Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 9744813" data-attributes="member: 7023840">Every now and then, I like to rank the films of directors. <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/the-first-rule-of-david-fincher-is-you-dont-rank-david-fincher.714037/" target="_blank">Fincher</a>.  <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/david-lynch-rip-and-ranked-a-celebration.710192/" target="_blank">Lynch</a>. <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/tarantino-movies-ranked.705096/" target="_blank">Tarantino</a>. The Andersons (not Mr. Anderson, but <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/paul-thomas-anderson-movies-ranked-and-discussion.705186/" target="_blank">Paul Tomas</a> and <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/wes-anderson-films-ranked.702089/" target="_blank">Wes</a>). <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/get-ur-body-horror-cronenberg-films-ranked.688546/" target="_blank">Cronenberg</a>. <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/finally-saw-tenet-and-nolan-films-ranked.680210/page-2#post-8283746" target="_blank">Nolan </a>(pre-Oppenheimer). The <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/i-am-king-of-the-world-ranking-james-camerons-films.707541/" target="_blank">KING OF THE WORLD</a>. <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/coen-brothers-the-movies-and-the-ranking.702116/" target="_blank">The Coen Brothers</a>.Yet, there is one director whose films I have never dared rank ... perhaps because the task is too difficult. Perhaps because the director is too close to what remains of my cold, black heart....or maybe it's because I know that if I stare into the abyss of Kubrick too long, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_237" target="_blank">I will realize that the moon landing was staged</a>. Kubrick is the one director who looked at the auteur theory in Cahiers du Cinema and could say, "Hold my beer." I am not here to praise all of the habits of this controlling man; I would certainly allow Shelly Duvall to speak for the prosecution. But, I, uh, don't think it's quite fair to condemn his whole oeuvre because of a single slip-up. Simply put, Kubrick is the archetype for intentional meaning in film- while it is possible to overread his films, you can always be assured that there is so much intention in every frame, in every choice, in every bit of set design, that all of his films reward the viewer like the densest novels.He was obsessive to a fault, and sometimes beyond it. One (of many) stories perfectly captures it- in A Clockwork Orange, there is a scene where the protagonist (Alex) falls from a window, and the shot is from Alex's POV. To capture the shot, Kubrick invented a special heavily-protected camera and repeatedly dropped it, facing downward, from a three-story window until it got the footage.Heck, in order to film Barry Lyndon as he wanted to (without the use of any artificial light since the film was set in the 18th century), Kubrick pioneered the use of lens for cameras originally used by NASA and modifying cameras to use those lens....and don't get me started on 2001. The obsession and attention to detail meant that he only made thirteen films in his life. But ... those are thirteen films are worth seeing, and eleven of them (with two reasonable exceptions) are stone-cold classics. In short- Kubrick was all killer, no filler.In order to try to make sense of these films, I am going to group them into a few different tiers.The Early Studio Films13. Fear and Desire (1952). This was Kubrick's debut as a director, and a studio film. It's ... a film. It's fine. It's not really a "Kubrick" film.12. Killer's Kiss (1955). The second film by Kubrick, and while it is still a studio film, I would say that it is notably different than Fear and Desire. If you've never seen the two movies, watch them as a double feature, and watch this film second. You can already see an evolution in visual style- it's not "Kubrick" yet, but there are the flourishes that you will recognize in his later films (like The Killing).The MCU Film 11. Spartacus (1960). This is a hard film to rank. To use a modern analogy, it's kind of like when a notable indie director is given an MCU film or a franchise film- their individual style tends to be subsumed in the franchise. I would argue that this film, directed by Kubrick, starring Kirk Douglas, and written by Dalton Trumbo, is arguably the best of the '50s-'60s swords-and-sandals epics. But while it might be a great studio film, it's hard to argue that it is a great Kubrick film- and that is a notable distinction.The Lesser, but still Great, Classic Kubricks10. Lolita (1962). Yeah, that film. It's deeply and darkly funny- in fact, I'd argue that this film provided a good blueprint to the acerbic outlook on humanity that he'd later use to great effect in Dr. Strangelove. And yet- I'd argue that while Nabokov wrote the screenplay, this film was too early. The Hayes Code was still in effect, and for that reason, despite the outrageousness of the source material, punches are pulled- and pulling punches dulls the satire.9. Full Metal Jacket (1987). This is one of the hardest movies to rank. There are two compelling and spellbinding movies here- the first half, and the second half. The problem? I would argue that the connective tissue between the first and the second half just isn't there. In fact, one of the larger parts of the movie is that while the second half is excellent, the fact that the first half is some of Kubrick's best work, and the lack of cohesion between the two halves, means that the tension and pathos of the first half aren't properly relieved in the remainder of the film.8. Eyes Wide Shut (1999). Strike what I said just above- this might be the hardest film for me to rank. This is a personal issue. I went through three periods with this film. I remember waiting for it to be released and feeling so excited because, OMG KUBRICK (and he had passed away before it was released). And I remember that when I saw it in the theater on opening day ... I was underwhelmed. I mean, there were parts that I loved. But overall? With such high expectations, I came away a little disappointed.I returned to the movie several years later and watched the "Kubrick version" (the studio made several edits- visually to get an R rating, and to the score). And I loved it. I was open to the delirium of the film, and I was receptive to the themes on a deeper level. It worked. I got it. It captures that mix of unease and obsession perfectly. I was ready to move it to the top tier of Kubrick films.But then I re-returned to it several years after that. And you know what? Tom Cruise was bugging me. So there.The Early Stone-Cold Killers7. The Killing (1956). Kill kill kill! One year after Killer's Kiss, Kubrick keeps up the alliteration with The Killing. Do you like heist films? Do you like noir? Well, Kubrick made a noir heist film that is a must-see. In fact, if you haven't seen early Kubrick, I'd recommend a triple feature of his first three films if you want to see a truly remarkable evolution of a director starting out with a standard studio film, and quickly learning in the span of three films how to make a movie ... his own.6. Paths of Glory (1957). This is the first film that he had (arguably) full control over as a writer, director, and producer - and with the exception of Spartacus, he wouldn't relinquish control again. Most importantly, it shows. Arguably his most potent anti-war film, I won't write anything else about it in case you haven't seen it. Because if you haven't, go see it now.Maximum Kubrick5. The Shining (1980). I'd argue that this film is perfect. But ... it just doesn't have quite as much meaning as the next films (even if it's how Kubrick told us that he faked the moon landing).4. Dr. Strangelove or: How I Stopped Worrying and Learned to Love the Bomb (1964). Two words- Peter Sellers. You know, given that Kubrick was notably easy-to-work-with and not controlling, and that Peter Sellers was an easy-going guy who didn't improvise scenes, I'm sure that filming this was awesome!3. Barry Lyndon (1975). I'd argue that this is the most technically impressive and beautiful film Kubrick ever made. I've got a lot of cinephile friends who say that this is his best film, but a lot of people find it inaccessible. I'm in the middle- I appreciate it a lot, but I don't love it the most.2. A Clockwork Orange (1974). A moment of truth- this is my personal number one film. I've written about it (actual, um, scholarly stuff). But I am trying to use some objective criteria as well, and I recognize that it's ... let's say a difficult watch for some people, and that there are good reasons for ranking the next film number one. Still ... this is a movie of both startling brutality and beauty, and it uses that to force the viewer to confront a profound ethical question that is as fresh today as when it was first made.1. 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968). I can make the argument for this movie quite simply- look at that date. 1968. That's a year before <s>Kubrick faked the moon landing</s> we landed on the moon. That's nine years before Star Wars. The effects, the visual language, the modernism in all of it? It's ... wow. Look, you can't get everything right, and some of it is dated. But the amazing thing isn't what he got wrong (Pan Am), but all the things that he got right, and, more importantly, how he used meticulous camera work and practical special effects to travel into space in 1968. Quite simply, there was science fiction before this movie, and science fiction after it.That's it! Feel free to comment on how correct my rankings are, or whatever you want to discuss about Kubrick, in the comments.</blockquote>

Verification