Greatest Films
Submitted by Elston on Fri, 11/14/2008 - 07:49
Tags:
- 9.5
- 2001: A Space Odyssey - Stanley Kubrick (1968)
- Mirror - Andrei Tarkovsky (1975)
- Godfather - Francis Coppola (1972)
- Citizen Kane - Orson Welles (1941)
- 8 1/2 - Federico Fellini (1963)
- Persona - Ingmar Bergman (1966)
- 9.0
- A Clockwork Orange - Stanley Kubrick (1971)
- STALKER - Andrei Tarkovsky (1979)
- Eyes Wide Shut - Stanley Kubrick (1999)
- Slow Motion - Jean-Luc Godard (1979)
- Barry Lyndon - Stanley Kubrick (1975
- Metropolis - Fritz Lang (1927)
- Dogville - Lars von Trier (2003)
- Wild Strawberries - Ingmar Bergman (1957)
- Wings of Desire - Wim Wenders (1987)
- Belle de Jour - Luis Bunuel (1967)
- Pierrot le fou - Jean-Luc Godard (1965)
- Taxi Driver - Martin Scorsese (1976)
- Manhattan - Woody Allen (1979)
- Raging Bull - Martin Scorsese (1980)
- 8.5
- The Shining - Stanley Kubrick (1980)
- Blue Velvet - David Lynch (1986)
- Touch of Evil - Orson Welles (1958)
- Inland Empire - David Lynch (2006)
- Full Metal Jacket - Stanley Kubrick (1987)
- 'Vertigo' - Alfred Hitchcock (1958)
- M - Fritz Lang (1931)
- 400 Blows - Francois Truffaut (1959)
- Ikiru - Akira Kurosawa (1952)
- Contempt - Jean Luc Godard (1963)
- Passion - Jean Luc Godard (1982)
- Annie Hall - Woody Allen (1977)
- Mulholland Drive - David Lynch (2001)
- Breathless - Jean Luc Godard (1959)
- In the Bedroom - Todd Field (2001)
- L'Age D'Or - Luis Bunuel (1930)
- Rocco & His Brothers - Luchino Visconti (1960)
- Conversation - Francis Coppola (1974)
- Dancer in the Dark - Lars Von Trier (2000)
- Aguirre the Wrath of God - Werner Herzog (1972)
- Viridiana - Luis Bunuel (1961)
- Rosemary's Baby - Roman Polanski (1968)
- Eraserhead - David Lynch (1977)
- Cabinet of Dr. Caligari - Robert Weine (1920)
- Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie - Luis Bunuel (1972)
- Decalogue - Krzysztof Kieślowski (1989)
- Splendor in the Grass - Elia Kazan (1961)
- La Dolce Vita - Federico Fellini (1961)
- Chinatown - Roman Polanski (1974)
- Los Olvidavos - Luis Bunuel (1950)
- Weekend - Jean Luc Godard (1967)
- Letter From an Unknown Woman - Max Ophüls (1948)
- Hannah & Her Sisters - Woody Allen (1986)
- Last Laugh - Friedrich Murnau (1924)
- The Seventh Seal - Ingmar Bergman (1957)
- Tokyo Story - Yasujiro Ozu (1953)
- Sunset Boulevard - Billy Wilder (1950)
- 8.0
- Nashville - Robert Altman (1975)
- Winter Light - Ingmar Bergman (1962)
- Life & Death of Colonel Blimp - Powell and Pressburger (1943)
- Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - Michel Gondry (2004)
- Night of the Hunter - Charles Laughton (1955)
- Talk to Her - Pedro Almodovar (2002)
- Wild Bunch - Sam Peckinpah (1969)
- A History of Violence - David Cronenberg (2005)
- Battle of Algiers - Gillo Pontecorvo (1966)
- My Darling Clementine - John Ford (1946)
- Salo or 120 Days of Sodom - Pier Paolo Pasolini (1975)
- 12 Angry Men - Sidney Lumet (1957)
- Gospel According to St. Matthew - Pier Paolo Pasolini (1964)
- Good, the Bad & the Ugly - Sergio Leone (1966)
- Double Indemnity - Billy Wilder (1944)
- Synecdoche, New York - Charles Kauffman (2008)
- Fellini Satyricon - Federico Fellini (1969)
- La Notte - Michelangelo Antonioni (1961)
- Great Dictator - Charles Chaplin (1940)
- Killing - Stanley Kubrick (1956)
- The Trial - Orson Welles (1962)
- There Will Be Blood - Paul Thomas Anderson (2007)
- On the Waterfront - Elia Kazan (1954)
- Some Like it Hot - Billy Wilder (1959)
- Él (This Strange Passion) - Luis Buñuel (1953)
- Man With a Movie Camera - Roosky Leftreds (1929)
- Un Chien Andalou - Luis Bunuel (1929)
- Masculin Feminin - Jean Luc Godard (1966
Author Comments:
For 7+ see film log








Excellent list, sir. The only film here I'm not wild about is Barry Lyndon. I couldn't get over the feeling that Ryan O'Neal had been horribly miscast.
You definitely need to check out Tarkovsky, if you haven't already. Anyone who loves 2001 as much as you do is pretty much guaranteed to love his films.
Barry Lyndon is an 8.5/10 for me. Once I get around to re-watching all my movies it will move farther down the list. It ranks highly for me because it is without a doubt one of the most beautifully photographed films of all time. On top of that, the costumes & soundtrack are flawless. Why do you think O'Neil was miscast? Thematically it's a rather simple film: innocent young man gets his heart broken and then tramples beauty wherever he goes. I urge you to give it another shot, it's one of Kubrick's finest.
I definitely agree with you on the photography in Barry Lyndon. John Alcott was without peer in his field, just as Kubrick was.
There is a long list of things I didn't like about O'Neal's performance; however, I am going to withhold criticism until I get a chance to see the film again.
I didn't think his performance was any worse than, say, Matthew Modine's in Full Metal Jacket (who I personally enjoyed very much).
Really awesome list! I haven't heard of The Last Laugh. I'll have to check it out.
It's a wonderful film and one of the best silent films I've seen. Definitely check out Metropolis if you haven't, for my money the most formidable silent film of all time and one of the greatest works of art of the 20th century, if I may be so bold.
Great to see Before Sunrise on the list.
Great film, really surprised me. I was thinking sappy romance movie, but Linklater made a remarkable film. Have you seen Before Sunset & is it any good?
Before Sunset is a very good sequel. Some would say it's better, but I still prefer the first movie. It may depend on your outlook. The second one really focuses on adulthood and the longing to be young and free again, whereas the first one is nothing but being young and free (and naive). The dialogue still sounds spontaneous and natural, though, and the ending is pretty satisfying. Linklater is great at capturing our fond memories of life.
Indeed. He's a formidable director who I feel is quite underrated. I was watching Dazed & Confused on television some time ago and was amazed at how well crafted it was. I had always thought of that one as a bratty party flick, but it's really quite an experience. The camera movements and performances in particular surprised me.
He's certainly one of my favorite directors. Have you seen "Slacker"? It's a lot like "Waking Life" and a lot less didactic. Just a camera drifting around Austin, eavesdropping on an interesting conversation, then moving across the street to catch up on another one. It gradually becomes this reflection on communication. "Dazed and Confused" ranks high with me, at least an 8.0; not surprised to see it made Criterion collection.
Haven't seen Slacker. Will make a point of seeing it now though.
I'd loved to see Barry Lyndon so high on your list. Looking at the comments to this thread, I wanted to put in my two cents about O'Neal's performance. He's definitely one of the least impressive things about the movie, but I think Kubrick knew that; Barry's a character without much substance, and O'Neal conveys that perfectly, perhaps unknowingly, with his stiff, pretty-boy performance. He's like the astronaut at the end of 2001, someone at the mercy of more powerful forces.
Well said. I'll add that Barry Lyndon is something of a "Story without a Hero" as Barry is not like most protagonists. He's more like your regular human being - selfish, passionate & vain. There is little about him that is romanticized. You're right, he's at the mercy of more powerful forces and in Barry's case I believe that force to be the ruthless society that is always closing in on him.
I've been watching Barry Lyndon a lot the past few months and what surprised is how much my perception of it has changed over time. First of all, I've yet to hear someone say anything intelligible about Ryan O'Neil's performance. Out of all of Kubrick's films, no one is more 'human' that Redmond Barry and no other film of his has as much genuine feeling. That could be what is so hard about enjoying this film - it's really just a tale of frail human emotions.
Everyone seems to think that Redmond is one of the weak parts and that this was intentional. He has his faults that is undeniable, but the movie is really about him. And the more you watch it, the more empathize with him and how unfair his life has been. The idea that the characters are insignificant in the grand scheme of the film is probably the most blasphemous and untrue statement one could make. I can understand that being the case in a film like 2001, but this is not that film (at all). This is literally a movie about Redmond Barry and the people he loves or encounters. That is literally what it is about. There are other themes of course, but that's what the movie is at its core. It's not really political, philosophical, historical or even psychological, at least not to the extent that other Kubrick films are. It is really a case of what you see is what you get. He is just showing you a man's life, it's ups and downs.
It's true what a lot of people have said about the narrator, though I wouldn't call him unreliable. He just has his own way of looking at things and it isn't necessarily matched by what is taking place on the screen. You can learn a lot from him, but he's often filling you in on something quite far removed from the actual movie and also sometimes he is completely off base. His purpose often seems to be to lessen the emotional impact of scenes, and if you shut him out you can find the most tenderest of moments. Take for instance when Redmond wins the duel against Captain Quinn; he rides home and his Mother comes running out of the house and flings her arms around him because she wasn't sure if she would ever see him again. You can barely notice this exchange because the narrator is talking about how different Barry's fate would have been had he not falling in love with Nora etc. This is only one example of which there are countless. The narrator is almost like a counter-point to the film, like in Bach's music, he is there to compliment and provide his own melody. The important thing is to focus on the more important part of the film. The narrator doesn't really say anything particularly useful at all.
One of the film's biggest strengths is it's marriage of film and music. I really cannot think of any other film that uses music to signal emotions within the characters as masterfully. I point to this clip as an example of that. It's also a good example of the narrator's take on things vs. what is actually being filmed. In the first scene, it looks like Redmond is seeing Lady Lyndon for the first time and falling in love with her at first sight. The narrator's claims seem pretty unlikely given what is shown. But really it's all about the music and the images.
Do you think Magnolia is better than Boogie Nights? I always took the latter to be his masterpiece. I must stand alone on this website in this opinion.
I don't know which is better, but they are both excellent films. So is Punch Drunk Love for that matter, and of course There Will Be Blood. The thing is, it's been awhile since I've watched P.T. Anderson's films again. He used to be one of my top 5 directors when I started to seriously get into movies awhile back. Magnolia was just the most recent one I watched, and that's basically why it's on. I would not fault you at all for ranking Boogie Nights higher - I think it very well could be better. There's many, many great moments in it and an exceptional experience on the whole. I love that long shot of little Bill at the new years eve party.
I underestimated Boogie Nights when I saw its trailer back in '97. Then my film buff friend kept going on and on about it. I was like, all right, what's the big deal here? I watched it one morning before a lacrosse game. I was late for the game. I didn't care. And it was because I was already re-watching scenes.
In my mind, to put it simply, this film is the textbook example of how to steal from masters. And I mean steal in the best sense of the word -- to gracefully, though not covertly, rob the precious gem stones and everyone just high-fives you because it's such a awe-inspiring achievement. You're like the Robin Hood of cinema. Those masters in question were Altman and Scorsese, but PTA also imbued it with something else -- an extraordinarily refined sense of character and classic storytelling sprawl. The ending scene of There Will Be Blood confirmed it for me, but you can find early evidence in this film of the fact that PTA belongs to that school of 70's cinema that took risky, who-cares-where-we-land chances with scenes. That whole drug deal gone wrong was so brilliant in its tension (it even stole from One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest) but you're not peeved at all because the film had earned it by that point. And the acting among these characters actors is simply outstanding, one of the best ensembles of all time. And I could go and on myself about the SUPERB soundtrack and period detail.
I think my favorite part of the movie was the faith in family (the pornographers are almost akin to a band or traveling circus really), the faith in people finding their purpose with other people who are there to support and nourish them. That there are people in life you will meet and depend on, and it's reciprocal. It's somehow more life-affirming than Magnolia, while at the same time dryly sarcastic and realistic because at the end of the day the whole enterprise they find happiness in commodifies their sexuality and makes them the scorn of puritanical society.
The drug deal scene is indeed riveting, possibly the best in the whole film. It's just so bizarre, the cracked smoking dealer in his pajamas wailing to his mixed tapes with his little asian boyfriend lighting firecrackers while Todd sketches out. It's just classic. How did it steal from Cuckoo's Nest? Good point about faith in family, and I love the paradox you've pointed out.
It's subtle but I think it's there. When Dirk is just staring into space, realizing how his life has gone south, that moment of drunk clarity, just before he gets up to leave, is right out of the scene where Nicholson is staring into space realizing what he has to do at the end of Cuckoo.
Apparently, PTA had the 3 actors stay up for two days straight to look coked up, and then he did not tell them about the firecrackers before the shoot, so that they would be genuinely startled when they went off. I was watching some interviews with him last night, he's such a fascinating guy to listen to, he may very well be the best filmmaker of his generation.
Barry Lyndon, at 7?!? A stunning film (the candles!) to look at but the visuals by far outweigh the content. It's an intense movie of great range and depth but top hundred -- let alone top ten -- strikes me as a little high. I guess it struck a much deeper chord with you, it is pretty clear you have a lot more affection for Kubrick than myself. Seven of his films listed here and I think I'd take Paths of Glory over all of them.
The list does have a lot of my favorites; aside from the ones on my own list I really love The Gospel According to St. Matthew, Metropolis, Great Dictator, The Last Laugh, Aguirre, Viridiana, Mulholland Drive, La Dolce Vita, Tokyo Story, Battle of Algiers, Taxi Driver, La Notte, Edvard Munch, etc. As a self-proclaimed authority on good taste let me assure you, you have it.
One movie I don't care for at all is Battleship Potemkin, it's a film I have great respect for yet bore me to tears, aside from a handful of striking images. A few minor points: Woody Allen does little for me, Wild Strawberries is "merely" very good (not top 11), Matrix had some cool moments and that's where it stops, etc etc.
Barry Lyndon is indeed a stunning film to look at, as are all of Kubrick's films, and I'll admit that ever since I saw Barry Lyndon (about 5 years ago) the visuals were mostly all I admired about it. It's always been one of my least favourite Kubrick movies up until about 6 months ago. What gets me most about it is how passionate Barry is as a young man, but over the course of his journeys his romantic soul slowly withers away due to his experiences with fate. His relationship with Lord Bullington is painful to watch because his step-son is in many ways a reincarnation of Barry when he was younger, and thus he's made aware of how he has turned into what he always despised. It's not an easy movie to sum up, but there's a lot more to say about it and I know I won't do it justice; though I think the addition of the narrator is interesting because he represents the rational man looking back indignantly on his former, boisterous, soul and completely misunderstanding himself. So that we're not just watching Barry's story, but an old detached man watching Barry's story, in order to show how we'll never understand the past, never fully understand ourselves.
The fact is, I love Kubrick: he has taught me a lot about life and I share a very similar world-view as contained in his films. To me he is the epitome of the pessimistic and aloof rationalist, with a paradoxical romantic fervor. He also introduced me to Nietzsche and Freud, two of the greatest thinkers ever imo. In short, he's my hero. So there's no possible way I can be objective regarding the artistic quality of his films. Although I do think his cinematography is generally among the greatest in all of cinema. Paths of Glory is a great film, though you'd have to be nuts to take that one over just about any other film he did after that. As for good taste - right back at ya.
Battleship Potyomkin is pretty boring by today's standards, as are many of the old silent films. But what really made it stand out for me is its enthusiasm for Socialism and Anarchy. It's basically a throbbing love-poem written for Bolshevism, and my understanding is that it was a propaganda film. I find this really touching to watch, no matter how naive. It's the best example of Socialism in film I've seen, aside from Seven Samurai. Though nonetheless I understand why people don't like it, and I think it's generally very overrated (it often gets mentioned quite highly).
Woody Allen has gotten funnier and funnier to me only after I figure out what he's saying. His jokes are quite esoteric in many ways, and I find it helps to be equipped with a basic understanding of existentialism (esp. Kierkegaarde), psychoanalysis & popular culture. But all that aside, he's also a talented director who writes and films beautiful stories. What are your top 3 Bergman films, and do you enjoy him in general? Matrix I feel is a stunning myth of the meaning of life, of waking up to reality. It's a very religious/philosophic movie and I thought it was filmed in a very sophisticated way. It also possesses some of the best special effects and action sequences I have seen, though I'll admit it's something of an oddity on this list.
I think it's Kubrick's pompousness that tended to dominate his last 20 years that's a little off putting. I read an interview conducted in the 1980's where he raves about the editing in some commercial he had seen; I think that speaks volumes of how much he was concerned with technicalities and how little he regarded everything else. He really lost me when he became all about technique. Every scene of his tended to be shot astonishingly, but I want more than eye candy. It's not that I think there's anything wrong with coldness, but his particular brand doesn't move me anymore.
I honestly haven't seen a Woody Allen flick in a good minute but I remember him being somewhat juvenile and uninteresting. I mean, I enjoyed them when I first saw them (I can't say I've seen too many of his films) but they just didn't hold up when revisited. Nothing he's done has really stuck with me.
The Seventh Seal, Persona, Smiles of a Summer Night and Fanny & Alexander are my favorites, he has a handful of others that I really enjoy. That being said his reputation is extremely inflated, alongside Kubrick he's the top sacred cow of the medium. A lot of this is because he developed a reputation when art cinema really caught the worlds attention in the 60's. Because his style was severe it was automatically linked with art. Jonathan Rosenbaum put it best when he noted that Bergman's flair was for theatre more than cinema. One of the greatest directors? Sure, I certainly wouldn't argue against it. But he's no Hitchcock, or Welles, or Tarkovsky, or Kurosawa, or Dreyer, or... you get what I mean.
Thanks for the link. Have you seen this clip of Rosenbaum talking about Orson Welles?
The thing about discussing the techniques of your film is that you're dealing with objective facts and thus you're not influencing the subjective responses to your art at all. He repeatedly pointed this out in interviews and remarked that he thought it was ultimately damaging to talk about what you thought the message of your film was because you end up shackling the viewer to reality. That way the film is whatever you make it. He made a comparison between his Full Metal Jacket with Apocalypse Now, saying Coppola is romantic like Wagner, whereas he is content being the Mozart.
Woody Allen is more or less in the line of Bergman type films, so I think it fits that you don't like him. His works are more theatrical than anything else, except they're his own comedic brand rather than heavy psychological dramas.
"But he's no Hitchcock, or Welles, or Tarkovsky, or Kurosawa, or Dreyer"
Yea, and they're no Bergman. He's a true original, whether you like his films or not.
Uhh, I don't care about a message or meaning in art. It doesn't bother me at all that I have no idea what happens at the end of 2001 (although it does seem to approach pomposity). Kubrick, for all his tremendous cinematic ability, created a handful of soulless works that don't move me. It's not even the coldness that gets to me, it's the total lack of passionate engagement. There's no feeling in A Clockwork Orange or The Shining or 2001 or Full Metal Jacket or... whatever. It's not about the narrative (I love Bunuel, Jodorowsky, Lynch, Resnais, etc), it's about the lack of a pulse.
"[2001] has made on me an impression of something artificial, it was as if I have found myself in a museum where they demonstrate the newest technological achievements." -- Andrei Tarkovsky.
He hit the nail on the head. As for being Mozart, let's just say Kubrick never made a 39th symphony.
I think you've misunderstood completely, I do like Bergman. I just think there are others more worthy of the praise heaped upon him. He's often brought up as if he's the absolute peak of the medium, a statement I disagree with entirely (Tarkovsky, anyone?). Despite all this I would never dispute Bergman's originality, it would be an insult and totally ignorant to call him derivative.
It's not that I dislike theatrical works; I mean, I love Dreyer. But he managed to evoke senses of reality, time, depth and space that Bergman rarely had a grip on.
The sad part is we're still monkeys fighting over a water hole, except in this day and age it's movies and which ones are good. I'm warning you: if you push me too far I may just try to defend my own artistic preferences (aka crack you over the skull with a bone). *lets loose a few triumphant apeish grunts*
I don't want to gang up on Marquee, but no feeling in Clockwork Orange, among other highly resonant Kubrick films? That may be overstating the case. I actually like the "alien" or perhaps "emotionally removed" quality that tends to dominate Kubrick films: they put me in zone of deep reflection and contemplation. They're also some of the most absorbing films of all time. As I think Spielberg said, once you start one, you can't turn it off. But that's my 2 cents.
Elston, we have better tools today, I hope. Like logic and reason. :-)
Yes, certainly. And our glorious logic and reason have allowed us to build even bigger weapons muhaha.
Damn it! I knew I walked into that one as soon as I clicked save!
hehe, you sucker.
Why, I oughta...
Why you oughta scamper off in defeat, while your skewered pride lies there twitching in agony. Meanwhile, my cronies and I will drink this here water all to ourselves shashasha (that's the Beastly laugh from Care Bears).
Why I oughta summon you to the meeting I'll be the guy dressed in red with the James Earl Jones voice. I chime in around 2:44.
Please, don't hold back for my sake!
It just goes to show how completely subjective the arts are, you love the aspects of his films that put me off. That passage does nothing for me. I hope no one is misconstruing my points, though. I don't find Kubrick to be worthless by any stretch of the term. It's just his technique overrode everything else. It's weird to read about how he would take dozens upon dozens of takes of actors; but it's not like these actors were delivering better performances in his films. I think that sort of perfectionism, verging on obsessive compulsiveness, suffocated his work. Ironically, he's generally remembered for his camera work.
I take back my Paths of Glory remark, Dr. Strangelove is definitely my favorite of his.
Multiple takes means more choices in the editing room. For Kubrick, that's where a film really came together and the more choices you had the more cohesive you could make your film. It is weird that he took many takes of his actors, but don't forget he was meticulous in everything he did. He would spend years just finding the right story to film, and even more time preparing for it. His method of working was about getting exactly what he wanted onto the screen, nothing less. And as this was constantly evolving even on the set, he had to do many takes. No one ever made films like him. No one had the money, the time or the will to work as hard as he did at it. His works demand a lot from the audience. He's remembered for a lot of different things. It's actually a director like Tarkovsky who is remembered more for his camera work, because his work is somewhat skewed towards visual profundity, unlike Kubrick who scores equally on many levels.
Let me get this straight: you don't care about a message or meaning in art? I'm not sure I've heard a statement that offends my sensibilities more than that! Well done sir! You see, I feel the exact opposite as you do. The message or meaning for me is paramount to enjoying the experience. Also, as far as I'm aware that's been the primary purpose of art since its inception: to express moods, feelings & ideas. What is it you get out of art?
I guess my statement was poorly worded. It's not that I find a message or meaning to be disposable; but it certainly isn't paramount. Moods, feelings and ideas on the other hand are of utmost importance. Take Eraserhead, for instance; it expresses the terror of not only commitment but fatherhood as well. It's a perfect film that has no message or meaning (unless you chalk it up to simplistic things like "the message is that commitment is terrifying" or "the meaning is that fatherhood can be terrifying").
Ah I see, it's just a difference of semantics then. To me, meanings can be ambiguous or paradoxical, and certainly open ended without conclusions. They can simultaneously cancel one another out, or complete the other. I think we probably intuitively feel the same way about art per se, but we just have different tastes. Words suck. See if you were sitting across from me at a table I could look deeply into your eyes and know we were both thinking the same thing. And I'd only rub your groin with my bare foot if you said it was okay, I swear.
Elston, I could recommend you a few websites for your primal urgings...
I'm all orifices
LOL, great comeback!
uh I meant ears of course. I'm all EARS. Not orfices, lol...that's a little embarrassing
and a bit foolhardy -- not all orifices are meant for lovin'
that's debatable, a myth purported by the Judaeo-Christian mindset.
Well, call me Ishmael, but I don't want anything going in my eye!
Eyes aren't orifices, although an eye hole would be one. ENOUGH! all this talk is making me feel..like..uh..um..disgusted? DISGUSTED! Yes that's it. Disgusted. Yuck yuck yuck! How dare you even think of such things, my word. I'm definitely not turned on by this at all. So gross. eeew!
That's what I meant! Anyway, you're right, this thread is past its bedtime.
In Kubrick's defense, please see Rob Ager's brilliant analyses of his movies. Ager sees more than just technical excellence in Kubrick; he sees what may have been a pioneering brand of subliminal narrative. To explain, there is a surface narrative that we all notice (and in some cases think is rather weak); then there is a subliminal narrative hinted at in compositional choices, set design, editing, odd symbols and props that appear in scenes, dialogue, etc. The subliminal narrative is the one Kubrick wanted to tell but could not make it explicit because it was more controversial than the surface narrative and he needed financing for his pictures. If Ager is correct, then Kubrick was a monumental artistic genius of the 20th Century for being able to make movies that told 2 different narratives at the same time! Granted it's mostly theorizing but the apparent subliminal narrative in films like The Shining and Full Metal Jacket are intriguing and help explain why some people feel the story in the films fell apart (especially Jacket).