Boaz
2007-03-22 05:44:43 UTC
Just got back from an industry screening of "Colour Me Kubrick" at the
DGA Theater. Despite the fact that it was free (invitation only) there
were still a lot of seats available. Too bad. Not because of the DGA's
excellent projection and sound system (though it has that), but
because here was an opportunity to see this film without shelling out
any money, like what a lot of people might do when it opens in
theaters this Friday.
I know of the film's history, and the fact that director Brian Cook
was Kubrick's assistant director and screenwriter Anthony Frewin his
attorney, but I thought the film was a structrual mess, as if made by
people who were fans instead part of the power behind the throne, so
to speak. So much of the film's first act and most of the second act
showed what seemed to be endless efforts on Alan Conway's part to con
people into believing he was Stanley Kubrick. This was fine for a
while, but if that was the only point Cook and Frewin were making they
succeeded much earlier and needed to move on to other business.
I'm writing this off the top of my head, just having come home from
seeing it, so my impressions may seem jumbled. The film is filled with
audio and visual allusions to Kubrick's films; in fact, one would have
to be blind and deaf not to catch them, Cook and Frewin use such broad
brush strokes to make their points. It seemed that they were trying to
do to Conway in this film what Frederic Raphael did to Kubrick in his
writings. There is even a quick dig at Raphael at one point; Conway
(passing himself off as Kubrick in front of some admirers) is saying
his next project is a remake of "Darling," with the lead getting a sex
change operation. "Darling," of course, was an original screenplay by
Raphael.
Which brings me to another point: was Kubrick so little known and so
little heard of in the UK that people didn't know what he looked like
at all? Was he so out of the public eye (I loathe to use the word
"reclusive") that people were gullible enough to believe this slovenly
dressed creepy individual who frequented gay bars was one of the
world's greatest cinema artists? Am I being that naive in thinking
people would be so easily conned by someone like Conway? John
Malkovich is a great actor, when doing the right role, of course. Here
he plays Conway in his patented creepy way that it's hard to imagine
anyone would want to spend five minutes in his presence, let alone a
whole weekend at a hotel in the Isle of Man (which, according to this
film, he did). Malkovich's Conway (an interesting choice of name if it
weren't his real one) is a balding, paunchy, middle aged alcoholic
with a preference for young men and who dressed in mis-matched clothes
that look like he got them at a Goodwill store. Yet never at any time
in the film do Cook and Frewin bother to give us the slightest hint of
a backstory on Conway. We know he is this sick fuck who passed himself
off as Kubrick, but why? Why Kubrick? There is more than one occasion
that Conway trips himself up in front of people, showing he didn't do
his "homework" on researching Kubrick before passing himself off as
him. Why did he choose Kubrick? If he knew Kubrick was out of the
public eye, wouldn't he have tried to assume a closer persona to
Kubrick, or am I just being too logical and rational here? This goes
back to an earlier question: were people THAT gullible to believe this
oddball of a human being was Kubrick? Even if recent photos of Kubrick
weren't available, wouldn't anyone be suspicious of him wandering the
streets of London on his own? What about his wife or daughters? (At
one point one person who was a victim thought Kubrick had a son and
was led to believe said son died in a car accident.) Never at any time
did Malkovich's Conway suggest a family man who stayed at some crummy
flat while "doing work at the studio." St. Albans was hardly that far
a drive to any of the studios in or around London. It is widely known
that Kubrick liked to shoot as close to London as possible in order to
"sleep in his own bed" at night after a day's shoot. Where did these
people think Kubrick's estate was, Antartica? (Beat you to it,
Ich.) , )
Another scene has Malkovich in this pricey restaurant (which someone
else is footing the bill, which, of course, is why he is there), and
he finds out the couple next to him is Frank Rich of the New York
Times and his wife (played by Marisa Berenson, who looked as though
she has had more than a couple of face-lifts since BL). Malkovich goes
over to their table and tells them who he is, adding that he didn't
like what Rich wrote about him in an article in the Times. Later, Rich
and Berenson do some research in a library, and all they can find on
Kubrick is a photo taken in 1971 (presumably when ACO was in
production). Were there no books in the late '80s or early '90s on
Kubrick in the UK (as there were here in the US) that had plenty of
photos of Kubrick to confirm what he looked like, both in his
(literally) beardless youth and his later years?
After all is said and done, one doesn't really know why Conway passed
himself off as Kubrick, nor how so many people were so easily conned
(educated and non-educated people alike) into believing he was. I'm
sure there is material there on Conway's life for a film; it just
wasn't this one. This was like a series of cheap-shots at Conway while
making numerous allusions to Kubrick's films, both in visuals and
choices of music. I came away from this film none the wiser as to how
this trickster Alan Conway managed to get away with what he did for so
long by passing himself off as Stanley Kubrick.
Boaz
("Its origin and purpose still a total mystery.")
DGA Theater. Despite the fact that it was free (invitation only) there
were still a lot of seats available. Too bad. Not because of the DGA's
excellent projection and sound system (though it has that), but
because here was an opportunity to see this film without shelling out
any money, like what a lot of people might do when it opens in
theaters this Friday.
I know of the film's history, and the fact that director Brian Cook
was Kubrick's assistant director and screenwriter Anthony Frewin his
attorney, but I thought the film was a structrual mess, as if made by
people who were fans instead part of the power behind the throne, so
to speak. So much of the film's first act and most of the second act
showed what seemed to be endless efforts on Alan Conway's part to con
people into believing he was Stanley Kubrick. This was fine for a
while, but if that was the only point Cook and Frewin were making they
succeeded much earlier and needed to move on to other business.
I'm writing this off the top of my head, just having come home from
seeing it, so my impressions may seem jumbled. The film is filled with
audio and visual allusions to Kubrick's films; in fact, one would have
to be blind and deaf not to catch them, Cook and Frewin use such broad
brush strokes to make their points. It seemed that they were trying to
do to Conway in this film what Frederic Raphael did to Kubrick in his
writings. There is even a quick dig at Raphael at one point; Conway
(passing himself off as Kubrick in front of some admirers) is saying
his next project is a remake of "Darling," with the lead getting a sex
change operation. "Darling," of course, was an original screenplay by
Raphael.
Which brings me to another point: was Kubrick so little known and so
little heard of in the UK that people didn't know what he looked like
at all? Was he so out of the public eye (I loathe to use the word
"reclusive") that people were gullible enough to believe this slovenly
dressed creepy individual who frequented gay bars was one of the
world's greatest cinema artists? Am I being that naive in thinking
people would be so easily conned by someone like Conway? John
Malkovich is a great actor, when doing the right role, of course. Here
he plays Conway in his patented creepy way that it's hard to imagine
anyone would want to spend five minutes in his presence, let alone a
whole weekend at a hotel in the Isle of Man (which, according to this
film, he did). Malkovich's Conway (an interesting choice of name if it
weren't his real one) is a balding, paunchy, middle aged alcoholic
with a preference for young men and who dressed in mis-matched clothes
that look like he got them at a Goodwill store. Yet never at any time
in the film do Cook and Frewin bother to give us the slightest hint of
a backstory on Conway. We know he is this sick fuck who passed himself
off as Kubrick, but why? Why Kubrick? There is more than one occasion
that Conway trips himself up in front of people, showing he didn't do
his "homework" on researching Kubrick before passing himself off as
him. Why did he choose Kubrick? If he knew Kubrick was out of the
public eye, wouldn't he have tried to assume a closer persona to
Kubrick, or am I just being too logical and rational here? This goes
back to an earlier question: were people THAT gullible to believe this
oddball of a human being was Kubrick? Even if recent photos of Kubrick
weren't available, wouldn't anyone be suspicious of him wandering the
streets of London on his own? What about his wife or daughters? (At
one point one person who was a victim thought Kubrick had a son and
was led to believe said son died in a car accident.) Never at any time
did Malkovich's Conway suggest a family man who stayed at some crummy
flat while "doing work at the studio." St. Albans was hardly that far
a drive to any of the studios in or around London. It is widely known
that Kubrick liked to shoot as close to London as possible in order to
"sleep in his own bed" at night after a day's shoot. Where did these
people think Kubrick's estate was, Antartica? (Beat you to it,
Ich.) , )
Another scene has Malkovich in this pricey restaurant (which someone
else is footing the bill, which, of course, is why he is there), and
he finds out the couple next to him is Frank Rich of the New York
Times and his wife (played by Marisa Berenson, who looked as though
she has had more than a couple of face-lifts since BL). Malkovich goes
over to their table and tells them who he is, adding that he didn't
like what Rich wrote about him in an article in the Times. Later, Rich
and Berenson do some research in a library, and all they can find on
Kubrick is a photo taken in 1971 (presumably when ACO was in
production). Were there no books in the late '80s or early '90s on
Kubrick in the UK (as there were here in the US) that had plenty of
photos of Kubrick to confirm what he looked like, both in his
(literally) beardless youth and his later years?
After all is said and done, one doesn't really know why Conway passed
himself off as Kubrick, nor how so many people were so easily conned
(educated and non-educated people alike) into believing he was. I'm
sure there is material there on Conway's life for a film; it just
wasn't this one. This was like a series of cheap-shots at Conway while
making numerous allusions to Kubrick's films, both in visuals and
choices of music. I came away from this film none the wiser as to how
this trickster Alan Conway managed to get away with what he did for so
long by passing himself off as Stanley Kubrick.
Boaz
("Its origin and purpose still a total mystery.")