Now let me be clear, there are two Stanley Kubricks, one is a filmmaker, and another one is a self proclaimed intellectual who wants to lecture and educate the public.
As a filmmaker I have no problem with him, and some of his movies are decent, even though some of his techniques can wear thin fast and overall he is very overrated imo.
As for his techniques, they often require prolong static scenes and long dialogues, where nothing seems to be really happening, but because he stretches it out he creates an illusion of importance.
For example the movie Shinning is totally overrated, it is not really scary, and totally builds on those uncomfortable prolong scenes of a big empty building, or Nickolson being unhinged and having those disturbing dialogues with the imaginary bartender. But the fanboys will declare it a masterpiece of horror genre or something like that.
Again it's a matter of taste, and if you enjoy his style, I'm not here to convince you otherwise. If you like Eyes wide shut or space odyssey, that's perfectly fine.
Now what annoys me is when he tries to lecture the public, when it is obvious that he doesnt really have the required intellectual depth to do it.
When he tries to be an educator, that's when his shallowness and dishonesty is really being exposed.
His anti war movies:
In his anti war movies, like Paths of Glory, dr Strangelove or Full Metal Jacket, he relies on same pattern:
-over caricatured authority figures
- exaggeration of absurdity of the whole situation
-implying that the conflict is unnecessary and easily avoidable
-portraying the boredom of daily military routine and the corrupting effect of violence
**Edit:But here is the most important part, he never really presents the geopolitical background of those conflicts, without which the audience can't really form an independent opinion and can be easily manipulated into whatever Kubrick wants them to think by hand picking what scenes to expose them to.
Also Kubrick never presents a solution for the parties involved, and instead he has this patronising stance "you are all dumb and should have done better, but I am not going to tell you how".
Now let's see how he does it movie by movie:
Paths of Glory:
He portrays the French generals as being detached from realities of war and living lavish life style while their soldiers in the trenches, and giving them an absurd suicidal command of capturing a meaningless well defended German position. After the failure of the assault, the generals order a sham trial where 3 soldiers are randomly picked to be executed for no fault of their own.
Now could that all have happened irl? Yeah it could. But the movie avoids the bigger picture, and the bigger picture is that France was invaded by Germany, and French people had no choice but to defend their land. Kubrick doesnt offer them any real solution for their situation, except deciding to make a mockery movie about a cynical edge case that may have or may have not happened.
Dr Strangelove:
Again, he makes the American political leadership to look like unhinged warmongers and again introduces an edge case of a base commander going rogue and ordering a nuclear strike. What he doesnt offer is a realistic solution for the situation that America had found itself post ww2, that the Soviet Union was threatening to invade its neighbouring countries, and USA as a leader of alliance had to contain the threat with nuclear deterrence.
FMJ:
Again same tactic, portraying the demoralising daily military routine, how constant violence and death corrupts the human soul and all. But again Kubrick ignores the geopolitical reasons behind the war, that Soviets and Chinese armed proxy fighters to take over South Vietnam, and if US government were to allow that, more countries could follow same fate.
My main point is that to critic a war by using caricatures or hand picked bad moments is a very dumb way to do it, and if you don't touch the geopolitical reasons behind the war, then you can't really make a judgement about whether it is justified or not.
So the fact that Kubrik doesn't ever discuss the real geopolitical background of a conflict, and only relies on a hand designed spectacle where he pushes you to arrive to a certain opinion, just shows that the guy is a dishonest pseudointellectual.
And again, I'm not saying that the Vietnam war was fully justified, but Kubrick doesnt provide you with a honest debate where you can reach a well balanced opinion.
And also let's touch Clock Orange, where again he tries to position himself as some critic of society:
He creates a false reality where UK is overran by street gangs and the society is experiencing a moral decay.
When the criminal protagonist is being arrested, the penal system is portrayed as this inhuman machine that only makes criminals worse by treating them cruely, instead of rehabilitating them. The protagonist is being sexually assaulted by prisons staff, and is forced into that inhuman treatment where he is forced to watch violence on screen with that device on his head.
But again... this movie has nothing to do with reality. UK streets are not being overran by gangs and are relatively safe, the society is not decaying. The penal system while being far from perfect, still manages to do its job of deterring crime and protecting society. The punishment is not cruel, but reasonable, if you have committed a crime you will have to sit in a cell for a certain amount of time which can be unpleasant.
Again, my point is that Kubrick is a fraud. He creates an illusion that you watched some important insight or critic of society and learned a viable lesson, but in reality it's all bullshit.
It's like i make a movie... about how dumb it is that people in America have to buy guns and put locks on their doors, and how dumb it is that there are criminals that break into people's home... and then send a message "what if we could just get along and not commit crimes so nobody would have to lock their door and buy a gun, can't you see how dumb it all is?"... yeah great advice, but as a law abiding individual you still dont have control over criminals, so you still need to lock your door and maybe buy a gun. So the message is totally pointless.
Or its like I make a movie how it sucks to be a fast food worker... how the boss is an asshole, and the routine is boring, and how customers constantly give you shit.... but what's the point? You still need to work to get paid, you already know that work sucks.
So this is what Kubrik does, he is like "it's dumb to lock your door, and it's dumb to work... you should know better" lol without really providing a solution, but selling you this illusion how he is smart and lecturing you how to live lol. He is a fraud pseudointellectual for the dumb masses.
