By Bernard Weinraub | New York Times 1/3/72
London - Stanley Kubrick grew up on the Grand Concourse and 196th
Street in the Bronx, attending Taft High School with some infrequency but
eagerly showing up at the Loew's Paradise and R.K.O. Fordham twice a week to
view the double features. One of the important things about seeing run-of-the-mill Hollywood films
eight times a week was that "many of them were so bad," the 43-year-old
filmmaker said. "Without even beginning to understand what the problems of
making films were, I was taken with the impression that I could not do a film
any worse than the ones I was seeing. I also felt I could, in fact, do them a
lot better."
Few critics and moviegoers would dispute this. As the creator of "Paths
of Glory," "Lolita," "Dr. Strangelove," "2001: A
Space Odyssey" and now "A
Clockwork Orange," Mr. Kubrick has
firmly placed himself in the highest rank of international film-makers. Last
week the New York Film Critics named "A Clockwork Orange" the best
movie of the year, and Mr. Kubrick was voted best director.
Mr. Kubrick now lives in a sprawling home in Borehamwood, 30 minutes out of
London, with his third wife, Christiane, an artist, and their three daughters,
together with several cats and three golden retrievers. The house, enclosed by a
brick wall, also contains the director's offices and editing facilities. "It's very pleasant, very peaceful, very civilized here," Mr.
Kubrick said in an interview. "London is, in the best sense, the way New
York must have been in about 1910. I have to live where I make my films and, as
it has worked out, I have spent most of my time during the last 10 years in
London."
Mr. Kubrick discusses his work and his career with some difficulty. He
speaks gently and unaffectedly, with a New York accent, but remains tense and
somewhat distracted. At a restaurant near his home, he sat down wearing a heavy windbreaker,
polished off his lunch in 15 minutes, then absently removed the coat. He relaxed
slowly and discussed "A Clockwork Orange," which was taken from the
chilling novel by Anthony Burgess. "The book was given to me by Terry Southern during one of the very busy
periods of the making or "2001," he recalled. "I just put it to
one side and forgot about it for a year and a half. Then one day I picked it up
and read it. The book had an immediate impact. I was excited by everything about it. The plot, the ideas, the
characters and, of course, the language. Added to which, the story was of
manageable size in terms of adapting it for films."
The film itself is a merciless vision of the near-future. Roving: gangs rape,
kill, maim and steal, citizens live in vandalized pop art culture, gaudy, icy
and filthy. Politicians and the police are vicious. The film's central
character, Alex, is transformed by scientists from an
underworld tough to a defenseless model citizen only to be resurrected, at the
end, to his savage original state by the "good" forces. The story functions, of course, on several levels, political, sociological,
philosophical and, what's most important, on a kind of dream-like
psychological-symbolic level," Mr. Kubrick said.
"Alex is a character who by every logical and rational consideration
should be completely unsympathetic, and possibly even abhorrent to the audience.
And yet in the same way that Richard III
gradually undermines your disapproval of his evil ways, Alex does the same thing
and draws the audience into his own vision of life. This is the phenomenon of
the story that produced the most enjoyable and surprising artistic illumination
in the minds of an audience. I think an audience watching a film or a play is in a state very
similar to dreaming, and that the dramatic experience becomes a kind of
controlled dream. But the important point here is that the
film communicates on a subconscious level, and the audience responds to the
basic shape of the story on a subconscious level, as it responds to a dream. On this level, Alex symbolizes man in his natural state, the way he would
be if society did not impose its 'civilizing' processes upon him. What we respond to subconsciously is Alex's guiltless sense of freedom
to kill and rape, and to be our savage natural selves, and it is in this glimpse
of the true nature of man that the power of the story derives."
As an artist, Mr. Kubrick has a point of view that is undeniably bleak.
"One of the most dangerous fallacies which has influenced a great deal of
political and philosophical thinking is that man is essentially good, and that
it is society which makes him bad. Rousseau transferred
original sin from man to society, and this view has importantly contributed to
what I believe has become a crucially incorrect premise on which to base moral
and political philosophy."
A film craftsman who associates say is obsessed by his work, Mr. Kubrick
rarely goes to parties or takes vacations. (His last one was in 1961 when he
completed "Lolita.") Characteristically, he is now spending days and
nights checking prints of "A Clockwork Orange," and expects to view
about 50 in the next few months as the film is released around the world.
"The laboratory is quite capable of making dreadful mistakes," said the
director, who was a Look magazine photographer at 17. "Just the other night
I saw "Paths of Glory" on television, and the lab had printed several
reels a word out of synchronization. Printing machines can make the print too
dark, too light or the wrong colors. There are many variables involved."
Discussing his role as a director, Mr. Kubrick said: "In terms
of
working with actors, a director's job more closely resembles that of a novelist
than of a Svengali. One assumes that one hires actors who are great virtuosos.
It is too late to start running an acting class in front of the cameras, and
essentially what the director must do is to provide the right ideas for the
scene, the right adverb, the right adjective. The director must always be the arbiter
of esthetic taste. The questions always arise: Is it believable, is it interesting, is
it appropriate? Only the director can decide this."
Mr. Kubrick said that film criticism, good or had, rarely affected him.
"No reviewer has ever illuminated any aspect of my work for me," he
observed. The director said that his next film will deal with Napoleon, but that
someday he hopes to do a film in New York. "I would like to capture some of
the visual impressions I have of the Bronx and Manhattan. I
love the city - at least I love the city that it used to be."
© New York Times
Archived 2008 Alex D. Thrawn for www.MalcolmMcDowell.net