Zweeedorf - do you know the story behind Kubrick's making
Killer's Kiss? Yes, compared to his future body of narrative films it is VERY weak, with few discernable 'Kubrickian' touches (though the fight in the manequin factory is certainly memorable). But this was Kubrick learning to make movies, hands-on and by himself.
There were no true 'Film Schools' back in the '50s, and Kubrick didn't work his way up through the Hollywood system to learn the craft. He was a natural still photographer of some acclaim who taught himself how to make and assemble documentaries (which are pretty good if you get a chance to see 'em). He did the same on-the-job self-financed training for narrative Film. Both
Killer's Kiss and his first movie,
Fear & Desire (1953), were no-budget learning exercises. He didn't even have sound equipment, so every noise and uttered dialogue in his first two movies was synched to that 16mm filmstock in post-dubbing. He did manage to sell it to United Artists, but it never made any money for anybody, not even as a barely B-thriller write-off.
Yet Kubrick obviously learned what he was doing. Look at the graduation of skill, confidence and talent in his very next film,
The Killing (1956). Given a budget, real actors and some time, he made AMAZING strides. Considering
Paths of Glory (1957), his first masterpiece, followed shortly thereafter, I'd say Kubrick squeezed every ounce of opportunity and learning he could from the limp
Killer's Kiss.
It's not that
Killer's Kiss isn't a bad movie, because it is - though his photographic eye is strong even there, with some good naturalistic gritty Noirish use of NYC. But to casually dismiss
Killer's Kiss and boast you could easily do better misses the point. It was always meant as an exercise, not art. To even call it a 'Stanley Kubrick picture' is misleading and removes it from its context.
OK, so with today's equipment and basic filmmaking knowledge engrained in the culture, you think you could make a better movie than
Killer's Kiss? Maybe you could. But is your fourth film going to equal
Paths of Glory? Is your seventh going to be near the level of
Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb? In your eighth effort are you going to personally revolutionize movie FX and have the product stand as an enigmatic testament to your vision, remaining hotly debated for more than thirty years?
THAT's the context you have to put
Killer's Kiss in. Whether or not it's a great or even watchable movie by itself is irrelevant...or at least it seems that way to me. As a document of his gestating talent as a filmmaker, it's surely worth seeing for any Kubrick fan. As a movie to be enjoyed in and of itself, why bother?
But go ahead and pick on it if'n you want.
[Edited by Holden Pike on 09-27-2001]
Reply to Topic
