Topic: How does Kubrick’s confrontational approach to film genre and his distinctive approach to the use of mise-en-scene reflect his status as one of the cinema’s most influential artists?
Length: 3639 Words


By collecting a wide range of resources I was able to expose myself to the constrastive views and opinions of others whilst forming my own through primary research into Kubrick’s films. Although he had worked occasionally on a couple of other projects including lighting advisor in 1977’s 007: The Spy Who Loved Me, Stanley Kubrick was foremost a writer and a director of his own films. Whether they were original stories or adaptations, his large input in the planning and production of all his final work was unquestionable, and for the most part; what makes him such a good subject to study. I will not only be investigating him as a director, but considering the overall input and control he exerted at the same time.

Having to choose only a couple of examples of Kubrick’s work was a challenge with such a diverse range on offer. I finally chose to study 3 films which were made within 10 years of eachother: Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964), 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) and A Clockwork Orange (1971). These films were also made consecutively one after the other and show Kubrick tackling three different genres and style of film. I felt this was important as although it is only taking a small segment out of his filmography, the range of the three films gives enough variety at the same time as possibility for discovering similarities cross-genre.

The range of themes dealt with in these three films is apparent at a quick glance: Dr. Strangelove is a black comedy on the subject of nuclear war, whilst 2001 has been described as the quintessential science-fiction film from the 1960’s. A Clockwork Orange is without a strict genre pigeonhole but is a dramatic insight into youth, and violence in society from its protagonist’s own unique perspective. As well as looking at my core selection of Kubrick’s work I believed it vital to not build a wall around them and not consider his other work. It was important to form a context as well as straight analysis, which I feel, justifies the inclusion of research on Spartacus and his other films around the same era which are mentioned in the various books and DVD features I studied.

I was able to gather a lot of useful insights and information from reading books on Kubrick, which had themselves gathered from many other sources. I found it a useful way of opening up the process to as many opinions as possible. It was necessary at all times when reading thoughts on Kubrick to consider that much of what is written may be subjective and not necessarily truly reflective of what he has achieved. I therefore had to combine this with my own opinions from watching the films and investigating what an auteur is, creating a juxtaposition of primary with secondary research at all times.


I will be looking at the three films I’ve chosen directed by Stanley Kubrick, and by using the range of sources at my disposal attempt to conclude what exactly makes him a good candidate for an auteur, what he brings to the look and feel of his films that makes them uniquely his own work. He once said in an interview with the Guardian newspaper “A truly original person with a truly original mind will not be able to function in the old form and will simply do something different.” I will be trying to find out whether he himself worked by this theory, and whether or not he succeeded.

Before investigating whether or not somebody in the film industry is an auteur, however, a definition must first be established that states the considerations and attributes that the person must possess and display. It would be too easy to walk around throwing this prestigious title at popular directors or those who have worked on successful films, but what really elevates an auteur to the next level above someone who is just doing their job, and doing it well? In my opinion, if I can recognise the work of a director or another artist in a film without knowing they were a part of it beforehand, or can draw similarities between current and previous work, then that person has left their mark, the mark of an auteur.

An auteur is most likely to be an individual director, although they may also be producers, actors or anybody else involved with the making of a film. A director however has arguably the highest profile input into the creative process, often being left to work with the material as they like, with actors following their instructions and directions.
The auteur director is one who brings to a film signs of their own individuality, or personality. This can be shown in many ways, from the way the narrative is constructed and played out, the way certain themes are explored and confronted or the visual style of the piece. There are no definitive guidelines to say specifically which areas a director must approach as an artist, as often a story can dictate setting and atmosphere without a director’s input. It is vital however that the director must;

- Be able to function as a controlling presence and a creative force in the whole of the production.
- Display identifiable characteristics in any number of different ways.

These help to distinguish one auteur’s work from another filmmaker, and help them to rise above what is simply on the screenplay to produce something in their own unique way. It is a case of breaking the rules of formulaic genre film-making. Although each genre and genre-style has its own set of codes and conventions that are more-often-than-not adhered to, an auteur is more likely to be unrestricted by these and can still work freely within the confines of expectations.
The idea of auteurism originated in France as early as pre-1950, although the prominence was mainly towards art-house directors and independent film-makers, whereas those working for Hollywood studios on big-budgets were considered too commercial, too restricted. However later on into the 50’s, following critics re-evaluation “it became both possible and necessary to distinguish the auteur in Hollywood Cinema from what the they called the ‘mette-en-scene’” – this is the director who “merely brings competence” to his direction, carrying out the job rather than functioning as an artist in that environment who is working in a production where they have little or no creative control.

Although his career spanned 48 years, Kubrick only directed 15 feature films, the most recent of which; ‘Eyes Wide Shut’ starring Tom Cruise was released in 1999, the year of his death. A lot of the literature I read specifically about Kubrick was very positive about his work, with many authors themselves using the word auteur to describe what he had brought to the screen throughout his life. From my own opinion and the overwhelming critical views in favour of this, I was confident that Kubrick could be called an auteur by the definition I had already researched. Therefore my research was concentrated into what exactly made this distinction and what he had brought to a film stylistically and thematically that made it his own. To tackle these two ideas I have looked at his “confrontational approach to film-genre” and his “distinctive use of mise-en-scene” across my chosen films by studying the examples within them and the ideas attached to each of the films in their genre, in comparison to the genre-expectations that were already established.

The artistic nature of his work was clear to all who worked with him and to the viewers of his films, but Kubrick also managed to combine his artistry with commercial appeal with 2001, A Clockwork Orange & The Shining becoming 3 of the best-loved films of all time. The success of the balance can be attributed to his lack of fear in approaching the traditional film genres such as War, Crime, Sex and Science Fiction, at the same time stretching the boundaries with controversial themes and ideas. Some have described his work as “genre-busting”, which is basically working within a genre whilst at the same time subverting expectations and classic conventions to produce something original.

The filmography of Stanley Kubrick shows the diverse selection of genres which he chose to tackle, which suggests to me that Kubrick didn’t desire to simply make films within a certain genre, but when he did he wanted to create his own version of a war film (Full Metal Jacket) or the definitive science fiction film (2001: A Space Odyssey) rather than taking others ideas and conventions and working with them. Kubrick himself said “I have no fixed ideas about wanting to make films in particular categories -- Westerns, war films and so on. I know I like to make films that gave a feeling of the times.” One of the ways to do this, and make people notice, has already been mentioned – the use of controversial imagery and themes, such as the ultra-violence of Clockwork Orange or the sexually explicit scenes in his last work: Eyes Wide Shut.

In Kubrick's work, there is always the sense that the entire mise-en-scène is making a comment, not necessarily just showing the audience a place or habitation, "but what an observer ought to think or feel about that habitation." He does not so much construct places for his characters to live as he does an idea about how and why those characters live, constantly making social comments often too subtle to notice on a first viewing, and when taking the film at face-value. Not only are the designs elaborate and often awe-inspiring, you get the feeling they are constantly deliberate - articulately constructed to Kubrick's own specific image of the scene in his head. 2001 is a perfect example of this; a lot of moments in the film are dialogue free in which the audience is left only to be directed by the mise-en-scene, the movement of the characters or the camera within the frame.
The method of shooting in each of the different films has many similarities, whilst always remaining experimental, with Kubrick often indulging in artistic freedom on the set as inventive shots came to mind. The use of lighting and colour in Kubrick’s work always plays an important role. Even when the actors performance was up to scratch, the fine aesthetic details of the set had to also play their role to perfection before the next scene could be shot. The quest for perfection in all areas of the visual style was highlighted considerably in The Shining. Kubrick used an incredible 1.3 million feet of film to make up the 142 minute running time, less than 1% of the footage captured ended up being used in the theatrical release.

Kubrick often used large areas of singular colour to show the bleakness or isolation of a situation or the character’s feelings – the reduced colour scheme of 2001 is there to stress the emptiness and sterility of space and the impersonality of technology. This is more-deliberate rather than suggestive once the central character is left alone with the ship’s computer HAL. In Clockwork Orange the colours are as bleak as the themes explored, together they go hand in hand as Alex and his droogs wreak havoc everywhere they go. With Dr. Strangelove Kubrick chose to counter his comedic approach to war by removing colour altogether and shooting in black and white, highlighting the pallid nature of the time as the world enters nuclear warfare. The use of tight-framing has also been common in the shooting style of a Kubrick film, with the man himself often getting behind the camera to film a scene – not always commonplace in film, especially with standard directors; the aforementioned mette-en-scene. The use of ‘tight-framing’ makes the scene claustrophobic and connotes a lack of freedom in movement and feeling for the characters within it. The lights above the circular table in the war room of Dr. Strangelove frames those around the table, and gives them nowhere to go, it is confrontational lighting. The technique is also used to show Alex’s loss of freedom in A Clockwork Orange after his treatment with CU shots and restricted camera-movement.

One trait which I feel is apparent in all three of these films is the challenging juxtaposition of themes with context. Music is often the device used for implementing this into the narrative, presenting the audience with what can be described as the tension of opposites. This idea is used in many of Kubrick’s films; the ultra-violence and rape scene in Clockwork Orange to the sound of Singing in the Rain, the relaxing jazz music played near the end of Dr. Strangelove when maverick Major Kong takes it upon himself to literally ride the bomb to its target destination, and the classical theme music which plays repeatedly during 2001 is a stark and eerie contrast to the subtle battle between man and machine in outer space. Kubrick uses these techniques to add depth to the films and to challenge his audience, layering ideas beyond those of what is simply shown visually, allowing interpretation of meaning with an underlying suggestion – one of the common themes of a Kubrick film being dehumanization of its characters, e.g. Alex’s treatment removing his personality in Clockwork Orange.

Described by many, including author Paul Joyce who produced a documentary on him, as “one of the greatest and most influential directors who ever lived”, I not only looked at his style in its own context, but also what about it could make him an influential artist. Said to have an “extraordinary ability to take on genre pieces”, it should be noted that any influences he may exert on filmmakers today is broad and wholly open to interpretation. One of the things the director himself wanted to encourage was audience interpretation in their own way, by presenting something and letting them decide how they wanted to read and understand it. Kubrick’s style of film and work with the camera was often original and innovative and although he was perhaps not as influential as Hitchcock turned out to be, many successful directors of the modern day have borrowed from his ideas many decades ago and used them in their own way. An earlier Kubrick film from the 1950’s The Killing is probably the most influential film he ever made, setting the standard for all heist films to follow with features that have now become conventions of the genre in their own right. A documentary on Ocean’s Eleven highlighted these ideas and showed how they had been used in a very similar way, just applied to a different scenario. Ella Taylor when writing for a book on Quentin Tarantino’s influences when writing Reservoir Dogs noted “his most obvious homage is to the B-movie, specifically to Stanley Kubrick’s 1956 caper ‘The Killing’.” And Tarantino himself has been known to state his love for the film in interviews about his first film. The similarity in theme with Reservoir Dogs is not the extent to his influence on Tarantino however, as the narrative-structure used within The Killing is similar to that of the later release Pulp Fiction. Tarantino often credited with creating a whole new method of storytelling by disposing of a traditional order was simply showing a method that was used by Kubrick 40 years earlier. However, whilst it is possible to look at the films Kubrick has made and successful spot influential similarities within his work to those of more modern-day films, I felt it was important to take quotes from filmmakers themselves on the subject.

Oliver Stone paid tribute in multiple interviews by saying “He was the single greatest director of his generation. He influenced me deeply.” Steven Spielberg was probably the director who was most in contact with Kubrick and knew him on a more personal level than many people ever would – “'He created more than just movies. He gave us complete environmental experiences that got more, not less; intense the more you watched his pictures. He copied no one while all of us were scrambling to imitate him.” The pair often spoke to exchange ideas and talk about film, and it was Spielberg who eventually took over from Kubrick, adapting his idea for Artificial Intelligence into what was released. 2001, which was essentially a science-fiction masterpiece perhaps had the greatest influence, along with The Killing, on its particular genre. Although credit by the respective filmmakers is not necessarily given, films like George Lucas’ ‘Star Wars’ and Steven Soderbergh’s ‘Solaris’. In a review of the Solaris, the reviewer writes “With its cold silences, facial close-ups, and eerily beautiful musical choices, no one who has seen 2001 could deny the similarities in style and tone.” What Kubrick had seemed to make was not only films that the audience could respect and enjoy, but films that film-makers love to watch and often take a lot from. The timeless nature of his productions, which is shown by their popularity to this date, allows current and future directors access to the ideas that originally broke the mould and set new ideas in genres such as science fiction and the heist/caper movie genre.

Kubrick had always been an independent director. He hated what he considered 'meddling' studios and executives leaning over his shoulder during the production process. The only big-time Hollywood film that Kubrick let himself get dragged into was the only one he regretted making afterwards; Spartacus. The lack of control that he was left with to film was one that many directors would have felt generous, but for Stanley he still felt restricted in his work and this was the last time he would work in Hollywood, or anywhere in America. Favouring the quieter experience of filming in England Kubrick would stay there for the majority of his remaining career. The unsatisfactory time spent working on Spartacus was what led to a step-back. This should take nothing away from the film, winning 4 Oscars (although none for Kubrick himself) and taking well at the box office, it was considered a success all round. The follow-up project was the lower-budget, and ultimately less successful Lolita (1962), but this was where he wanted to be in terms of filmmaking. Even finishing up with an unsuccessful film by Hollywood terms, Kubrick was working his own way and allowed to direct the source material as he desired rather than producing what the studios wanted to see. Still however, he ended up disappointed with the finished picture. A perfectionist at heart made it hard to be satisfied - claiming he hadn't represented the original author Vladimir Nabokov’s work as well as he should have.

Even though I chose not to study these two films in further depth, I feel it was important to consider the years before Dr. Strangelove was produced to see what led him to that way of filming. It was this time that changed the way he worked, and in my opinion elevated him to the next level as an individual character after realising how he could suffer under creative-suppressors. When carrying out my research into what an auteur is it was suggested many times that a director who is considered an artist doesn't just direct the story onto film, but puts something creative and personal into the work; a sign. It was this idea that led me to consider Spartacus, in which the limits of Kubrick as an auteur were shown. If he truly can be called an artist in this sense then it is important to highlight this time as a critical point where he was held back by the industry he was working within.

In my early research I identified two characteristics of the auteur director – being “able to function as a controlling presence and a creative force in the whole of the production” and displaying “identifiable characteristics” in the style or theme used that are a sign of their work. My investigation into these two ideas of an auteur in Kubrick’s films threw up a lot of supporting evidence from film analysis, from my own experience with the films and in what others had to say about him. The first point was shown to me almost immediately as I read in his biography about the way in which he filmed. First and foremost, yes he was a director but he immersed himself entirely in the production of his films. He was relentless and persistent in getting the scenes he wanted just the way he wanted them. He got behind the camera and filmed some scenes himself; he took great strides to find time to oversee musical scores and even put himself in the editing room after his traditional job of directing would have been over. Then, going on to look at the thematical and stylistic elements I was able to discover common paths running throughout and a similar approach to all his work being taken.

In my opinion Stanley Kubrick is one of the cinema’s greatest auteurs, the influence he has had over films over the decades and will continue to have long after his death is evident just by slightly scratching the surface. Other film-makers are dedicated fans of his work and he set a new standard with each film in different genres, surpassing expectations, breaking codes and conventions and subverting audience assumptions about what he’s about to show them. Not only has he displayed all that we have come to expect from an auteur by its definition but he has also had to fight against institution and traditional methods of film-making to do so, which is the mark of a great artist. Often using controversial themes and images, Kubrick always capture imagination and the attention of fans and critics alike, both of which could never ignore his films.


Catalogue:

1. ‘Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb’ (1964) Directed by Stanley Kubrick
2. ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’ (1968) Directed by Stanley Kubrick
3. ‘A Clockwork Orange’ (1971) Directed by Stanley Kubrick
4. ‘Pocket Essentials: Stanley Kubrick’, Paul Duncan – Book
5. ‘The Last Auteur: Stanley Kubrick’, MovieMaker Magazine, Issue #33
6. Stanley Kubrick Biography – http://www.filmmakers.com/artists/kubrick/biography/
7. ‘An Introduction to Film Studies’ Second Edition – Book
8. ‘The Art of Stanley Kubrick’ Featurette – Dr. Strangelove DVD
9. Spartacus Production Notes – ‘Spartacus’ (1960) DVD Feature
10. The Kubrick Site – http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/
11. ‘100 Greatest Films’ – 2001: A Space Odyssey
12. ‘Kubrick’s “Notes on film”’ – The Observer Weekend Review, 1960





(c)2004 Justin King