I heard kubrick put mcdowell through the ringer filming orange.I saw an interview of him saying his feelings were greatly hurt that stanley didn't show appreciation to his sacrifices in the filming and that kubricke never called him or showed any kind of comradery for the piece of art they made together
While he is right. Kubrick did *LACK HUMANITY* but so did the world at the time. His movie's were a mere reflection of our world and where we could be going.
Interesting because Shelley Duvall claimed he gave her a nervous breakdown when they were filming I can't even think of what it's called.. she said he isolated her and told all the other actors and crew not to talk to her so that she could really experience the feeling of isolation.... she couldn't handle it and she said It felt very cruel to her and she cracked ...I think she talks about it here on RUclips
McDowell is a human being with feelings, and feelings are bruised quite easily sometimes. I’m sure Michelangelo wasn’t an easy person to be work with or be around either, though.
Thanks, yeah. He’s just throwing shade. I feel bad for him. Kubrick is a genius though. Big ideas, big execution and his films will live on for a very long time. Who is Malcolm McDowell again?
If I was McDowell, I think I would regret being in Caligula more than this, that could give a viewer a nervous breakdown let a lone an actor playing a lead part in something so satanic.
@@trashyraccoon2615 mcdowell's the guy who kubrick made famous 50 years ago & who was never in another movie again that anyone remembers 🤣 oh and mcdowell's the whiny asswipe who decades later is still angry that kubrick didn't call him 🙃
I know I have to laugh when he said,, "At the end of the day what was he like as a man? As a human being?". As if he knew what Michelangelo,, a man who lived four centuries before him, was like as a human being.
He was a genius at photography and film. He wasnt a genius writer but he was a genius interpreter. He was amazing at detailing set design and knowing what to put in leave out , and properly obsess over the correct shot , lense , etc. He made changes as he went, he knew how to manipulate the actors somewhat, he was a helluva character which proceeds him after his life cant think of many directors like him. He was massively inspirational to many important directors. He had patience and technique studios and cameramen never care to replicate if theyd ever think to attempt. Each movie stands out in peoples minds as classic. And he was a quiet recluse guy - class act in most aspects of his life.
@@syedmasood6454 he liked working more then he liked giving interviews and being in the spotlight of his movies. Spent alot of time researching his projects and looking for the next that would translate to film. I think Arthur c Clarke handed him a copy of a clockwork orange while making 2001
@@JasonVoorhees10100 he did that mainly to have a peaceful private life as many people had also hated him due to the content of his movies. he did prefer working but was very social with the circle around him. a person like him wouldntve gotten to where they were by being a recluse.
@@mattmoves5920 Why does it matter what he was like as a person? As long as he wasnt a murderer, rapist or cheat then it shouldn't matter if he was a cold human. His work should speak for itself.
In a Kubrick documentary McDowell said Kubrick basically cut ties with him after being very warm while shooting Clockwork. Moreover, McDowell always says something mean about Kubrick in interviews. Kubrick and he had what sounded like a father-son dynamic on set. McDowell clearly never got over it.
I think Kubrick was a genius. The thing is that McDowell listed Michelangelo as a genius while saying that Kubrick wasn't one because of his lack of humanity and warmth. This is rather ignorant. Michelangelo was known for being so eccentric that he was completely unsociable and dissociated from the rest of society. Eccentricity is associated with intelligence.
Is 'humanity' a pre-requisite for genius? The definition, as it is often said is thus :- A genius is a person who displays exceptional intellectual ability, creative productivity, universality in genres or originality, typically to a degree that is associated with the achievement of new advances in a domain of knowledge. In above definition, he meets that criteria, humanity withstanding or otherwise.
@GTS I mean he is a genius. But I can see what he means when he mentions "this lack of humanity". I mean you can't really blame him. Who wouldn't at that level? Most of his movies show how fucked we are as human beings anyway.
So depressing not one mention of the greatest director there ever was, John Ford, in the comments. I was elated to hear McDowell compare Ford to Michelangelo. I do believe Ford and Kubrick were more similar than McDowell gives Kubrick credit for. I wouldn’t say they both had a “lack of humanity” but were able to almost become observers of the human. They both made movies about people very far from the classic “black and white” characteristics of how many character arcs occur. With all due respect to Kubrick, Hitchcock, Scorsese all of em, Ford is the greatest director that ever sat in a directing chair. You can never cut out that piece of DNA when it comes to directing. His influence is too great. Kurosawa lovers will argue Akira influenced Ford which is glaringly untrue. Ford directed his first film in 1917 when Kurosawa was 13 y/o. He grew up watching Ford. Nobody could replicate the sheer precision of the ladder names I mentioned. Ford could make something out of the simplest scene or frame imaginable. Everyone who loves movies should know and appreciate Admiral Ford. At least more so than Hitch cause that’s the only one from the golden age that seems to be universal with film heads of today.
Love the priority on humanity! Also interesting that for all of Kubrick’s iconic films, Clockwork was one the very best at -it’s innovating then succeeding at its own thing- (just about genius you’d think.) The tension, the terror, the ultra(! Of it all!), the silence and the music, minimalist character action in the spaces between familiar to freaky futuristic visions of coherent surrealist action. The morality and the violence, it’s a physically upsetting yet transfixing thing beautiful in parts worth enough to rewatch. Hard to say it’s not a bit genius
Genius has nothing to do with personality, it's grounded in creative intelligence or an exceptional natural ability. Malcolm should just be glad that Kubrick ensured his place in the history of film FOREVER.
I fully agree. McDowell. Kubrick lacks the emotional element. I think Kubrick didn't really know how to handle that human spark very well. Every film of Kubrick's I've watched has left me cold. Kubrick was a marvellous technical magician, but no more.
@@jmgmarcus808 Nope. I'm not bananas, but I totally disagree with that. None of his characters have any emotional depth. Just look at A Clockwork Orange. You could say that Alex is a mirror into Kubrick's mind. Cold, clinical and very egotisical. Kubrick was a creative tour de force, that I don't deny, but it's clear that Kubrick lacks a compassionate and human element in his films. Kubrick gave Artifical Intelligence to Steven Spielberg. Why, because Spielberg deals with human emotions in characters, and is able to project human emotions more visably to the audience, where Kubrick cannot achieve those emotional hits. A.I. needed that depth, Kubrick just doesn't have it in him. Even Barry Lyndon left me cold. Brilliant technical achievement, but character complexity and emotional depth between characters is cold and distant. The book has more to offer than the film.
I can mostly agree with you about the characters, and get your point but I'm talking about the movies as a whole bud. I have always felt something from all of his movies, for better or worse. Kind regards.
You're correct and you're also not the only one that says this. Tarkovsky, another great director, maybe even better than Kubrick, has even stated that 2001 was cold. Roger Ebert has also pointed out how cold kubricks movies were. Kubrick couldn't put emotion in his movies. The closest he ever did was Barry Lyndon.
@@themoreyouknowfools4974 I agree. You'll get alot of debate about Kubrick from academics and fans of Kubrick's films trying to justify Kubrick's way of presenting his characters to an audience, but Kubrick's inner nature as a director is clear to see in his body of work. Why did he give Spielberg A.I. to direct? Because Kubrick didn't have the ability to project emotion and love. Where Spielberg, the great manipulator of emotions had that ability. A.I. demonstrates that Kubrick's lack of empathy and compassion was the reason why he felt he couldn't direct the film, but chose Spielberg instead. You're right about Barry Lyndon as well. I do enjoy the film, but feel there's a lack of understanding in presenting the characters that William Makepeace Thackeray createdfrom the book.
The guy was a fucking genius; just watch his films and check the definition of the word genius in the dictionary. Who he was as a human being is almost irrelevant. The art is what gets left behind. Malcolm seems bitter about something.
i like Stanley Kubrick, but his movies were a little bit cold for me. Like he wouldn't need a lot, too much and its sugary. Maybe 1% more warmth spice in it, and then his movies, in my opinion would be much more rewatchable.
It's fine if he doesn't think Kubrick is a genius, but I do disagree with his reasoning. I find Kubrick films to be very human. Just about all of them put human nature under a microscope. If McDowell is implying his movies are too cold (which some are) I would point to movies like Dr. Strangelove, a dark comedy that reflects our tendency to make humor of the macabre. Or Paths of Glory which is brimming with idealism, even if it doesn't end super warmly.
They may be under a microscope but some of it does seem to come from a cold perspective as he's known to have. Your personality can show through in the films if your not an endearing individual or show lack of compassion. People make it seem like he wasn't grounded but his perspective and attention to detail along with his creativity make.for an undeniable resume.
Looks like Kubrick really hurt the feelings of Malcolm, *(Put your feelings aside, Stanley was a passionate about his film making)* and of course he was a Genius, but to be so good at something would mean a possible lacking some where else !!!
He knew stanley is going to see this🤣 good mocking malcolm now if u ask those questions his answers will be completely different with time he realized A clockwork orange is the only timeless movie he made and all the hard work he did in the film is worth
I think Malcom said this because I saw an earlier interview were he explained that after a Clockwork orange was finished Stanley pulled Malcom aside and said “you’re going to tell them I’m a genius” then when Malcom asked what Stanley would say about him he was “you’re a dam good actor” which is a little unfair considering Stanley did not direct Malcom and expected him to just be the character.
Only a genius could make 2001. No other director could make such a unique film, not only from the technical point of view (¡in 1968!), but also from the philosophical one. And, yes, he was not as tear driven as Spielberg or Chaplin, for example, his mind was more like the one of a chess player.
@@buckaroobanzai7063 Quite the opposite- In Clarkes novel, everything about the monolith is outlined and explained but the lack of explanation in the movie, the unknown, and Kubricks lack of clear explanation, is part of what made this the greatest film in the history of cinema.
Really Malcom? That's the test? Pray tell us what Michelangelo was like as a human being. There is no personality hoop you have to jump through to prove your worth as a genius. It's about the integrity of the work. Malcom's just pissed Stanley forgot who he was once the shooting of Clockwork Orange was over.
This man directed films that encapsulated humanity! I think Malcolm is missing the forest for the trees. He withheld his humanity to his crew so he could shed it before his audience. That's the genius that Malcolm is missing, if I may say.
He should have said "Leonardo DiVinci", instead of Michelangelo..... Michelangelo was a great artist, but Leonardo was the real scientific, artistic genius. I dont think any of them were great people, day to day... Kubrick, and the old masters were all rather eccentric and moody. McDowell sounds angry for not having his ego cradled.
Wouldn't his lack of humanity make him even *more* of a genius since it means he puts the work above the emotions of himself and others?! Idk, seems like McDowell is a bit too biased to give a straight answer on this.
yeah, you're right Malcolm, Kubrick put a lot of his "coldness" into his movies....... but after all, isn't that what made those movies genius ???? I mean, can you imagine, that he would film that scene where HAL killed those hibernating passengers in a "warmer way" ?????? it would never work that way....... Kubrick was trying to make his movie-making look as realistic as possible and reality isn't warm and cosy...... not mentioning, that Kubrick made McDowell a star of a movie, that can be easily considered one of the greatest flicks of all time....... this guy basically owes Kubrick his stardom
No cinema director is a Genius! Genius people never mess with the Production. This kind of Cinema directors first of all are managers. And we know that managers aren't geniuses.
so basically this guys argument is "i didnt like him so hes not a genius". this guys always disparaging Kubrick because hes bitter about how stanley treated him. kubricks humanity is utterly irrelevant to the question of whether or not he was a genius
This is butthurt talking. Malcolm found it hard to accept that their friendship didn't continue after the movie. What's "humanity" got to do with genius? Ask McDowell this question years later and he'd say something different.
Its not necessary for a genius to be a perfect person McDowell- You're way off buddy. In a hundred years, how many people will remember you and your creations?
Not sure what "genius" and "lack of humanity" have to do with each other. Sounds like Malcolm just doesn't like Kubrick on a personal level due to his experience filming with him.
Kubrick’s iq is estimated to be 200 it’s for reference Einstein had an iq of 160 and stephen hawking had a 180 iq so he’s not only a genius he’s one of the smartest individuals in history of mankind
@Raf Da Cook genius level iq doesn't mean a genius, emotional quotient and emotional intelligence is even more important when it comes to labeling someone a genius, intelligence and intellect can be acquired or developed, whereas emotional intelligence and intuition grows and deepens from our expanding consciousness, this is more important than any other factor, because as our consciousness expands and we become one with the source of creation, we can't help but express our love and passion towards humanity as it is now a thought of God and action truly divine. That is genius. And as you said, kubrick's IQ was nowhere near the mark of 200, it might be somewhere around 140-145. Everything else is a rumor.
I heard kubrick put mcdowell through the ringer filming orange.I saw an interview of him saying his feelings were greatly hurt that stanley didn't show appreciation to his sacrifices in the filming and that kubricke never called him or showed any kind of comradery for the piece of art they made together
While he is right. Kubrick did *LACK HUMANITY* but so did the world at the time. His movie's were a mere reflection of our world and where we could be going.
Interesting because Shelley Duvall claimed he gave her a nervous breakdown when they were filming I can't even think of what it's called.. she said he isolated her and told all the other actors and crew not to talk to her so that she could really experience the feeling of isolation.... she couldn't handle it and she said It felt very cruel to her and she cracked ...I think she talks about it here on RUclips
he was just an actor hired to play a part. Its Stanleys work of art, not mcdowells
@@supremeworld87 without McDowell’s brilliant performance, it would not be the masterpiece that it is. Both were brilliant.
@@deandoucette7206 yet McDowell does nothing but badmouth Kubrick any chance he gets and insists he was too mean to be considered a genius
McDowell is a human being with feelings, and feelings are bruised quite easily sometimes. I’m sure Michelangelo wasn’t an easy person to be work with or be around either, though.
Thanks, yeah. He’s just throwing shade. I feel bad for him. Kubrick is a genius though. Big ideas, big execution and his films will live on for a very long time. Who is Malcolm McDowell again?
If I was McDowell, I think I would regret being in Caligula more than this, that could give a viewer a nervous breakdown let a lone an actor playing a lead part in something so satanic.
@@viborgvee8399 “Satanic”? lol. Tf does that mean. Anyway, yeah it just looks bad.
@@trashyraccoon2615 mcdowell's the guy who kubrick made famous 50 years ago & who was never in another movie again that anyone remembers 🤣 oh and mcdowell's the whiny asswipe who decades later is still angry that kubrick didn't call him 🙃
I know I have to laugh when he said,, "At the end of the day what was he like as a man? As a human being?". As if he knew what Michelangelo,, a man who lived four centuries before him, was like as a human being.
This is quite refreshing to hear. Genius is such a loose term.
And yet he applied it to John Ford??
@@brodjefferson3513 and denied it from Kubrick who is clearly a genius. You can't watch his filmography and tell me otherwise.
Sounds like you don't know what genius means.@@lvkrosenkreuz3638
Yeah, it is refreshing. Genius is thrown about too loosely, and I'll tell you another great director who was not a genius - Coppola.
@@rossl5908 Steve Jobs wasn’t a genius either
He was a genius at photography and film. He wasnt a genius writer but he was a genius interpreter. He was amazing at detailing set design and knowing what to put in leave out , and properly obsess over the correct shot , lense , etc. He made changes as he went, he knew how to manipulate the actors somewhat, he was a helluva character which proceeds him after his life cant think of many directors like him. He was massively inspirational to many important directors. He had patience and technique studios and cameramen never care to replicate if theyd ever think to attempt. Each movie stands out in peoples minds as classic. And he was a quiet recluse guy - class act in most aspects of his life.
Exactement!
he wasnt quiet out a recluse that’s a huge misconception on him
@@syedmasood6454 he liked working more then he liked giving interviews and being in the spotlight of his movies. Spent alot of time researching his projects and looking for the next that would translate to film. I think Arthur c Clarke handed him a copy of a clockwork orange while making 2001
@@JasonVoorhees10100 he did that mainly to have a peaceful private life as many people had also hated him due to the content of his movies. he did prefer working but was very social with the circle around him. a person like him wouldntve gotten to where they were by being a recluse.
Kubrick was a brilliant conceptualizer, planner, artistic innovator and photographer. With a keen interest in psychology, politics and ideas.
And not the most empathic dude, apparently
@@mattmoves5920 Why does it matter what he was like as a person? As long as he wasnt a murderer, rapist or cheat then it shouldn't matter if he was a cold human. His work should speak for itself.
@@Phil_Mitchell that’s literally what this video is about
@@Phil_Mitchell why can't the work of murderers, rapists and cheats speak for themselves?
@東勝男 found the frustrated failure filmmaker 😏
In a Kubrick documentary McDowell said Kubrick basically cut ties with him after being very warm while shooting Clockwork. Moreover, McDowell always says something mean about Kubrick in interviews. Kubrick and he had what sounded like a father-son dynamic on set. McDowell clearly never got over it.
You can understand that though, right? that would make most people feel like they were just being used.
Well calling an actor once a year should not be such big deal
And I don't blame him.
do u not observe how incredibly infantilizing that language is
Kubrick was a genius at making others think he was a genius.
You think your comment is genius.
mskidi but no one thinks he’s a genius and if they do their the stupid ones
Light, John Lennon always thought he was a genius and he was.
GTS, gods? No they're geniuses too... Only a lot more than Lennon.
Maybe. But then again he did do advanced mathematics for fun. And fund a movie through chess champion winnings. Who knows?
This was a very polite way of saying that he was a jerk.
I think Kubrick was a genius. The thing is that McDowell listed Michelangelo as a genius while saying that Kubrick wasn't one because of his lack of humanity and warmth. This is rather ignorant. Michelangelo was known for being so eccentric that he was completely unsociable and dissociated from the rest of society.
Eccentricity is associated with intelligence.
List your sources for you alleged association of eccentricity with "intelligence"
Is 'humanity' a pre-requisite for genius? The definition, as it is often said is thus :-
A genius is a person who displays exceptional intellectual ability, creative productivity, universality in genres or originality, typically to a degree that is associated with the achievement of new advances in a domain of knowledge.
In above definition, he meets that criteria, humanity withstanding or otherwise.
@GTS I mean he is a genius. But I can see what he means when he mentions "this lack of humanity". I mean you can't really blame him. Who wouldn't at that level? Most of his movies show how fucked we are as human beings anyway.
"Eccentricity is associated with intelligence" is a gauche, harmful cliche
So depressing not one mention of the greatest director there ever was, John Ford, in the comments. I was elated to hear McDowell compare Ford to Michelangelo. I do believe Ford and Kubrick were more similar than McDowell gives Kubrick credit for. I wouldn’t say they both had a “lack of humanity” but were able to almost become observers of the human. They both made movies about people very far from the classic “black and white” characteristics of how many character arcs occur. With all due respect to Kubrick, Hitchcock, Scorsese all of em, Ford is the greatest director that ever sat in a directing chair. You can never cut out that piece of DNA when it comes to directing. His influence is too great. Kurosawa lovers will argue Akira influenced Ford which is glaringly untrue. Ford directed his first film in 1917 when Kurosawa was 13 y/o. He grew up watching Ford. Nobody could replicate the sheer precision of the ladder names I mentioned. Ford could make something out of the simplest scene or frame imaginable. Everyone who loves movies should know and appreciate Admiral Ford. At least more so than Hitch cause that’s the only one from the golden age that seems to be universal with film heads of today.
malcoms voice still sounds the same since Clockwork orange
Love the priority on humanity! Also interesting that for all of Kubrick’s iconic films, Clockwork was one the very best at -it’s innovating then succeeding at its own thing- (just about genius you’d think.) The tension, the terror, the ultra(! Of it all!), the silence and the music, minimalist character action in the spaces between familiar to freaky futuristic visions of coherent surrealist action. The morality and the violence, it’s a physically upsetting yet transfixing thing beautiful in parts worth enough to rewatch. Hard to say it’s not a bit genius
Genius has nothing to do with personality, it's grounded in creative intelligence or an exceptional natural ability. Malcolm should just be glad that Kubrick ensured his place in the history of film FOREVER.
Yeah "exceptional natural ability. It's when you put EVERYTHING into that one thing you have a knack for. And can lead to pretty explosive results.
I fully agree. McDowell. Kubrick lacks the emotional element. I think Kubrick didn't really know how to handle that human spark very well. Every film of Kubrick's I've watched has left me cold. Kubrick was a marvellous technical magician, but no more.
Your bananas, I feel something every time from any of his films. Kind regards.
@@jmgmarcus808 Nope. I'm not bananas, but I totally disagree with that. None of his characters have any emotional depth. Just look at A Clockwork Orange. You could say that Alex is a mirror into Kubrick's mind. Cold, clinical and very egotisical. Kubrick was a creative tour de force, that I don't deny, but it's clear that Kubrick lacks a compassionate and human element in his films. Kubrick gave Artifical Intelligence to Steven Spielberg. Why, because Spielberg deals with human emotions in characters, and is able to project human emotions more visably to the audience, where Kubrick cannot achieve those emotional hits. A.I. needed that depth, Kubrick just doesn't have it in him. Even Barry Lyndon left me cold. Brilliant technical achievement, but character complexity and emotional depth between characters is cold and distant. The book has more to offer than the film.
I can mostly agree with you about the characters, and get your point but I'm talking about the movies as a whole bud. I have always felt something from all of his movies, for better or worse. Kind regards.
You're correct and you're also not the only one that says this. Tarkovsky, another great director, maybe even better than Kubrick, has even stated that 2001 was cold. Roger Ebert has also pointed out how cold kubricks movies were. Kubrick couldn't put emotion in his movies. The closest he ever did was Barry Lyndon.
@@themoreyouknowfools4974 I agree. You'll get alot of debate about Kubrick from academics and fans of Kubrick's films trying to justify Kubrick's way of presenting his characters to an audience, but Kubrick's inner nature as a director is clear to see in his body of work. Why did he give Spielberg A.I. to direct? Because Kubrick didn't have the ability to project emotion and love. Where Spielberg, the great manipulator of emotions had that ability. A.I. demonstrates that Kubrick's lack of empathy and compassion was the reason why he felt he couldn't direct the film, but chose Spielberg instead. You're right about Barry Lyndon as well. I do enjoy the film, but feel there's a lack of understanding in presenting the characters that William Makepeace Thackeray createdfrom the book.
Love McDowell!
The guy was a fucking genius; just watch his films and check the definition of the word genius in the dictionary. Who he was as a human being is almost irrelevant. The art is what gets left behind. Malcolm seems bitter about something.
Huh! Fair enough!
i like Stanley Kubrick, but his movies were a little bit cold for me. Like he wouldn't need a lot, too much and its sugary. Maybe 1% more warmth spice in it, and then his movies, in my opinion would be much more rewatchable.
ironically Stephen King said the same thing.
lol yes fair enough. I like Stanley Kubrick a lot more now. I was in an off state when i wrote that I think.
SPOT ON!
He could have been meaner in describing Stanley but he took the high road and was nicer about it. ;)
Neurodivergent genius indeed! Malcolm will never understand Stanley’s mind. Not meant to…
It's fine if he doesn't think Kubrick is a genius, but I do disagree with his reasoning. I find Kubrick films to be very human. Just about all of them put human nature under a microscope. If McDowell is implying his movies are too cold (which some are) I would point to movies like Dr. Strangelove, a dark comedy that reflects our tendency to make humor of the macabre. Or Paths of Glory which is brimming with idealism, even if it doesn't end super warmly.
They may be under a microscope but some of it does seem to come from a cold perspective as he's known to have. Your personality can show through in the films if your not an endearing individual or show lack of compassion. People make it seem like he wasn't grounded but his perspective and attention to detail along with his creativity make.for an undeniable resume.
Kubricks films are made as cold. The closest his movies came to emotion was probably Barry Lyndon.
I didn’t know this mf was Terrance from Entourage
Looks like Kubrick really hurt the feelings of Malcolm, *(Put your feelings aside, Stanley was a passionate about his film making)* and of course he was a Genius, but to be so good at something would mean a possible lacking some where else !!!
You can't understand INTJ it's not your fault but the man made your career the least you can do is not be bitter.
Yeah, well, you know it’s like, eh, you’re opinion, man.
He knew stanley is going to see this🤣 good mocking malcolm now if u ask those questions his answers will be completely different with time he realized A clockwork orange is the only timeless movie he made and all the hard work he did in the film is worth
@Sue Wilson good opinion a clockwork orange is influential said by many filmmakers ur opinion I don't care
I think Malcom said this because I saw an earlier interview were he explained that after a Clockwork orange was finished Stanley pulled Malcom aside and said “you’re going to tell them I’m a genius” then when Malcom asked what Stanley would say about him he was “you’re a dam good actor” which is a little unfair considering Stanley did not direct Malcom and expected him to just be the character.
What interview was that?
@@themoreyouknowfools4974 the documentary “Stanley Kubrick a life in pictures “ I think
@@ashb1212 do you know the time stamp?
Only a genius could make 2001. No other director could make such a unique film, not only from the technical point of view (¡in 1968!), but also from the philosophical one. And, yes, he was not as tear driven as Spielberg or Chaplin, for example, his mind was more like the one of a chess player.
Any philosophical insights found in 2001 would have come from Arthur C Clarke.
@Sue Wilson 2001 is my favorite film of all time, so I think Kubrick was definitely a genius.
@@buckaroobanzai7063 Quite the opposite- In Clarkes novel, everything about the monolith is outlined and explained but the lack of explanation in the movie, the unknown, and Kubricks lack of clear explanation, is part of what made this the greatest film in the history of cinema.
Really Malcom? That's the test? Pray tell us what Michelangelo was like as a human being. There is no personality hoop you have to jump through to prove your worth as a genius. It's about the integrity of the work. Malcom's just pissed Stanley forgot who he was once the shooting of Clockwork Orange was over.
LOL. Isaac Newton, now there was a genius full of humanity. What we know for certain is, Malcolm McDowell is no genius.
Checkmate!……
This man directed films that encapsulated humanity! I think Malcolm is missing the forest for the trees. He withheld his humanity to his crew so he could shed it before his audience. That's the genius that Malcolm is missing, if I may say.
Says the guy who starred in Caligula... lulz
what's ur point here?
He's probably this saying only cause Kubrick stiffed him on pay while working on Clockwork.
He should have said "Leonardo DiVinci", instead of Michelangelo..... Michelangelo was a great artist, but Leonardo was the real scientific, artistic genius. I dont think any of them were great people, day to day... Kubrick, and the old masters were all rather eccentric and moody. McDowell sounds angry for not having his ego cradled.
I'm pretty sure he was referring to Michelangelo Antonioni (another great director) and after that he mentionned John Ford (another great director)
Being eccentric and being a bit moody doesn’t make you a bad person.
Wouldn't his lack of humanity make him even *more* of a genius since it means he puts the work above the emotions of himself and others?! Idk, seems like McDowell is a bit too biased to give a straight answer on this.
yeah, you're right Malcolm, Kubrick put a lot of his "coldness" into his movies....... but after all, isn't that what made those movies genius ???? I mean, can you imagine, that he would film that scene where HAL killed those hibernating passengers in a "warmer way" ?????? it would never work that way....... Kubrick was trying to make his movie-making look as realistic as possible and reality isn't warm and cosy......
not mentioning, that Kubrick made McDowell a star of a movie, that can be easily considered one of the greatest flicks of all time....... this guy basically owes Kubrick his stardom
No cinema director is a Genius! Genius people never mess with the Production.
This kind of Cinema directors first of all are managers. And we know that managers aren't geniuses.
don't be silly
so basically this guys argument is "i didnt like him so hes not a genius". this guys always disparaging Kubrick because hes bitter about how stanley treated him.
kubricks humanity is utterly irrelevant to the question of whether or not he was a genius
This is butthurt talking. Malcolm found it hard to accept that their friendship didn't continue after the movie. What's "humanity" got to do with genius? Ask McDowell this question years later and he'd say something different.
Nobody really knows what Michelangelo was as a person
How dare you? Signed: Greta
So, he was a jerk. Got it.
Its not necessary for a genius to be a perfect person McDowell- You're way off buddy. In a hundred years, how many people will remember you and your creations?
Ok, Dr. Monty.
holy shit it is him
Not sure what "genius" and "lack of humanity" have to do with each other. Sounds like Malcolm just doesn't like Kubrick on a personal level due to his experience filming with him.
Nonsense. Kubrick is a genius. Hardly anyone knows who this dude is.
@Sue Wilson OMG, Stop embarrassing yourself. Maybe deplorables don’t know who Kubrick is but most adults that don’t live in a trailer do. Lol wow
He just salty
Overrated as hell
Kubrick’s iq is estimated to be 200 it’s for reference Einstein had an iq of 160 and stephen hawking had a 180 iq so he’s not only a genius he’s one of the smartest individuals in history of mankind
IQ has nothing to do with genius.
@@srinivassridhar5151 yes it does.Anyone with 140 iq and over is considered to be a genuis search it up
@@Itay_Gever No.
@@srinivassridhar5151 Notably, the average IQ score falls between 85 and 115. A score above 140, meanwhile, is considered to be genius level. - CNBC
@Raf Da Cook genius level iq doesn't mean a genius, emotional quotient and emotional intelligence is even more important when it comes to labeling someone a genius, intelligence and intellect can be acquired or developed, whereas emotional intelligence and intuition grows and deepens from our expanding consciousness, this is more important than any other factor, because as our consciousness expands and we become one with the source of creation, we can't help but express our love and passion towards humanity as it is now a thought of God and action truly divine. That is genius. And as you said, kubrick's IQ was nowhere near the mark of 200, it might be somewhere around 140-145. Everything else is a rumor.