A book Stanley Kubrick didn’t want anyone to read is being published

I highly recommend the documentary <i>Filmworker</i> to anyone interested in Stanley Kubrick&#x27;s character.<p>It&#x27;s about Leon Vitali, the actor who played Lord Bullingdon (the neurotic brother of Lady Lyndon) in <i>Barry Lyndon</i>. After filming Barry Lyndon, he quit acting and became Kubricks personal assistant &#x2F; factotum for over 20 years. Although some would say he was Kubrick&#x27;s personal slave. It is utterly shocking to see how badly Kubrick treated him at times. Vitali did the work of 4-5 assistants, completely neglected his family, destroyed his health, spend the best years of his life re-cutting scenes until 5 in the morning while listening to Kubrick&#x27;s violent tantrums, and ended his successful acting career for him. But apparently he was paid so little by Kubrick that he ran into financial trouble after the director&#x27;s death. Yet for some mysterious reason, he remained completely loyal to his master until his own death in 2022.

Doesn&#x27;t seem that controversial. A publisher commissioned a book about the films of Stanley Kubrick, agreeing that Kubrick would be able to veto publishing of the text if he didn&#x27;t like it.<p>He didn&#x27;t like it, didn&#x27;t sign off on it, and the book was never published.

I love Kubrick movies, but my one bit of criticism I&#x27;d give (from me - a random guy on the internet, who&#x27;s never made a movie), is that both 2001 and The Shining both require the viewer to have read the respective books to fully appreciate them.<p>I know it&#x27;s a cliché to harp on about the ending of 2001, but it really does make a lot more sense after having read the book, which in turn makes the movie a lot more enjoyable.<p>With The Shining, you really need to read the book to fully understand the back-story to Jack&#x27;s issues, and Danny&#x27;s premonitions. I was amazed at how much the movie left out, and after reading the book, the movie is so much better.

I have to say that the &#x27;critical&#x27; quotations from the book are uncharacteristic of a project where the target of the biography (and this is a kind of biography) is cooperating and participating - and particularly when they have veto.<p>Most writers know the score in this respect: unauthorized coverage is harder-hitting and may be more accurate, whereas authorized coverage has inside scoops, but is unlikely to be allowed to contain very critical barbs.

Good, if Stanley was going to bully them into not publishing I am glad it got published eventually. I like Stanley Kubrick&#x27;s films but every time I read about him he comes off as a generally unlikeable guy.

So, why can they publish it now? His death doesn’t nullify the agreement, does it?

Stanley Kubrick was one of that kind of people who cannot take criticism of anything they do.

&gt; &quot;There are good things in Lolita. But in too many respects it squanders, impoverishes and conventionalises its source material, draining it of its complexity, nymphetry and eroticism.&quot;<p>I think anyone who has read Nabokov&#x27;s novel would agree that Lolita <i>really</i> isn&#x27;t a great adaptation of the book. I think it is by far Kubrick&#x27;s weakest film. There is a deep cynic darkness to the book that the movie misses completely. In later interviews, Kubrick always tried to downplay this and only admitted that the movie lacked eroticism:<p>&gt; &quot;If I could do the film over again, I would have stressed the erotic component of their relationship with the same weight Nabokov did,&quot; the director admitted. &quot;But that is the only major area where I believe the film is susceptible to valid criticism.&quot;<p>I sometimes wonder how a Lolita movie by Francis Ford Coppola would&#x27;ve turned out (maybe with Gene Hackman).

Fun fact you can visit Stanley Kuberick’s old house in North London (near Elstree).<p>You can’t go inside, mind. It is surrounded by lots of farm and woodlands, however, so theres that.

This book is a great one: &quot;Stanley Kubrick and Me: Thirty Years at His Side&quot;, by Emilio D&#x27;Alessandro

If you don&#x27;t want your art to exist beyond you, destroy it. Once you die, whatever remains is fair game.

I am a literate adult. When I read this title I saw Aurthur C. Clarke&#x27;s face.

Fortunately people don&#x27;t read books anymore.

Nice sales trick

So the guy writing the book wanted Lolita to be a lot hornier?

I guess it shows that no matter how objectively successful you are, your skin can still be see-through thin.