Kubrick. Kubrick is a behemoth. By every metric it is Hitchcock and Kubrick as #1 and #2. Kubrick has the most top 100 all-time film (5) which I think is as good as any metric to use. If you’re talking volume—he’s behind Hitchcock and maybe Ford or Bergman but on a per film basis, and as a stylist, there’s no one superior to Kubrick. The only non-masterpiece he made from 1964 to 1999 was Full Metal Jacket and even that ended up as my #1 film of 1987 (an admittedly weak year at the top). If boiled down I think the art of cinema is, firstly, about visual beauty and formal rigor and I think you could make a strong case Kubrick is the single best at both.
Best film: 2001: A Space Odyssey. I almost moved it to my #1 slot this year. Yes, it’s beautifully photographed and visually designed, but the gobsmackingly genius formal achievement is what may ultimately put it in my #1 slot.
Total archiveable films: 12
top 100 films: 5 (2001: A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange, The Shining, Paths of Glory, Barry Lyndon)
top 500 films: 8 (2001: A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange, The Shining, Paths of Glory, Barry Lyndon, Eyes Wide Shut, Dr. Strangelove, Full Metal Jacket)
top 100 films of the decade: 8 (2001: A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange, The Shining, Paths of Glory, Barry Lyndon, Eyes Wide Shut, Dr. Strangelove, Full Metal Jacket)
most overrated: Dr. Strangelove is slightly overrated at #48 of all-time on TSPDT but the easy choice here is Lolita which TSPDT puts at #721 of all-time. If I expanded my top 500 to 1000 I still wouldn’t get to Lolita. I haven’t seen it in ages so I hope I’m wrong, but I actually thought, visually, it was a clear step back from Paths of Glory (that’s no insult) and Spartacus.
most underrated: Paths of Glory #243 all-time on TSPDT and I’m nearly 200 slots higher on it. Kubrick is telling a story with the tracking shots (both in the trenches and in the officer’s chateau) and with the detailed mise-en-scene rich in their individual beauty and formal juxtaposition. It’s a stylistic and formal theme through is work.
gem I want to spotlight: The Shining uses the technological innovation (the Steadicam) to continue the brilliance he started in the 50’s with Paths of Glory. The house is a set-piece, one of cinema’s greatest, and Kubrick leaves no detail in the mise-en-scene unturned. He’s even more obsessed with symmetry (those hallways!) here than his previous (already crazy rigorous) works. The use of color is up there with the best work in the decade. The tracking shot of Jack going into the ballroom…sublime…
stylistic innovations/traits: Like Hitchcock there is just too much to choose from. Experts and cinema lovers could (and have) put together supercuts highlighting his use obsessively composed mise-en-scene, consistent themes in his films, use of music, etc. He may be the greatest technician in the history of cinema and is perhaps cinema’s greatest overall perfectionist. And how about “event cinema”? Every Kubrick movie from 1968 to 1999 was an event. Broken out there’s Steadicam/tracking work (Paths of Glory, 2001, The Shining, opening of Full Metal Jacket). Steadicam/tracking. Barry Lyndon may be the pinnacle of cinematic natural lighting, costume décor. Rigor—both formal and visual along with symmetry in set design. From a narrative and thematic standpoint there’s a profound emptiness or coldness in Kubrick’s world- whether it be in war, marriage, space, family, or the future.
top 10
- 2001: A Space Odyssey
- A Clockwork Orange
- The Shining
- Paths of Glory
- Barry Lyndon
- Eyes Wide Shut
- Dr. Strangelove
- Full Metal Jacket
- The Killing
- Spartacus
By year and grades
| 1955- Killer’s Kiss | R |
| 1956- The Killing | HR |
| 1957- Paths of Glory | MP |
| 1960- Spartacus | HR |
| 1962- Lolita | R |
| 1964- Dr. Strangelove | MP |
| 1968- 2001: A Space Odyssey | MP |
| 1971- A Clockwork Orange | MP |
| 1975- Barry Lyndon | MP |
| 1980- The Shining | MP |
| 1987- Full Metal Jacket | MS |
| 1999- Eyes Wide Shut | MP |
*MP is Masterpiece- top 1-3 quality of the year film
MS is Must-see- top 5-6 quality of the year film
HR is Highly Recommend- top 10 quality of the year film
R is Recommend- outside the top 10 of the year quality film but still in the archives
« He may be the greatest technician in the history of cinema ». The first thing I said when I talk about him. It’s so right,only Welles compares favorably !
Thanks for the comment– yeah in today’s day world cinema we have PT Anderson and Cuaron acting as their own DP in recent years, I could absolutely see Kubrick doing the same thing if he were still working today
I think Kubrick deserves to be considered the greatest of all time because he has filmed movies of all genres and they have all been authentic works of art. There is no other person who has achieved this and therefore I think this list should be rewritten to place Stanley Kubrick in first place without hesitation.
Greetings from Spain
@Pedro — really appreciate you visiting the site and the comment here. Kubrick is a genius and I have zero problem if you think he should be #1 ahead of Hitchcock. I obviously think differently but the point of the site isn’t to really debate 1 vs 2 here as the are both brilliant. Now i think i could argue Hitchcock is superior to say the #25 or #75 director on my list but we’re really splitting hairs here with 1 and 2. I’d rather just praise and appreciate them both. I do take a little issue with the genre comment though. I don’t think being able to master any genre is necessarily an indicator of an auteurs greatness. I’d probably argue the opposite is more commonly true actually– i think consistency is part of the authorship and a film’s value is greater when you can tie it back to the auteur and, perhaps, how it is in discussion with the other works by that director. For example, give me Tarantino all day over Ang Lee who jumps from genre to genre and I can’t tell which ones are his necessarily. Kubrick is more the exception than the rule– I like telling that a David Lynch film is a David Lynch film, a Malick film is a Malick film, etc.
I think Lolita is criminally underrated, and I also think you misrepresent Strangelove and its place in the pantheon. For starters, Lolita was a bold film for its time, a masterclass in acting, a show of force pertaining to the study of seduction, obsession and opportunism. It also gave Sellers room to grow and experiment as an actor,a fact which the history of cinema looks more than favorably at. Strangelove is easily a top 2-3 Kubrick film and nearly a flawless, genre-bending work. I’m OK with FMJ not being considered a masterpiece due to a slightly muddled middle, but the first 45 minutes and the last 10 are masterful. All in all, I find myself agreeing with most of the sentiments.
I think Lolita is criminally underrated and you misrepresent Strangelove and its place in the pantheon. For starters, Lolita was a bold film for its time; a masterclass in acting a show of force pertaining to the study of seduction, obsession and opportunism, and it allowed Sellers room to grow and experiment as an actor, a fact which the history of cinema looks more than favorably on. Strangelove is easily a top 2-3 Kubrick film and nearly a flawless genre-bending work. I’m OK with FMJ not being considered a masterpiece due to a slightly muddled middle, although the first 45 minutes and the last 10 are masterful. All in all, I find myself agreeing with most of the sentiments.
@FP — thanks for visiting the site and for the comments here. So which films are you moving down in order to move Lolita and Strangelove up? “easily top 2-3 Kubrick film?” huh. Yeah–well not visually. For what it is worth you are choosing to champion probably Kubrick’s two least interesting films visually.
Kubrick is my favorite director of all time but just because a director makes different movies throughout his career doesnt make him any less great than someone who makes the same kind of film. Ozu made similar films. Scorsese made similar films throughout his career too. Both are in my top 5
No problem. You have a very interesting take on cinema and I like the direction this site is taking. I agree with your ranking of 2001 and ACO at the top 2 spots; some people disregard Clockwork, but it’s always been my favorite Kubrick film. I’d rank Strangelove in the top 5 for sure, along with Barry Lyndon and maybe Paths of Glory. I personally think that Shining is one of his weaker films, though still a masterpiece of horror and clearly a cultural juggernaut. Strangelove is striking for a film that is B&W. I’d go as far as to say it is one of the most beautiful B&W films, and the set design has been acclaimed as one the most inventive in all of cinema (Spielberg said the War Room was the greatest set piece ever designed). The performances, the editing and the overall originality all add to its greatness. To me, it’s essential and my fondness for it has grown over time, not diminished. It was ranked as the 5th best film of all time by directors in the 2002 Sight and Sound poll, the only Kubrick film in the top 10. As for Lolita, I’d rank it at the lower spectrum of Kubrick’s ouevre (ahead of Spartacus, The Killing), but, as with almost every Kubrick film, it isn’t far away from an ipso facto masterpiece. I know that David Lynch thought very highly of it, especially George Mason’s performance, and I think, as always, Kubrick penned a great screenplay and got the best out of his cast and the source material.
@FP — thanks again for the thoughts. I think we pinpointed where we differ specifically here on Strangelove. I do not think Dr. Strangelove “is one of the most beautiful B & W films”. Not close.
Hmm, IDK what to say to change your mind. Maybe one day you’ll see it again and like it more. The Criterion Collection did a really good print a few years back. Regardless, good to see Kubrick in the top 2 🙂
Something about the way you phrase that makes me think you don’t think much of black & white films in general. B&W photography can be some of the most beautiful imagery imaginable… in some ways even more so than colour. I would actually argue that 2018 had 2 b&w films (Roma and Cold War) that were the most beautiful films of the entire year (and more beautiful than Dr. Strangelove).
Hmm, IDK what to say to change your mind. Maybe one day you’ll see it again and like it more. The Criterion Collection did a really good print a few years back. Regardless, good to see Kubrick in the top 2 🙂
@FP – I can say with a lot of confidence that Dr. Strangelove (seen it 5-10 times including a recent viewing in 2017) is not one of the most beautiful black and white films. If you wanted to argue on the basis of the screenplay, acting and other factors that it should be in his top 3 that’s fine— many do. There are 50-100 more beautiful black and white films.
Maybe I mean to say it is just a beautiful film that is also B&W. It certainly isn’t the Barry Lyndon of B&W, but the set design, costume design and editing are the factors that make it stand out as a B&W film in ’64. Again, I emphasize the War Room set. Although the film is colorless, the table was deliberately painted green and shaped like a poker table to emulate the gamble of those in power. It’s the attention to detail that sticks out, which is the aspect of B&W films that has always been brought up when arguing for their superiority over color. I suppose visual aesthetics alone aren’t my concern when labeling it one of the beautiful B&W films. Could just have to agree to disagree.
My top 7 kubrick(greatest director of all time. I regard all these 7 films REALLY highly)
1) odyssey
2) glory
3)lyndon
4)jacket
5)orange
6) strangelove
7) shining
Once again my list is VERY similar to yours but the order is a bit different
@Azman— I think Scorsese said (I looked for the quote but couldn’t find it) essentially that every Kubrick film was worth 10 films from anyone else. How true- and what a compliment.
Scorsese said “watching a kubrick film is like gazing at the top of a mountain. You look and wonder how anyone could have gotten that high up”. Kubrick said he loved scorsese films. Both are in my top 2. Kubrock greatest director of all time(no disrespect to ozu, tarkovsky, wilder etc) and scorsese is my greatest living filmmaker (no disrespect to spielberg, coppola or mallick)
So i just saw the killing and I think its a masterpiece. Time out critics called it the 2nd best gangster film of all time.
My top 8 kubrick films now:
1) 2001
2)Paths of Glory
3) Barry Lyndon
4)Full Metal Jacket
5) The Killing
6) A clockwork Orange
7) Dr strangelove
8) The Shining
No f_____ way he’s a better director than Welles, Hawks, Ford and Bergman. I trust EW better.
@HJW. Appreciate the comment and for visiting the site. I’ve studied them all extensively. Hawks (with all due respect to Hawks) over Kubrick is a joke. I’m sorry. Anyways, The TSPDT consensus has Kubrick third behind Hitchcock and Welles. http://www.theyshootpictures.com/gf1000_top250directors.htm If Kubrick isn’t 1 or 2 he’s close.
That’s your opinion and you are entitled to it, HJW. But drake is right this time. As hard as I may try, it’s impossible for me to think of a better director than kubrick. Tarkovsky, Ozu, Scorsese and a few others might come close. But seriously, Howard hawks???????? He isnt even close to Kubrick.
Drake, what do you think of TSPDT’s top directors list? Anyone you find really overrated or underrated? I know you’ve mentioned that Ozu is overrated but that confuses me. “I see why it’s rated so high- the consensus sees Ozu as a top 10 all-time director (I don’t).”-Drake.
He is one of the greatest of all time! Definitely in my top 10
@Azman– the TSPDT top directors list is very good. Yeah- there are underrated (michael mann, peter greenaway) and overrated (Wilder, Vigo) directors all over the place but it’s still a very good place to start
Good catch– so I wrote that Ozu passage on the 1949 page in 2017. I’ve yet to update my year by year archives since (hoping to do it in 2021) but in 2018 I did a massive Ozu study and found the correct placement for Ozu– among the greatest of all-time.
I like Vigo and love Wilder. Maybe when you re-study them again you will love their work as much as I, and TSPDT critics do.
@Azman–maybe. maybe not. I guess I’m not sure but I’d venture to guess I’ve studied both much more than you have.
I think it’s a bit unfair that you made that comment. Maybe you have studied them more than me. However I know what I’m talking about. I’ve seen zero for conduct A LOT of times, latalante multiple times etc.
I have seen wilder’s top 7 on TSPDT all of them a lot of times and studied them slowly. I showed them to my dad and we talked/analysed it together.
However I wont deny that you must have studied them in more detail than I. But I have studied them a fair bit too.
@Azman- I think I was pretty polite given your comment. “maybe when you study it more you’ll have an opinion like mine” … I can do without comments like that. Thank you.
Sorry Drake that’s not what I meant.i think you had mentioned a long time ago that you had a Jean Vigo restudy planned sometime(because his filmography is so short). All I said was “when you re-study them again you will love their work as much as I do”. Maybe you will pick up on new things the way you did with Ozu. You said that studying a movie multiple times can be effective. I think Wilder narratives etc are good. I’m really sorry if I offended you. That was certainly not my intention.
“The screen is a magic medium. It has the ability to retain interest as it conveys moods and emotions that no other art form can hope to tackle.” – Stanley Kubrick.
Kubrick’s films are some of the most gorgeous works of art put together. There is some much nuanced and hidden emotions in his movies that when it comes, it hits hard. The ending of paths of glory is a good example.
His methodical editing, great symmetry, tracking shots, “the Kubrick stare” etc. Kubrick really innovated cinema a lot.
Sorry Drake that’s not what I meant.i think you had mentioned a long time ago that you had a Jean Vigo restudy planned sometime(because his filmography is so short). All I said was “when you re-study them again you will love their work as much as I do”. Maybe you will pick up on new things the way you did with Ozu. You said that studying a movie multiple times can be effective. I think Wilder narratives etc are good. I’m really sorry if I offended you. That was certainly not my intention.
@Azman- thanks for saying that. The comment rubbed me the wrong way but it is not a big deal. I’m sure my comments rub people the wrong way sometimes, too when often (certainly most often) that’s not my intention.
do you think there’s a difference between a stylist and a technician. i’d say kubrick reigns as the best ever technician in film but i’d say directors like brian de palma woody allen and david lynch are more consistent stylists.
@m – interesting. I’m not sure. I’m sure in most instances they overlap. I think I use technician about 5 times on the De Palma page. I’ve also applied it to Kubrick, Hitchcock and Gaspar Noe. I’ll have to think about where I’d use one adjective and not the other. Perhaps technicians have the skill and can execute every move, but not the artist flair? And vice versa? (certainly not applying that to these names).
Great take on one of the goats! He’s surely in my top 3 . Although i kinda disagree with “as a stylist no one’s superior than Kubrick” because you can’t miss on Malick or leone’s or say even Wes Anderson for that matter. Kubrick is definitely a greater director but i feel these guys are better(or as good)stylist than him.
i agree. i’d say that kubrick and hawks for example are technicians foremost. let’s look at kubrick in particular. 2001 has some of the most brilliant imagery of all time and spartacus or eyes wide shut have great cinematography but they look a bit different from each other. where as the use of color or set pieces in de palma films like dressed to kill carrie and blowout feel more stylized and more like ‘a de palma shot’.
best directors of all time (subject to change)
1. welles
2. griffith
3. kubrick
4. de palma
5. bergman
What movie do you think has the best set design of all time? I ask the question here because Kubrick could be the single master of production design, with perfect spaceships, war trenches, haunted hotels, European palaces, political conference rooms and so much more. But the question is impossible for me because so many people do it so well in a bunch of films: Kubrick of course, Tarkovsky, Kurosawa, Coppola, Cuaron, and Anderson (both but especially Wes).
Might I add Orson Welles, Federico Fellini and Ridley Scott…
@Graham. I don’t know if you mean this http://thecinemaarchives.com/2017/11/30/blade-runner-1982-ridley-scott i discussed it with Drake yesterday.
Ah, I see. I did not notice that comment. But I would definitely agree with the choices there.
@Graham– I’ll just add a few that are a little off the beaten path— Roy Andersson designs each set-up meticulously. He makes almost moving paintings. Peter Greenaway as well.
Hitchcock has more masterpieces than perhaps anyone, but Stanley Kubrick….Jesus, there’s just so much depth and rewatchability and weight to his films.
Barry Lyndon is my personal favorite, then Eyes Wide Shut, but I’d say virtually all of them are masterpieces.
Gotta disagree with your dismissals of Full Metal Jacket and Lolita. Lolita is exceptional, very classy, very funny, very beautifully directed, and in some ways a precursor to Eyes Wide Shut. And Full Metal Jacket, while flawed, is just infinitely rewatchable and IMO the best of the “big” Vietnam War flicks.
Hmmm. Think your article has inspired me to go watch Barry Lyndon again. Cheerio!
@JarodOmarrley – thanks for sharing your thoughts and for visiting the site. If it comes off as I’m dismissing Full Metal Jacket then I am sorry- I am not. I actually have it the #1 of 1987.
Talk to me about how beautifully directed Lolita is. How so? Maybe I missed something.
BTW, have you read the articles about Tom Crusie’s daughter being kidnapped in the final scene in Eyes Wide Shut? She’s lead off between two old guys from the opening party, and the waiter. Imagine another film director keeping details like this hidden for close to a decade in a film. And all his films have little secret nuggets like this.
@JarodOmarrley— I have not. Fascinating. Thanks for sharing. And you’re right- this is only something you’d get with Kubrick.
PS to my previous comment:
I forgot to mention Wong kar-wai and Martin Scorsese as great stylist in the same league as Kubrick.
@Tanishk Shingla- thanks for visiting the site and the comment. You’re saying Wes Anderson/Leone/Malick is the superior stylist to Kubrick? Doesn’t sound right. If you want to say they (or a few others from WKW to Scorsese) are on that level- fair– no problem— but (and I’m like the world’s biggest Wes Anderson admirer) you start putting directors ahead of Kubrick I’d have to hear a good reason why
Gotta say I’m with you on this one Drake. Wes, Leone and Malick are all fantastic directors and great stylists but I don’t think any of them have done anything on the level of what Kubrick has done on, amongst other examples, 2001, A Clockwork Orange, Barry Lyndon, or even Eyes Wide Shut.
Please don’t include Malick in this, the tree of life is as good as 2001
Yeah they’re pretty even honestly. I guess I included my sentiments on their overall directing prowess in the analysis of them as stylists, in which Kubrick and Malick are pretty even but as much as I love Malick Kubrick is just the superior director.
I completely agree with @Zane’s latest comment on Malick and Kubrick
@drake and @zane thanks for replying .
I dont think any other director that i mentioned (except Scorsese or maybe Malick) are any close to Kubrick as an overall director. Kubrick is a true master. What i meant is directors like WWK, Wes Anderson and Malick are as good stylist as Kubrick .
My Kubrick ranking:
1. 2001: A Space Odyssey
2. A Clockwork Orange
3. Barry Lyndon
4. The Shining
5. Dr. Strangelove
6. Eyes Wide Shut
7. Full Metal Jacket
Still need to catch Paths of Glory. On Amazon Prime at the moment so can probably get to it soon. Think Eyes Wide Shut is worth a rewatch too; it’s very good.
I’m moving Eyes Wide Shut up to #5 and into MP territory and I could even see #4 in the future; I need to rewatch The Shining again (and the last watch was only 3 months ago too…). Barry Lyndon on the other hand is rock-solid in that top 3; I could even see it moving up to #2. I hope to get to Paths of Glory soon.
I particularly thought the usage of primary colors in the film was very excellent. Kubrick uses blue lighting, red fabrics, and yellow walls in much of the film; he uses the blue lights throughout the film but all three come together remarkably well in the beginning party scene as well as in the orgy at the mansion. I also love the ambiguity in the film’s events; we’re left with so many half-answers to every question we wonder about while watching the film which is perfect space to theorize upon. That being said, I found the film partly disappointing by the end because the last hour really can’t compete with the first 90 minutes during which I thought it might go as high as #2; it was that good in my opinion.
It’s been two months since I watched Barry Lyndon, which I put off for so long because it was a “period piece,” something I very, very wrongly held against it, and yet my opinion of Ryan O’Neal’s performance hasn’t really changed. I actually think he makes a fairly decent contribution to the film and his work in it ranks among the best in any of Kubrick’s films. I remember hearing so much before the film about how godawful he was in it – another part of the reason I avoided it for so long – and I didn’t think that at all. I don’t think he ever does anything as stunning as say McDowell as Alex DeLarge or Sellers as any of his roles in Dr. Strangelove, and his performance isn’t even exactly transcendent in my opinion, but I fail to see at all how he is outright bad.
@Zane- I agree with you- but he took a lot of flack for that accent.
Kubrick is the greatest Director of all time. He has 4 Stars in every genre and his films still hold up today.
IMO- here’s my top 10
1. Kubrick
2. Kurasowa
3. Chaplin
4. Ridley Scott
5. Sergio Leone
6. Fritz Lang
7. Bergmen
8. DW Griffith
9. Hitchcock
10. Eric J. Kepner
@Eric- thank you for sharing your list and for visiting the site. This is a great list- interesting to see the inclusion of Scott as the most contemporary of auteurs here.
Who is Kepner? I see nothing online about him or any of his movies
“A film is – or should be – more like music than like fiction. It should be a progression of moods and feelings. The theme, what’s behind the emotion, the meaning, all that comes later.” ― Stanley Kubrick
This may be one of my favourite quotes about cinema. It’s a good go-to whenever someone tries to argue that plot and themes are more important than anything else.
@Declan- I love this- thank you for sharing. And yes- this is a good one to have in my back pocket the next time that argument surfaces.
How do you define formal rigor?
@Harry– Hey Harry- so here meaning a stiff adherence to a system or form- https://sites.fas.harvard.edu/~fc76/Handouts/A__Principles_of_Form.html#:~:text=Meaning%20in%20a%20film%20is,they%20stylistic%20or%20narrative%20entities.
specifically five here- “Unity/disunity: If elements cohere strongly, we speak of a “tight” structure”
The Shining has one of the most incredible opening scenes with the panoramic shots of the car traveling along the Rocky Mountains. These incredible images combined with the haunting, ominous score perfectly sets up the films atmosphere.
What are some other films that effectively set up atmosphere in the opening shots?
For me:
There Will Be Blood (2007)
Aguirre, the Wrath of God (1972)
A Clockwork Orange (1971)
I’d add:
Apocalypse Now – creating psychedelic jungle terror with the opening napalm dream
Raging Bull – creating vicious gracefulness with the slow-motioning LaMotta
Roma – illustrating the daily routines of Cleo
The Hill – starting the narrative of delirious intensity while revealing the compound
Blade Runner, crafting cyberpunk cityscape grandeur, also setting up symbols of crowded environment and human eyes
Every Wes Anderson movie – the whimsical atmosphere is completely maintained throughout every second, including the beginning
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly – juxtaposing a wide desert landscape with a close-up of a cool, stoic gunfighter
Dead Man – lulling us into a off putting, deadpan stupor with mesmerizing music
The Underground Railroad – I’ve only seen one episode so far, but the opening sequence is an absolute cinematic atom-bomb of surrealist intensity
@Graham – great choices, Raging Bull might have my favorite score of all time
I’m not sure if this opinion is “unpopular” or not, but the first 10 minutes of Lolita are among the finest of cinema history.
@RK- Interesting. In what way? I would like nothing more than to be wrong on my “overrated” section here with Lolita.
I agree with you that Lolita is Kubrick’s most overrated. It’s a HR in my books after first viewing and his second weakest (Killers Kiss beaing the weakest) film.
I called my opinion unpopular because I dont see Lolita’s first 10 minutes being mentioned when discussing about best first 10-15 minutes in film history, while movies like Goodfellas, The Dark Knight and Saving Private Ryan are mentioned often when talking about the best first 10-15 minutes in film history (not saying that the first 10-15 minutes in those films are bad etc. I think those are among the best first 10-15 minutes in film history).
But back to the first 10 minutes of Lolita, in short the lighting, direction, camerawork, set pieces, acting (especially from Sellers) and dialogue are all flawless in my opinion. Especially how Kubrick pictures people as furnite, the ping pong sequence between two pedophiles… Wow. And the scene where Humbert shoots Quilty through the painting. Absolutely amazing. Intensity at it’s best. Bravo, mr. Kubrick.
@RK- thank you for sharing this. I’ve seen it several times but it has been too long and my memory of the opening isn’t as sharp as yours clearly. I look forward to a rewatch.
[…] 2. Stanley Kubrick […]
Hello, Drake. I’ve just seen Dr. Strangelove for the second time, and I’d like to ask: do you still think it’s a masterpiece? I don’t think I found enough in it myself to get past MS.
@Pedro- Thank you for the comment. I am not as married to it as a masterpiece as I once was. I will say that it has been working its way down the best films of 1964. It was at #6 on the top 10 when I did the 1964 page and even now- if I were to rerack it and improve the pack. At least one more film (Charulata) would be ahead of it. So you might be correct here.
Killer’s Kiss R
The Killing HR
Paths of Glory MP
Spartacus HR
Lolita HR
Dr. Strangelove MS
2001: A Space Odyssey MP
A Clockwork Orange MP
Barry Lyndon MP
The Shining MP
Full Metal Jacket HR
Eyes Wide Shut MS
Stanley Kubrick is the DaVinci of cinema!
Just think of all the great American filmmakers who are/were in awe of his talent………Welles, Scorsese, Spielberg, Lynch, at al.
Every single one of his films, beginning with The Killing, and excepting Spartacus, has in many ways grown richer with time and repeat viewings. I’m not sure you can find that quality in any other narrative filmmaker’s work dating back nearly seven decades?
Though I regard Kubrick as the greatest film artist in history, I would feel comfortable lumping him in the same top tier of geniuses, alongside Welles and Hitchcock. I think there is clear separation between those three and the next tier of twenty or so masters who follow, namely: Antonioni, Tarkovsky, Bunuel, Ford, Dreyer, Bresson, Mizoguchi, Rossellini, Chaplin, Renoir, Hawks, Godard, Lang, Kurosawa, Ozu, Murnau, Bergman, Fellini, Keaton, Powell/Pressburger, and Wilder. And I would be remiss not to pay special homage to Jean-Pierre Melville, whose reputation as a master seems grossly undervalued by the film community.
After them begins yet another tier of stylists and poets who came to prominence in the late 60’s and 70’s, along with a handful in more recent decades, and they are: Scorsese, Coppola, Resnais, Leone, Cassavetes, Lynch, Polanski, Malick, Herzog, Kieslowski, Kar-wai and Fassbinder.
You can go on to name dozens of additional filmmakers from the early days of cinema to the Tarantino sphere of influence, along with the “minimalist” darlings of the last quarter century, figures like Kiarostami, Hsiao-hsien, Akerman, Yang, Weerasathekul, Tarr, etc.
But back to Kubrick.
A legitimate claim can be made that ANY one of 10 Kubrick films can be regarded as his greatest achievement. The same claim cannot be made by even such prolific directors as Hitchcock or Ford.
With most directors, you could whittle down their very best achievements to perhaps a choice among a half dozen films, at most; possibly get up to 7 or 8 with Hitchcock or Ford, but that’s it.
With Kubrick, everything from The Killing (hands down his most underrated film) to his swansong, Eyes Wide Shut, is a contender (except for Spartacus). And these are the opinions of prominent filmmakers and historians, let alone cinephiles the world over. Heck, I would wager that Spartacus may even be his most popular film among casual moviegoers, but I digress.
Kubrick left behind a staggeringly rich catalog of achievements – both technically and philosophically – though they are few in relation to other far more prolific directors. And yet, had he been a bit more fortunate and less rigorous in his approach, the world might have been privy to a few more masterpieces, including Napoleon, Aryan Papers and HIS version of AI: Artificial Intelligence.
Our current world is a far sadder place without any new Stanley Kubrick films to “kick us up the evolutionary ladder,” except his extant oeuvre keeps yielding new discoveries and truths about the human condition, like finely chiseled Rosetta Stones on celluloid.
As Scorsese once famously quipped, “We are the children of D.W. Griffith and Stanley Kubrick.”
Cheers!
@Wittsdream- Thank you for the comment and thank you for visiting the site. Great work here with the writeup on Kubrick. “(Sic) One of his films were equivalent to ten of anybody else’s.” – Martin Scorsese
https://youtu.be/A-tgsURVNrI
One of my all time favorite trailers.
I feel like Stanley Kubrick’s claim to being the G.O.A.T really rests on 4 films :
Dr Strangelove, 2001, A Clockwork Orange and Barry Lyndon. Each of these is at such a high standard (with 2001 and BL reach all-time masterpiece status to me), that I don’t think any director can claim to have had a better decade than Kubrick did from 1964 to 1975.
The problem for me comes when dealing with his work outside of these 4. Full Metal Jacket and Paths of Glory are great films, but not all-time great films. I’ve found the Shining outright weak, and Eyes Wide Shut I’ve thought was competent but not memorable.
Kubrick obviously had a very distinct visual style and approach to actors and acting, and when it found the right material it led to masterpieces, when it did not, I feel his weaknesses became apparent.
One big weakness of Kubrick I think was screenwriting, which if left to him, often led to bad performances. If you look at the parts of Full Metal Jacket that everyone agrees are great, namely the first third in boot camp and the last third with the sniper, you notice that the former was mostly dialogue improvised by Lee Ermey himself (with Kubrick accepted as superior to his script) and the latter has almost no dialogue, leaving Kubrick’s lighting, compositional and editing prowess to take center stage. If Ermey had not pushed to takeover the role of Sgt. Hartman, we can all agree FMJ would have possibly not even been a great film.
Similarly look at films like A Clockwork Orange and Dr Strangelove, where the dialogue was taken out of Kubrick’s hands. Kubrick handles everything but the dialogue. The acting from both Mcdowell and Sellers is rightfully praised – both give very un-Kubrick like performances – they speak at a normal tempo, there is more energy and animus. Compare those performance to the stilted delivery of John Wayne quips by Private Joker.
However, there was material which was enhanced by Kubrick’s penchant to have his actors deliver lines in an unnaturally slow and deliberate manner. 2001 is an obvious example here, with the astronauts competing with HAL to see who is more inhuman and robotic. Barry Lyndon, with its focus on high class society and manners, works very well with stilted delivery and overtly restrained mannerisms- there is hardly a weak performance in the entire film, despite having much “lesser” leads. Ryan O’neal is no Jack Nicholson, but his performance in Barry Lyndon outshines Nicholson’s in the Shining.
@Andrew- Thank you for the comments here and for visiting the site. The vast majority of this here checks out- you clearly know your stuff. The one exception here may be the comment about The Shining and Eyes Wide Shut. I’m not sure the evidence on screen supports your comment.
@Drake-He is off about Jack’s performance in The Shining as well. It is his screen presence that works here. I hardly think it is his best work either. I would easily put Cuckoo’s Nest, The Passenger and Chinatown above this performance. Despite The Shining being probably Jack’s best film.
@Andrew – just curious how many times have you seen Eyes Wide Shut? If just once I would strongly consider watching again as I have found it to be one of those films that really rewards multiple viewings. Similar to PT Anderson’s The Master (2012) there are so many ways to interpret Eyes Wide Shut and so much addition to even the smallest of details throughout the film. Here is a link to an absurdly in depth analysis of the film and possible interpretations
https://boydrinksink.com/eyes-wide-shut-hidden-in-plain-sight
Im the exact opposite of you….. i find most of kubrick’s work boring but I think both The Shining and Eyes Wide Shut are giant masterpieces (both in my top 10 of their decades). There’s lots of things that annoy or bore me with his older films, but I find those 2 films to be nearly perfect
Thats pretty crazy thinking O’Neal > Nicholson, he was incredible in The Shining, one of his best performances, while Barry Lyndon is basically the only thing Ryan O’Neal is known for
Nicholson in Shining – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmY4k85_XEE
ONeal in BL – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bC9WefXFMFk
In what world is he better than Jack, man?
Not to hate on him, I thought he was pretty good in The Driver, but hes no Nicholson in The Shining, nowhere close.
I read this great Kubrick quote recently:
“When you think of the greatest moments of film, I think you are almost always involved with images rather than scenes, and certainly never dialogue. The thing a film does best is to use pictures with music and I think these are the moments you remember. Another thing is the way an actor did something: the way Emil Jannings took out his handkerchief and blew his nose in The Blue Angel, or those marvelous slow turns that Nikolai Cherkassov did in Ivan the Terrible.”
@James Trapp- Very well said!
@Drake. Have any of your evaluations of Kubrick films changed since this post?
@Christopher- I’ll have to really dig in with the next update. Not quite sure right now. But I have seen just about all of them again since this page was last updated