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.

Fear and Desire (1953)

** (out of 4)

Stanley Kubrick's first feature film isn't nearly as bad as some reviews have said and I'm really not sure why he doesn't want the public to see this one. Four soldiers are shot down behind enemy lines and must face their fears in order to survive. The film has an extremely low budget, which hurts matters but it's interesting enough to see Kubrick working on his technique. The camera-work by Kubrick is certainly the highlight and there's some nice editing along the way.

As of today the Kubrick estate hasn't released any of his shorts but you can find the online at various places.

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've been dying to see this film for some time now - ever since I first fell in love with Kubrick's movies - but I was also a little hesitant, due to repeated reports that this film was seriously, even fatally flawed. Now that I've finally seen it, I can confirm it: it is quite flawed.

The dialogue, including its attempts at humor, is consistently corny. The music is like a bad imitation of Bernard Herrmann score. The acting is often sub-par. The budget is obviously very low. The editing is often awkward. And so on.

Yet, despite all of this, I found myself getting absorbed in it, and, by the end, I caught myself nodding in overall approval. Despite the films warts and moles, Kubrick manages to create a decent little film. Elements of his later, oft-famed style can be found throughout, especially in the cinematography. Taken for what it is, I think it's an enjoyable movie.

As for the films many flaws, just keep in mind that even the tallest man was born small. I'd recommend this film to any serious Kubrick fan. Watching it, one knows that big things lay ahead.

Stanley Kubrick, a director who I hold in the highest of esteems for his masterpieces (Clockwork Orange, 2001, The Killing, the Shining, Dr. Strangelove, etc) took the film out of circulation, leaving it to be found by only the hardcore fans and completists. After seeing the film for myself, I could see why. At the age of 24, Kubrick had already honed his craft of still photography for LOOK magazine, and had done a few short documentaries. Like many first-time filmmakers that came in the decades after him, his ambition for Fear and Desire was, in short, to just go and make a film, cheaply, more than likely to see if he could do it. On that level, he was successful. However, the film itself definitely is not.

I can't really say that the film is a failure because there was something I did like about it throughout. Even as the film's story went on the wayside, and the actors (whom Kubrick didn't have any idea how to direct, not being a man of the theater), his knack for producing and capturing some great images gets its seeds in this film. At times, there are some shots of close-ups and quick-shots in suspense/action scenes that are eye-catching. Unfortunately, this is all the good I can really say of the film. Although there are a couple of 'name' actors in the film (Frank Slivera, who also appeared in Killer's Kiss, and Paul Mazursky, a director in his own right), the performances overall are dull and very routine.

In fact, that is the film's main demise for me; whenever I watch any Kubrick film, even his early film noirs Killer's Kiss and the Killing, I can tell who made it, as his style by then became distinct, which would continue as he evolved as an artist. It wasn't 'artsy' like I might have pictured (which is usually the case with first-time directors like Scorsese and Spielberg), but watching this film not only did it feel like it wasn't Kubrick, it felt like a lot of the time I was watching some B (or even C) grade movie by a director that time forgot- not quite 'Ed Wood' bad, but close. The music is as standard as can be, the fades are pedestrian, and the plot seems to not really hold that much attention.

In short, as others have said and which I can agree, this is a "doodle pad" of a future ground-breaker, who shows some shots and a few edits that grab some attention (the best scene overall being when the soldiers take the dumb girl hostage), but not enough to really recommend except to those, like myself, who end up seeing everything by Kubrick (or, perhaps, have to see every ultra-low budget war film ever made), if only out of curiosity.