# Talk:Kubrick stare

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kubrick stare/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Bremps (talk · contribs) 17:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Rhododendrites (talk · contribs) 02:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Bremps. I see your comment about being busy in July/August, but it's not often I see a GA nom that's both personally interesting and which I feel confident about reviewing, so I snagged it. I'll use your note to take my time reviewing it, will ping you when I'm done, and won't expect a response until you're around more. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Rhododendrites My schedule appears to be lighter than I expected. Feel free to start reviewing now, and thank you for taking this nomination. Bremps... 03:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
@Bremps: Got it. Thanks. I'm headed to a conference tomorrow, so while I may get to some of it on the train, more likely I'll follow up next week sometime. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
@Bremps: Just a heads up that I plan to get to this this week. I had some unexpected travel last month so put off anything that requires sustained attention. Thanks for your patience. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites, reminder ping for you. :) -- asilvering (talk) 23:38, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Ah! Sorry! I must've marked your ping as seen and forgot about it, Bremps. I have a long train ride tomorrow and Wednesday and should be able to get back to this then. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
First pass review below:
Lead

calling it a director's technique in the first sentence doesn't seem to capture the rest of the article. It's a specific kind of look. Directors use that look to portray insane/unstable characters. Sort of a subtle difference, but case in point: if it's a director's technique and not the look itself, the second photo doesn't depict a kubrick stare as there's no film being directed.
Combine first two paragraphs -- avoiding a single-sentence paragraph.
Most of the lead is not in the body. The lead shouldn't contain anything that isn't already covered below -- it's there to summarize the body of the article.
Usage:

Odd to see subheadings for "and Kubrick" and "by Kubrick". Maybe it would work best with the first paragraph "origin" which explains the coining of the term and use by kubrick in his various films. Then "use by others" which explains the first usage by Hitchcock, etc. Alternatively, the subheadings could just be removed as there's only two paragraphs under the main heading.
The claim about the first usage in Psycho should probably be attributed to the author of that book if it doesn't appear in any of the other sources. I see that other people have called the look in Psycho a Kubrick stare, but it's a wild claim to call it the first. Maybe a good idea to just say that people have found examples of Kubrick stares in older movies like Psycho, too.
"Since Kubrick's death..." is followed by two examples that preceded his death.
It looks like an anonymous user removed the bit about Trump for "bias" rasons. Did you see this? Looks like there are three decent sources making the comparison (Telegraph, Forbes, LA Times), which seems like a lot for the subject. Probably doesn't need its own section if there aren't other "outside of film" examples, though.
Reception and analysis:

"Drawing on the theories of Jacques Lacan, Far Out argues" - it doesn't look like Far Out draws on Lacan. She uses other people's Lacanian film studies work on cinematic gaze to make an argument in the paragraph beginning "Thus, when a character...". So something like "Drawing on Lacanian scholarship about cinematic gaze, Far Out's Aimee Ferrier argues..." or something along those lines.
"a specific Kubrick stare" - probably worth saying which stare.
"scholar Jens Kjelgaard-Christiansen" - if giving a title, something more specific than "scholar" would be preferable (professor of communications, for example). Also the name is misspelled.
"She adds" - I presume this pronoun is a mistake.
"critic Roger Ebert complains" - doesn't sound like a complaint in context?
"He also criticizes Kubrick for overusing the" - it doesn't quite seem clear this is what he's doing, either. He criticizes that particular use of it, at least.
Sources:

You quote from a McDowell interview, but don't cite the interview: https://ew.com/article/2014/11/29/malcolm-mcdowell-stanley-kubrick-clockwork-orange/ -- you could probably do more with that long quote. Since it's kind of the most iconic example, spoken by the person who performed it, you could even consider a block quote.
The Critical Companion to Stanley Kubrick cited itself cites two sources which would probably be worth tracking down.
Collin, Robbie (2016-09-03). "We Can't Take Our Eyes Off Them". The Daily Telegraph -- a search to try to find this returns only hits for this wikipedia article. can you check it?
Images:

Well the Clockwork Orange image is certainly appropriate. The selfie is kind of jarring to see, but doesn't go against any policy. Surprising to see nobody complained about it being used for the DYK when the Clockwork Orange is available and discussed directly, but that's not my business here. No issues.
Copyright:

Earwig doesn't return any problems.
Misc:

It looks like "Kubrick gaze" is a common synonym for this, and may open the door to some additional sourcing. It's also possible "Kubrick gaze" is a broader subject that's just about when his characters look into the camera, though.
I'm a little disappointed that nobody seems to distinguish this subject from just a standard fighter's stare: chin down, eyes forward. Also, it's become such a trope that post-Kubrick it often feels, as the kids say, cringy, and I'm surprised there isn't any real criticism. These are my personal WP:OR gripes, though -- not action items. :)
Ok. I think that's what I have. Great idea for an article (I have a soft spot for quirky film details). :) Going to place this on hold for now. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites Thanks for the review. Could you take a look at the article again? I implemented your suggestions. I'm fine with the Donald Trump content removal (it's a bit tangential in hindsight). "We Can't Take Our Eyes Off Them" by Robbie Collin is accessible with the Wikipedia Library. I couldn't find any RS for "Kubrick gaze", but I did make it a redirect. I'll take a look at the Critical Companion later to see if there's anything more worth adding. In the meantime, is there anything else that could be improved? Cheers, Bremps... 03:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Alright. I think we're just about there. A few more things that shouldn't be too much trouble:
Lead

is the "intense" quote of sufficient weight for the lead? Looks like it's just one line in one of the sources. Also the lead frames it as "what it's used for" while the body says it "often heralds" something.
would be good to expand the lead a little bit -- it looks a little short for the article size. One way might be a bit about clockwork orange being the most prominent example, and that its cinematographer coined the term?
Description and usage

clarify Milsome was cinematographer on clockwork orange (as opposed to some cinematographer writing about the phenomenon later)
a little awkward to say kubrick used it especially in FMJ/Shining. "Most notably"?
Reception and analysis

link Lacanian
"a specific Kubrick stare" - probably worth saying which stare. (to be clear, following on this item above, I'm just thinking we might as well clarify it was the Private Pyle character)
no need for another link to the telegraph (there's one a couple sections above)
"Kubrick's decision to film Alex, an amoral character in A Clockwork Orange, from above makes Alex look "messianic"" reads a little awkwardly. Maybe "Kubrick's decision in A Clockwork Orange to film the amoral character Alex from above makes him look "messianic""?
Sources

Looks like some duplicate sources (e.g. Collin and Kjeldgaard-Christiansen.
Ok. I'll have more time this week than I have the last couple, so should be able to pass this as soon as the above is taken care of. Thanks for your patience, Bremps. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Lead
I'd say it's accurate broadly, I just did a direct quote to try and avoid WP:OR. I'd say it belongs in the lede. I got rid of the discrepancy
Done
Description and usage
Done
Done
Reception and analysis
Done
Done
Done
Done
Sources
Done
Alright, I think that's it. I don't mean to rush you @Rhododendrites, but I'd very much appreciate a speedy wrapup. Thanks for the in-depth review. Cheers, Bremps... 03:21, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
 Done Passed. Thanks for the neat article. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:49, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Even the first sentence "insane or unstable characters".
Mental health stigma is a problem, then featuring this article with the caption "Did you know that a Kubrick stare [...] can be 'invasive' and 'troubling'" on the front page seems inappropriate in its given state I think.
Attributing words of hostility to "insane/unstable" people (i.o.w. people with a mental disorder) in such a high profile way is not ok. It is never ok I think, but featuring it on the front page makes it look like wikipedia condones this kind of discrimination. Ybllaw (talk) 12:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

The intent of the technique is to portray characters as mentally unstable in a troubling or scary way. While I agree that the language can be stigmatizing to the mentally ill, cinema and fiction in general  unfortunately often carry that stereotype. The first film to use the technique was Psycho which in hindsight kicked off a lot of the ableist stereotypes in horror. Despite the issue of ableism, I don't think it would be a good idea to change the article to be more sensitive; the article portrays the subject as what it is and it's not our job to censor or change what the stare represents. Di (they-them) (talk) 18:33, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
"It unfortunately is" is not answering my criticism, it is agreeing with it.
I am not calling for censorship, I however, find it hard to believe that this article isn't biased in its current state. Is there a sufficient diversity of sources? Is this "kubrick stare" maybe too little known to be actually worth an article to begin with if there is so little coverage of it? Ybllaw (talk) 12:25, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
There is not "little coverage of it", the article has 14 sources and there are undoubtedly more considering the subject is a well-established pop-culture phenomenon. It is currently a Good Article Nominee. As far as bias goes, Wikipedia covers what sources say. When we say that Wikipedia is "neutral", it means neutral coverage, not necessarily neutral content. Any bias in the article (such as ableist language) is the result of the larger cultural coverage of the subject and how it is commonly viewed, not this article itself. Di (they-them) (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Are any of those sources written by medical professionals? Given that it would take a medical professional to claim "convey that a character has become dangerously mentally unstable". From looking at a few of those sources, they are written by professors with a degree in language, "film critics" and writers. 14 sources is not a lot, given that there are articles with over 100 sources. Even less so if those sources use words their credentials do not make them an expert about. Ybllaw (talk) 19:35, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
What I still don't get though, regardless of the state of this article, is why it was featured as a did-you-know article in its current state and with the stigmatizing message of "this look can be troubling". Ybllaw (talk) 12:30, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Because sources describe the look as troubling and that is the intended purpose of the look in cinematography. Di (they-them) (talk) 19:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

In the modern era, directors and actors have also relied on the technique
When did the modern era begin?  Could we say "since Kubrick's death"? —Tamfang (talk) 05:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Good idea, I'll add that. Di (they-them) (talk) 07:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)


### Kubrick stare
I've listed this article for peer review because... I wish to improve the article to Featured Article status. I feel that it is quite complete, so I'm requesting a sanity check to make sure that there's no unknown unknown that emerges during the FA nom. 
Thanks, Bremps... 01:52, 30 August 2025 (UTC)


#### Kusma
Nice topic! The article explains what is needed, but the prose could be improved to make for more compelling reading. Also, to be comprehensive, you need a more thorough survey of the literature.

Lead: MOS:LEADCITE would expect cites only for the direct quotes.
"Deemed "one of cinema's most recognizable shots" by The Daily Telegraph" by everyone in the newspaper, or by a specific writer?
Description and usage: "one of cinema's most recognizable shots" given how short the article is, it is a bit repetitive to see this quote again so soon after the lead.
It would be good to explain what the technique was used for in the other movies. Which of the characters in Full Metal Jacket / The Shining / Silence of the Lambs etc. performs a Kubrick stare and to what effect?
"Anthony Perkins (as Norman Bates) performs something akin to the Kubrick stare in Psycho" when does he do that and for which purpose? Do we know whether Hitchcock was involved in making Perkins do this? Does it just look like a Kubrick stare or does it perform the same function?
Reception and analysis: this section does not flow very well. Some of the advice in Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections may be helpful.
If Heath Ledger is so closely associated with the Kubrick stare, why is there no corresponding comment in this section?
Introduce Robbie Collin so we know why we should care what he thinks.
There seem to be a lot of scholarly sources not used in the article. Google Scholar search [1] gives things like [2] and the first place on TWL I checked [3] also seems to have more usable content.
Happy editing, —Kusma (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Hey Kusma,
Just sending this comment to acknowledge I've read the suggestions. I've already plucked the low hanging fruit and will get back to you when I've made more substantial progress.
Best, Bremps... 19:05, 4 September 2025 (UTC)


#### Icepinner
Some comments on formatting:

You need consistently formatted citations per FAC criteria. This includes, but not limited to:
Linking the publisher of the source (The Daily Telegraph is linked by the NYT isn't)
Listing access date (I see this with Portland State Vanguard)
"RogerEbert.com" is not a published work and hence should not be italicised; replace the website name parameter with the publisher parameter
Slate should probably be italicised in [10], given it's a published work.
That's all I got really.