Own the rights?
12 out of 12 people found the following comment useful :- Kubrick's Hidden, Yet Not Quite Forgotten Film, 15 November 2006 Author: Alienator from United States
'Fear and Desire' (1953) is noted amongst film enthusiasts as being the first feature length film of legendary director and screenwriter Stanley Kubrick. Adding to this initial infamy is the fact that Kubrick frowned upon the film in his later years, calling it "amateurish" (which in his eyes and when compared to his other masterpieces, it most likely was) as well as refusing to re-release the film. Essentially, Kubrick did everything within his power to keep 'Fear and Desire' from public consumption. In a particular city (the name of which I cannot recall) the film was scheduled to be screened long after its initial release, but prior to the screening the theater management received a call from Kubrick and his associates asking the theater not to show the film. From such evidence one may draw the conclusion that the film is quite dismal and forgettable, but such is not the case. 'Fear and Desire' is a film far ahead of its time, by a director far ahead of his time – one which we all may never even catch up to. Even as early as 1951/53 can Stanley Kubrick's genius be seen emerging – and brightly at that.'Fear and Desire' takes the viewer to the forests of a distant land, which is currently warring against (presumably) the United States in a fictitious conflict. In the dense forest the viewer finds four men stranded behind enemy lines as a result of a plane crash. These four military personnel are Sgt. Mac (Frank Silvera), Lt. Corby (Kenneth Harp), Pvt. Sidney (the debut of the wonderful Paul Mazursky), and Pvt. Fletcher (Stephen Coit). The men quickly decide that to return to their camp they must travel by night down a river which runs through enemy territory and down into their own territory. As the men begin to formulate their plans to return to safety, they become aware of enemy forces within the area and the stress, instability, and perhaps futility of war begin to set in around them physically, as well as within their minds.Over the years, 'Fear and Desire' has strangely enjoyed harsh criticism by even those individuals lucky enough to view it. The picture essentially takes an above average stab at a subject matter which would resurface throughout Kubrick's history. Most notably, the subject matter is revisited more thoroughly in the excellent 'Full Metal Jacket' (1987). The film's main underlying message and social as well as political commentary focuses on the futility, horror, and dehumanizing effects of war and that which it embodies. In 1951 when 'Fear and Desire' was filmed the world was still recovering from WWII, the effects of the cold war were already being seen, and in U.S. affairs, the Korean War was underway. It was at this time many insightful thinkers such as George Orwell (author of 1984) and evidently Stanley Kubrick were recognizing and speaking out against the grim and ever-increasingly violent world in which we were becoming. Kubrick did this through the profound art of film-making. If this alone, during the conforming time period of 1951, does not earn this film and Kubrick a great deal of praise, then perhaps nothing does. Despite this, there are a few minor problems with this production, but none which hold much weight. In the beginning narration, the film is quite prophetic and at times quite philosophical. This works most of the time, but at times it says things blatantly that would perhaps better be left unsaid and left to the viewers' imagination. Essentially, it sometimes overstresses the somewhat obvious. All of the technic al aspects within the film are exquisite and Kubrick's skill is already shining brightly. The photography and the cinematography within the film are brilliant. The scene in which Sgt. Mac's silhouette is seen rafting down the river is breathtaking, as well as the vast shots of the great wilderness of nature's battlefield. Also, Kubrick's trademark facial shot of "insanity" is seen on the face of the soldiers (namely on Pvt. Sidney). Not only is the film daring for its time in the field of social commentary, but also it is quite vulgar by 1950s standards. Kubrick even directs a rape scene, as well as death sequences which are vividly depicted around the sensors of the era. With fitting performances by all of the actors (although Mazursky's over-the-top acting is at times regarded as ridiculous, I find it to be the acting highpoint of the whole film) and a shocking ending quite reminiscent of 'The Twilight Zone', the film proves itself to be an extremely dark, moody, intelligent, and insightful experience.Why 'Fear and Desire' enjoys such harsh criticism could very well be Kubrick's actions in its destruction, the influence of other critics, or perhaps a subconscious comparison to Kubrick's other works. Regardless, upon my viewing I found it to be an extremely wonderful piece of cinema. One thing I am convinced of which does in fact bog down public opinion of 'Fear and Desire' is the various bootlegged releases of the film on DVD and VHS. Truly to experience the film as it was meant to be experienced one must watch the 35mm cut of the film, it really does add to experience. Although rare, there are a few prints left in existence and those presented with the opportunity to view one would be wise to accept. Given the circumstances and the status which Kubrick enjoys, it is sadly inevitable that this will be compared to Kubrick's other classics and, as many feel, will pale in comparison. Is it truly a poor film in any sense of the word? Most certainly not; the film is atmospheric, insightful, visually breathtaking, bizarre, and vastly ahead of its time. Had 'Fear and Desire' perhaps been directed by another director, well-distributed, and honored today it is quite possible that the film would live on as, if not a classic, a cult classic and highpoint of 1950s cinema.
13 out of 18 people found the following comment useful :- For Kubrick Completists Only, 30 April 2005 Author: Peter O'Dubhagain (repete86)
Most filmmakers without a parent in the movie business start out making a really, really bad film on a shoestring budget. Kubrick is no exception.Beginning with a voice over reminiscent of something out of an Ed Wood film, Fear and Desire is a mess of a film with irritating, and irrational characters that seem to randomly flake out for no apparent reason. With a military like the one portrayed in this film, it's amazing that we won the second world war, and thoroughly explains the outcome of Vietnam.Kubrick was very bold with his attempt to make a war film with the budget he had. Most film makers would start out making a horror or comedy because of the potential of such films when lacking in budget, and unfortunately Mr. Kubrick failed miserably (though he more than made up for this failure with his later films). However, despite it's faults, Fear and Desire does show some early signs of Kubrick's ability as a filmmaker. Early on in the film, there is a scene in which the group of people behind enemy lines (who I assume are supposed to be the heroes of the film) get into a conflict with two enemy soldiers that is shot very well. In addition, the themes of Kubrick's later films like the de-humanization of the characters and anti-war tone are prevalent in this early experiment.Kubrick would later go on to make such masterpieces as 2001: A Space Odyssey, Dr. Strangelove, A Cockwork Orange, and Full Metal Jacket, but the origins lie in this embarrassing hour long film.If you are a die hard Kubrick nut, by all means, watch this film, but for common moviegoers, avoid this one like the plague.
9 out of 11 people found the following comment useful :- Another misunderstood Kubrick film, 14 September 2007 Author: tieman64 from United Kingdom
Fear and Desire begins and ends with similar shots. Kubrick's camera pans along an ominous mountain scape, as clouds of mist and smoke waft heavy in the air. A corny narrator then informs us that the "story" we're about to watch is not real. It's an allegory, featuring faceless men in a nameless war, in an nameless land which exists only in the mind.The narrator then shuts up and things pleasingly get less pretentious. Already, Kubrick is shooting his films like the old Russian masters. The camera angles and cinematography are, at times, beautifully expressionistic. The low angle shots heighten the strange madness of his characters and the fog shrouded forests and rivers lend a dream-like, frightening feel to the film. This land is not real, the narrator reminds us, it is all in the "country of the mind"."Countries" and "islands" will be one of the many motifs featured in the film. John Donne's quote, "no man is an island" is touched upon in reverse by one of Kubrick's soldiers. "All men are islands," he says, "when the icecaps melt".The notion of melting ice metaphorically takes the form of the ever-present river in the picture. This body of water separates the men from their enemies, while also being their only means of escaping the "forest". (Note also that the "enemies" in the film are merely the same four good guys dressed in enemy uniforms.) So Kubrick's point, in these early scenes, is that we're all linked. There's something harmonious about our relationship with one another. But when the ice-caps melt (war/rivalry), we're driven apart by this body of water (river) and made to fight one another, even though we're all the same (cast mirrored). Corny? Yes, but Pulitzer writer Howard Sackler was decades away from mastering his art when he wrote this.Throughout the film, the men will try to become islands themselves. They stand waist deep in water, bury themselves in mud, float on rafts etc. They want to detach themselves from the forest. They want to become men unto themselves.So the film is deeply metaphorical. Even here, in his very first feature, Kubrick is going against the grain. He pushes aside the grit and realism now emerging in 1950's cinema, and instead sets his mythical allegory entirely in a forest. The entire film feels ethereal. Like a fable, or strange dream.Early on, Kubrick introduces us to his primary cast: 4 soldiers trapped behind enemy lines. Each of these soldiers is the typical Kubrick caricature. One's a handsome, womanising leader. The other is a burly, masculinized trooper. Another is a well mannered family man, and the last is an innocent young boy (Sydney), reminiscent of "Full Metal Jacket's" Pvt Pyle.The film's first memorable sequence is a brief action scene in which the men break into an enemy outpost and kill 3 soldiers. Kubrick shoots the violence like Kurosawa. We see closeups of nasty looking food, closeups of hands smashing into bowls of soup, fists squeezing potatoes and clutching at spoons. Bits of syrupy liquid flop around like blood. The whole scene has a violent "squishly" feel, and yet, absolutely no violence is shown. After the carnage, Kubrick then gives us truncated shots of the dead bodies. We see feet and legs and overturned chairs...But no faces. Never any faces.Later on, Kubrick will once again link food (survival) with acts of violence (death).Eventually the troopers come across a group of women fishing in the river. Importantly, we don't see their water covered bodies from the waist down. They're islands, separated from the world of man. Kubrick also shoots these women to resemble the mythical Greek Sirens. They're seductive, luring the men away from their duty. But the men retaliate and manage to capture one of the women and tie her to a tree. Symbolically, she's reattached to the forest. Her island sanctuary is destroyed.The men task Sydney with the job of guarding the woman. As he did with Pyle in Full Metal Jacket, Kubrick portrays Sydney as having "malfunctioned." He isn't right in the head. He's young and innocent and isn't made for these circumstances. Thus, when Sydney is left alone with the girl, we know something horrible will take place.In one long scene, Sydney goes through a kind of mini evolution. At first he's childish and fearful around the captured girl. Then he playfully impersonates his commander by pretending to eat food. This "performance" scares the young girl. He's then faced with various desires, as he toys with the idea of raping her. At first he's scared of doing this, afraid of her rejection. But eventually he musters up the courage. But before he can "rape" her, he must first untie her. He does so. Now disconnected from the forest, she immediately runs for the river. But before she gets there, Sydney shoots her dead. When Syndey's fellow troopers return, he goes crazy and disappears into the river himself.Kubrick's second point seems to be that man's fears and desire are intertwined. Our fear of being harmed goes hand in hand with our desire not to be hurt or killed. Similarly, as in Sydney's case, if you are afraid of rejection (by woman or group), you then desire acceptance. So fear is like desire, based on a rejection. And fear of death is ultimately fear of life, or a desire for it.Another action scene follows soon after. The men fight their doubles (foreshadowing the themes of duality in Full Metal Jacket?) and escape to their raft (island) on the river. Before the film closes with a repeat of the first shot, there's a haunting scene in which Sydney reappears, wading through the river like one of the Sirens. He's found his island, but he's alone there, driven insane by his experiences in the world of man.5/10- needs less dialogue and a bigger budget.
12 out of 18 people found the following comment useful :- Even Genius Falters in Youth..., 3 July 1999 Author: JonB-2 from Los Angeles, CA
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.
9 out of 13 people found the following comment useful :- Kubrick's Genesis, 8 March 1999 Author: George R. Willeman from Culpeper, VA
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.
10 out of 15 people found the following comment useful :- The Bad, the Terrible, and the Hilarious., 16 December 2000 Author: kubrick114 (kubrick114@hotmail.com) from Rochester, NY
Quite a few people claim to have seen this film, but anybody who tell you that it is not as bad as Kubrick would lead you to believe is flat-out lying about having seen the film. Kubrick is the greatest artist of the last couple centuries, but this film is BAD. Not Kubrick bad, but Ed Wood bad. There are lines like, "I felt fear. Fear I hadn't felt since I kissed my dying grandmother." And the whole thing looks like it was made in somebody's backyard.There is one thing funnier than this film: the trailer! It was shown with the film at the George Eastman House, and trust me, if you ever get the chance to see it, the trailer alone is one of the most hilarious pieces of film you will ever see. It's a gem!"Fear & Desire" should be seen, if only to show how an awful, pretentious young filmmaker can flourish to such heights as "Dr. Strangelove," "2001," and "Barry Lyndon." Interestingly enough, the Eastman House print (one of the two still in existence, I believe) was short the film's official running time by a couple of minutes, and there are a few unlikely jump-cuts in the film, which leads one to believe that Kubrick himself cut this film a bit, as he did with "The Shining." However, the other remaining print is the original camera negative, which is stored somewhere out of the country. I would kill to get my hands on that print.If you get a chance to see this film, do so, and see Kubrick's genesis, and how far he came.
4 out of 4 people found the following comment useful :- Kubrick's Flawed First Film, 31 March 2008 Author: Bob from Colorado
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.
6 out of 9 people found the following comment useful :- Not a complete artistic failure, but disappointing in one way I didn't expect, 25 July 2005 Author: MisterWhiplash from United States
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.
2 out of 2 people found the following comment useful :- Odd, interesting tale of madness., 13 December 2007 Author: goodellaa from Los Angeles
An extra point for style. Kubrick style, without a budget, without experience; don't re-make a hit/classic if you can re-make something like this. The story is interesting but makes no more sense than the madness of war, which is what is depicted. Could be a bit shocking, dealing as it does with moral issues that are so basic many people would rather not admit that they exist. Attempting to depict such weirdness is part of Kubrick's (now) well known genius. Really interesting and sometimes downright good use of camera and sound. Always do your best, dear reader, for even you first movie could be your last.
1 out of 1 people found the following comment useful :- Kubrick was right to denounce it, 14 March 2009 Author: dtgonehome from United States
Stanley Kubrick's debut film, Fear and Desire, is as elusive and sought after as a film can get. Available only in a handful of museums around the world (as well as the inevitable 'bootleg' copies circulating on the internet), fans of the brilliant director have wanted to see the film as much as the Vatican City is eagerly awaiting the second coming. The chance to see the film, in particular for hardcore Kubrick followers, is something that will bring much mirth and enjoyment to the day.But alas, 20 minutes or so into the film I realised that my eager anticipation was a gigantic waste of energy. The film started off extremely well, and was indeed a promising start to a (hopefully) great film; however, it soon became mind-numbingly boring, and I strained to keep my mind from wandering into deep thought. In a nutshell: Fear and Desire is a snooze-fest, and is mind-numbingly boring.Billed as a 'war-adventure-action', Fear and Desire is far from one. Well, it's at least far from an 'entertaining' or 'remotely interesting' one. It's a fairly simple story to say the least, and I felt that it was totally wasted in the film: four soldiers have ended up six miles behind enemy lines in a war. Their goal is to get out before enemy forces realise their presence. See? Simple enough plot. There's potential for lots of action, lots of thrills and lots of suspense as we follow the four on their journey out of danger.But instead the film spends most of its time acting as a drama, and even then Fear and Desire is an extremely weak one. So the film fails in two genres. It tackles its conflicts in a less-than-desirable way, and once again it wastes some very promising themes and moral messages. Its ending is the only part of the film that utilises its themes perfectly, and is really unpredictable and packs an emotional punch. In fact, it may be the only good part of the film.But putting that aside, Fear and Desire is poorly directed, and this second-rate guidance from Kubrick is noticeable for a good part of the movie. Furthermore, poor film editing, cinematography etc, a shoddy script and a plodding and unbearable pace all mire the movie significantly, and ultimately make Fear and Desire a failure. It may be nearly incomprehensible to some Stanley Kubrick directed this piece of garbage, but then again it was his first film and all directors have to start somewhere. Nevertheless, it's a true contender for 'worst debut for a great director'; it's unbelievable that Kubrick would go on to direct masterpieces and extraordinary films over the next four decades, starting immediately with his next film.Despite pretty much abhorring the film, I will not discourage curious film-goers on watching Fear and Desire. It's far, far from being a movie that is enjoyable to watch, and it might be suitable to approach the film with great cynicism and dread. Fear and Desire is recommended only to die-hard followers of Stanley Kubrick, who feel that they must see this film. For anyone else, stay far, far away.
Add another comment
