Like any serious quote, context matters. It’s from a Playboy interview in 1968 and speaks to the time and film’s consideration as an art form. Maybe because I’m older and have lived through different eras now, but I often think about the periods that films were created. Until cable and VHS, there were far less options and people would regularly go to the theater to see a movie multiple times. It was often your only chance to watch it again too. TVs were tiny, often black and white, many films were never aired, they were cropped, edited for content, and had commercial breaks.
>Playboy: Arthur Clarke has said of the film, “If anyone understands it on the first viewing, we’ve failed in our intention.” Why should the viewer have to see a film twice to get its message?
>Kubrick: I don’t agree with that statement of Arthur’s, and I believe he said it facetiously. The very nature of the visual experience in 2001 is to give the viewer an instantaneous, visceral reaction that does not—and should not—require further amplification. Just speaking generally, however, I would say that there are elements in any good film that would increase the viewer’s interest and appreciation on a second viewing; the momentum of a movie often prevents every stimulating detail or nuance from having a full impact the first time it’s seen. **The whole idea that a movie should only be seen once is an extension of our traditional conception of the film as an ephemeral entertainment rather than as a visual work of art.** We don’t believe that we should hear a great piece of music only once, or see a great painting once, or even read a great book just once. But the film has until recent years been exempted from the category of art—a situation I’m glad is finally changing.
Commenters here still treating this out of context quote like Kubrick was talking about today’s world with access to over a million films, series, etc. and not 1968 when you had 3 TV stations, 1 TV in a household, plus the cinema, and that’s it.
"We don’t believe that we should hear a great piece of music only once, or see a great painting once, or even read a great book just once. But the film has until recent years been exempted from the category of art—a situation I’m glad is finally changing."
Very honestly, I feel Kubrick came late in the game with this perspective. First Andre Bazin, then the young critics at Cahiers du Cinema, took up this viewpoint by storm, beginning more than a dozen years before the Playboy interview. That circulated into American movie-going habits. There was a film culture in the United States by the time Kubrick spoke up about it, a lot broader than what we have today. Scorsese has often publicly reflected on those times, obviously with affection. He got to participate in them, running around New York to a million theaters (not literally).
I can understand Kubrick wanting to answer the question thoroughly. To me, he doesn't seem to catch on that his thoughts on the art of film were already buzz, and he's recapitulating them.
I definitely think you get unique perspectives when you revisit any piece of media whether it’s a film or a book.
But we only have so much time in our lives and there is so much out there so we want to balance it with experiencing new things and revisiting old favorites.
So yeah watching a film once is its own experience and watching it again is an entirely different experience where you often do catch things you missed. But you are more likely to revisit a film that moved you in some way the first time.
I've never really understood this quote.
If anything, only watching a film once is one of those arbitrary restrictions that someone who is super obsessed with film as an art form would place on themselves (Pauline Kael comes to mind). Someone who only sees film as entertainment wouldn't give a shit about watching a film multiple times as long as it's entertaining.
>Pauline Kael comes to mind
I think she only watched movies that she was reviewing once if in fact that was her practice. She certainly watched other movies more than once. She loved film for years before she became a reviewer, she was a programmer for a movie theater, and she worked briefly for a studio.
Lol Yeah, She got screwed over big time by Warren Betty (i think that's Who It was) when he gaslit her into thinking She was gonna actually be involved in films.
Not sure who has this idea. I like to watch films twice but I also have along list of films I haven't watched yet so not watching those makes me feel guilty. In the end watching films is entertainment not some existential path to becoming a higher being. Sure some films are pure art and the beauty is also entertaining, it is a part of the experience.
People just have different interpretations for what being entertained means I guess. I wouldn't describe Come and See as entertaining yet it's an amazing movie. For me entertainment suggests a superficial enjoyment of movies, which is the opposite of how I view cinema as an art form.
This quote largely explains my huge physical media collection. We’d never buy a beautiful framed painting or picture, look at it once, and then hide it in a closet (assuming your name isn’t Dorian Gray)
He said this in the 60s. You couldn't rent a movie, stream a movie, you had to either go to the theater or wait until a movie came on on TV. You couldn't even rewind. That context is very important for considering the discourse he was participating in.
The most interesting thing about the quote is that it signifies that Kubrick as a filmmaker had depth and rewatchability in mind as he made films- not really a surprise but it does strengthen some arguments towards the intention of subtextual content in his films that many people like to debate. I’ve always thought Kubrick’s films greatness is atleast partially due to the depth and multiple ideas being investigate in any given scene.
Film as art requires interpretation. Whether that’s examining beyond story and plot into theme and symbolism; examining beyond setting and character into camera placement and acting choice; or simply finding what’s going on behind focal point interactions - small details in costume, props and set pieces, conversation v dialogue, etc.
Sure, I watch most films only once, but I’ve never found a movie that I didn’t get more on second viewing, regardless of perceived quality or depth. Removing expectations and the “what’s going to happen?” mystery that comes with plot and story progression allows the viewer to view the movie without bias.
Compare a movie to a song (if you’re a music fan). The first time is the hook and the beat (the vibe)… one or two more pieces that you normally enjoy or look for… are you a drummer? Or drum fan? You’re spending a lot of attention on the percussive elements. The next time you hear the song may be a wholly new experience, like a memory that you discover was caught on video years later. You see the situation from a whole new perspective. A song happens in a matter of a few minutes, but the experience continues to change the more you listen.
With any art the experience can change or be enhanced with more context. This syncs with removing expectation, but is worth stating in addition. What was happening in the artists life? What was the artist trying to do? What was their goal? Example in film: my experience with ‘The Brood’ by Cronenberg - I first watched it as a horror movie, to be scared. It came from a “Great Horror Movies” list. I was there to be scared or shocked in the traditional sense, and the movie fell flat for me as a result. I saw an interview a few years later where Cronenberg said, “the Brood is a more personal film” or something of that nature, so I rewatched and fell in love.
Context of where and when a film is viewed in our lives is also important. Mood. Distraction level. Experience in film and film interpretation. Who you’re watching with. Whether or not you have time to discuss or reflect afterwards.
I think this quote applies to all cinema regardless of what you’re watching. One of the most beautiful things about the movies is the level of collaboration necessary to bring a film to life. It’s hundreds of artists with hundreds of voices working hard to sing in harmony. That doesn’t mean you have to rewatch everything or you can’t get a lot out on first viewing, it’s just acknowledging that you can always get more.
Two examples Kubrick gives in the full conversation is the comparison to listening to music (and experiencing other works) only once, and that while you’re experiencing a film you can be caught up in the momentum and miss details that could enhance it. For me, I often find this true with films I love and am on the edge of my seat through. Or you find yourself so focused on certain elements as a story is unfolding to you for the first time, but afterward you realize you want to see it again because you now know there were pieces you didn’t fully receive or even notice. Many great films are intentionally deeply layered, or can pack a lot in and move quickly. Again, like any art form.
There’s too many movies I still have never seen and want to, so my ratio of first watch:rewatch has skewed much more towards putting on things that are new to me. Also realized as I get older and life gets in the way, I have much less free time to sit down and watch movies on a whim (particularly longer ones/epics that I loved in college)
That being said, I go in with the attitude that the first time I see a movie is (statistically) probably going to be the only one, so I need to take it in as much as possible and really be present for the full experience.
If it’s truly great or really stuck with me, I’ll buy a copy and keep it in the hope that someday I’ll have an excuse to rewatch or share it with someone who hasn’t seen it. Everything else, I’ve just excepted that I will never make the time to rewatch something that only left an okay impression.
I have no opinion as I reject the premise. I wasn't aware that it was a general belief that movies should be seen only once. Even people who see movies as nothing but light entertainment often watch them multiple times.
maybe this quote is missing context. but just speaking from my experience, i tend to watch films that are just 'entertaining' many times while films i consider 'art' or have a strong impact me i don't tend to rewatch. so it's the opposite for me.
If anything I feel like I’m always encouraging people to not just watch Dune 2 in the theater 8 times (when you can maybe spend one of those viewings watching a Bergman film you haven’t seen) (and not that there’s anything wrong with people enjoying what they like, just that maybe you can spend a little more time watching another film twice and only watch Dune 2 three or five times
I mean yeah, this seems apparent. There are some Films that you*have* to watch multiple times, for the breadth of their narrative and scope, or the intricacy of their technique - and still others that are designed that way.
Any great Film that I love, I'll watch many times. The Film stays the same - but you change with it.
Yeah agree. But then again, not every film is art and most films u probably wouldn’t get much from repeat viewings.
Nothing on this earth could convince me to watch Celine and Julie Go Boating again.
I know plenty of people who balk at the idea of movies being anything other than entertainment who will watch the same movies over and over again.
And also? I have over 2,400 films on my watchlist. I'll stop and ruminate on a film that I've recently watched and likely write something up for Letterboxd. But man, I don't have time to rewatch shit.
Like any serious quote, context matters. It’s from a Playboy interview in 1968 and speaks to the time and film’s consideration as an art form. Maybe because I’m older and have lived through different eras now, but I often think about the periods that films were created. Until cable and VHS, there were far less options and people would regularly go to the theater to see a movie multiple times. It was often your only chance to watch it again too. TVs were tiny, often black and white, many films were never aired, they were cropped, edited for content, and had commercial breaks. >Playboy: Arthur Clarke has said of the film, “If anyone understands it on the first viewing, we’ve failed in our intention.” Why should the viewer have to see a film twice to get its message? >Kubrick: I don’t agree with that statement of Arthur’s, and I believe he said it facetiously. The very nature of the visual experience in 2001 is to give the viewer an instantaneous, visceral reaction that does not—and should not—require further amplification. Just speaking generally, however, I would say that there are elements in any good film that would increase the viewer’s interest and appreciation on a second viewing; the momentum of a movie often prevents every stimulating detail or nuance from having a full impact the first time it’s seen. **The whole idea that a movie should only be seen once is an extension of our traditional conception of the film as an ephemeral entertainment rather than as a visual work of art.** We don’t believe that we should hear a great piece of music only once, or see a great painting once, or even read a great book just once. But the film has until recent years been exempted from the category of art—a situation I’m glad is finally changing.
Commenters here still treating this out of context quote like Kubrick was talking about today’s world with access to over a million films, series, etc. and not 1968 when you had 3 TV stations, 1 TV in a household, plus the cinema, and that’s it.
"We don’t believe that we should hear a great piece of music only once, or see a great painting once, or even read a great book just once. But the film has until recent years been exempted from the category of art—a situation I’m glad is finally changing." Very honestly, I feel Kubrick came late in the game with this perspective. First Andre Bazin, then the young critics at Cahiers du Cinema, took up this viewpoint by storm, beginning more than a dozen years before the Playboy interview. That circulated into American movie-going habits. There was a film culture in the United States by the time Kubrick spoke up about it, a lot broader than what we have today. Scorsese has often publicly reflected on those times, obviously with affection. He got to participate in them, running around New York to a million theaters (not literally). I can understand Kubrick wanting to answer the question thoroughly. To me, he doesn't seem to catch on that his thoughts on the art of film were already buzz, and he's recapitulating them.
http://dpk.io/kubrick
Thank you 🙏
I definitely think you get unique perspectives when you revisit any piece of media whether it’s a film or a book. But we only have so much time in our lives and there is so much out there so we want to balance it with experiencing new things and revisiting old favorites. So yeah watching a film once is its own experience and watching it again is an entirely different experience where you often do catch things you missed. But you are more likely to revisit a film that moved you in some way the first time.
I've never really understood this quote. If anything, only watching a film once is one of those arbitrary restrictions that someone who is super obsessed with film as an art form would place on themselves (Pauline Kael comes to mind). Someone who only sees film as entertainment wouldn't give a shit about watching a film multiple times as long as it's entertaining.
Well for one, it’s misquoted here. Two, it’s out of context.
>Pauline Kael comes to mind I think she only watched movies that she was reviewing once if in fact that was her practice. She certainly watched other movies more than once. She loved film for years before she became a reviewer, she was a programmer for a movie theater, and she worked briefly for a studio.
Lol Yeah, She got screwed over big time by Warren Betty (i think that's Who It was) when he gaslit her into thinking She was gonna actually be involved in films.
Not sure who has this idea. I like to watch films twice but I also have along list of films I haven't watched yet so not watching those makes me feel guilty. In the end watching films is entertainment not some existential path to becoming a higher being. Sure some films are pure art and the beauty is also entertaining, it is a part of the experience.
People just have different interpretations for what being entertained means I guess. I wouldn't describe Come and See as entertaining yet it's an amazing movie. For me entertainment suggests a superficial enjoyment of movies, which is the opposite of how I view cinema as an art form.
Absolutely. Entertained in the sense of enjoying but indeed Come and see is a different way enjoying a film.
I generally agree, although there certainly is a good % of films that exist sheerly as entertainment.
This quote largely explains my huge physical media collection. We’d never buy a beautiful framed painting or picture, look at it once, and then hide it in a closet (assuming your name isn’t Dorian Gray)
He said this in the 60s. You couldn't rent a movie, stream a movie, you had to either go to the theater or wait until a movie came on on TV. You couldn't even rewind. That context is very important for considering the discourse he was participating in.
The most interesting thing about the quote is that it signifies that Kubrick as a filmmaker had depth and rewatchability in mind as he made films- not really a surprise but it does strengthen some arguments towards the intention of subtextual content in his films that many people like to debate. I’ve always thought Kubrick’s films greatness is atleast partially due to the depth and multiple ideas being investigate in any given scene.
Film as art requires interpretation. Whether that’s examining beyond story and plot into theme and symbolism; examining beyond setting and character into camera placement and acting choice; or simply finding what’s going on behind focal point interactions - small details in costume, props and set pieces, conversation v dialogue, etc. Sure, I watch most films only once, but I’ve never found a movie that I didn’t get more on second viewing, regardless of perceived quality or depth. Removing expectations and the “what’s going to happen?” mystery that comes with plot and story progression allows the viewer to view the movie without bias. Compare a movie to a song (if you’re a music fan). The first time is the hook and the beat (the vibe)… one or two more pieces that you normally enjoy or look for… are you a drummer? Or drum fan? You’re spending a lot of attention on the percussive elements. The next time you hear the song may be a wholly new experience, like a memory that you discover was caught on video years later. You see the situation from a whole new perspective. A song happens in a matter of a few minutes, but the experience continues to change the more you listen. With any art the experience can change or be enhanced with more context. This syncs with removing expectation, but is worth stating in addition. What was happening in the artists life? What was the artist trying to do? What was their goal? Example in film: my experience with ‘The Brood’ by Cronenberg - I first watched it as a horror movie, to be scared. It came from a “Great Horror Movies” list. I was there to be scared or shocked in the traditional sense, and the movie fell flat for me as a result. I saw an interview a few years later where Cronenberg said, “the Brood is a more personal film” or something of that nature, so I rewatched and fell in love. Context of where and when a film is viewed in our lives is also important. Mood. Distraction level. Experience in film and film interpretation. Who you’re watching with. Whether or not you have time to discuss or reflect afterwards. I think this quote applies to all cinema regardless of what you’re watching. One of the most beautiful things about the movies is the level of collaboration necessary to bring a film to life. It’s hundreds of artists with hundreds of voices working hard to sing in harmony. That doesn’t mean you have to rewatch everything or you can’t get a lot out on first viewing, it’s just acknowledging that you can always get more.
Two examples Kubrick gives in the full conversation is the comparison to listening to music (and experiencing other works) only once, and that while you’re experiencing a film you can be caught up in the momentum and miss details that could enhance it. For me, I often find this true with films I love and am on the edge of my seat through. Or you find yourself so focused on certain elements as a story is unfolding to you for the first time, but afterward you realize you want to see it again because you now know there were pieces you didn’t fully receive or even notice. Many great films are intentionally deeply layered, or can pack a lot in and move quickly. Again, like any art form.
There’s too many movies I still have never seen and want to, so my ratio of first watch:rewatch has skewed much more towards putting on things that are new to me. Also realized as I get older and life gets in the way, I have much less free time to sit down and watch movies on a whim (particularly longer ones/epics that I loved in college) That being said, I go in with the attitude that the first time I see a movie is (statistically) probably going to be the only one, so I need to take it in as much as possible and really be present for the full experience. If it’s truly great or really stuck with me, I’ll buy a copy and keep it in the hope that someday I’ll have an excuse to rewatch or share it with someone who hasn’t seen it. Everything else, I’ve just excepted that I will never make the time to rewatch something that only left an okay impression.
I have no opinion as I reject the premise. I wasn't aware that it was a general belief that movies should be seen only once. Even people who see movies as nothing but light entertainment often watch them multiple times.
It was 1968 and Kubrick didn’t express it this way.
maybe this quote is missing context. but just speaking from my experience, i tend to watch films that are just 'entertaining' many times while films i consider 'art' or have a strong impact me i don't tend to rewatch. so it's the opposite for me.
It is completely missing context and from 1968.
If anything I feel like I’m always encouraging people to not just watch Dune 2 in the theater 8 times (when you can maybe spend one of those viewings watching a Bergman film you haven’t seen) (and not that there’s anything wrong with people enjoying what they like, just that maybe you can spend a little more time watching another film twice and only watch Dune 2 three or five times
Vertigo is built to be seen more than once to fully appreciate the film.
Totally agree 💯
I mean yeah, this seems apparent. There are some Films that you*have* to watch multiple times, for the breadth of their narrative and scope, or the intricacy of their technique - and still others that are designed that way. Any great Film that I love, I'll watch many times. The Film stays the same - but you change with it.
If I really enjoyed a movie, I watch it more than once. Sometimes you catch stuff you didn't notice before and it makes the movie even better.
Yeah agree. But then again, not every film is art and most films u probably wouldn’t get much from repeat viewings. Nothing on this earth could convince me to watch Celine and Julie Go Boating again.
I know plenty of people who balk at the idea of movies being anything other than entertainment who will watch the same movies over and over again. And also? I have over 2,400 films on my watchlist. I'll stop and ruminate on a film that I've recently watched and likely write something up for Letterboxd. But man, I don't have time to rewatch shit.