3.0/ A Life In Pictures

I am very happy that most of the "reports" now, that have been posted about my Uncle Jan Harlan's documentary have been positive, and that the major objective of counter-balancing the negative and largely speculative "opinions" about Stanley has been successful. I have to say though, what else did you expect from his friends and family?? This film is a tribute, a loving memory of a man who was LOVED, and I think very little of those who might expect us to do otherwise. It doesn't need to be "balanced". Of course I could tell you about the times he pissed me off for one reason or another, but those reasons would not be very different from the average daughter's grievances with her over protective Dad, and would be VERY boring. One is either loved or is not, and if you were expecting warts, sure, read Baxter, if it makes you feel better. (Baxter never met Stanley, and his book seemed to concentrate on interviewing people with a grievance.)

If you want to read moronic things about Stanley, you won't have to look very far. There are loads of people who have taken the opportunity to berate him, either for his films and artistic integrity or his misunderstood personality. As for in-depth analysis of each of his films; well one would need a whole film just to deal with each movie, if it were to be done properly. What I am trying to say is: Enjoy the film for what it is. Jan's first film. and [imho] HIS personal thank you to Stanley and OUR chance to do likewise.

Regards, Katharina [May 8, 2001]

Sean Wrote
Maybe I was hoping more for an actual documentary, an objective view of an artist, maybe your uncle is not the person to examine this aspect of your father?

I do understand what you are saying. But we will not be the people to produce such a documentary. It would almost be impossible for us to make such a thing, and can you imagine the uproar if we got it wrong? None of us are really qualified for such an undertaking IMO. All we have done is try to redress the balance so that when researching Stanley people can look to Jan's film for the "other" and honest view of him and hopefully it take on board.

Paul Joyce made the doc "The Invisible Man" which was very biased in a negative way, and then made The Last Movie, (which he was going to make any way) but with our co-operation. We were able to put the other side and it turned out to be a rather more balanced film. I strongly suspect that another doc will be made eventually, but by (hopefully) real serious film scholar types without an agenda, who will do proper research and interview not only "names" but dedicated people whose area of study is the art of film, and film makers. I'm sure there will be many more books too.

Patrick Bateman wrote:
[A Life in pictures is] Awesome, This is the type of documentary I can use to say to people who ask me, "why do you like him", it says it all.

Well! What a splendid response, you're most generous Patrick. Thank you and I am very happy that you thought Jan did a good job. It could have been 12 hours long of course. SO much footage, so many people. Wasn't Stanley handsome when he was a young man! I think he had one of those faces one can see in a Caravaggio painting, all black eyes and mysterious. ;O)

Vincia1 wrote:
the documentary actually tells a funny story about the highly-detailed, 15-page set of instructions Kubrick wrote to his family on how to take care of his cats while he was away.

As I am the one reading the "instructions" for looking after the animals. (Glad you thought it was funny BTW. I could barely contain myself whilst reading it and had to do it three times!)

Dad had written the list for the people who were going to be looking after the house/animals whilst we were all in Ireland. I made a separate trip back home, once a house had been found in Waterford, to collect the three golden retrievers, and bring them over to Ireland via the ferry. (That list of instructions was even longer for the dogs.) That was a funny trip. A friend and I and three dogs ,freezing on the deck of the ship, hoping madly that they wouldn't "need to go" till we landed... It was the cats who had to stay behind.

Go back to Katharina Kubrick Hobbs FAQ main section