So something happened recently. In an interview, director David Cronenberg randomly smacktalked Stanley Kubrick, attacking the director's pedigree and taking particular disdain to his version of The Shining. Cronenberg called Kubrick 'commercially-minded' and asserted that he thinks he's a better filmmaker (more 'intimate' and 'personal', and he compared himself to Ingmar Bergman and Federico Fellini). While being a total WTF moment, coming completely out of nowhere, it has made me think about the differences between the two directors.
One was a perfectionist renown for the quality of his movies, many of which pioneered new film techniques (steadi-cam in The Shining and lighting by candlelight in Barry Lyndon). The other invented the body horror subgenre, focusing on physiological and psychological fears. Kubrick died just before the new millennium, while Cronenberg's output in the last ten years has differed considerably from his early works. Both have had their impact on the film world.
But who is the better director? It's probably Kubrick. Sorry to sort of kill any build-up. I mean, I love both directors, but Kubrick's films have a certain strength and quality about them and The Shining is one of my top ten favourite movies. Not saying that Cronenberg doesn't have his high points, The Fly is fantastic and I love A History of Violence, but for me Kubrick is the better filmmaker.
If it's an issue of quality, then you have to look at which films were better and which ones were duds. Kubrick's movies, even the weaker ones, still have intrinsic qualities that can be admired. The black humour and Peter Seller's improv in Lolita (coupled with the material) made it more interesting that it would have otherwise been. Cronenberg's duds are just duds. Existenz is a terrible film no matter which way you slice it (though the teeth-firing gun, constructed from fish bones, is pretty cool). Spider is dull, A Dangerous Method isn't as interesting or insightful as it thinks it is (and Keira Knightley is terrible in it) and Cosmopolis...is Cosmopolis. I have nothing witty enough to embellish that movie.
But there's that comment Cronenberg made against Kubrick - 'commercially minded'. Normally I wouldn't consider Kubrick's output to be termed 'commercial'. Sure, early films like Spartacus had widespread appeal, but most of Kubrick's output typically took a genre and made something more substantial, cerebral and confronting than the usual output. He made film adaptations of two controversial books, Lolita and A Clockword Orange. The Shining is a horror movie that subtly messes with the viewer, Full Metal Jacket focused on the marines' desensitisation through training, Dr Strangelove took the piss out of the Cold War and Eyes Wide Shut was a serious drama about infidelity, mostly comprising of random conversations and sequences (leading to the orgy). Then there's 2001: A Space Odyssey, with its opening overture and lack of dialogue for the first twenty minutes. Compared to most directors, Kubrick's output is not particularly 'commercially minded' or even safe.
Compared to Cronenberg, however, Kubrick is practically normal. While his more recent works are grounded in reality (History of Violence and Eastern Promises were about mobsters, Dangerous Method was about the relationship between Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung, Cosmopolis is...Cosmopolis), early, pre 2000 Cronenberg is a cluster of mindfuckery. Early on he did horror movies with something of an edge. Shivers is basically about zombies who spread through sex, Rabid is similar and The Brood turns concerns about child rearing into horrible murderous moppets. Some of his movies are just movies (The Dead Zone is pretty by-the-numbers), while others moved on to psychological and physiological horror. The Fly is one of the better known Cronenberg flicks, with Jeff Goldblum's body transformation being allegorical to STDs. Then you get to the harder stuff. Dead Ringers had Jeremy Irons playing twin gynaecologists who share sexual partners, Scanners was about psychics who could 'scan' other people with explosive results.
Then you have Videodrome and Naked Lunch. The former melded body horror with the fear of television intruding on real life (predicting reality television several years before it began). The latter is a bizarre semi-autobiographical detective film about William Burroughs, involving a living typewriter, giant bugs and Peter Weller shooting his wife to prove he's a writer. Both films are total mindfucks, throwing conventional logic to the side. As the total proof of Cronenberg not being a 'commercially minded' director is that he directed Cosmopolis. Robert Pattinson in a limousine having discussions about economics, philosophy and existentialism with a series of other characters for two hours. The movie is an exercise in how to be hated. I went to the cinema to see it, and I watched the other cinemagoers leave one after the other (by the first hour I was the only one in the cinema). It's not the sort of film that makes money, or is enjoyed, it's there to generate discussion amongst film academics (even if that discussion is 'that movie sucked').
So, in that sense, Stanley Kubrick could be seen as a somewhat more mainstream director than Cronenberg. Kubrick took some risks in the films he chose to make, particularly in adapting A Clockwork Orange and Lolita, but Cronenberg took larger risks with vastly different projects (most of which didn't pay off). This doesn't make him a better director, but compared to him I'd say most directors would appear 'commercial-minded'.
In the end though Kubrick is better, and I'll fight anybody who says otherwise.
No comments:
Post a Comment