Stanley Kubrick was one of our greatest cinematic visionaries, a man who had a pessimistic outlook on the world and humanity and found stories that accentuated that. Naturally, this is a simplistic statement and Kubrick was much more complex in his attempts to understand man's inhumanity to man. War movies became one of his specialties in this area of concentration, from "Paths of Glory" to "Full Metal Jacket." "Fear and Desire" was Kubrick's first film and, of course, his first war film but you will have a difficult time staying awake for this one.
There is a war brewing in the horizon as four soldiers embark on finding a way out of whatever island they are on. They try to forge a raft of sorts yet there are complications. Bombs are heard in the background and a woman (Virginia Leith) enters the picture as she leaves a lake, appearing at first like some sort of nymph (she seems unreal, like a figment of someone's imagination). The men hide from her but she finds them and they bind her to a tree! This episode had me a bit perplexed since I know they can't let her go because she spotted them, but binding her to a tree? One of the soldiers who is slowly becoming shell-shocked (Paul Mazursky, overacting to the hilt) tries to comfort the girl and lets her go after trying to have his way with her only to then shoot her! Of all the scenes in "Fear and Desire," this singularly shocking moment shows the unfortunate decisions a soldier makes behind enemy lines.
Then there is the general, from the enemy side, staying in some cabin and perhaps waiting for the inevitable. The general and the captain (unmistakably looking like Nazis and played by Kenneth Harp and Stephen Coit) are played by the same actors who play the supposed American heroes. Why? Perhaps Kubrick is stating that both sides have men making their battle strategy decisions and are no different from each other. Interesting angle, almost something Luis Bunuel would have done as a visual stunt.
I hate to knock this film that even Kubrick hated (reportedly, he wanted all copies of the film destroyed) but it doesn't quite work. The narration is superfluous and obvious, some of which are the thoughts of the soldiers (Terrence Malick did the same thing in "The Thin Red Line"), the action is often inert and the actors are just not up to the task of a supposed anti-war film. There are some stunning black-and-white images but that is the best thing I can say about it. Kubrick was still learning up until he made his first great film, "The Killing," in 1957. He was just experimenting here, figuring himself out. For Kubrick fans and film fans, it is a must-see whether you are bored or not.
No comments:
Post a Comment