he gets a pass for that), it seems like a pretty Veeky Forumscore list.

I enjoy anal masturbation, but I think I’d rather just shit and let the poop act as a natural cock!

you don't understand, middlebrow taste is mostly composed of highbrow artists. Balzac is a highbrow artist, but enjoying the works of possibly the world's most well-known French novelist is middlebrow. Middlebrow is admiring and attempting to emulate highbrow

So highbrows just ignore the work of other highbrow artists?

embarrasing
remember when Goethe liked the Iliad? fucking middlebrow hack

Sort of. Highbrow taste would feature other highbrows but also might feature, for sincere aesthetic reasons, undeniably low brow artists alongside obscurities, personal friends, and even some lucky middlebrows. Basically there would be a coherent and original aesthetic philosophy forming a definition from a diverse mixture

For most people () it's a pose, and thus middlebrow and mediocre. They're better off just being honest like Kubrick or taking the time to develop an aesthetic that's thoughtful and true.

>not a degenerate
>Veeky Forumscore list
>possibly more right-wing than he let on but not an extremist cuck
>hung out with Nabakov

uhhhhh how is this not /ourguy/???

he is our guy desu

>Barry Lyndon
Pretty good but I'd much rather watch something by Tarkovsky desu.

shit taste

(you)'re pathetic, you silly fop.

>Godard
Oh, my poor sides. Enjoy your cafe-tier platitudes

This post triggered many insecure pedantic anons who get their film taste from Watch Mojo

amen

liking things you know are 'good taste' isn't the same as understanding why something tastes good!

i think the best measure of someones taste for books might be about how insightfully they can actually review them. any drooling idiot can find a reading list for them self that is 'patrician' taste, whats more impressive is someone who can appreciate the merits of books that aren't necessarily acclaimed

cont...

only reading the books of 'best taste' (and boasting about it) is like only ever eating cavier and truffle, while mocking everyone else for eating things youve never tried then boasting how much you know about food

Godard is patrician as fuck. Wretched cretins like you never present any good arguments as to why you hate him, probably either because you've never seen any of his films or made the effort to understand his work.

Where's Nabokov?

no u

He's dead.

he's on the list dumbass

>Godard is patrician as fuck.
kekerino

He gave Kurosawa shit for reverse cultural appropriation (for caring about the Western tradition, rather than just eschewing it 'cause muh imperialism), which annoyed me to no end. Fuck him.

>Godard is patrician as fuck
kek
>war is bad xD
>im breaking le fourth wall

>trying to prove something is really good by asking people to prove it isnt
i smell fraudulent taste

daily reminder that middlebrow is a virgina woolf meme that no only cannot be clearly defined and applied in any way shape or form but heavily suggests the person labeling things middlebrow is a brainlet.

>wahhh why can't his films have spoon fed themes and narratives that brainlets such as myself can enjoy
:(((

why not judge him on the quality of his films instead of on some stupid remark he probably made years ago?

>thinking that trying to prove that something's really bad by not explaining why and insulting people is better

Wild Palms is my favourite Faulkner, come at me

HAHAHAHAHA

>upper middlebrow

What does this even mean?

That's pretty good. Better than what I'd expect of a "filmmaker."

his photography is top shit. he was way more than a filmmaker.

>having the same opinion as someone else means the only reason you have that opinion is because they made it publicly known
Damn, I wish I intelligent enough to realize this for myself.

t. soyboys

Antonioni is patrician as fuck and all his movies are basically the visual embodiment of Civilization and its Discontents