Biehn call Stanley Kubrick “sociopath”

Kubrick visited his vindictiveness on Modine when the actor opined that one idea was “dumb” and they’d just wind up reshooting it like “we have everything else in this whole fucking movie.” That earned Modine a month of being scorned as “the cunt” by Kubrick. Kubrick’s mistreatment of Scatman Crothers is discussed numerous times; Vitali told Colceri that he had to break into Crothers’ hotel room, pull the actor out from behind the curtains, and drag him back to the set after Stanley had run him through more than a hundred takes of one lengthy shot.

With his later films, Kubrick operated with a degree of independence and autonomy few directors attain. Did the latitude and autonomy Kubrick enjoyed as he made these films result in better movies? As he acquired more authority, as people extended themselves for him, he was able to cocoon himself into his domain, freed from the chore of actually having to deal with people on a daily basis, and his movies became as alienating and aimless as their maker. And at what cost?

The gulf between Dr. Strangelove, his tight, purposeful masterpiece, and Eyes Wide Shut, which can only be endured that way, argues that free reign for Kubrick didn’t produce better movies; they only got worse. This can be argued, to be sure, but what is beyond dispute is that working for Kubrick took a real toll on the lives of real people who craved to be a part of the life of a filmmaking legend who often treated them callously and found them all utterly dispensable once they’d served his purpose.

This assessment of Kubrick originated with three old friends reminiscing about a remarkable episode in their lives. Those recollections were the raw materials that led Aaron Couch to his own reporting in his lively and engaging Hollywood Reporter story focused on Colceri. When Michael looked at the draft that was going to Aaron, he added a final thought:

“The details are all there, but they don’t convey the true dimension of that nightmare. I know great filmmakers revere him; Cameron, Spielberg, Scorsese all said he inspired them, but they didn’t have to work for him. I don’t see it. His movies just got more awful after Strangelove until he wound up with that final abomination. And as a man, he was a soulless monster. It’s not that he didn’t care what he did to you, he wasn’t even aware of you. A bully, a liar, a tyrant. If you look up the word “sociopath” in the dictionary . . . I think it fits him perfectly.”


Michael Biehn & Jim Anderson


Part Two