The Director's Chair

This segment is focused on the director of a movie. I will usually discuss something like his role as an icon or what has changed for him due to societies backlash on his/her films. Today is Stanley Kubrick, regarded as one of the greatest directors of all time. Or is he? This question only sprung up the night before, with me wondering; how has this man become such an icon. He has made only 16 film's, some of them barely made back there budget and a lot of them were considered much too controversial for there time.

 A Clockwork Orange, for example, was banned in England and had only received a limited showing in America, receiving an X-Rating. I had never heard of such a thing. Must be EXTREMELY risque and EXTREMELY EXTREME. Scenes of explicit violence, rape and nudity was prevalent and his political/social undertones suggest he was dissatisfied with the society he was living in or was poking fun at the running of the world at that time.

As for being a director, he was not a 'good' one. Let me elaborate. He had good vision. His cinematography, for the time, was perfection, leaving many wondering to this day how such a feat in the camera work was done, as the technology for such was not available at the time. He wrote very good screenplay's, mainly adaption work, 2001, clockwork, shining, Dr Strangelove, etc, were all based off of book's. But this often led to the original authors having to defend against any bad press the movie may have gotten due to Kubrick's vision. In fact, Kubrick was renowned for loosely adapting the novel's, leaving out scene's of key importance or adding in new characters. Stephen King even complained that the adaption of 'The Shining' was "the only one he had ever hated" of his novels.  

 I have devised a point system that for directors, whereby the amount of nominations they get in the Oscars(being the award that claim's you are the best of the year) gives you 1 point for win and a 1/2 point for nomination. The Razzies, on the other hand, being the award that say's you are the worst of that year, subtracts 1 point per win, and a 1/2 point per nomination. Eg. Steven Spielberg is 6, while Michael bay is -2.5. This of coarse does not reflect how good or bad a director is, it just a tab thats all.

Stanley Kubrick is 1.5. Another aspect is that he was nominated for a razzie for the shinning. the film was good, but his direction and how he handles the situation. His lead actress was stressed from constant abuse by Kubrick who in a way sort of wanted her to become a method actress and portray a more flustered, scared mother. this got so bad she fell ill and had even started to lose her hair. His methodological nature led to him having to repeat a scene many times in hope of getting it right or to try a new method. The lowest amount of takes he has ever taken was probably six, only because the camera broke on the final take. He actually retook a scene from the shinning 125 times before settling on one.

But once we get down to it, he is an innovative director. his camerawork spawned from his year's as a photographer. He developed new lenses, including one that can use the natural light of candles to provide enough light for the scene. this was eventually used by NASA to photograph the sun. His political undertone's are an interesting look at society. the reason his films has become iconic is because of there style, depth, atmosphere and his devotion to the film. So is he a "good" director, no. But he is an innovative and imaginative Director. He has made some of the best films ever made, I recommend you check them out.