The Philosophy of Stanley Kubrick (Inglés) Pasta blanda – 13 febrero 2009
Precio de Amazon
|Nuevo desde||Usado desde|
Detalles del producto
- Pasta blanda : 278 páginas
- ISBN-10 : 081319220X
- ISBN-13 : 978-0813192208
- Dimensiones del producto : 15.24 x 1.91 x 22.86 cm
- Editorial : University Press of Kentucky (13 febrero 2009)
- Idioma: : Inglés
- Clasificación en los más vendidos de Amazon: nº237,637 en Libros (Ver el Top 100 en Libros)
- Opiniones de los clientes:
Descripción del producto
""Offers a provocative, well-written, intelligently argued, and by-and-large persuasive set of essays on Kubrick's films. This volume fills a currently empty niche in the literature on Kubrick and will likely remain of interest to scholarly and general readers for a couple of decades or more." --Michael Valdez Moses, author of The Novel of Globalization and Culture" --
"Every page of this book expresses admiration for America's most philosophical filmmaker, all the while providing insight into his creative vision." -- William Irwin, coeditor of More Matrix and Philosophy: Revolutions and Reloade
Biografía del autor
Opiniones de clientes
Mejores reseñas de otros países
2. The essays contain so many factual errors that you wonder how carefully the authors watched the movies. For example: The Doomsday Machine does not work by launching Russian missiles at the U.S. (It is a huge bomb encased in Cobalt-Thorium G.) The Soviet Ambassador does not "barely blink an eye" when he hears about the Doomsday Machine. (He cries out in dread.) Alex's attempted suicide is not what cures him of the Ludovico Technique. (Doctors restore Alex to "normal.") The astronauts in 2001 are not heroic adventurers. (Outer space has been domesticated by 2001. The astronauts who work there are banal organization men who can barely operate a zero-gravity toilet.) When viewers first see the monolith in 2001 they do not know that aliens are tinkering with human evolution. (The monolith is a total mystery at the begining of the movie.) And on and on. It's great for philosophers to think about movies, but they also need to pay attention to them.
3. With the exception of an excellent essay on Barry Lyndon ("The Shape of Man" by Chris Pliatska), the authors don't really use philosophy to illuminate Kubrick's movies or enhance our enjoyment of them. Instead, they use his movies as platforms to launch Philosophy 101-ish mini-essays on Absurdism, Nihilism, Existentialism, Hegel, Nietzsche, Plutarch, Ray Kurzweil, and so forth. The gap between the philosophy and the movies is pretty wide. In fact, a couple of essays barely even discuss the movies.
4. Unpardonably, this sentence appears on page 203: "In particular, I suggest that The Shining foregrounds an anti-nostalgia that contests the reverentially retrospective turn taken by some forms of postmodernism toward the artistic and cultural past, making Kubrick one of those contemporary artists who, to invoke Hal Foster's description, are involved with a 'counter-practice' that opposes not only 'the official culture of modernism' but also the 'false-normativity of a reactionary postmodernism' predicated on 'a return to the verities of tradition (in art, family, religion...')." The Shining is a scary movie about ghosts and madness. Hopefully the person who wrote the sentence on page 203 never got tenure.
5. Few, if any, of the authors realize that, alone among Kubrick's movies, Eyes Wide Shut is a pretentious, laughable mess. It cries out for ridicule, not for belabored psycho-analytic exegesis. The movie is so lip-smackingly smutty that you have to wonder whether Kubrick ended life as a dirty old man.
6. No one should buy this book. If, like me, you like Kubrick so much that you'll read almost anything about him...well, in that case, check this book out of a library. But don't buy it.