MovieChat Forums > Spartacus (1960) Discussion > Kubrick Disowned this Film

Kubrick Disowned this Film

posted 10 years ago by Deluge69-663-991830
19 replies | jump to latest

It was never his project. Anthony Mann began as director, but had issues with the star Douglas. He had Mann fired, then asked his 'friend', Stanley to take over.

Kubrick had little, if any, artistic control, and was essentially just a hired hand.

Kubrick even mocked SPARTACUS in the opening scene from his next pic, LOLITA. A spaced-out Sellers tells Mason "I'm Spartacus, have you come to free the slaves?'

Kubrick never considered SPARTACUS a Kubrick Film, and never included it in his body of work. Just a paid assignment in between his real projects.

Heard that Stanley and Kirk had constant issues during filming.

This film lacks Kubrick's distinctive visual style.

Also, the romantic sentiments were not 'Kubrick elements' Too cold and cynical a director he was, never coddling to bleeding hearts.

He was one of the films' harshest critics.

I have wondered how it would have been if he had his full artistic control over it, that is if the story even intrigued him enough to want to do his own vision of it.

[–] bastasch8647 10 years ago

Kubrick's harsh criticism is surely derived from a "sour grapes" attitude. It certainly does not reflect at all negatively on the film.

[–] irishtom29 9 years ago

50 years from now Spartacus will probably be Kubrick's most famous picture and his mid-late 20th Century cynicism and misanthropy will be seen as hopelessly dated and rather amusing. Kubrick was the George Stephens of his day and perhaps Spartacus will be his Gunga Din.

[–] Der_Blaue_Reiter 9 years ago

Nop. Spartacus won't be Kubrik's most famous picture in 50 years because it's not really a Kubrick's film.It lacks most of the distinctive art that people associate with Kubrick and I think most of the viewers watched the film in first place because with was a Kubrick!
I doubt that the so called " mid-late 20th Century cynicism and misanthropy" will be seen as dated and amusing. Patronizing films like Spartacus with a central character portrayed almost as a composite of prophets are in turn really annoying and will wane.

[–] kurt7825 9 years ago

lol you are dumb

[–] kurt7825 8 years ago

i agree

[–] kurt7825 7 years ago

directors aren't artists. they make movies for money and that's it

[–] thebigmouth 8 years ago

50 years from now Spartacus will probably be Kubrick's most famous picture and his mid-late 20th Century cynicism and misanthropy will be seen as hopelessly dated and rather amusing.

http://cdn.meme.li/instances/300x300/12215635.jpg

TV: http://ihatemydvr.blogspot.com
LOST:http://eyemsick.blogspot.com

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

Haha! That is some wonderful comedy!

[–] FirstBlood1982 8 years ago

It does lack the style of Kubrick's other films, and that's why the best film that he's credited with directing.

+++by His wounds we are healed. - Isaiah 53:5+++

[–] MayoGalway 8 years ago

Read the trivia pg. it details all the problems, fights, disagreements. Kubrick, Douglas, the English actors, Trumbo, the censors, the left/right politics, Hollywood Ten. Good read. I read the trivia pg. before I check the message board. Much of the time the answers to questions are there, plus other insightful details.

[–] psmithyyyyy 7 years ago

Well to me it's probably his best film so go figure. I am not a Kubrick fan at all and to be honest I never understood or quote unquote got him. I never actually saw the whole thing of Spartacus until recently when I bought the Blu-ray which is astonishing and excellent and when I saw that Kubrick directed it I had never known that but after watching it I can honestly say it is not bear any resemblance to any movie he's ever made before or since. Which is probably why I liked it so much. So none of this surprises me.

[–] TaRaNRoD (1579) 6 years ago

Retard...

[–] mmq1 7 years ago

Douglas claims Kubrick wanted to delete the 'I Am Sparticus' scene.

If true, it's epic that Douglas won out.

[–] joeD234 (27) 6 years ago

Douglas was the producer, back in the day when the producer was the big boss. It was his baby.

[–] Otter (24464) 6 years ago

"I have wondered how it would have been if he had his full artistic control over it"

I bet he would have fired Kirk Douglas and as leading actor, if it were possible to fire a producer and keep filming. Not just because Douglas wasn't a great actor and wasn't particularly marvelous in the role, but so he wouldn't have to deal with such a notorious pain in the ass.

Still, who could he have used instead? Who else was muscular enough to be believable as a gladiator, but able to really act, good enough to make it the true masterpiece it had the potential to be, instead of the best cheesy epic of that era? Was there a British actor? Because the usual muscular actors like Heston and Lancaster could be fine in the right role, but were so similar to Douglas that what's the point of making a switch.

[–] GrowingFamily (271) 6 years ago

Did Kirk Douglas have the reputation of being a pain in the ass? I've never heard that before but I've never really heard anything about him good or bad.

[–] Otter (24464) 6 years ago

Yeah, Douglas had the reputation of being very, very difficult to work with.

No, I don't have any stories off hand, and I haven't heard anything bad about him in relation to this film.

[–] GrowingFamily (271) 6 years ago

Wow, that's disappointing to hear. I've always liked him.

[–] whynotwriteme (7157) 6 years ago

Spartacus is very different from the rest of Kubrick's oeuvre, because Spartacus has a soul and real heart-wrenching emotion and is not a sterile, schizoid void of a film.