Was Kubrick really the great director he is made out to be?

Hello all. I want to start a discussion that I've been wanting to have with devout cinema-lovers for a long time.

And this has to do with the perceived reputation of director Stanley Kubrick in the film community. It seems that since his death in the late 90s, Mr. Kubrick has comfortably reserved his place as one of the great American directors of the 20th century and several of his films are often cited amongst the greatest the world has ever seen.

Now one cannot question the narrative ambition of a film like 2001: A Space Odyssey and any account of the defining films of the 20th century would look bizarre and unsatisfying if it did not include this beautifully orchestrated space epic. But my issues lie, not with his 2 genre-defining films in Dr. Strangelove and 2001 (which I do respect even if I do not admire), but with the rest of his films which have for some reason also dramatically risen in stature.

My question is, is this change in public opinion really because of the initially unperceived depth of these films or because their reputation hinges entirely on the reputation of the director whose stature has dramatically risen since he directed those films.


In my opinon, Kubrick was primarily a technical film-maker who sure knew how to handle lights and cameras. But he was never a great story teller. Several of his later films consist of characters that are as two dimensional as the celluloid in which they exist, they are dull, lifeless and emotionally void. A churlish argument that's often made in defence of some of these criticisms is that "it was intended to be that way". But that really is no defence at all. It simply shifts the fault from execution of the project to the intentions behind it.

In fact, it's not just Mr. Kubrick that falls into this trap. The great Italian director Michelangelo Antonioni faces exactly the same problems in his later years as a director (and some of his later films are hugely derided even to this day).

But even if people accept this criticism as legitimate, they will say that Stanley Kubrick more than makes up for it by being a great thinker. Is he though really? It's an undeniably fact that Mr. Kubrick is a smart man who wants to present the audience something different to what they're usually accustomed to and I admire him for that but I don't think that what he eventually turns up is a significant improvement than the cliche-ridden plots he's desperately trying to run away from.

For instance, consider a film such A Clockwork Orange. This is a work of immature, irresponsible grade-school misanthropy that you would expect from inebriated philosophy majors at a frat party, not a renowned film-maker (although to put things into perspective, I actually think the book is equally overrated). No one is questioning the premise or even the conclusion of the film, it's just the way Mr. Kubrick attempts to "explore" his ideas with a disdainful immaturity. that bothers me. Mr. Kubrick could use a little bit of the patience and reflectivity of his great idol, Ingmar Bergman.

The other film that falls into the same category is Lolita. Now I realize that this is not recognised as one of his best films but it's still worth pointing out that Mr. Kubrick has taken one of greatest novels of the 20th century and turned it entirely into a film about perversion and sexual tensions between an adult and a child. Although the book does have Oedipal undertones, that is not at all what it's fundamentally about. It's about a man who's longing for the innocence of a child and that's what makes it so poignant. I know it's unfair to judge a film with respect to how loyal it is to its source material; afterall a film stands on its own but Mr Kubrick's work doesn't have any of the depth or beauty present in the source material.

But then Kubrick went on to direct, what is in a lot of ways his most impressive film in Barry Lyndon, a film about a character who is at complete mercy to the cosmos, a man who literally makes his way to the royal palace in the most remarkable and comedic fashion -by playing games of chance (and cheating), risking his life in duals and literally running away from every battle he has fought in. But then just as he tries to impose himself and take control of his life, he starts to lose everything. The climactic battle scene between Barry Lyndon and his son in law is the best scene Mr. Kubrick has ever directed. Redmond Barry chooses to exercise free will at its most, self-sacrifice, and he loses his leg for it. Barry Lyndon shares the exact same pessimism that is overtly present in A Clockwork Orange but it seems as though Mr. Kubrick learned his lesson this time and rather than reverting to the tedious polemic self-indulgent misanthropy, he has created a compassionate and mature work of art of the absolute contradictions of human existence.

But that does not mean Barry Lyndon is immune to criticism, it is in a lot of ways his most artificial film (even more so than 2001) and that makes it very difficult to connect with emotionally.

And then we move on to Eyes Wide Shut, a film that has attained a near-mythical cult status for reasons that's completely baffling to me. Mr Kubrick has essentially made a film about what it means to be married but the problem is I cannot get past how silly the whole premise is. Tom Cruise's character essentially bumbles from one unrelated event to the next, purely on the motivation that he feels the need to cheat on his marriage because he misjudged his wife's ability to fantasise.
Moreover his breakdown at the end is all the more ridiculous because he didn't actually do anything except spend a hideous amount of money not doing it. If this is an accurate analysis of posh relationships in the nineties, heaven help us all. The film is for the most part aimless, pointless and clearly indicates that the director was well past his prime, a director who seems to take pleasure in making things weird for the sake of being weird. If this film was made by any other director, it would've long been forgotten.


Eyes Wide Shut is, like 2001, a quintessential example of incomprehensibility disguised as profundity. But my point is Eyes Wide Shut does not have the breathtaking cinematic innovations that 2001 had. It's a blank canvas that is bound to be painted with self-appointed interpreters of the film. That's great but do not give the director more credit than he deserves.


Finally I just want to say a few words about Paths of Glory, a film I was tremendously moved by at first sight but which has not aged well with me. Paths of Glory is the film that every Kubrick fan (or even most non-Kubrick fans) seem to admire, which is entirely unsurprising because it's the easiest film he's ever made. But part of me feels that Mr. Kubrick has really taken the easiest of the easy roads with this film. The film picks the very particular situation where the extremely difficult ethical question of whether it's moral to sacrifice the lives of few soldiers to save greater number of lives is reduced to a simple reassuring yes or no answer. The film glosses over all moral complexities to become basically a story about the corrupt bureaucrats who have no respect for the soldiers who fight for them. Whilst it is a very good film for what it is, I feel this was a missed opportunity to make a truly great film and I suspect Mr. Kubrick agrees because he never went for a project of this kind ever again.

I think this is a good place to stop. I understand that I may be out of line with some of the above comments but I'm interested in hearing your point of view. Is Kubrick really the master director he is made out to be or is he yet another director whose reputation has been overblown because of a couple of films that people have held on to.

Yes.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

What he said.

Yes, but I'll say that there isn't much heart in his movies, maybe with the exception of "Barry Lyndon". I think "A Clockwork Orange" is his best, and think "Lolita" is very underrated as well... I'd also argue that "Paths of Glory" and "Full Metal Jacket" are among the best war movies.. Tom Cruise breaks down at the end because he realizes someone got to him (his bed, mask next to his wife)

Yes

I'm not sure why you think Paths of Glory was "an easy film to make" and a "missed opportunity". That's preposterous. It is a quality movie even today.

The Shining is one of the greatest horror films of all time.

Full Metal Jacket is one of the greatest war movies.

2001 is one of the greatest sci-fi's

He's done a quality Heist movie. A quality mystery movie. A quality adaptation movie.

More or less every single genre he nailed. He is the greatest movie director of all time.

Agree with matt's comment. Kubrick was always disntant from his films but that never impeded him from getting to core of the subjects (unlike, say, Nolan or Fincher).

I don't know how you could see 2001 as incomprehensible. It's simple in the most grandiose way.

It's the evolution of humanity through technology culminating in a critique of our obsession with going backwards rather than forwards (the ultimate human form is... a fetus?)

It's almost minimalist.

Question, did you just finish a film studies class? Your post almost sounds like a rebuttal to a professor of a film class who admired Kubrick. I don't know, but I just get that feeling.

I can only speak of myself and say nobodies opinion of Kubrick influenced me to think of him as one of the greats. In fact before I joined MoFo I was only familiar with two of his movies and didn't really care for him as a director.

It was only through watching many of his films did I develop a respect for Kubrick. For the record, I'm not the biggest fan of A Clockwork Orange or Full Metal Jacket. Though the first part of FMJ at the Marine boot camp is pure genius.

How many of Kubrick's film have you watched? I suggest watching more of his movies and rewatching others that you've already seen...before you total dismiss him. You might find an appreciation for him, if not, at least you can say you know his movies well.

No.

His biggest problem is the one you mentioned early in your write-up (I'm not reading all of it) - he could light and shoot well. Unfortunately for him, that's the cinematographer's job, and not the director's, and his ineptitude shows. Kubrick didn't know how to tell a story, or tell his actors what to do. He just knew how to shoot. He should have stuck to that.

__________________
Thanks again, Mr Portridge.

I have seen every single one of Kubrick's films (several of them multiple times) and what gave you the impression that I'm totalling dissing him? I have given him credit where it's due and I've criticised him when it's deserved.

I wrote my post as objectively as I could. If you would like to debate any particular part of my aforementioned analysis, then please specify precisely what you disagree with. I am very open to having my views questioned.

I said dismiss Kubrick not diss Kubrick, two different things.

I don't have a need to debate your opinions. I mean, you're right from your viewpoint about Kubrick...just as those who say he's the greatest, are right in their opinions. Frankly I don't know why people try to change other peoples minds about their movie opinions.

My only relevant question was had you seen all of his films and you answered yes. So I'd say you're well versed in his movies.

Question: what director(s) do you hold in high opinion? For me, I'd say Elia Kazan is one of my favorite top directors.

Of course.

I remember seeing a documentary about Kubrick in the Nineties where Malcolm McDowell spoke about A Clockwork Orange. At that time he said "Stanley a genius? No. Michelangelo's a genius. John Ford is a genius, perhaps". He went on to say that he didn't consider Kubrick a genius because of a lack of "humanity" and a "withdrawing" from other people. He seemed later to soften this view.

Kubrick is one of the most intelligent storytellers that cinema has ever known. Proclaiming that he's merely a visual director is not really understanding or feeling Kubrick, to say it with a cruel cliché.

It's true that he often handled material in a more "macroscopic" manner and not always in an "intimate" manner, but he certainly did the latter just as brilliantly as the former. Think of the way he presented the main characters in Barry Lyndon, Paths of Glory, The Shining or Eyes Wide Shut and the way he presented individual characters like Humbert Humbert in Lolita, Alex in A Clockwork Orange (especially in the second half of the film) and even HAL in 2001: A Space Odyssey. People often focus on the macroscopic genius of all these films, but there are plenty of intimate moments in them to give color and breath to the giant concepts that Kubrick attempted to embrace.

If you're disagreeing, then please tell me how this is not one of the most disturbingly intimate moments in cinematic history:

__________________
Cobpyth's Movie Log ~ 2019

While I do not agree with many of the points that the OP makes, I highly respect his elaborate post and the extensive way in which he tries to make his argument.

I'll try to dismantle some of the arguments step by step:

You need to give examples and arguments for these examples or otherwise this broad statement doesn't really have any credibility.

Give me one example of Kubrick doing something terribly clichéd, keeping in mind the time and context in which his films were made.

In my opinion, there was absolutely no other way to tell A Clockwork Orange as effectively as he did. I know people like to think it's fashionable or more classy to use the "less is more" philosophy when making films (I often do too), but some stories or ideas simply ask for a more explicit and direct approach in order to come across as effectively as they should. Using Bergman when talking about how A Clockwork Orange should've been made is therefore a bit ridiculous, if you ask me.

When I read the novel, I though that the novel very clearly accentuated how the longing for the concepts of innocence and youth is actually in itself a perversion. THAT is what makes it so poignant and Kubrick understood this. I agree that the novel is better than the book, simply because in my opinion there probably isn't a feature length film that could ever do ultimate justice to the quality of the book. Kubrick's effort was a very honorable one though and I highly appreciate the film on its own merits.

Agreed.

Both 2001 and Barry Lyndon can be very emotional films if you completely deliver yourself to them.

The film has so much more going on than what you describe here, if you ask me.

I give Kubrick credit for Eyes Wide Shut, because it's one of the most delicously and darkly atmospheric representations of how attempting to form a bond of complete trust with someone can expose a piece of the self that becomes very paranoid and delusional. It's a film that shows a great understanding of this, especially on the atmospheric level.

This is a valid criticism that I also made the first time I watched Paths of Glory. It's the reason why I'll probably never regard it as one of his top-tier films. I like the more morally ambiguous interpretation of reality in his later work.

Bumping this to say that we discuss this exact topic in last month's Eyes Wide Shut podcast, about whether or not Kubrick is deep, or merely good at playing with lots of broad themes and including lots of visual easter eggs in a way that lends itself to conveying depth or meaning that may not be there. We talk a little about whether or not there's even a real distinction between the two, or if being able to suggest these things without them being there is in fact a purer distillation of the medium. Direct download here.

Anyway, carry on with the great discussion!

I think that movie fans should just stop with this "great" thing. Art is ultimately subjective and people have different tastes. One man's treasure is another man's garbage. I think its a problem in American culture to have this excessive preoccupation with other people's opinions on subjective things. Society doesn't exist, what exists are individuals and greatness in an artist just means that individuals with similar interests might mostly agree on their tastes but perfect agreement doesn't exist in subjectivity.

I notice that in forums about other things I am interested in (music, animation, manga, etc) people respect a lot more their own individuality than among movie fans who try to match their opinions with others' to a disturbingly high degree. There is this video about why people tend to try to find more objectivity in movies than in music:



I also think this video by the same youtuber is relevant:



Nameless Paladin doesn't like Kubrick. So what? I don't care for Cassavetes' movies so I just don't pay attention to then and I didn't like most of Hitchcock's movies, although I greatly enjoyed other movies he made.

Obsessing over something you don't like is a form of self torture. So, you should respect yourself as an individual and pursue what you like and just don't pay much attention to what other people like because they are different from you and accept the fact that some stuff such as Kubrick's films might not be for you even though they are good for other people.

Kubrick is my favorite Hollywood director, although I haven't been heavily interested in American visual culture these last couple of years, back in 2010 or so he would be my number 1 director, now I would rank him around number 4 still (after Miyazaki, Tarkovsky and Kurosawa).

His style is very "heavy metal", that is, very aggressive and each film is mostly focused on certain elements, he is very different from the rest of Hollywood in that sense who try to make more "well balanced" stuff. I like that but it's easy to see other people might find his style a bit too over the top.

I like him, but he doesn't resonate with me like he used to. I can certainly appreciate his craft though. He accomplishes what I feel is important for an auteur like that - creating effective cinema through the lens of a style unique to the filmmaker. So I have respect for him no doubt.

I'm not sure why you're being so defensive here. One of the great joys of having movie forums is for people to discuss and debate their opinions on various films. Whilst I agree with you that art is intrinsically subjective in that a work of art need not inspire everyone identically, that doesn't mean there is no objectivity to a work of art. There is a reason why we all go to museums to see the great paintings of Picasso Francis Bacon but we do not intently stand in line to see drawings that sugared up kids often stick to lampposts on Halloween. One can of course dissect and analyse the structure of different works of art and that's what all critiques strive to do. There is no room for disrespect here, it's just raising questions which is all I've tried to do. And I do not think Kubrick is a bad director, I've clearly praised him for work that I feel is deserving.

I think it implies precisely that there is no objectivity to a work of art. Besides objective facts like "lots of people like Kubrick", there is no way to say wheter something is good or bad.

The objective fact is: Among people who are into movies, most people agree that Kubrick is great. Some people do not agree and you are among that minority of fans. That's all there is to it in terms of objectivity otherwise it's all essentially subjective. Your tastes are just different in that sense.

I think he is a great director. His only responsibility is to make the film he sees fit. In the process he's gained disciples and appreciators, as well as detractors and critics. There are no rules in cinema that state a director must elicit realistic performances or emotionally attainable characters. I understand Kubrick was very particular but some of the "blame" has to go to the actors, too. They knew the material going in. I would hope they did, anyway.

Weird for the sake of being weird.

I get that question. I've asked it several times before about other directors.

But what is weird? Is it the haunting and repetitive score for Full Metal Jacket that keeps coming back? Is it the up angle shots of intense faces Kubrick seems to have almost trademarked? Is it the deliberate pacing or interpretive narrative?

Anyway, this could take all day if I keep typing.

My personal short answer is "yes". Kubrick is a great "Director" as well as great "Film Maker" and "Technician". He makes the films he wants, he only compromises with himself as to what the end result will be and is. It was his cross to bear and to share.

There aren't rules for cinema unless you're adhering strictly to textbook knowledge on how to "properly" manipulate your audience and stay in line with a proven formula. Film making can transcend logic and comfort with ease and without punishment.

I think Eraserhead is a piece of ***** movie but a lot of people think it's a work of genius and have reasons that are legit.

I can stomach most any Kubrick movie over Lynch's debut and that's taking into consideration that rules can go out the window and one could embrace just being washed over with weirdness.

I may have just contradicted myself but I don't care. Gimme ham sammich.