Fear and Desire

This film, Stanley Kubrick's first feature, has been maligned by its creator and hidden away for many, many years, which is a shame, for in spite of its shortcomings, it is most definitely a Kubrick film. Many of the themes that populate his later work can be found here, as well some of his photographic specialities. Possibly, with his recent passing, the archives that have had to stifle showings of this film, often by request of Mr. K, might now be able to show his many admirers that he knew where he was going right from the start.

It's remarkable how much of a mess this film is. The mythology is that Kubrick himself hated the film in his later years and wanted to suppress it, and you can quite see why. The only upside is that this film proves that even geniuses have to start with some terrible work to learn from and improve. Only watch this if you are a Kubrick completist, otherwise avoid.

Let me preface this review with one simple statement: Stanley Kubrick is god. I'm a rabid fan, the man could do no wrong, and his death was the greatest loss that film has ever known -- every other director moved up a notch when Stanley went, because Mr. Kubrick was, is and always will be number one...

That said -- it was actually heartening to see "Fear and Desire" and to realize that the film pretty much sucks. In other words, even genius has to be born somewhere, and in his first feature, Mr. Kubrick just didn't have it yet. Pretty much a still "Life" photog at the time, "Fear and Desire" comes across as a pretentious student film, albeit a well shot one. However, this is in the days before Kubrick developed his own style, and so anything eye-catching in this movie is by way of Sergei Eisenstein. At times, the influence is painfully obvious, as in a sequence in which our lead soldiers make a raid on a house held by the enemies -- it might as well be a re-take of "Potemkin," sans the steppes and the lady with the busted glasses. But, the jump cuts, the creation of scene through editing, the visual ellipses is entirely Eisenstein and none at all Kubrick, and the effect is jarring.

Not that there aren't points to recommend in the film. Oddly enough, a very young Paul Mazursky turns in a wonderful performance as a soldier who cracks under the stress of it all, and Kubrick stages what's basically a rape scene under the constraints of 50s censorship, while infusing it with so much eroticism that it's rather uncomfortable. (Side note to Adam Sandler: if you ever chose to go into drama, study Mazursky's role in this film -- it's everything you could be if you give up the "dumb but pure" roles of "Wedding Singer" and "The Water Boy.")

Pluses in the film are that it deals with the subject of war without ever identifying sides -- there's a vague Prussian-ness about the villains, but if you look closely, none of the soldiers are identified by country. Kubrick also pulls off some interesting double casting in which the leads play the "villains," but are not obviously the same people. On the down side, the film opens and closes with possibly the most pretentious voice over narration ever committed to celluloid. There's a BIG IDEA working here, but given that Kubrick was only 24 when he made the film, it's understandable that the Ooh-Aah idea wasn't really as big as he thought it was. (Then, again, making an anti-war movie during the Korean war was probably about as egregious as one could get. I wouldn't know, I wasn't alive in 1953.)

All of this said -- for film students and Kubrick fans, this film is a must-see if you can track it down -- and good luck trying, since Mr. Kubrick wisely killed all availability of the movie. In a lot of ways, it's actually a very encouraging experience to see a genius like Mr. Kubrick churn out absolute crap -- brilliant moments that add up to nothing. Given his career since this film, it just shows that everyone has to start somewhere, and even the (arguably) greatest director in the history of cinema was once just a young schmuck with a camera, film and some actors.

Kubrick's visual flair is undone by a pretentious script and uneven acting. Then too the storyline is a real stretch, so, all in all, I can see why the legendary filmmaker disowned this his first feature length effort. Nonetheless, there's all kind of tension implicit in four guys trapped behind enemy lines. So the premise has real potential. Too bad the script seems more interested in literary tropes than their life-and-death anguish. It's hard to be absorbed into the characters when they're spouting dialogue from Shakespeare. After all, these are supposed to be ordinary guys, not someone declaiming from center stage. And just who decided Pvt. Fletcher should impersonate a dopey clown that's about as humorous and affecting as a kick in the shins. And what about the girl whose deadpan expression never changes regardless the provocation. Clearly, at this stage, Kubrick is more skilled with camera than with actors. All in all, there may be something profound somewhere in the mess, but excuse me if I don't go digging in what may be a fool's errand.

I'm seeing every Stanley Kubrick feature film in order, and began with his most disliked 'Fear and Desire'. I've heard some awful things about it, but considering the very limited resources to make it, a viewer can easily notice the unlimited potential of the man behind the camera. Fear and Desire has genius that can't be tapped with the restraints had.

It's a war film- with no names. Just soldiers behind enemy lines, wanting to get back and the problems they encounter. There's a certain Shakespearean quality about it- the characters give short monologues about their feelings and morals that aren't grounded in reality. There are some good lines, and some absolutely terrible ones, and some that seem too philosophical for their own good. These lines are delivered by actors pushing melodrama: Sidney goes nuts, but unreasonably. Then there's the technical faults: it's a mess, with some sloppy editing. Again though, there were budget constraints that any full-fledged director could work around.

Kubrick made a thinking film, but it has some poorly communicated ideas. Is this idea that war pushes men past their extremes? There isn't anything horrifying about what the men go through. It seems that while he could later create some of the best war films ever, they are very difficult to make as a first picture/ They just need more money to make. Seeing this reminds me of a much later debut, Reservoir Dogs. Both share similarities of a few characters in isolation, and auteurs behind the camera.

A strong aspect of Fear and Desire is its music, which helps some of the more tense scenes. The plot is good and doesn't linger- the film is around an hour long. It's not as bad as I heard, and lays the groundwork for later Kubrickisms: war and thematic material. Filled with potential. 6.5/10