When people look at the early work of any artist who is later acclaimed a genius, there are two standard views. The first is that it is a failure, because it isn't as good as the artist's later works, when his techniques and budgets will have caught up with his talent. The other is to rate it a success and find the same greatness that will appear later, even though the artist's technique and budgets have not caught up yet.
I liken the latter attitude to looking through every manger for the baby with the halo. Look! There's some straw! It must be him! Neither is the former attitude any better. Works should be judged on their own merits and with a movie like FEAR AND DESIRE, the proper standard is not the mature, big-budget Kubrick of PATHS OF GLORY, but the contemporary, low budget war movie. It's tough, because this is a movie about the insanity of war, a theme Kubrick would return to many times.
Still, at this time a jaundiced re-examination of the the Second World War was beginning, with works such as EIGHT IRON MEN in 1952 and THE CAINE MUTINY in 1954, both directed by Edward Dmytryk, presaged by Samuel Fuller's STEEL HELMETS in 1951.
Looking at those movies, we can judge this one more accurately. We can see the remarkable, if still compositions that Kubrick uses -- just the sort of picture he would offer to his editors at LIFE. Do you like your photography out front or subtle? Me, I like my compositions subtle. Otherwise they distract from what is going on. Some movies, though, are about striking images and because of weaknesses in other departments. This is one of them.
Now we listen to the words as they are spoken by the actors and think about what the words mean and how they are delivered. The script about this squad trapped behind enemy lines is melodramatic and the actors are way over the top, with little modulation.
The pieces -- pictures, script and performances -- don't fit together well. The result is a fitfully interesting but overall poor movie, not really worth your time.... except it is Kubrick, and given my exhaustive (and exhausting) academic attitude towards these things, I want to see everything he did. I'm glad I saw it.
So that makes it decent. Which, come to think of it, is what you'd expect of the first feature film of a great director.
I liken the latter attitude to looking through every manger for the baby with the halo. Look! There's some straw! It must be him! Neither is the former attitude any better. Works should be judged on their own merits and with a movie like FEAR AND DESIRE, the proper standard is not the mature, big-budget Kubrick of PATHS OF GLORY, but the contemporary, low budget war movie. It's tough, because this is a movie about the insanity of war, a theme Kubrick would return to many times.
Still, at this time a jaundiced re-examination of the the Second World War was beginning, with works such as EIGHT IRON MEN in 1952 and THE CAINE MUTINY in 1954, both directed by Edward Dmytryk, presaged by Samuel Fuller's STEEL HELMETS in 1951.
Looking at those movies, we can judge this one more accurately. We can see the remarkable, if still compositions that Kubrick uses -- just the sort of picture he would offer to his editors at LIFE. Do you like your photography out front or subtle? Me, I like my compositions subtle. Otherwise they distract from what is going on. Some movies, though, are about striking images and because of weaknesses in other departments. This is one of them.
Now we listen to the words as they are spoken by the actors and think about what the words mean and how they are delivered. The script about this squad trapped behind enemy lines is melodramatic and the actors are way over the top, with little modulation.
The pieces -- pictures, script and performances -- don't fit together well. The result is a fitfully interesting but overall poor movie, not really worth your time.... except it is Kubrick, and given my exhaustive (and exhausting) academic attitude towards these things, I want to see everything he did. I'm glad I saw it.
So that makes it decent. Which, come to think of it, is what you'd expect of the first feature film of a great director.