MovieChat Forums > Paths of Glory (1957) Discussion > Stanley Kubrick: The Ultimate Guide to t...

Stanley Kubrick: The Ultimate Guide to the Master Filmmaker


What is that elevates a filmmaker to a film master like Stanley Kubrick, or that elegant French word, auteur? In the vast majority of films that make it onto the big screen these days, it is the actors’ names which draw curious audiences above the director’s.

In many cases, at least in a film’s public profile, the director works behind the scenes, barely participating in the promotion circuit, and in the most disheartening cases, can even earn the label of a “Hollywood Hack”.

There may be hundreds of such ill-fated directors circulating, however the last 120 years of filmmaking have given us a precious selection of truly masterful auteurs. From Alfred Hitchcock to Jean Renoir, from Claire Denis to Quentin Tarantino, the film masters’ canon is a rich one.

Such filmmakers leave an indelible mark on their films; they exert unmistakable control over their project; they allow their creative idiosyncrasies to seep into every aspect of their process. In other words, cinematic masters have the freedom to make their films truly their own, and the vision to create something unique in doing so.

Watch over 15 hours of videos, documentaries and analysis of Stanley Kubrick here: https://www.indiefilmhustle.com/stanley-kubrick/

reply

It is rare for me to watch a film just for the director. Alfred Hitchcock was an exception to this, but he is the only one that I can think of. And I did not care for all of his films.

I won't get a film just because Kubrick's name is on it, but to be fair, I also won't avoid them either. Some of his films, I have liked and others I did not care for all that much and a few of them I detested because I thought they were utterly pointless. This film was one that I liked.

For me, a film is (usually) made good or bad because I liked the plot, or other things. I seldom pay that much attention to who directed it.

reply