> * I'm interested in why you think _FMJ_ is a superior Kubrick. It
> * seems to me like another one where old K had it for a while and
> * then lost it (and wants you to know he did). I wouldn't say this
> * about all of his movies, just one or two.
> *
> I'm not sure I understand your description--had it and then lost it?
> Lost what? And wants us to know?
I guess, had momentum and lost it. The two things I remember about
_FMJ_ are the interior narrative of the Matthew Modine character--
that was cool, an offbeat commentary on war--and the end, which, like
the end of _2001_ (a much better film, in my view), went on
forever--and further than that, to the extent that I felt Kubrick
wanted me to know he was doing this deliberately, in case I felt
it was just a wonderful bit of mise en scene. (He does do that a
lot--deconstructs his set-pieces which otherwise would be 'mere'
cinematic magic).
| Jeff Finlay                   | [log in to unmask] (NOT a dash)   |
| American Studies Program      | [log in to unmask]             |
| New York University           | telephone: (718) 545-9013              |