Explore The Ways and Reasons in Which Contemporary Reception Discourse Toward Stanley Kubricks Films Differs From That Which Accompanied His Films Initial Release

The exploration below will seek to analyse the differences between present day reviews of Kubrick’s motion pictures when compared to their reception upon the films original release dates. This comparison will attempt to describe any and all differences within reviews in the most objective ways possible. Opinions of Kubrick’s films might have varied over the decades yet few critics and cinema – goers could deny the innovations he introduced into his motion pictures, and therefore the motion picture industry taken as a whole.

A man as diverse and talented as Stanley Kubrick was perhaps always likely to attract differing criticisms and reviews of the films that he had produced both at the time of their first release through to the ongoing contemporary reception discourse amongst academics and film critics. From the onset of his career in the film industry Kubrick was interested in making innovative pictures whilst hoping to attract large audiences in order to gain public attention as well as profits.1 Stanley Kubrick to a very large extent it could be asserted decided to make his films more innovative and also less conventional as he grew increasingly confident of his own film – making skills and less worried about the reactions of the major film studios. Perhaps if his box takings had been considerably lower and the studios were unlikely to make any profits. In many respects he was also astute enough to target his films to the audience group most likely to find them a must see movie. For example, Kubrick aimed his smash hit Sci – Fi adventure at younger children, it was called 2001: A Space Odyssey . Although this film could be enjoyed by all age groups as attested to by all the fan letters that he received from ordinary people ranging from young people through to the middle aged. They all essentially stated that the film had been fought provoking as well as entertaining.2 The box office receipts for this particular film were on an unprecedented scale for a Kubrick production despite some parents claiming that it was not entertaining enough for their children to actually enjoy it.3 Kubrick himself always remained proud of this film and claimed it was the first movie that could be considered a piece of art in its own right. Other cinema goers and some critics rated this motion picture very highly and also considered that it was a movie with real artistic merit. Its success led Kubrick to embark upon an ambitious follow up, A Clock Work Orange. It was a film that contained a high degree of violence by the standards of the early 1970s. Kubrick himself decided not to release it in Britain, ironically enough making it a cult movie in the eyes of people opposed to film censorship.4

His early feature films were meant to appeal to a more main stream cinema going audiences than his later offerings that tended to be aimed for a younger and less conventional part of the population. Yet despite these feature films been targeted at younger people the audiences still contained a wide age range within them judging by the fan letters that were posted to him. He got letters from teachers, and people with strong religious beliefs besides youths all expressing their admiration of his motion pictures.5 The development of film styles to suit younger cinema goers was at least the impression that the film critics presented at the time of their box office release yet also noticed by their counterparts involved with contemporary reception discourse. Kubrick was apparently more concerned about receiving favourable press reviews at the beginning of his career than he was towards the end of it. That could be related to the knowledge that his motion pictures were able to attract a loyal following and some fans wrote to him confirming that they saw each one of his films on several occasions.6 As a film maker Kubrick aimed to break new ground with the motion pictures that he made instead of sticking to more main stream scripts, presentation style, and production techniques, something perhaps recognised sooner by contemporary reception discourse. He also succeeded in making his films so appealing to people that they would watch them repeatedly at the cinemas in varying states of sobriety.7

It was not that Kubrick’s work went unappreciated when it was first released at the cinemas just that contemporary reception discourse has tended to regard his motion pictures from differing perspectives. When the majority of the films made by Kubrick were released initially for general viewing they often altered the ways in which ordinary cinema goers and the press critics alike understood and also reacted to motion pictures. They did not always understand the whole of his films yet often found his work to be compulsive viewing.8 The contemporaries of Kubrick after all could only judge or comment upon the quality and entertainment value of his films by comparing them to other feature movies, which were released either earlier or at the same point of time as his work. So for instance despite the historically based feature film Spartacus been one of his most conventional movies the cinema goers as well as the film critics upon its release still found it different from contemporary motion pictures of the same genre. Besides sharing many aspects or features with other historical blockbusters of that era Spartacus was a fine early example of the ways in which Kubrick happily attempted to set new standards of quality via the use of new methods of shooting Hollywood movies. It was able to be a success at the box office due to the fact that Kubrick had big Hollywood names including Kirk Douglas and Laurence Olivier in the leading roles. Without a shadow of doubt it was one of the best movie epic of its own time period and popular with cinema audiences besides the film reviewers in the press. That popularity and critical acclaim was gained despite Spartacus been a longer movie than the great majority of it contemporary rivals. In contemporary reception discourse it is a film that is still written highly of, even if critics might prefer some of Kubrick’s later film productions due to their higher levels of originality. Besides adding innovations in his later films Kubrick added extra amounts of violence especially in A Clock Work Orange.9

Generally modern film audiences are now if anything less likely to watch long feature films at the cinema itself, especially if interludes are actually needed. Having mentioned that there is a marked trend within much of the contemporary reception discourse to prefer the director’s cuts or extended versions of films instead of the originally shorter version used as the initial release at cinemas. Spartacus was the longest motion picture that Kubrick made. His other films were shorter perhaps because he wanted to make sure that he could maintain the interest of his audience all the way through to the end of each film.10 The amount of people that watch films sometimes decades after their original release has multiplied many times over. There have been widespread improvements in technology within the audio and visual entertainment industries, which means that films are more widely available than ever before. It was arguably the availability of mass produced videos and then later DVDS that have effectively allowed more people to view the entire back catalogue of Stanley Kubrick’s motion picture releases than was originally possible upon their initial release dates.11 The fact that there is now a considerably larger potential audience of viewers logically enough increases the chances of their opinions been different from those cinema goers and review critics that went to the cinema decades ago to watch the initial film release version.12

Those people involved with the contemporary reception discourse relating to the film productions of Stanley Kubrick have the benefit of having hindsight compared with to the review critics that commented upon the original versions that were released. Having hindsight permits the present day academics and review critics to place the impact as well as the influence of Kubrick’s motion pictures into a cultural and historical context (Kramer, 2009, p. 242). Besides putting these films into an apt context for the era that they made in it could also critics to them with more recent motion pictures. Film studies or media studies academics as well as film review critics within the framework of the contemporary reception discourse have a greater capacity to examine each and every one of the movies made by Kubrick in isolation, or by comparing them to each other. At the time of the initial film release it was arguably harder to place these films into their proper artistic, cultural and social contexts, which contemporary critics could have misunderstood. However although the original cinema goers and reviewers might not have understood the entire context of Kubrick’s films they did have the experience of seeing often highly innovative feature films for the very first time. Now present day movie reviewers and critics might have missed out on such experiences that had been enjoyed by the original cinema audiences yet they are able to study how Kubrick’s ideas have helped to reshape the modern film industry based in Hollywood.13 He made people take watching films at the cinema more seriously than before, yet still attracted very high audience figures even if some people did not understand his scripts. For example 2001: A Space Odyssey was the second most successful film in the United States during its first year of release in 1968. It made such a good impression that film goers in the late 1960s and present day critics are agreed about its cult status been well – earned.14

Another way in which the ongoing contemporary reception discourse differs from the reception of Kubrick’s films in the first place on their original release date was in relation to ideas about decency and also moral standards. When Stanley Kubrick began his film making career to a very large extent publicly at least moral standards and thus censorship levels were higher not to mention tighter than they in the present day.15 However Kubrick was able to make films that people from varying cultural, social, and religious backgrounds were able to enjoy, although not all of them remained sober In the 1940s and the 1950s when Kubrick was establishing his film making reputation the major Hollywood film studios were reluctant to allow explicit scenes of sexuality, and / or violence as well as bad language. Or to put in other words Kubrick had to take the strong possibility of his movies being censored taken into account than his more recent counterparts have to do now.16 These days cinema goers, movie review critics, and the various film censorship organisations have got accustomed to watching motion pictures that are more violent or sexually explicit than of the original release versions of any of Kubrick’s films. For instance if A Clock Work Orange had been made twenty years later there would have been very little chance that Kubrick would have felt compelled to stop the film’s initial screening in Britain for the British cinema censors would undoubtedly have banned it in any case. Indeed if Kubrick was still alive he would probably have made all his films differently today because of more relaxed concepts of moral standards and reduced levels of censorship.17

Thus it is notable that Kubrick was responsible for making a wide range of films from mainstream blockbusters through to avant garde or unconventional motion pictures. Kubrick’s decision to make less conventional feature films were not in the end detrimental to his film reviews, or indeed box office success. Since started his movie making career there have been widespread advances of technology within the audio and visual entertainment industries, which means that films are more widely available than ever before. Stanley Kubrick it could be argued opted to produce films that were more innovative as well as notably less conventional due to his increased confidence in his own film production skills. The use film styles to suit younger audiences was the impression that the film critics noted upon their box office release yet was also assessed by those academics and critics involved with present day reception discourse. Kubrick apparently was concerned with receiving favourable press reviews when his career started than he was later on. When the films made by Kubrick were released originally they often changed the ways in which ordinary cinema audiences as well as the review critics perceived and reacted to movies. After all his peers could only pass judgement upon the quality of Kubrick’s films by comparing them to the motion pictures that were released at the same time as his productions. Thus despite the historical feature Spartacus been one of Kubrick’s more orthodox productions cinema audiences alongside film critics upon still found it different from its rivals from within that genre category. Kubrick seemed to have a sound grasp of what different sections of the cinema audience wanted although sometimes the advertising for his films meant that the right people did not always see them. That was particularly the case for 2001: A Space Odyssey.

All the participants involved with the present day reception discourse linked with the motion picture productions of Kubrick have the benefit of having hindsight compared to the review critics that commented upon the original versions that were released. Although the contemporary cinema audiences plus the movie reviewers might not always have understood the context of those films they did experience seeing unconventional feature films. Besides the films made by Kubrick had plots that were possible to understand in different ways. More recently movie critics may have missed out on seeing the first release versions enjoyed by the cinema audiences but they can study the ways, in which Kubrick’s ideas have helped to influence and perhaps even reshape the modern film industry. When Kubrick was beginning his film making journey the main Hollywood film companies were unwilling to permit any explicit scenes of sexuality, and violence or indeed the use of bad language. Perhaps if he was still alive Kubrick might have made all his films differently today because of more relaxed concepts of moral standards as well as notably reduced levels of censorship.

Bibliography

Hobsbawm, E Age of Extremes the Short Twentieth Century 1914-1991, (1994) Penguin Books Ltd, Middlesex

Kramer, P – The New Hollywood – From Bonnie and Clyde to star Wars, (2005) Wallflower, London

Kramer, P – Dear Mr Kubrick, : Audience Responses to 2001: A Space Odyssey in the Late 1960s, Participations Journal of Audience and Reception Studies, Volume 6, Issue 2

Lobrutto V, Stanley Kubrick: A Biography, (1998), Faber & Faber, London

Steinburg, Cobbett, Film Facts (1980), New York

Ward G, (2003) the Rough Guide History of the USA, Rough Guides Ltd, London & New York

Woodruff W, A Concise History of the Modern World, (2005) Abacus, London

1 Kramer, 2005, p. 107

2 Kramer, 2009, p. 242

3 Kramer, 2005, p. 107

4 Steinburg, 1980, p. 172

5 Kramer, 2009, p. 244

6 Kramer, 2005, p. 107

7 Lobrutto, 1998, pp. 310 – 17

8 Kramer, 2009, p. 242

9 Lobrutto, 1998, pp. 310 – 17

10 Lobrutto, 1998, pp. 310 – 17

11 Ward, 2003, p. 342

12 Woodruff, 2005, p. 380

13 Lobrutto, 1998, pp. 310 – 17

14 Kramer, 2005, p. 107

15 Lobrutto, 1998, pp. 310 – 17

16 Kramer, 2005, p. 107

17 Kramer, 2009, p. 252