What do you think?
Rate this book
Stanley Kubrick: A Biography
Stanley Kubrick, director of the acclaimed filmsPath of Glory, Spartacus, Lolita, Dr. Strangelove, 2001: Space Odyssey. A Clockwork Orange, The Shining, and Full Metal Jacket, is arguably one of the greatest American filmmakers. Yet, despite being hailed as “a giant” by Orson Welles, little is known about the reclusive director. Stanley Kubrick—the first full-length study of his life—is based on assiduous archival research as well as new interviews with friends, family, and colleagues.Film scholar Vincent LoBRutto provides a comprehensive portrait of the director, from his high school days, in the Bronx and his stint as a photographer for Look magazine, through the creation of his wide-ranging movies, including the long-awaited Eyes Wide Shut. The author provides behind-the-scenes details about writing, filming, financing, and reception of the director’s entire output, paying close attention to the technical innovations and to his often contentious relationships with actors. This fascinating biography exposes the enigma that is Stanley Kubrick while placing him in context of film history.
606 pages, Paperback
First published April 1, 1997
22 people are currently reading
641 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews
September 25, 2011
Stanley Kubrick è stato un grande artista e un uomo dalle molte singolarità.
Autore leggendario, genio innovatore del cinema, uomo schivo e riservato, il suo progressivo isolarsi dal mondo aveva generato ogni sorta di mito sulle sue presunte manie.
Raccontarne la storia può dare conto, in qualche misura, delle ragioni che stanno dietro alle sue opere?
Questa mi pare l'unica domanda che il biografo di un artista dovrebbe porsi, salvo che la vita dell'artista in questione sia, di per sé, così interessante da costituire di per sé un buon motivo per un racconto.
Leggendo il libro di Lobrutto, non pare che sia questo il caso di Kubrick, la cui vita privata non aveva nulla di eccezionale, a ben vedere.
Infanzia tranquilla, risultati scolastici altalenanti, precoce propensione per le arti visive (la fotografia), grande determinazione e un carattere oscillante tra la ritrosia e la bonomia.
La sua ritrosia appare prevalentemente dedicata allo star-system hollywoodiano, che Kubrick rifuggiva, mentre sono innumerevoli le testimonianze che lo descrivono come un uomo cordiale e gentile.
Scartata l'ipotesi di raccontare SK come una specie di genio pazzo o di artista romantico, resterebbero i film (non poca cosa comunque).
Invece di dedicarvisi di più, l'autore si dilunga in dettagli di poco conto, interminabili elenchi e digressioni tecniche non del tutto adatte a una biografia.
Nei primi capitoli, per dire, si trova l'elenco di tutti gli indirizzi del Bronx nei quali la famiglia Kubrick ebbe la ventura di risiedere.
Si trova poi un'interminabile sequela di descrizioni dei servizi fotografici realizzati dal regista per la rivista Look.
Ora, questi ultimi possono essere effettivamente importanti per capire qualcosa di più del Kubrick compositore di immagini, ma la mera elencazione dei titoli dei servizi sarebbe stata meglio in un'appendice.
La storia della lavorazione dei singoli film è descritta molto analiticamente, anche qui senza molto equilibrio tra anedottica pura e semplice, dettagli tecnici, analisi critica.
Non mancano vere curiosità (come le incredibili invenzioni tecniche escogitate per la realizzazione di film come Barry Lyndon o Shining), ma il fuoco (per rimanere in tema) non pare ben centrato.
Il finale, aggiunto nella seconda edizione pubblicata dopo la morte del regista, è un po' tirato via, sembra scritto di fretta per chiudere il volume e mandarlo in stampa.
Nel complesso, il libro vale la lettura ma le mie aspettative sono andate piuttosto deluse.
Se non siete veramente appassionati di SK o del cinema, non arriverete facilmente in fondo.
Autore leggendario, genio innovatore del cinema, uomo schivo e riservato, il suo progressivo isolarsi dal mondo aveva generato ogni sorta di mito sulle sue presunte manie.
Raccontarne la storia può dare conto, in qualche misura, delle ragioni che stanno dietro alle sue opere?
Questa mi pare l'unica domanda che il biografo di un artista dovrebbe porsi, salvo che la vita dell'artista in questione sia, di per sé, così interessante da costituire di per sé un buon motivo per un racconto.
Leggendo il libro di Lobrutto, non pare che sia questo il caso di Kubrick, la cui vita privata non aveva nulla di eccezionale, a ben vedere.
Infanzia tranquilla, risultati scolastici altalenanti, precoce propensione per le arti visive (la fotografia), grande determinazione e un carattere oscillante tra la ritrosia e la bonomia.
La sua ritrosia appare prevalentemente dedicata allo star-system hollywoodiano, che Kubrick rifuggiva, mentre sono innumerevoli le testimonianze che lo descrivono come un uomo cordiale e gentile.
Scartata l'ipotesi di raccontare SK come una specie di genio pazzo o di artista romantico, resterebbero i film (non poca cosa comunque).
Invece di dedicarvisi di più, l'autore si dilunga in dettagli di poco conto, interminabili elenchi e digressioni tecniche non del tutto adatte a una biografia.
Nei primi capitoli, per dire, si trova l'elenco di tutti gli indirizzi del Bronx nei quali la famiglia Kubrick ebbe la ventura di risiedere.
Si trova poi un'interminabile sequela di descrizioni dei servizi fotografici realizzati dal regista per la rivista Look.
Ora, questi ultimi possono essere effettivamente importanti per capire qualcosa di più del Kubrick compositore di immagini, ma la mera elencazione dei titoli dei servizi sarebbe stata meglio in un'appendice.
La storia della lavorazione dei singoli film è descritta molto analiticamente, anche qui senza molto equilibrio tra anedottica pura e semplice, dettagli tecnici, analisi critica.
Non mancano vere curiosità (come le incredibili invenzioni tecniche escogitate per la realizzazione di film come Barry Lyndon o Shining), ma il fuoco (per rimanere in tema) non pare ben centrato.
Il finale, aggiunto nella seconda edizione pubblicata dopo la morte del regista, è un po' tirato via, sembra scritto di fretta per chiudere il volume e mandarlo in stampa.
Nel complesso, il libro vale la lettura ma le mie aspettative sono andate piuttosto deluse.
Se non siete veramente appassionati di SK o del cinema, non arriverete facilmente in fondo.
April 30, 2010
Kubrick was a poor Jewish kid from the Bronx, not educated beyond high school (his grades throughout were terrible), who ended up an expatriated autodidactic cinematic genius. Also, he was a master-level chess player (his dad both taught him chess and bought him his first camera around the age of twelve) who hustled games in Central Park for extra money as a teenager. I still love to imagine the epic matches that may have taken place at the Nabokov/Kubrick meetings during the film adaptation of Lolita (Kubrick was known to always have a chess set at hand and take all comers). To be a fly on the wall at the meeting of those two minds over the field of battle!
March 6, 2017
I wish Goodreads had the option of marking a book "abandoned" rather than "read". I abandoned this one. It just couldn't hold my interest. I thought I would like its thoroughness, but it turns out that I did not. If you were doing some scholarly research on Kubrick, you might really like it. But for someone more casually interested, it was just too much to slog through. A slow dull read.
September 3, 2023
- Kubrick, Southern, and Adam's conception of the War Room not only made audiences laugh, it created an image of a political reality that even captured the imagination of an actual president of the United States.
When Ronald Wilson Reagan first took office in 1981 and was touring his new home and base of power at the White House, one of the first facilities he asked to see was the War Room. When Ken Adam was told this, he replied, "You must be joking."
- "I don't like to talk about 2001 much," Kubrick later told Jerome Agel, "because it's essentially a nonverbal experience. It attempts to communicate more to the subconscious and to the feelings than it does to the intellect. I think clearly that there's a hase problem with people who are not paying attention with their eyes.
They're listening. And they don't get much from listening to this film. Those who won't believe their eyes won't be able to appreciate this film.
- The basic setup for front screen projection in the Dawn of Man seg. ment shot at the MGM Elstree Studios involved a large reflective screen on which the background images photographed in Africa were projected. The screen was composed of millions of tiny glass beads from material devised for the 3M Company's development of reflective road signs. In front of the screen, the art department created the prehistoric environment to perfectly match the projected backgrounds. Shooting through a two-way mirror positioned on a forty-five-degree angle eliminated the shadows caused by the actors. The result produced an anthropologically correct rendering of prehistoric Earth in the controlled environment of the studio. Kubrick used a pair of binoculars to make sure the focus on the projection screen stayed crisp and sharp.
- Clarke was especially angered that the Academy gave an honorary statue to Planet of the Apes for outstanding makeup achievement, chiding, *2001 did not win the Academy Award for makeup because the judges may not have realized the apes were actors.
- "Stanley has a kind of slightly rabbinical air. He has a reflective quality in his work because he's an intellectual, and intellectuals don't get riled because they spill the valuable contents of their mind- a dummy can always shout and rave because there's nothing to spill- it's empty. If you have a cup that's full, you walk gently with it.
When Ronald Wilson Reagan first took office in 1981 and was touring his new home and base of power at the White House, one of the first facilities he asked to see was the War Room. When Ken Adam was told this, he replied, "You must be joking."
- "I don't like to talk about 2001 much," Kubrick later told Jerome Agel, "because it's essentially a nonverbal experience. It attempts to communicate more to the subconscious and to the feelings than it does to the intellect. I think clearly that there's a hase problem with people who are not paying attention with their eyes.
They're listening. And they don't get much from listening to this film. Those who won't believe their eyes won't be able to appreciate this film.
- The basic setup for front screen projection in the Dawn of Man seg. ment shot at the MGM Elstree Studios involved a large reflective screen on which the background images photographed in Africa were projected. The screen was composed of millions of tiny glass beads from material devised for the 3M Company's development of reflective road signs. In front of the screen, the art department created the prehistoric environment to perfectly match the projected backgrounds. Shooting through a two-way mirror positioned on a forty-five-degree angle eliminated the shadows caused by the actors. The result produced an anthropologically correct rendering of prehistoric Earth in the controlled environment of the studio. Kubrick used a pair of binoculars to make sure the focus on the projection screen stayed crisp and sharp.
- Clarke was especially angered that the Academy gave an honorary statue to Planet of the Apes for outstanding makeup achievement, chiding, *2001 did not win the Academy Award for makeup because the judges may not have realized the apes were actors.
- "Stanley has a kind of slightly rabbinical air. He has a reflective quality in his work because he's an intellectual, and intellectuals don't get riled because they spill the valuable contents of their mind- a dummy can always shout and rave because there's nothing to spill- it's empty. If you have a cup that's full, you walk gently with it.
July 15, 2018
This is an encompassing, very detailed, and often very technical exploration of Kubrick's filmmaking up until (and before) Eyes Wide Shut. Which is fine with me, as that one does not do anything for me. This means there is long, in-depth chapter on each of the following:
1987 Full Metal Jacket (pivotal bathroom set designed per Kubrick)
1980 The Shining (SteadiCam debut; Kubrick saw every ghost story as "hopeful" and tormented Duvall into a believable performance)
1975 Barry Lyndon (not all candlelight, even MiniBrutes were used -- whatever to mock natural light in an early adoption of super-fase lenses)
1971 A Clockwork Orange (Amid controversy over ultra-violence, withdrawn from British release in 1973 by Warner Brothers at the request of Kubrick.)
1968 2001: A Space Odyssey (Clarke run through the wringer in writing to Kubrick's demand. Much about the ultimate-trip Star Child ending.)
1964 Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (Sellers had to be convinced to play through role, again)
1962 Lolita (Sellers had to be convinced to play through role; the pederast angle had to be downplayed for the era)
1960 Spartacus (Kubrick's pluck, dedication, and resourcefulness got him a first real chance)
There is a lot here on the never realized Napoleon project, obsessive reading and researching for a book to base each movie on, on-set technique, etc. including how Kubrick methodically thought out and controlled what prints were used by exhibitors and how films were rolled out to exhibitors.
1987 Full Metal Jacket (pivotal bathroom set designed per Kubrick)
1980 The Shining (SteadiCam debut; Kubrick saw every ghost story as "hopeful" and tormented Duvall into a believable performance)
1975 Barry Lyndon (not all candlelight, even MiniBrutes were used -- whatever to mock natural light in an early adoption of super-fase lenses)
1971 A Clockwork Orange (Amid controversy over ultra-violence, withdrawn from British release in 1973 by Warner Brothers at the request of Kubrick.)
1968 2001: A Space Odyssey (Clarke run through the wringer in writing to Kubrick's demand. Much about the ultimate-trip Star Child ending.)
1964 Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (Sellers had to be convinced to play through role, again)
1962 Lolita (Sellers had to be convinced to play through role; the pederast angle had to be downplayed for the era)
1960 Spartacus (Kubrick's pluck, dedication, and resourcefulness got him a first real chance)
There is a lot here on the never realized Napoleon project, obsessive reading and researching for a book to base each movie on, on-set technique, etc. including how Kubrick methodically thought out and controlled what prints were used by exhibitors and how films were rolled out to exhibitors.
December 19, 2025
Stanley Kubrick is a fascinating case of a reserved genius who demonstrates the lengths needed to go to be great in any imaginable field with his unrivaled perfectionism, intensive research and preparation in all things, and his relentless will to shape his surroundings whether it is story, editing, plot, actors, themes, score, and even typography. His personality is summarized as a duality between Rasputin and Santa Claus, "Those are the two characters—you fear one and you want to hug the other." (p. 447) He is the culmination of two extremes of the human condition which allows him reach heights that others cannot touch—a creative output that few have contributed similarly.
From the get-go, Kubrick's persona is described as "intense and cool" (p. 1), a celebrated recluse and an obsessive perfectionist with a chess background shaping his calm demeanor, he rarely showed any emotional flares or extreme anger, "With the nerve of a chess master or a general in the heat of battle, he is propelled by his icy calm and lack of emotion until he reaches his goal." (p. 146) This was notably seen in the amount of takes he put his actors through without any feedback, prompting them only to do it again, "He would call for take after take, [...] saying little more than 'That was good. Let's try another.' Like a chess master who never signals a break in the game, Kubrick rarely showed his excitement for a particularly good take and steadfastly called for another." (p. 279) Filming reached double digits most of the time, sometimes "seventy or eighty" (p. 431) and in few instances takes in the hundreds like in The Shining where Scatman Crothers had done 148 takes for one scene. (p. 430).
Kubrick had this guiding hand of macro, large-scale vision to achieve things his subjects could not conceive of, ultimately leading Crothers to be brought to tears when asked how much this movie meant to him (p. 431) and Shelley Duvall whom was brought to ill health during filming to praise him. Duvall was pushed to such limits and could not see the big picture of this meta-pyschological-pressure to truly get Wendy Torrance out of her, by Kubrick embodying Jack Torrance and breaking her down to capture it without the acting (p. 441), all the get the masterpiece of The Shining , only later did she acknowledge this fact of the ends justifying the means, "You get more out of yourself and he knew that. He knew he was getting more out of me by doing that." (p. 442) and "Stanley makes you do things that you never thought you could do." (p. 443)
This vision lends into his perfectionism that Kubrick expected and then extracted from those around him, "I quickly realized that when Stanley said the crosshairs were to be on someone's left nostril, that no other nostril would do." (p. 423) He did never-ending research and preparation for his projects. Famous designer Saul Bass speaks to Kubrick excusing his use of the wrong Bodoni because they didn't have the right one he wanted, "Most directors or producers who are really wonderful filmmakers have no real sense of things like typography and certain graphic issues. He is one of the exceptions." (p. 175) The extents he went to get 2001 as perfect as he desired exhibit his legendary status and greatness. He was a fanatic:
By the end, 2001 had a staff of 106 members including 35 designers and 25 special effects technicians. (p. 275)
The outlandish artistic fanaticism and willingness to learn anything about any subject make Kubrick not only compelling but pull me in and fuel me to examine more of him as a symbol, transcending his material life and accomplishments as I begin seeing these traits in the great historical figures. He is inspirational in his competency, desirable in his composure, and admirable in his world-encompassing will.
From the get-go, Kubrick's persona is described as "intense and cool" (p. 1), a celebrated recluse and an obsessive perfectionist with a chess background shaping his calm demeanor, he rarely showed any emotional flares or extreme anger, "With the nerve of a chess master or a general in the heat of battle, he is propelled by his icy calm and lack of emotion until he reaches his goal." (p. 146) This was notably seen in the amount of takes he put his actors through without any feedback, prompting them only to do it again, "He would call for take after take, [...] saying little more than 'That was good. Let's try another.' Like a chess master who never signals a break in the game, Kubrick rarely showed his excitement for a particularly good take and steadfastly called for another." (p. 279) Filming reached double digits most of the time, sometimes "seventy or eighty" (p. 431) and in few instances takes in the hundreds like in The Shining where Scatman Crothers had done 148 takes for one scene. (p. 430).
Kubrick had this guiding hand of macro, large-scale vision to achieve things his subjects could not conceive of, ultimately leading Crothers to be brought to tears when asked how much this movie meant to him (p. 431) and Shelley Duvall whom was brought to ill health during filming to praise him. Duvall was pushed to such limits and could not see the big picture of this meta-pyschological-pressure to truly get Wendy Torrance out of her, by Kubrick embodying Jack Torrance and breaking her down to capture it without the acting (p. 441), all the get the masterpiece of The Shining , only later did she acknowledge this fact of the ends justifying the means, "You get more out of yourself and he knew that. He knew he was getting more out of me by doing that." (p. 442) and "Stanley makes you do things that you never thought you could do." (p. 443)
This vision lends into his perfectionism that Kubrick expected and then extracted from those around him, "I quickly realized that when Stanley said the crosshairs were to be on someone's left nostril, that no other nostril would do." (p. 423) He did never-ending research and preparation for his projects. Famous designer Saul Bass speaks to Kubrick excusing his use of the wrong Bodoni because they didn't have the right one he wanted, "Most directors or producers who are really wonderful filmmakers have no real sense of things like typography and certain graphic issues. He is one of the exceptions." (p. 175) The extents he went to get 2001 as perfect as he desired exhibit his legendary status and greatness. He was a fanatic:
Kubrick was monomaniacal in pursuing an accurate depiction of the universe in the year 2001. He asked leading aeronautical companies, government agencies, and a wide range of industries in both the United States and Europe to share their prognostications about the future. The long list of contributors began with the Aerospace Medical Division of Wright Patterson Air Force Base and moved through the alphabet to the Whirlpool Corporation.
The enormous range of subjects covered designs for vehicle-monitoring instrumentation, space suit designs, information on nuclear rocket propulsion, biological and medical instrumentation for the centrifuge and planetary probing, maps of the moon, data and photography of space food and preparation devices, telecommunications, computer design, monitoring devices for the hibernation sequences, interior designs of the space pods, spacecraft kitchen designs and menus for long space voy-ages, space station technology, astronaut training, maintenance and repair of space vehicles, and the Soviet and U.S. space programs.
Films, maps, models, and photographic materials streamed into the production offices. Many other companies and governmental agencies were consulted, often on similar aspects of the film, to satisfy Kubrick's gluttonous data bank. Associates were constantly attending meetings and collecting information destined for ultimate approval or disapproval by the central authority of Stanley Kubrick. (p. 279-280)
By the end, 2001 had a staff of 106 members including 35 designers and 25 special effects technicians. (p. 275)
The outlandish artistic fanaticism and willingness to learn anything about any subject make Kubrick not only compelling but pull me in and fuel me to examine more of him as a symbol, transcending his material life and accomplishments as I begin seeing these traits in the great historical figures. He is inspirational in his competency, desirable in his composure, and admirable in his world-encompassing will.
February 12, 2008
Solid biography of the reclusive and brilliant director, ending in the mid-90s before "Eyes Wide Shut". Along with the documentary "Stanley Kubrick: A Life In Pictures", this is probably as much as we'll ever find out about him.
December 2, 2019
This is for serious fans or seekers of Stanley Kubrick’s storied film making career and biography. The book’s greatest strength is it’s incredible detail and as one would expect this is also the greatest weakness. There is far more information about the intricacies of his films than most people will find necessary for a biographical work. I enjoyed most all of the film and personal history, but post the review as cautionary in this regard. The book ends prior to his last film, ‘Eyes Wide Shut,’ but on no way does this detract from the reading experience. If you want the definitive story of this cinematic genius’ life and his films then look no further.
October 13, 2022
If you like tedious details, this is your book. This reads like a dry day by day replay of every person and every place with which SK ever connected.
It does not give a truly accurate depiction of SK himself. It is far more superficial. And it does not feel balanced or all-encompassing as I expected from a 500 page book.
The reason I gave the book more than one star is the sheer determination this book shows on behalf of the author to chronical SK's life down to the most minute detail.
It does not give a truly accurate depiction of SK himself. It is far more superficial. And it does not feel balanced or all-encompassing as I expected from a 500 page book.
The reason I gave the book more than one star is the sheer determination this book shows on behalf of the author to chronical SK's life down to the most minute detail.
March 7, 2023
This was fairly long. I only skimmed some early chapters, but then skipped around starting with chapters as they dealt with Kubrick's films (starting with 2001 and working down the 'favorites' scale). It only covered through Full Metal Jacket, as (I guess) it was written around 1990 and didn't cover any preliminary work after that (such as whatever pre-production contributions Kubrick had to A.I.; maybe that's for the best anyway).
December 7, 2022
My favorite director of all time. Great book with insightful information about the elusive artist behind the camera. Kubrick was a giant. One of my favorite comments came from Steven Spielberg, "One of Stanley's films felt like 10 of somebody else's movies." Really captures the impact and artistic quality of his films.
December 10, 2019
This bio was crazy good. I am unreasonably and unfairly dinging it a star for not having any details on A.I. (and the tyranny of the reader review strikes again).
September 25, 2025
Slow start and I feel doesn’t really get behind what made Kubrick tick as a person but absolutely brilliant on the making of the films
August 17, 2021
Published just before Kubrick's death, this seems to have been the "authorized Biography". Over 500 pages long, the book goes over every Kubrick film (except Eyes Wide Shut ) in great detail and includes lots of quotes from the actors. That's the good part.
Unfortunately, the author has zero desire to be critical about Kubrick or his films. And he doesn't quote anyone who is. If anyone disliked working with Stanley Kubrick - or hated his films - they aren't in this book.
The other problem? Kubrick was a recluse and not particularly interesting. His whole life was making films. His own films. His way. That's all he did. Unlike say, Welles or Kazan, he was uninterested in Theater or the other arts. SK's talents was primarily visual. He wasn't a writer, but good at putting together a screen-play. And Kubrick's ideas/opinions regarding culture, politics, or religion, were superficial and conventional.
Kubrick's life story was equally dull. Grew up in a middle class NYC household. Became obsessed with film and photography. Started as a magazine photographer, then hooked up with the son of a Broadway producer and made the The killers . Hired by Kirk Douglas at age 29 to direct Paths of Glory . Then did Spartacus for Douglas. By 1962, his life was set. Married, making his own films, and living permanently in England. That's pretty much it. No military service. No mistresses. No battles with addiction. No great friendships or feuds. Just a guy making a film every 4-5 years. And the author doesn't try to make it any less dull.
Unfortunately, the author has zero desire to be critical about Kubrick or his films. And he doesn't quote anyone who is. If anyone disliked working with Stanley Kubrick - or hated his films - they aren't in this book.
The other problem? Kubrick was a recluse and not particularly interesting. His whole life was making films. His own films. His way. That's all he did. Unlike say, Welles or Kazan, he was uninterested in Theater or the other arts. SK's talents was primarily visual. He wasn't a writer, but good at putting together a screen-play. And Kubrick's ideas/opinions regarding culture, politics, or religion, were superficial and conventional.
Kubrick's life story was equally dull. Grew up in a middle class NYC household. Became obsessed with film and photography. Started as a magazine photographer, then hooked up with the son of a Broadway producer and made the The killers . Hired by Kirk Douglas at age 29 to direct Paths of Glory . Then did Spartacus for Douglas. By 1962, his life was set. Married, making his own films, and living permanently in England. That's pretty much it. No military service. No mistresses. No battles with addiction. No great friendships or feuds. Just a guy making a film every 4-5 years. And the author doesn't try to make it any less dull.
August 19, 2023
Lordy, this was a disaster. Lobrutto deserves a little charity for having researched and written this in the mid-’90s, two years prior to Kubrick’s death and at a point when not only did the production of Eyes Wide Shut remain shrouded in mystery but hard information about the director himself was almost comically difficult to come by. But I’d read a book that told me a hundred things I already knew about one of my deepest personal heroes if that book were passionate, independent, and well-written. This is none of the above. Lobrutto’s greatest fondness is of filling out word count by stating and restating the same points repeatedly, and that’s one of his lesser problems. It’s as though the book was composed with one eye open, so haphazard, thoughtless, rote is its construction. I actually made notes of things that annoyed me in it to share with you specifically, but why should we both suffer? Pinning it down, there’s nothing worse than a book so poorly written and constructed — one sentence almost invariably failing to follow up from the previous one, and one thought seldom gelling competently into another — that it makes the truth seem boring. The sole takeaway from this was my learning that Faith Hubley was a mentor of Kubrick’s, which is fascinating, and would seem more so if Lobrutto seemed to have any interest in who she is outside of her presence in SK’s orbit. A tremendous disappointment, and I hope none of the people who advised me it was one of the best film books on the market ever read this commentary, because woof. Y’all are fucking insane.
August 22, 2013
Questo libro è stato una penosa delusione.
Ho dovuto leggerlo per preparare l'esame di storia del cinema e ammetto che avevo buone aspettative a riguardo: s'è rivelato pedante, scritto mediamente male e in gran parte confusionario.
Credo che in parte la colpa sia del traduttore: ci sono alcuni passaggi che sono stati tradotti in maniera pedestre (come "parenti" anziché "genitori", per dirne una) -per il costo e il tipo di libro questi errori sono assolutamente inaccettabili. Inoltre l'autore ci ha messo del suo: è scritto nella prefazione che ha impiegato molti anni a raggruppare le fonti che gli hanno fornito il necessario per scrivere questa biografia e, forse, nell'esagerazione di notizie si è perso. E' un susseguirsi di date fuorvianti, intere frasi a cui sembra mancare il soggetto, divagazioni esagerate e poco approfondimento in sezioni che, invece, avrei pensato fondamentali (ad esempio i suoi primi film).
Sinceramente, una lettura assolutamente inutile.
Ho dovuto leggerlo per preparare l'esame di storia del cinema e ammetto che avevo buone aspettative a riguardo: s'è rivelato pedante, scritto mediamente male e in gran parte confusionario.
Credo che in parte la colpa sia del traduttore: ci sono alcuni passaggi che sono stati tradotti in maniera pedestre (come "parenti" anziché "genitori", per dirne una) -per il costo e il tipo di libro questi errori sono assolutamente inaccettabili. Inoltre l'autore ci ha messo del suo: è scritto nella prefazione che ha impiegato molti anni a raggruppare le fonti che gli hanno fornito il necessario per scrivere questa biografia e, forse, nell'esagerazione di notizie si è perso. E' un susseguirsi di date fuorvianti, intere frasi a cui sembra mancare il soggetto, divagazioni esagerate e poco approfondimento in sezioni che, invece, avrei pensato fondamentali (ad esempio i suoi primi film).
Sinceramente, una lettura assolutamente inutile.
January 29, 2014
While I have read a few books analyzing Kubrick's films, I have never read a proper biography of him. And man, is this a proper biography. LoBrutto did an insane amount of research that's daunting at first. He has Kubrick's high school GPA in the early chapters. Seriously. However, that level of detail is rewarding as he gets into Kubrick's individual movies. Like Hitchcock, Kubrick is a master I revere and learning more behind the scenes history made this book a fleet 500 pages. At first, I was annoyed this was written in 1996 when Kubrick hadn't made Eyes Wide Shut yet. I would've loved one more chapter on that movie in LoBrutto's hands. But I like the bittersweet, time capsule quality this book has not knowing Kubrick would die three years later. This is an epic and painstaking look at a man who was epic and painstaking himself. Bravo.
January 26, 2016
La migliore delle due biografie: un ottimo lavoro di ricerca per una mole impressionante di notizie, aneddoti sulla lavorazione dei film, racconti e testimonianze sui processi creativi e le tecniche usate dal regista, raccolti con stile sobrio anche se leggermente piatto e celebrativo. Contiene un inserto di 16 pagine con fotografie in bianco e nero. Di questo libro Kubrick ha detto: "ci sono cose di me e della mia famiglia che non sapevo."
September 24, 2019
Although it’s not a very good read if you’re looking to tap into the mind of Kubrick and understand his thought process, it does offer great interviews with co-workers and start-to-finish recounts of all of his films bar Eyes Wide Shut. A few things here and there throughout the book that I didn't know about the man. (Written before his death and subsequently the release of the previously stated movie.)
July 17, 2011
An interesting read but is seriously lacking in detail and contains many mistakes. Could have been better researched. Also at times it becomes more of a biography of people Kubrick knew than it is about Kubrick. Still, its good to read about the man's life in such a linear fashion.
July 28, 2011
Very interesting and readable account of Kubrick's career, which may veer a little towards hagiography but nevertheless has some interesting insights to offer. The stuff on his early career - before he even made films - gave it some unexpected depth.
December 11, 2020
Hands down, best bio of auteur filmmaker and how Stanley Kubrick became synonymous with perfection and realist, not misconstrued as cold, visionary of humanity. His eccentricities, even temperament, fully portrayed.
June 22, 2014
This is a very thorough biography of Stanley Kubrick. I read this many years ago and was impressed by the wealth of information it presents. The book gives you an insight into his life and how he made movies. If you're a fan of Stanley Kubrick, this is a good book to read.
February 11, 2011
this book was good but it seemed overly detailed and really long, still overall it was very interesting and informative/
June 14, 2015
The worst. Just.. Written before his death and suffers from lack of real info.
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews