What do you think?
Rate this book
Eyes Wide Open
Hurriedly published to coincide with the July 1999 release of Stanley Kubrick's final film, Eyes Wide Shut, this slim, rather obviously titled volume by the film's distinguished screenwriter offers considerably less than its cover copy leads you to expect. But for avid followers of Kubrick's career, even a cursory glimpse of the late director's lifestyle and creative methods will prove to be fascinating. And while Frederic Raphael instantly drew criticism and controversy from Kubrick's family and friends for describing Kubrick as "the sedentary wandering Jew, rootlessly rooted within his own defenses," this and other remarks must be considered in context. Eyes Wide Open must ultimately be seen to reflect Raphael's conflicting emotions about a filmmaker he clearly admires and respects, even if their collaboration resulted in equal parts elation, exasperation, and hard-won rewards.
Using notebook entries, vivid recollection, and re-created scenes in screenplay format, Raphael paints a portrait as revealing of himself (if not more so) than of Kubrick, and neither man comes across without blemish. Simultaneously self-indulgent, frustrating, and fascinating in its attempt to probe Kubrick's closely guarded psyche (a mission Raphael ultimately fails to accomplish), the book finally reveals--in fragments of sensitive insight--that Kubrick's reputation as a reclusive genius did in fact hide a very complex, intensely intelligent, and surprisingly human being. In one passage Raphael observes that "Stanley was so determined to be aloof and unfeeling that my heart went out to him. Somewhere along the line he was still the kid in the playground who had been no one's first choice to play with." Whether such observations are an accurate representation of Kubrick's personality is beside the point; that Raphael made the observation speaks volumes of both men, and this book is filled with similar revelations.
In addition to offering a privileged look at Kubrick's collaborative process, the book also reveals elusive details about Kubrick the man--pet lover, intellectual challenger, gracious host--and the result is a warmer image of him than that afforded by decades of distant speculation by journalists too willing to perpetuate the "myth" of Kubrick as omnipotent genius. If Raphael's book invites criticism and charges of blatant opportunism (with Kubrick unable to defend himself), it also provides a rare and often fascinating look at an artist who constantly eluded the gaze of outsiders. Raphael takes us inside Kubrick's gated domain, and we're grateful for the visit. If the truth resides somewhere between the protest of Kubrick's family and the insights presented here, we can at least use this book as a guide through previously uncharted territory. --Jeff Shannon
Paperback
First published January 1, 1999
33 people are currently reading
484 people want to read
About the author
Daryl Sharp
46 books35 followersDaryl Leonard Merle Sharp is a Jungian analyst and publisher. He lives in Toronto, Canada and has two sons and two daughters.
He earned two Bachelor degrees, one in mathematics and physics and the other in journalism, at Carleton University in Canada, and a Masters degree in literature and philosophy from the University of Sussex in England. Sharp entered training at the C.G. Jung Institute in Zürich in 1974, along with other members of the so-called "Canadian mafia," which included Fraser Boa, Marion Woodman and John Dourley.
Upon graduating in 1978, Sharp returned to Canada to begin an analytic practice and tour North America on the Jungian lecture circuit. Together with Marion Woodman and Fraser Boa, Sharp co-founded the Ontario Association of Jungian Analysts in Toronto in 1982 (followed by a training program for analysts in 2000).
In 1980, Sharp also began his major labour of love: Inner City Books, still the world's only publishing house dealing exclusively with the work of Jungian analysts. Sharp's first publication was his diploma thesis, The Secret Raven: Conflict and Transformation in the Life of Franz Kafka. Many others followed, including multiple publications by analysts such as Marion Woodman, Edward F. Edinger, James Hollis and J. Gary Sparks, and especially Marie-Louise von Franz, who graciously agreed to act as honorary patron of Inner City Books.
Sharp himself is the author of more than 30 titles, mainly designed to introduce and explain Jungian concepts to lay audiences. Personality Types and Digesting Jung are available as free eBooks on Inner City Books' website.}
He earned two Bachelor degrees, one in mathematics and physics and the other in journalism, at Carleton University in Canada, and a Masters degree in literature and philosophy from the University of Sussex in England. Sharp entered training at the C.G. Jung Institute in Zürich in 1974, along with other members of the so-called "Canadian mafia," which included Fraser Boa, Marion Woodman and John Dourley.
Upon graduating in 1978, Sharp returned to Canada to begin an analytic practice and tour North America on the Jungian lecture circuit. Together with Marion Woodman and Fraser Boa, Sharp co-founded the Ontario Association of Jungian Analysts in Toronto in 1982 (followed by a training program for analysts in 2000).
In 1980, Sharp also began his major labour of love: Inner City Books, still the world's only publishing house dealing exclusively with the work of Jungian analysts. Sharp's first publication was his diploma thesis, The Secret Raven: Conflict and Transformation in the Life of Franz Kafka. Many others followed, including multiple publications by analysts such as Marion Woodman, Edward F. Edinger, James Hollis and J. Gary Sparks, and especially Marie-Louise von Franz, who graciously agreed to act as honorary patron of Inner City Books.
Sharp himself is the author of more than 30 titles, mainly designed to introduce and explain Jungian concepts to lay audiences. Personality Types and Digesting Jung are available as free eBooks on Inner City Books' website.}
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 66 reviews
May 11, 2020
Fan Service Supreme! Finally, my own fanboy flames are extinguished, & it feels oh-so good.
This little slice of cinematic anecdote-slash-memoir is a must for all cinephiles. For Kubrick is like the Picasso of the medium: you love him or hate him but you must admit he's genius. & Raphael excels at making this into something eyeopening and unique. A unique account of the celluloid demigod which only someone "under the dragon's wing" could afford to tell us!
This little slice of cinematic anecdote-slash-memoir is a must for all cinephiles. For Kubrick is like the Picasso of the medium: you love him or hate him but you must admit he's genius. & Raphael excels at making this into something eyeopening and unique. A unique account of the celluloid demigod which only someone "under the dragon's wing" could afford to tell us!
August 20, 2007
Worth reading for some inside info on Kubrick and to find out what a pretentious ass Raphael is. At one point he's so overcome with emotion that he has to express himself in French (even though English is his first language). What a tool.
June 17, 2012
a bloated corpse floating down a river of self-congratulatory anecdotes, Fredric Raphael is a man who i imagine chuckles politely aloud at his own internalized jokes. he will probably live forever because he refuses to die by any means other than certain occurrences which will end his life with a bittersweet tinge of cultivated poetic irony, becoming of an AUTHOR AND SCHOLAR of his caliber. this is less a memoir of Stanley Kubrick and more a reference page from the world's most pretentious resume. all of the dialogue between FR and SK is transcribed through the use of interview formatting, though it feels like the half-remembered daydreams of a man with a severe case of L'esprit de l'escalier (though Fred is fluent in French and every other language that has touched the tips of tongues [alliteration] throughout history, i had to use google to find out how to spell this phrase). Stanley Kubrick comes off as a simple-minded man with the audacity to trim the beautiful plastic rosebush with liquid latex dew-drops that is Freddie's creative output, as a man who hesitates to flaunt his genius at every corner and thus calls his legitimacy into question. there is practically no insight into kubrick's cinematic process, life's tribulations, opinions, personality, or reception to his pedestaled status as a lauded filmmaker. it seems as though FR's interactions with SK were relatively distant and rarely strayed from professionalism, though the back cover cites 'hours of conversation about a variety of topics', that 'Stanley Kubrick opened himself to Frederic through their close personal friendship' or something. the advertised 'bonding' of these two men exists solely through brief, remembered dialogues and insufferable entries from Raphael's diary during the time period of their collaboration. I learned alot about Kubrick's mythical perfectionism through lazily written accounts of a disappointing latin paper that Fredric Raphael wrote in college, and was thoroughly entertained by a million heavy handed greek mythology metaphors. "Sarcasm, one of my many talents ;]" - Fred Raph
an exploitative grasp at the chalice of vicarious creative worth, i give this memoir a 'fuck you'/10.
an exploitative grasp at the chalice of vicarious creative worth, i give this memoir a 'fuck you'/10.
December 8, 2017
The most fascinating thing about Eyes Wide Open is the enormous divide between the book Raphael thinks he's writing and the one he actually wrote. He thinks he's delivering a loving but hard-hitting expose of Stanley Kubrick where he reveals him as a maniacal genius whose own success is hampered by his inability to truly let others into the creative process. In reality, he's written an expose of himself as a talented but incredibly pretentious writer who chafes under the experience of being made a cog in the Kubrick machine.
I imagine a psychologist could have a field day with Raphael's feelings toward Kubrick. He goes from ranting about him to showing a sycophantic obsession with pleasing him - often within the same page. He'll praise his genius and then try to set himself up as a creative superior. It's really bizarre but also fascinating watching him unravel on the page.
Here's the thing about working with Kubrick: there's no doubt he could make life hell for those in his employ. I don't blame anyone for disliking that or for not wanting to be a part of it. However, if you study Kubrick enough you understand that it's not maniacal sadism but a very intricate creative process. Raphael simply doesn't get that or if he does his ego leads him to reject being a part of that process.
The end result is a really fascinating read though for reasons almost entirely different than what Raphael intended
I imagine a psychologist could have a field day with Raphael's feelings toward Kubrick. He goes from ranting about him to showing a sycophantic obsession with pleasing him - often within the same page. He'll praise his genius and then try to set himself up as a creative superior. It's really bizarre but also fascinating watching him unravel on the page.
Here's the thing about working with Kubrick: there's no doubt he could make life hell for those in his employ. I don't blame anyone for disliking that or for not wanting to be a part of it. However, if you study Kubrick enough you understand that it's not maniacal sadism but a very intricate creative process. Raphael simply doesn't get that or if he does his ego leads him to reject being a part of that process.
The end result is a really fascinating read though for reasons almost entirely different than what Raphael intended
March 7, 2025
A Fascinating Portrait of a Relationship
Having recently finished Raphael's book, I was surprised to discover the apparent backlash, prompted by the family and associates of Kubrick, on the book's publication. Kubrick's widow both accused Raphael of betraying her late husband's privacy, as well as painting an image of him that was false.
I don't mean to sound unfeeling toward those who were close to Kubrick, but there seems to be a bit of contradiction in their complaints (too revealing while being false in its portrayal?).
And another faint whiff of contradiction comes from the fact that another collaborator, Michael Herr, received no criticism for sharing recollections of private conversations and moments in a series of articles for Vanity Fair (later collected into a book). One wonders if it's because Herr's was far more flattering of its subject.
Either way, I think those close to the real man were blinded by proximity. They saw Raphael's observations as cold-hearted and overly critical, frustrated that he could criticise someone they felt he didn't know.
The truth is, and I hope those close to Kubrick take some solace in this, that Raphael's book is not about Kubrick the husband, the father, the friend. It's not even really about Kubrick the collaborator (although it's much closer to being this), it's actually about the RELATIONSHIP Raphael had with Kubrick.
Raphael never professes impartiality or objectivity, only the accuracy of his feelings and thoughts. He shares HIS views, HIS perceptions, HIS experiences, and, yes, he comes across as cantankerous, difficult, and cynical about Hollywood (all possibly with good reason), and even seems to acknowledge this about himself.
As someone not close to Kubrick, and so not sensitive to unflattering portrayals of a person I miss, I read this book very differently to his bereaved family and friends (and fans). Raphael is not an omnipotent or unquestionable narrator, and nor does he present himself as such. His personality bears down into the narrative, and (from a reader's perspective) is open to as much scrutiny as his subject.
It's ironic, but despite the book's reputation I found Kubrick to be ultimately humble, patient, honest and understanding. Raphael's worst fears about working with him are never realised, and Kubrick stays true to his word throughout. When Raphael at one point nearly sinks the entire project by one act of accidental impropriety, Kubrick is quick to forgive and move on. Kubrick is never a beast, he's never dishonest, and is always forthright. He may be kooky at times, but there is plenty to admire about him in Raphael's account.
In fact, I found the Kubrick in Raphael's book to be largely the same one revealed in Michael Herr's book (which, despite the passages nearing hagiography, can also be unflattering at times, calling Kubrick cheap, obsessive and demanding) and perhaps across both books we see a clearer picture of the real man: Demanding, but not with malice. Humble, but also difficult. Distant, but also soft-natured. Confident, but also searching.
We will never know the father, the husband, but across both Raphael's and Herr's lenses, we do get a glimpse of the colleague.
Also, unlike Herr's book, which is frequently embarrassing and sophomoric when it tries to offer insight into Kubrick's work, Raphael has moments of genuine and deep revelation. In fact, I could recommend his book for those rare moments alone. I've never read a better distillation of what made a Kubrick film.
So I'm sorry, friends and family of Kubrick (and by automatic extension, overprotective fans), I don't think this book does anything to damage the lasting image of the man. If anything it makes me wish I knew him better, and actually made me appreciate his work more.
I highly recommend this candid book. The author lays himself bare, and through his honesty, we get a glimpse of a very interesting, unique, and talented man that was taken from the world too soon.
Having recently finished Raphael's book, I was surprised to discover the apparent backlash, prompted by the family and associates of Kubrick, on the book's publication. Kubrick's widow both accused Raphael of betraying her late husband's privacy, as well as painting an image of him that was false.
I don't mean to sound unfeeling toward those who were close to Kubrick, but there seems to be a bit of contradiction in their complaints (too revealing while being false in its portrayal?).
And another faint whiff of contradiction comes from the fact that another collaborator, Michael Herr, received no criticism for sharing recollections of private conversations and moments in a series of articles for Vanity Fair (later collected into a book). One wonders if it's because Herr's was far more flattering of its subject.
Either way, I think those close to the real man were blinded by proximity. They saw Raphael's observations as cold-hearted and overly critical, frustrated that he could criticise someone they felt he didn't know.
The truth is, and I hope those close to Kubrick take some solace in this, that Raphael's book is not about Kubrick the husband, the father, the friend. It's not even really about Kubrick the collaborator (although it's much closer to being this), it's actually about the RELATIONSHIP Raphael had with Kubrick.
Raphael never professes impartiality or objectivity, only the accuracy of his feelings and thoughts. He shares HIS views, HIS perceptions, HIS experiences, and, yes, he comes across as cantankerous, difficult, and cynical about Hollywood (all possibly with good reason), and even seems to acknowledge this about himself.
As someone not close to Kubrick, and so not sensitive to unflattering portrayals of a person I miss, I read this book very differently to his bereaved family and friends (and fans). Raphael is not an omnipotent or unquestionable narrator, and nor does he present himself as such. His personality bears down into the narrative, and (from a reader's perspective) is open to as much scrutiny as his subject.
It's ironic, but despite the book's reputation I found Kubrick to be ultimately humble, patient, honest and understanding. Raphael's worst fears about working with him are never realised, and Kubrick stays true to his word throughout. When Raphael at one point nearly sinks the entire project by one act of accidental impropriety, Kubrick is quick to forgive and move on. Kubrick is never a beast, he's never dishonest, and is always forthright. He may be kooky at times, but there is plenty to admire about him in Raphael's account.
In fact, I found the Kubrick in Raphael's book to be largely the same one revealed in Michael Herr's book (which, despite the passages nearing hagiography, can also be unflattering at times, calling Kubrick cheap, obsessive and demanding) and perhaps across both books we see a clearer picture of the real man: Demanding, but not with malice. Humble, but also difficult. Distant, but also soft-natured. Confident, but also searching.
We will never know the father, the husband, but across both Raphael's and Herr's lenses, we do get a glimpse of the colleague.
Also, unlike Herr's book, which is frequently embarrassing and sophomoric when it tries to offer insight into Kubrick's work, Raphael has moments of genuine and deep revelation. In fact, I could recommend his book for those rare moments alone. I've never read a better distillation of what made a Kubrick film.
So I'm sorry, friends and family of Kubrick (and by automatic extension, overprotective fans), I don't think this book does anything to damage the lasting image of the man. If anything it makes me wish I knew him better, and actually made me appreciate his work more.
I highly recommend this candid book. The author lays himself bare, and through his honesty, we get a glimpse of a very interesting, unique, and talented man that was taken from the world too soon.
September 8, 2023
Kubrick is definitely a cruel control freak and yet somehow Frederic Raphael comes off way worse in his own book. Every page is saturated with “I’m way smarter than Kubrick. His creative contributions pale in comparison to my genius. I’m so cool and funny.”
The top reviews on Goodreads pinpoint this well. Interesting anecdotes in this book unfortunately tainted by Raphael’s massive ego. I liked reading it but I would’ve liked it more if literally any other Kubrick collaborator would have written it.
I did appreciate this: “To find Barry Lyndon boring is to admit to having no eye.”
The top reviews on Goodreads pinpoint this well. Interesting anecdotes in this book unfortunately tainted by Raphael’s massive ego. I liked reading it but I would’ve liked it more if literally any other Kubrick collaborator would have written it.
I did appreciate this: “To find Barry Lyndon boring is to admit to having no eye.”
June 29, 2018
Eyes Wide Shut was a big movie for me before I really even knew who Kubrick was. It mattered at a time when I didn't even know about directors. I became obsessed with it as a coded piece of Illuminati cinema, and at the time (long long ago) I wanted to learn everything I could about it. Somehow I never came across this book back then, but if I had I imagine I would have chucked it in the wastebin within the first 50 or so pages, cuz there aint shit in it about the fooken film!
Reading it now, I was more focused on what it would say about Kubrick. "A Memoir of Stanley Kubrick" it claims to be. It is not. It is a 190-page hatchet job by one of the most jealous assholes to ever pick up a pen. Freddy Rafael (unknown if there is any relation to Sally Jesse) is so put off by Kubrick's unwillingness to constantly congratulate him on his misconstruction of points, dumb stories, and flat-out insults, that the dude, as one reviewer here put it, "literally comes apart on the page." The author goes to Kubrick's house and is only offered sandwiches instead of a buffet. Rafi literally complains about this. He belittles Kubrick every chance he gets, which seems, um, a bit...inaccurate? The few details he gives about how he would have done EWS make it very obvious that Rafi's version would have absolutely sucked, whereas Kubrick's is a classic. Funny, too, that Rafi boy is a goddamn Oscar winner! Guess even the successful aren't happy...
In a secondhand way, we do learn something about Kubrick, however. He never engaged with collaborators, much to their frustration. Instead I think he was constantly testing waters. He'd throw an idea and see what the collaborator would do with it, and keep throwing until it struck whatever it was he was looking for. I also think he stripped things down in order to pull their essence out, the way a photographer might order that her subject keep a straight face, or no face at all. Apparently this really bothered people, especially writers, that he worked with. I just feel like they didn't get it. Maybe I don't either, but one thing is certain: Kubrick is awesome, and Freddy boy Rafael fuckin' sucks.
Reading it now, I was more focused on what it would say about Kubrick. "A Memoir of Stanley Kubrick" it claims to be. It is not. It is a 190-page hatchet job by one of the most jealous assholes to ever pick up a pen. Freddy Rafael (unknown if there is any relation to Sally Jesse) is so put off by Kubrick's unwillingness to constantly congratulate him on his misconstruction of points, dumb stories, and flat-out insults, that the dude, as one reviewer here put it, "literally comes apart on the page." The author goes to Kubrick's house and is only offered sandwiches instead of a buffet. Rafi literally complains about this. He belittles Kubrick every chance he gets, which seems, um, a bit...inaccurate? The few details he gives about how he would have done EWS make it very obvious that Rafi's version would have absolutely sucked, whereas Kubrick's is a classic. Funny, too, that Rafi boy is a goddamn Oscar winner! Guess even the successful aren't happy...
In a secondhand way, we do learn something about Kubrick, however. He never engaged with collaborators, much to their frustration. Instead I think he was constantly testing waters. He'd throw an idea and see what the collaborator would do with it, and keep throwing until it struck whatever it was he was looking for. I also think he stripped things down in order to pull their essence out, the way a photographer might order that her subject keep a straight face, or no face at all. Apparently this really bothered people, especially writers, that he worked with. I just feel like they didn't get it. Maybe I don't either, but one thing is certain: Kubrick is awesome, and Freddy boy Rafael fuckin' sucks.
August 14, 2020
Un libro hecho por un escritor tan pancho que usa a Kubrick como una excusa para hablar de sí mismo. Algunos pasajes -aquellos en los que verdaderamente retrata a Kubrick- son tan interesantes que salvan al libro de ser una cagada. La edición de Mondadori es hermosa.
September 21, 2009
fredric raphael is a self aggrandizing windbag.
September 4, 2020
Este es un gran libro para los amantes del cine, y estás escrito con un estilo muy agradable. Lástima el tufo a vanidad y fanfarronería que desprende por parte de su autor.
December 1, 2025
Really interesting take on a memoir, especially appreciated the screenplay-esque formatting when it was applicable. Would have liked more behind-the-scenes production info but it’s more likely FR didn’t have access and that it wasn’t the point of this exercise. Will be returning every few years before my annual Eyes Wide Shut rewatches
August 14, 2025
Disappointed. Not worth reading. Mostly PR for the author and not a lot about their collaboration which you couldnt find on youtube.
June 26, 2025
It's odd to me that most people who read this book thought that Frederic Raphael was vindictively attacking Stanley Kubrick. This conclusion could not be farther from the truth. It's clear from the book that there is a deep respect between F.R. and S.K. Perhaps this was communicated in a manner most people aren't accustomed to. Perhaps people are accustomed expecting only heaping praise whenever artists talk about each. Praise does not mean respect. Critiques do not mean a lack of respect.
July 6, 2020
Un libro que explica el rol de un escritor trabajando con un director de cine, a veces los comentarios de Raphael se me hicieron muy infantiles y llenos de celos ante el producto final, sea como sea es un gran libro que muestra el comportamiento ajedrecista de Kubrick.
Para quien haya visto "Eyes Wide Shut" y le interese el proceso creativo de la reescritura este libro es una buena referencia anecdótica.
Para quien haya visto "Eyes Wide Shut" y le interese el proceso creativo de la reescritura este libro es una buena referencia anecdótica.
December 20, 2012
3,5/5.
Le livre aurait plutôt dû s'intituler : Deux ans à travailler sur le scénario d'Eyes Wide Shut. Hormis ce détail, il se lit tout seul et est plutôt intéressant si on veut en savoir plus sur le travail d'adaptation.
Le livre aurait plutôt dû s'intituler : Deux ans à travailler sur le scénario d'Eyes Wide Shut. Hormis ce détail, il se lit tout seul et est plutôt intéressant si on veut en savoir plus sur le travail d'adaptation.
October 18, 2019
La verdad, me esperaba un retrato más profundo de la relación creativa entre estos dos hombres. Supongo que, tomando en cuenta la presunta naturaleza antisocial de Kubrick, no podía haber un mejor resultado.
February 9, 2012
Smart and funny, this is one of the best books I've read on the movies and the fascinating genius of Stanley Kubrick.
Read
January 26, 2025author clearly a narcissist but super super interesting nevertheless
March 3, 2019
Solo apto para los fans más devotos de Kubrick.
March 24, 2023
Very interesting account of the genesis of the script of Eyes Wide Shut. Some scenes from the movie were shot at Chelsea and Westminster Hospital in 1997 when I was CEO there.
September 8, 2024
I think I'm more interested in the Kubrick myth than in watching every one of his films. I'm not a salivating fan of Kubrick, though I do really like Dr Strangelove, 2001, and The Shining.
I'd read this author's catty and relentlessly cruel article in The New Yorker describing the torturous and thankless process of turning Arthur Schnitzel's DREAM STORY into a worthy screenplay for Kubrick's final film.
I thought that Raphael's diss of Kubrick, in which he calls the director a snail, was pretty funny (if shockingly bitchy) simply given the fact that post-Clockwork Kubrick really did resemble a snail. Anyway, the line in question is one where Raphael manages to insult both Kubrick's home and his physical bearing. During their first meeting at Kubrick's house, Raphael is pissed off that Kubrick is not sufficiently deferential to him and gets this shot off:
"It seemed nothing like a home whatever. It was a vast shell for the shrewd snail who found protection in it."
Ouch.
Raphael seems entirely unaware of the fact that Kubrick deliberately chose novels that were "good, but not great" to adapt to screen because Kubrick's hope was that, in the adaptation, he could turn the work into something great.
Look at Kubrick's source material. The only truly "great" novel he ever adapted in Lolita. I don't think the Arthur C Clarke stuff was amazing on its own, nor do I think that BARRY LYNDON, ESQ is anything other than a baggy nineteenth century novel. I'm not crazy about A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, though I admit that my adolescent confusion sprang from not knowing what the hell the characters were saying. It didn't seem to be English (I later found out it was supposed to be some kind of futuristic gang-speak called Nadsat, a slang one needs a working knowledge of Russian to be able to make any sense of). Can you really blame a 14-year old kid for tossing A CLOCKWORK ORANGE back on the shelf and picking up 1984 or THE CATCHER IN THE RYE instead? Novels whose dialog and morals are discernible?
FULL METAL JACKET is an adaptation of Gustav Hasford's 1979 autobiographical Vietnam novel THE SHORT-TIMERS. But, get this, Kubrick hired both Hasford himself to adapt his own novel for screen, and Michael Herr, author of yet another autobiographical Vietnam work (this time a memoir of combat) called DISPATCHES (1977). Why Kubrick hired the author of DISPATCHES to adapt THE SHORT-TIMERS when he already had the author of the latter comes down to temperament. As a 2000 article in THE GUARDIAN titled "It ain't over till it's over" details, Kubrick had Hasford over for dinner at his English estate. Herr had advised against it, warning Kubrick that Hasford was the prototypical insane Vietnam vet and that the two wouldn't get along. Here's an excerpt:
"Hasford was, by Herr's own description, 'a scary man, a big, haunted marine', whom Kubrick was determined to meet. 'I advised him against it,' recalls Herr. 'I told Stanley I didn't think they'd get on.' Kubrick insisted, Hasford duly came over to Britain and there was a dinner during which Kubrick passed Herr a note saying: 'I can't deal with this man.' From then on, Hasford was dismissed from the maestro's presence."
This is funny. Kubrick is determined to meet the guy and then, ten minutes after meeting him, scrawls a note like he's in a high school English class, admitting he can't stand the guy and wants him out of his house ASAP. There is nothing like this in EYES WIDE OPEN. There is nothing of Kubrick's playfulness. Instead, we get Kubrick the paranoid tyrant, Kubrick the self-hating Jew.
For THE SHINING (my fav Kubrick movie, if only for the cottage industry of conspiracy theories it has let loose on the world...see ROOM 237 and the roughly 20 000 YouTube videos uploaded by people who claim to have seen hidden meanings in THE SHINING...some of them are right...some of them are insane...ALL of them are fascinating), Kubrick chose a Stephen King novel which had already been a hit. For the adaptation, Kubrick hired the American novelist Diane Johnson. Johnson is a fine writer but the choice seems entirely random. I think Raphael was worried about this. He may have been an Oscar winner, but he was at Kubrick's mercy for the duration of the job. Don't like it? Don't sign on to be a hired hand!
As Herr himself complained after roughly three years worth of interminable phone calls with Kubrick, "DOESN'T THIS GUY GET TIRED?"
More to Herr's credit than Raphael's, adapting a novel for Kubrick to direct DOES sound like a thankless task. Kubrick doesn't want any of the original story's emotion, direction, or even characterization. It's worth noting that Kubrick first asked Herr, not Raphael, to adapt DREAM STORY for what would become EYES WIDE SHUT, but Herr said no. He'd been barely compensated for his work on FULL METAL JACKET as it was. His April 2000 article in VANITY FAIR, simply titled "Kubrick" attests:
"Stanley was a good friend, and wonderful to work with, but he was a terrible man to do business with, terrible. His cheapness was proverbial..."
Raphael doesn't seem to have been hired cheaply but he DOES note early on that "Kubrick does not negotiate" and that there seemed to be no end to the work he was asked to do. He supplies a first draft. Kubrick likes 40% of it. He supplies a second draft. Kubrick likes 30% of it. And on and on it goes. It seems to me that Herr refused EYES WIDE SHUT because he couldn't get roped into a 5-year commitment where he was obliged, every day, to listen as Kubrick yammered on the telephone about topics as disparate as Napoleon, the Holocaust, New York City, NFL, and Woody Allen. Raphael is pissed off for more professional reasons, it seems.
He realizes, to his horror, roughly two years into the job, that Kubrick does not want writing of any kind. No emotion. No character (Bill Harford, played by Tom Cruise, has that last name because Kubrick originally envisioned Harrison Ford playing him. HARisson FORD. Harford. That's literally what it came down to. Not literary. Not fun. Entirely utilitarian). No screen directions. Raphael's main frustration is that Kubrick either does not KNOW what he wants or will not say. Kubrick is secretive and evasive to the point of paranoia. He won't tell Raphael who the author of DREAM STORY is until, during their first face-to-face meeting at Kubrick's estate, he accidentally reveals the name. Raphael is shocked that Kubrick seems so vexed. What would Kubrick have to gain by omitting the name of the author whose work they are adapting? I can think a few reasons. Raphael assumes Kubrick's reason is control. Maybe he's right, but this book is so unrelentingly negative and cruel towards Kubrick, full of all kinds of bitchy, journalistic asides such as "I guess Stanley thinks we are buddies now..."
Raphael's portrait of Kubrick as a self-hating Jew was by far the most controversial thing about the original New Yorker article, and prompted responses from people like Kubrick's widow, Spielberg, Jan Harlan, and others.
Raphael's portrait of Kubrick's paranoia is unfair, and the author admits it, once he realizes just how much interest EYES WIDE SHUT has in the industry. I admit I laughed at the part where Raphael offers a movie title to Kubrick (The Female Body) and Kubrick doesn't say a word, instead offering "Eyes Wide Shut." This time it's Raphael who doesn't speak and his catty silence is funny because, honestly, EYES WIDE SHUT is a shitty title.
Herr was wary of Kubrick because he could not commit a half-decade of his life to a project with no seeming end date or, even, end goal. Raphael complains of the same thing, noting that Kubrick's patience was both welcome but also "implacable...I could see no end to it." Herr also could not afford to work with Kubrick again given just how poorly Kubrick paid him the first time (Kubrick famously complained for years that Jack made more money on THE SHINING than he did...Herr doubts this is even true but, even if it is, Nicholson was the star! In 1980, Kubrick's last film was the boring BARRY LYNDON. His stock was not exactly trustworthy. He needed a movie star and in Jack Nicholson he got it. For EYES WIDE SHUT, he wanted a married film star couple. Aside from Cruise and Kidman, his only other option was Basinger and Baldwin, or perhaps Bacon and Sedgwick. Why get annoyed that a film star makes more $ than a reclusive director who barely gives interviews and never personally promote his films, leaving that to the movie stars?
Kubrick had Cruise do SO MANY takes, over and over, than even Kubrick fans admit the director probably was not using the actor's best work. Cruise felt like just a single colour in the director's vast palette. Raphael felt the same.
But SO MUCH of Raphael's memoir takes the form of elitism (he constantly reminds the reader that he went to college in the United States and received a classical education whereas Kubrick never went to college). He also thinks Kubrick is a self-hating Jew. He also thinks Kubrick plays games. He also doesn't think Kubrick was nice enough to him.
My biggest beef with this memoir is the voice it is written in. I don't know what the hell Raphael is supposed to be. He does NOT sound like an American author. I guess he isn't one. His Wikipedia page calls him an "American-born, British author." Which makes him...what? Henry James Part II? Raphael is obviously taken with the comparison himself, taking great pains to write in a distinctly elitist British tone of voice, to refer to Henry James (and his failed theatrical career) as often as possible in order to congratulate himself for succeeding in cinema whereas James failed to successfully write for the stage. Raphael repeatedly criticizes Kubrick's reclusive nature while admitting that he, himself, hates to leave his house for any reason.
Raphael took the Kubrick job for status. He admits it. Much of his anger comes from the fact that Kubrick rejected wide swathes of the script work he did and in fact only accepted material that seemed to bear no authorial mark whatsoever, material that had so little personality and life that the director knew he could breathe his own life into the scenes.
I have to ask though, what the hell did Raphael expect? This was not Kubrick's first film. His working style had been long-established, both as Hollywood myth and reality. Raphael's constant surprise that Kubrick is not more effusive with his praise (or his affection...Raphael writes much about the final hug Kubrick gives him when he finally turns in his last draft) is not sincere. Finally, when Raphael openly admits to taking the job because he knew its visibility and prestige might give him an opportunity to direct his OWN films, we see just how transactional the whole thing was from the beginning.
Raphael went into the experience with guarded caution, he left the experience embittered and quickly fleshed out his New Yorker article in order to have something book-length to sell upon the release of EYES WIDE SHUT and Stanley Kubrick's unexpected death shortly after completing his edit on the film. Finally, Raphael's crude and elitist remarks toward Kubrick's wife's paintings (which, he notices, hang on the walls of the Kubrick estate) are really unfair and mean.
This is a mean little book.
I'd read this author's catty and relentlessly cruel article in The New Yorker describing the torturous and thankless process of turning Arthur Schnitzel's DREAM STORY into a worthy screenplay for Kubrick's final film.
I thought that Raphael's diss of Kubrick, in which he calls the director a snail, was pretty funny (if shockingly bitchy) simply given the fact that post-Clockwork Kubrick really did resemble a snail. Anyway, the line in question is one where Raphael manages to insult both Kubrick's home and his physical bearing. During their first meeting at Kubrick's house, Raphael is pissed off that Kubrick is not sufficiently deferential to him and gets this shot off:
"It seemed nothing like a home whatever. It was a vast shell for the shrewd snail who found protection in it."
Ouch.
Raphael seems entirely unaware of the fact that Kubrick deliberately chose novels that were "good, but not great" to adapt to screen because Kubrick's hope was that, in the adaptation, he could turn the work into something great.
Look at Kubrick's source material. The only truly "great" novel he ever adapted in Lolita. I don't think the Arthur C Clarke stuff was amazing on its own, nor do I think that BARRY LYNDON, ESQ is anything other than a baggy nineteenth century novel. I'm not crazy about A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, though I admit that my adolescent confusion sprang from not knowing what the hell the characters were saying. It didn't seem to be English (I later found out it was supposed to be some kind of futuristic gang-speak called Nadsat, a slang one needs a working knowledge of Russian to be able to make any sense of). Can you really blame a 14-year old kid for tossing A CLOCKWORK ORANGE back on the shelf and picking up 1984 or THE CATCHER IN THE RYE instead? Novels whose dialog and morals are discernible?
FULL METAL JACKET is an adaptation of Gustav Hasford's 1979 autobiographical Vietnam novel THE SHORT-TIMERS. But, get this, Kubrick hired both Hasford himself to adapt his own novel for screen, and Michael Herr, author of yet another autobiographical Vietnam work (this time a memoir of combat) called DISPATCHES (1977). Why Kubrick hired the author of DISPATCHES to adapt THE SHORT-TIMERS when he already had the author of the latter comes down to temperament. As a 2000 article in THE GUARDIAN titled "It ain't over till it's over" details, Kubrick had Hasford over for dinner at his English estate. Herr had advised against it, warning Kubrick that Hasford was the prototypical insane Vietnam vet and that the two wouldn't get along. Here's an excerpt:
"Hasford was, by Herr's own description, 'a scary man, a big, haunted marine', whom Kubrick was determined to meet. 'I advised him against it,' recalls Herr. 'I told Stanley I didn't think they'd get on.' Kubrick insisted, Hasford duly came over to Britain and there was a dinner during which Kubrick passed Herr a note saying: 'I can't deal with this man.' From then on, Hasford was dismissed from the maestro's presence."
This is funny. Kubrick is determined to meet the guy and then, ten minutes after meeting him, scrawls a note like he's in a high school English class, admitting he can't stand the guy and wants him out of his house ASAP. There is nothing like this in EYES WIDE OPEN. There is nothing of Kubrick's playfulness. Instead, we get Kubrick the paranoid tyrant, Kubrick the self-hating Jew.
For THE SHINING (my fav Kubrick movie, if only for the cottage industry of conspiracy theories it has let loose on the world...see ROOM 237 and the roughly 20 000 YouTube videos uploaded by people who claim to have seen hidden meanings in THE SHINING...some of them are right...some of them are insane...ALL of them are fascinating), Kubrick chose a Stephen King novel which had already been a hit. For the adaptation, Kubrick hired the American novelist Diane Johnson. Johnson is a fine writer but the choice seems entirely random. I think Raphael was worried about this. He may have been an Oscar winner, but he was at Kubrick's mercy for the duration of the job. Don't like it? Don't sign on to be a hired hand!
As Herr himself complained after roughly three years worth of interminable phone calls with Kubrick, "DOESN'T THIS GUY GET TIRED?"
More to Herr's credit than Raphael's, adapting a novel for Kubrick to direct DOES sound like a thankless task. Kubrick doesn't want any of the original story's emotion, direction, or even characterization. It's worth noting that Kubrick first asked Herr, not Raphael, to adapt DREAM STORY for what would become EYES WIDE SHUT, but Herr said no. He'd been barely compensated for his work on FULL METAL JACKET as it was. His April 2000 article in VANITY FAIR, simply titled "Kubrick" attests:
"Stanley was a good friend, and wonderful to work with, but he was a terrible man to do business with, terrible. His cheapness was proverbial..."
Raphael doesn't seem to have been hired cheaply but he DOES note early on that "Kubrick does not negotiate" and that there seemed to be no end to the work he was asked to do. He supplies a first draft. Kubrick likes 40% of it. He supplies a second draft. Kubrick likes 30% of it. And on and on it goes. It seems to me that Herr refused EYES WIDE SHUT because he couldn't get roped into a 5-year commitment where he was obliged, every day, to listen as Kubrick yammered on the telephone about topics as disparate as Napoleon, the Holocaust, New York City, NFL, and Woody Allen. Raphael is pissed off for more professional reasons, it seems.
He realizes, to his horror, roughly two years into the job, that Kubrick does not want writing of any kind. No emotion. No character (Bill Harford, played by Tom Cruise, has that last name because Kubrick originally envisioned Harrison Ford playing him. HARisson FORD. Harford. That's literally what it came down to. Not literary. Not fun. Entirely utilitarian). No screen directions. Raphael's main frustration is that Kubrick either does not KNOW what he wants or will not say. Kubrick is secretive and evasive to the point of paranoia. He won't tell Raphael who the author of DREAM STORY is until, during their first face-to-face meeting at Kubrick's estate, he accidentally reveals the name. Raphael is shocked that Kubrick seems so vexed. What would Kubrick have to gain by omitting the name of the author whose work they are adapting? I can think a few reasons. Raphael assumes Kubrick's reason is control. Maybe he's right, but this book is so unrelentingly negative and cruel towards Kubrick, full of all kinds of bitchy, journalistic asides such as "I guess Stanley thinks we are buddies now..."
Raphael's portrait of Kubrick as a self-hating Jew was by far the most controversial thing about the original New Yorker article, and prompted responses from people like Kubrick's widow, Spielberg, Jan Harlan, and others.
Raphael's portrait of Kubrick's paranoia is unfair, and the author admits it, once he realizes just how much interest EYES WIDE SHUT has in the industry. I admit I laughed at the part where Raphael offers a movie title to Kubrick (The Female Body) and Kubrick doesn't say a word, instead offering "Eyes Wide Shut." This time it's Raphael who doesn't speak and his catty silence is funny because, honestly, EYES WIDE SHUT is a shitty title.
Herr was wary of Kubrick because he could not commit a half-decade of his life to a project with no seeming end date or, even, end goal. Raphael complains of the same thing, noting that Kubrick's patience was both welcome but also "implacable...I could see no end to it." Herr also could not afford to work with Kubrick again given just how poorly Kubrick paid him the first time (Kubrick famously complained for years that Jack made more money on THE SHINING than he did...Herr doubts this is even true but, even if it is, Nicholson was the star! In 1980, Kubrick's last film was the boring BARRY LYNDON. His stock was not exactly trustworthy. He needed a movie star and in Jack Nicholson he got it. For EYES WIDE SHUT, he wanted a married film star couple. Aside from Cruise and Kidman, his only other option was Basinger and Baldwin, or perhaps Bacon and Sedgwick. Why get annoyed that a film star makes more $ than a reclusive director who barely gives interviews and never personally promote his films, leaving that to the movie stars?
Kubrick had Cruise do SO MANY takes, over and over, than even Kubrick fans admit the director probably was not using the actor's best work. Cruise felt like just a single colour in the director's vast palette. Raphael felt the same.
But SO MUCH of Raphael's memoir takes the form of elitism (he constantly reminds the reader that he went to college in the United States and received a classical education whereas Kubrick never went to college). He also thinks Kubrick is a self-hating Jew. He also thinks Kubrick plays games. He also doesn't think Kubrick was nice enough to him.
My biggest beef with this memoir is the voice it is written in. I don't know what the hell Raphael is supposed to be. He does NOT sound like an American author. I guess he isn't one. His Wikipedia page calls him an "American-born, British author." Which makes him...what? Henry James Part II? Raphael is obviously taken with the comparison himself, taking great pains to write in a distinctly elitist British tone of voice, to refer to Henry James (and his failed theatrical career) as often as possible in order to congratulate himself for succeeding in cinema whereas James failed to successfully write for the stage. Raphael repeatedly criticizes Kubrick's reclusive nature while admitting that he, himself, hates to leave his house for any reason.
Raphael took the Kubrick job for status. He admits it. Much of his anger comes from the fact that Kubrick rejected wide swathes of the script work he did and in fact only accepted material that seemed to bear no authorial mark whatsoever, material that had so little personality and life that the director knew he could breathe his own life into the scenes.
I have to ask though, what the hell did Raphael expect? This was not Kubrick's first film. His working style had been long-established, both as Hollywood myth and reality. Raphael's constant surprise that Kubrick is not more effusive with his praise (or his affection...Raphael writes much about the final hug Kubrick gives him when he finally turns in his last draft) is not sincere. Finally, when Raphael openly admits to taking the job because he knew its visibility and prestige might give him an opportunity to direct his OWN films, we see just how transactional the whole thing was from the beginning.
Raphael went into the experience with guarded caution, he left the experience embittered and quickly fleshed out his New Yorker article in order to have something book-length to sell upon the release of EYES WIDE SHUT and Stanley Kubrick's unexpected death shortly after completing his edit on the film. Finally, Raphael's crude and elitist remarks toward Kubrick's wife's paintings (which, he notices, hang on the walls of the Kubrick estate) are really unfair and mean.
This is a mean little book.
May 15, 2018
3 Estrellas xxx
Me siento un tanto defraudado, molesto, decepcionado. Lo que le han hecho a este libro es una completa falta de respeto. La traducción ha arruinado algo para hacerlo una clase de clickbait literario . Titular un libro para nosotros los hispanohablantes como "Aquí Kubrick" con el director de cine en portada y una sinopsis que da a entender que conoceremos sus aficiones, secretos e inspiraciones más profundas hace replantear muchas cosas. Los que tenían a cargo los derechos de esta obra seguramente pensaron en vender, el titulo original es "Eyes Wide Open: A Memoir of Stanley Kubrick" Que va de eso, una experiencia cinematográfica con Kubrick de por medio en la grabación de aquella película con el guionista de por medio.
Sinopsis: De todo era sabido, Kubrick era un misántropo. Se negaba a volar y a circular a mas de cuarenta kilómetros por hora. Procuraba en lo posible que no se le tomaran fotografías y vivía aterrorizado con la idea de ser asesinado. Ejercía relaciones de poder con todos aquellos que se cruzaban en su camino. Como cineasta estaba obsesionado con la perfección. Insistía en tener el control absoluto de todos y cada uno de los aspectos del proceso. Escenas sencillas requerían mas de cien tomas. No es extraño que solo hiciera seis películas en los últimos treinta y cinco años.
Los recuentos anecdotarios contados por el guionista se siente como la autofelación más grande que he leído en un libro, una serie de remembranzas siempre alaban su propia grandeza como alguien pretencioso; Pero a pesar de ello puedo destacar varias cosas. El proceso de creación de Kubrick, algunas curiosidades interesantes dentro de su psicología, experiencia de primera mano, Frederic Raphael nos pone en situación cómo es que se vive en el mundo del espectáculo y lo que conlleva ser un guionista. También nos abre los ojos de que Kubrick es un genio, pero no el genio que creemos que es. Todo es una discusión de creatividad, pero se queda bastante corto a lo que el material daba.
Me siento un tanto defraudado, molesto, decepcionado. Lo que le han hecho a este libro es una completa falta de respeto. La traducción ha arruinado algo para hacerlo una clase de clickbait literario . Titular un libro para nosotros los hispanohablantes como "Aquí Kubrick" con el director de cine en portada y una sinopsis que da a entender que conoceremos sus aficiones, secretos e inspiraciones más profundas hace replantear muchas cosas. Los que tenían a cargo los derechos de esta obra seguramente pensaron en vender, el titulo original es "Eyes Wide Open: A Memoir of Stanley Kubrick" Que va de eso, una experiencia cinematográfica con Kubrick de por medio en la grabación de aquella película con el guionista de por medio.
Sinopsis: De todo era sabido, Kubrick era un misántropo. Se negaba a volar y a circular a mas de cuarenta kilómetros por hora. Procuraba en lo posible que no se le tomaran fotografías y vivía aterrorizado con la idea de ser asesinado. Ejercía relaciones de poder con todos aquellos que se cruzaban en su camino. Como cineasta estaba obsesionado con la perfección. Insistía en tener el control absoluto de todos y cada uno de los aspectos del proceso. Escenas sencillas requerían mas de cien tomas. No es extraño que solo hiciera seis películas en los últimos treinta y cinco años.
Los recuentos anecdotarios contados por el guionista se siente como la autofelación más grande que he leído en un libro, una serie de remembranzas siempre alaban su propia grandeza como alguien pretencioso; Pero a pesar de ello puedo destacar varias cosas. El proceso de creación de Kubrick, algunas curiosidades interesantes dentro de su psicología, experiencia de primera mano, Frederic Raphael nos pone en situación cómo es que se vive en el mundo del espectáculo y lo que conlleva ser un guionista. También nos abre los ojos de que Kubrick es un genio, pero no el genio que creemos que es. Todo es una discusión de creatividad, pero se queda bastante corto a lo que el material daba.
January 12, 2013
This is a worthwhile read for its rare glimpse into Kubrick's working methods, but ultimately the common criticism of it is true. Raphael spends a preposterous amount of pages on silly analogies to ancient myths in which he is always the defeated servant to the God-like maestro Kubrick, etc. Raphael has the very grandiose, inflated self-image that Kubrick - the more humble man, as even this biased book proves - was always wrongly purported to possess.
In reality, Kubrick simply wanted a writer who had something - information - which he didn't. Primarily, he needed a little help in updating the Schnitzler novella 70+ years to the then-present day. He didn't want a best buddy or a 50/50 creative partner; merely someone to bounce ideas off of and perhaps get a reality check on his own ideas once in a while. Why Raphael seems so baffled by the end result - when Kubrick goes and makes his own film, as he always did, with the end product bearing maybe 20% of Raphael's influence - remains an utter mystery.
What is most objectionable about the book, though, is the passive-aggressively deflationary tone it takes against Kubrick, Raphael relishing every opportunity to cut the Emperor down to size for no good reason. When Kubrick dies, Raphael scoffs - in the last sentence of the book, no less - with a pithy one-liner about sometimes giants not really being immortal, or somesuch. It's downright shameful, and leaves a bitter aftertaste following what was already a troubling and exploitative piece.
In reality, Kubrick simply wanted a writer who had something - information - which he didn't. Primarily, he needed a little help in updating the Schnitzler novella 70+ years to the then-present day. He didn't want a best buddy or a 50/50 creative partner; merely someone to bounce ideas off of and perhaps get a reality check on his own ideas once in a while. Why Raphael seems so baffled by the end result - when Kubrick goes and makes his own film, as he always did, with the end product bearing maybe 20% of Raphael's influence - remains an utter mystery.
What is most objectionable about the book, though, is the passive-aggressively deflationary tone it takes against Kubrick, Raphael relishing every opportunity to cut the Emperor down to size for no good reason. When Kubrick dies, Raphael scoffs - in the last sentence of the book, no less - with a pithy one-liner about sometimes giants not really being immortal, or somesuch. It's downright shameful, and leaves a bitter aftertaste following what was already a troubling and exploitative piece.
December 21, 2018
Raphael spins a book out of close but obviously limited contact with Kubrick during the making of Eyes Wide Shut. This amounts to several visits to the director's home, and many phone conversations. A quick, easy read. As a first-person account of the publicity shy director, this is essential reading for Kubrick scholars, but very little of lasting interest is revealed. Similar to Michael Herr's 'Kubrick', which also made a rapid journey to bookshops following the director's death, although markedly less generous in spirit.
January 10, 2025
Frederic Raphael wrote the screenplay for Eyes Wide Shut and was, of course, fully drawn into Stanley Kubrick's weird world and his final bewildering production Eyes Wide Shut. Raphael was a brilliant writer and commentator and his account of the process is among the most gripping accounts I've read of the making of a movie.
I included this book in this survey of books about film.
I included this book in this survey of books about film.
September 9, 2019
I expected an in-depth exploration of the writing process behind one of Kubrick’s most spell-binding films. What I got instead was a skewed attempt to demystify and perhaps discredit the great artist? Some interesting recollections concerning the development of Eyes Wide Shut, unfortunately most of the insight is mired down by an over abundance of Raphael’s petty preoccupations. Unfortunate.
May 4, 2023
This is sure to delight any EYES WIDE SHUT/Kubrick heads. Lots of gems to be gleaned about Kubrick, and Raphael himself is a very interesting figure. I loved the style of this, which is a mix between diary entries and screenplay-like conversations between the two guys. Raphael’s writing is really funny and so self-aware. I found the gift giving of books between Kubrick & Raphael very sweet!
September 1, 2017
Perfect for anyone who wants to read about Kubrick's creative process.
January 11, 2018
Fascinating insight into the process of collaboration and ego.
Read
January 3, 2021If you expect a vitriolic piece of criticism under the appearance of an objective assessment of the director, this is not. This is a literary descend into madness that culminates with pages and pages of transcriptions from Raphael's diary written during the collaboration with/work for? Kubrick. Its rawness and lack of self awareness are to be praised for its revealing of unfiltered rumination, projections and ideations of a hurt ego. It is hard to elucidate if his whatever-it-was-complex was awakened by the proximity to Kubrick or was his general disposition. Whether the female executive he had a meeting with at the bar was being condescending or just an executive, but female, or whether Romy Schneider was being disrespectful by not recognizing his presence in the hallway of a set to the point that his writer friend (also offended) left her an anonymous letter in her dressing room the with explicit sexual provocations, we will never find out. Notice I'll add this comment from my female perspective, because these things sometimes remain overlooked (yeah, I hated it).
All in all, I found what I came for, that is, Kubrick's vision, in what he calls from his point of view something like his aversion to give a psychological dimension to characters and show situations instead (apparently Kubrick was living in the 2010s).
Also, the final scene between Ziegler and Bill was his idea.
So, this was my rant. I'm equally fascinated and repulsed by this book. I would recommend it.
All in all, I found what I came for, that is, Kubrick's vision, in what he calls from his point of view something like his aversion to give a psychological dimension to characters and show situations instead (apparently Kubrick was living in the 2010s).
Also, the final scene between Ziegler and Bill was his idea.
So, this was my rant. I'm equally fascinated and repulsed by this book. I would recommend it.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 66 reviews