Supermallet

Actually, the one filmmaker I might consider choosing over Kubrick, Godard, is one of the ones who helped secure Hitchcock's place as the poster child for the auteur theory.

Solid Snake

I just asked this in my class. While most of us thought about it. We agreed. Kubrick is something else. No offense to Scorsese (specifically but this also applies to other directors) but his films as good as they are always seem something that could've been made or attempted by someone else. Better than him? I'd like to think not but maybe as good. Kubrick? Only Kubrick could do what Kubrick did. No one else could've come up w/ that vision or design of that physical plane he controlled except him.

asianxcore

Coppola

My parents named me after him

Supermallet

Alright smarty pants, if you could save only one filmmaker's filmography, whose would it be?

TomOpus

I voted Kubrick based solely on the fact that he directed 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Travis McClain

I despise the self-aggrandizing auteur theory. I recognize there are a handful of directors who actually did wear many hats on a production, but it's come to be that everywhere I look someone is trying to act like they're "in the know" by referring to a movie as "[Director's Name]'s [Title of Movie]." There are way too many screenwriters, directors of photography, composers, costume designers, set designers, etc. whose work is largely of their own design to give every damn director the kind of all-encompassing credit that the auteur theory would have you believe.

Supermallet

I think I might choose Jodorowsky just to spite you all.

And I wasn't taking offense. I just didn't use a smiley to indicate I was joking.

Sessa17

As I've posted numerous times, Godard is my all-time favorite filmmaker, I never knew there was another huge fan here. I do consider 2001 to be possibly the greatest piece of directing of all-time though.

Supermallet

I consider 2001: A Space Odyssey to be the greatest thing put on film (with Duck Amuck a close second), but the things that Godard did in the 60's still boggles my mind.

Solid Snake

I like Godard...but....Kubrick...Kubrick is Kubrick. FMJ, 2001, Barry Lyndon (we still need a damn fine SE on BD for this film! ASAP!), The Shining, Eyes Wide Shut (which I'm still trying to get a grasp on), Paths of Glory (I love you, Criterion, for finally being the ones to give a damn about!), Clockwork Orange etc...He just was awesome. I'm still in awe of what he did in 2001. Just...amazing work. A lot (if not all) of the effects still hold VERY strongly today.

Travis McClain

I highly suggest tracking down the source material, Arthur Schnitzler's Traumnovelle (Dream Story). Warner Books published a translation of it in a volume that also includes Kubrick's screenplay. I found it easier to get to the heart of the characters in the print medium. When I re-watched the film after doing my reading homework, I found myself absorbing all new things.

As a starting point for someone who might not be interested in doing that kind of reading, I would at least suggest that you re-watch the film and pay close attention to the use of color throughout (especially reds and blues). There is quite a lot going on from start to finish in that film. I'm excited to see it on Blu-ray at some point; I treated myself to it from Amazon last December and have been waiting for the time to feel right to return to the film.

Supermallet

FRwL

Kubrick solely for that^, Spartacus, Strangelove and 2001 which is better than Coppola's 70s quartet.

However i like Leone even more than Kubrick.

FRwL

Dammit i need to see Godard.

Supermallet

Check out Band of Outsiders and Pierrot Le Fou.

Solid Snake

That book is on my list of things to get. I've yet to reach that point. But trust me...Visually speaking...EWS is very interesting. As contextual piece...I've no fucking idea what to make of it. I think I get it but out of all the films that I never had issues on "getting" it's fucking EWS that leaves me visually entranced by contextually confused.

rexinnih

Coppola. Apocalypse Now. My favorite movie, thus my choice.

Supermallet

Solid Snake, EWS is so much more than just a visual spectacle. Definitely read Traumnovelle and check out some critical essays on the film.

Travis McClain

I haven't seen [that other movie], so any comparison is beyond me at the moment. I will say, though, that Eyes Wide Shut invites more reflection and exploration than anything I've seen since. It's a very personal film, I think. You have to have the kind of fear of loss that drives Bill Hartford to begin to connect with him, and that level of fear only comes from having a certain kind of mature relationship. In turn, it's a film then that requires on a certain maturity from its audience.

I've said before; I was 21 when it was released and it was quite simply beyond me at the time. I had to grow into it. And yet, even as familiar with it as I am now, I love that it teaches me new things each time I return to it. I know the temptation is to want to feel that you've reached a point of true understanding, and I actually find it reassuring to know I'll never get to that point with this film.

Supermallet

I first saw it when I was 15, and I could only appreciate its surface pleasures (the visuals, the ominous dread). Having lived more, I now think it may be the most layered of all of Kubrick's films.

Travis McClain

Here's the thing: Eyes Wide Shut is, at its heart, an exploration of how the perception of things can be just as real as the reality of things. Is lust the same thing as actual cheating? Our instinct is to say, "No," but what this story explores is how damaging the admission of lust can be just as devastating as a confession of cheating. Trust, revenge, love, lust, fear...these are all abstract concepts and, as such, are susceptible to the kind of manipulation that perception can have on them.

But don't, as Levar Burton says, take my word for it. What I've gotten out of the film over the years may be entirely wrong. I will say this, though: until you really feel the film, any meaning it has will elude you. For my money, Tom Cruise has never done any work that comes close to the kind of nuance and depth that he showed in this role. Slamming his fists while walking on the sidewalk seemed a show of irritation on first viewing. But then, the more I related to Bill Hartford, the more symbolic I saw that gesture to be. It's a manifestation of self-doubt, anger, fear, rejection...all this is going on in a very visceral way that would normally be spoon-fed to us as the audience. Instead, Cruise doesn't say a word about Bill's internal thoughts or feelings; he just shows them, and it's up to us to decipher the signs.

Supermallet

I do have to give Cruise credit for his work in Magnolia, though. Not quite to the level of his work in EWS, but close. It's also the only good thing about that horrid film.

Mountain Biker

The Shining and Full Metal Jacket? No contest. Kubrick, easily

jmu878

I think the first two Godfather films top anything Kubrick ever did. However, he has a more versatile and wider range of films to his credit, so Kubrick.

The Ferret

As seems to be the consensus, Kubrick's body of work is overall more impressive. But I would take the two Godfather's and Apocalypse Now over any three Kubrick movies.