> * 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 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Jeff Finlay | [log in to unmask] (NOT a dash) | | American Studies Program | [log in to unmask] | | New York University | telephone: (718) 545-9013 | --------------------------------------------------------------------------