Stanley Kubrick and Steven Spielberg have made an incredible contribution to science fiction filmography. But who was the better director? In the eyes of Terry Gilliam, there’s not even a race to be run. Not specifically on the grounds of specific technical merit, but more simply because Kubrick was willing to leave people distinctly unsettled.
I often get accused of bias, and I’ll admit I’m a huge fan of Kubrick’s work, which has undeniably informed a lot of science fiction (and more general) film making in the past half century. So it’s perhaps not shocking that I think I agree generally with Gilliam, and not just because Kubrick’s willing to upset people by avoiding “happy” endings, even though that often left his films rather uncomfortable to watch. [YouTube via OpenCulture]
Sam
Monday, November 28, 2011 at 3:27 PM…I often get accused of bias…
Jeez Alex, I’m surprised you’re singing Apple’s praise in this article too!
Sam
Monday, November 28, 2011 at 3:28 PM…yes that was meant sarcastically – it’s a tone that doesn’t translate well into written text
Alex Kidman
Monday, November 28, 2011 at 3:52 PMDamn, and this was meant to be my pro-Android, Apple baiting article!
Shane
Monday, November 28, 2011 at 3:53 PMKubrick was a star. Spielberg churns out Hollywood garbage for the stupid. I recently had the misfortune of watching Super 8, my god, what absolute dross. These two directors are in totally different leagues.
attila
Monday, November 28, 2011 at 4:07 PMSuper 8 was directed by JJ Abrams, not Spielberg (who produced). Kubrick did direct Eyes Wide Shut though – which is absolute dross.
Spielberg has had some misses, but to write him off as someone who just churns out “garbage for the stupid” is uninformed BS.
Shane
Monday, November 28, 2011 at 4:28 PMYou’re welcome to your love of Spielberg. Maybe you could better illustrate Spielberg’s prowess with an example of some great films. I’m sure Kubrick had some misses (as you call them) but he didn’t have a career of Hollywood garbage like Spielberg. Maybe you could construct an argument for Spielberg’s valuable contributions to the world of film rather than just throwing weak & unsupported assertions.
attila
Monday, November 28, 2011 at 4:47 PMWhere did I indicate that my opinion of Speilberg was “love”? Here’s something which may come as a shock – its possible to appreciate Kubrick and Speilberg as directors, without having to “love” one and “hate” the other one.
And as for “weak & unsupported assertions” I would have thought that criticising Speilberg using as an example a film that he didn’t even direct would constitute a pretty good example of such an assertion.
James
Monday, November 28, 2011 at 5:12 PMI guess I could take the same tact as Shane here and say that Kubric is nothing but an arthouse wanker who prides himself on being vague for the masses of beret wearing, turtleneck, coffee house critical “thinkers” pondering the meaning behind everything when in reality it’s just Kubrick flexing his “art” muscles and creating garbage in the process…….
But I won’t take that same tact.
Namarrgon
Monday, November 28, 2011 at 5:58 PMOooh, can I join in?
Spielberg’s prowess: Jaws, Close Encounters, Indiana Jones (1 & 3 particularly), Schindler’s List, Jurassic Park, Saving Private Ryan, Minority Report – all top-notch movies that were successful, critically acclaimed, and highly influential. Also plenty of crap movies, and nothing decent in 10 years.
Kubrick’s prowess: Dr Strangelove, 2001, A Clockwork Orange, The Shining, Full Metal Jacket – likewise top-notch, influential movies, plus a number of notable misses and a bunch of early stuff nobody ever watched.
Hell, James Cameron did some superb movies too – The Abyss, Terminator 1 & 2, Aliens, True Lies – before wandering into ludicrously-successful-garbage territory.
Antonia
Monday, November 28, 2011 at 6:58 PMJaws came on the TV recently and I found it laughable. Saving Private Ryan has realistic imagery but a BS storyline. Indiana Jones is fun but little more than pulp fiction. Schindlers List is well done.
Overall Speilberg is entertaining but shallow.
Namarrgon
Monday, November 28, 2011 at 7:47 PMWhile no movie is without flaws, all the movies you mention are in the top 150 (according to IMDB) and as such have had real cultural impact (particularly at the time they were released), even if they haven’t aged well or are not all to everyone’s taste.
Not many directors can say that for even one of their movies, let alone five or more. But whether those movies are “good” is too subjective to argue.
Antonia
Tuesday, November 29, 2011 at 7:16 AMYou speak in generalities and pass them off as fact. That a movie is in the top 150 doesn’t equate to good. Much of Spielberg won’t survive the test of time and that’s ok because its not meant to.
Steve
Monday, November 28, 2011 at 5:15 PMWhat’s the matter with you? His comment was bipartisan as you can get, providing balance and highlighting the fact that Super 8 was NOT directed by Spielberg, and you jumped down his throat with unfounded accusations. You’re a jerk.
And if you think producing should be included, then technically the Transformers movies fall under the Spielberg banner because they were executively produced by him.
John
Monday, November 28, 2011 at 6:28 PMreally haha, the good thing about kubrick was he took a good book and turned it into a good movie. Yes he didnt follow the story line to alot of then as much as the authors would have liked, though as far as engaging the audience he was ace. Spielberg however, is not a director he is someone who has money and an opinion (like me yay). Perfect for being a producer the only movies he made that were decent were the original three starwars and THX. E.T, Jurassic Park i swear gave me cancer it was that bad for one a super advanced alien spieces looks like a fat deformed turd and behaves like he a mentally challenged child. . . hmm prehaps thats why they left him on this rock, and Jurrasic park; all i have to say is freaking dinosaurs and lame sound design. If you like or dislike Kubrick whatever I will openly admit 2001 space odyssey most boring film ever. Though it is a technically amazing film and this is where Spielberg failed if he makes bad movies he doesnt technically back it up so at least its a classic and lets not get into the cg argument.
yrrnn
Monday, November 28, 2011 at 9:52 PMWow, did somebody run over your kitten today?
moderoy
Tuesday, November 29, 2011 at 8:51 AMEyes Wide Shut is a great film. Your opinion is dross.
Charles
Tuesday, November 29, 2011 at 12:17 PMI enjoyed the shit out of Super 8.
Just This Guy ...
Monday, November 28, 2011 at 4:09 PMKubrick for my vote.
Speilberg has a tendency towards a more “family friendly” style.
I like them both, don’t get me wrong, but I prefer Kubrick’s slightly more gritty (real?) approach.
Kubrick’s efforts offer more nutritional food for thought instead of Speilberg’s McBurgers for thought.
DarkAura
Monday, November 28, 2011 at 4:23 PMThis comment has been deemed inappropriate [Arm Chair Editor] and has been deleted
DarkAura
Monday, November 28, 2011 at 5:00 PM. This comment has been deemed inappropriate and has been deleted.
Just This Guy ...
Tuesday, November 29, 2011 at 1:11 PMit’s pretty easy to tell.
Got nothing constructive to say, don’t say nuthing!
Incredibad
Tuesday, November 29, 2011 at 9:58 AMWhere does one get one of these Arm Chair Editor jobs? Sounds like my kind of job….
Virus__
Monday, November 28, 2011 at 4:40 PMI have enjoyed the majority of Kubricks films, where as Spielberg I never found to be as captivating.
When Speilbergs directs his equivalent to A Clockwork Orange or Full Metal Jacket or 2011: A Space Odyssey or The Shining I might care.
To be fair I enjoyed the original Jaws & Jurassic park. But other than that not much of a Spielberg fan.
James
Monday, November 28, 2011 at 5:06 PMKubrick is one of the most overhyped directors in history. I loved Full metal Jacket and…..erm…….. not much else. ACO was interesting but ultimately dull and stupid and yes, I understand what he was trying to say.
Speilberg is by far the most enjoyable to watch but his films are ultimately more vapid. A guy in between them both would be nice.
moderoy
Tuesday, November 29, 2011 at 8:49 AMYou probably also like Will Smith movies more than Fellini. Who cares what you think?
Steve
Monday, November 28, 2011 at 5:23 PMImpossible to compare. They each have such different styles and motifs. Kubrick was more willing to make you think and shock you, which is why he’s more appreciated amongst adults, but I can’t recall a single director (besides maybe 70s Lucas) who could instil such childlike wonder in even the most cynical adults (Indy 1-3, Jurassic Park, ET, Tin Tin) as Spielberg. On top of that, he’s also a deft hand at more mature work (Saving Private Ryan, Schindler’s List, Munich) and everything in between (the DiCaprio projects).
On the contrary, I can appreciate Kubrick (Spartacus, Full Metal Jacket, Strangelove) but he’s still hit and miss (Eyes Wide Shut) and couldn’t make a non-edgy film if his life depended on it. All things considered, Spielberg is probably the more balanced director and his contributions to film technology (Jaws and Jurassic Park) have drastically changed the face of modern cinema.
Chris
Monday, November 28, 2011 at 7:17 PMI’ve always felt that Spielberg ( spelt correctly ) was a man who took on projects that he thought would appeal to a large audience, while Kubrick just went with things that he thought were interesting and if no one liked it, tough shit. Anyone, who at sometime can make you sit and think, has that special ingredient. They both fit into that category.
chugs
Monday, November 28, 2011 at 8:34 PMKubrick without a doubt.
1. dr strange love
2. paths of glory
3. 2001.
Spielberg
1. Raiders (great film but no where as great as kubricks top 3)
2. Schindlers list (no where as good as keneallys book. and per above)
3. colour purple. great film but again per point 1.
Sean
Monday, November 28, 2011 at 9:02 PMSpielberg ruined movie making by being the main driving force in the creation of the Hollywood blockbuster.
I actually wrote an essay about this for Contemporary American Cinema at Uni (I was doing Comp Sci, but I’ll be damned if I was going to pick another science or maths subject for my elective!).
Kubrick was an absolute genius on so many levels. People often forget that Kubrick was the James Cameron of his day, inventing new cameras, tools and techniques to achieve his vision.
Steve
Monday, November 28, 2011 at 10:53 PMHow did Spielberg ruin movie-making? The arthouse and indie scenes still exist, sure he popularised the blockbuster with Jaws, but so did Lucas and Frank Coppola. $250 mil blockbusters haven’t eliminated creative film-making and there will always be a need for populist, accessible films for regular people like Gone With The Wind. You can’t lay the blame of the modern blockbuster at his door, just because his films hit a cultural nerve.
Kubrick pioneered film-editing, but later so did Spielberg/Lucas (I’m throwing them together, because of their co-productions with creative input from the other). Kubrick’s most famous shots were techniques popularised by Hitchcock with some clever editing. When it comes down to the tinkering (a la James Cameron), Spielberg would undoubtedly come out on top, with his work on Jaws, Jurassic Park, and later with Minority Report. Kubrick’s (arguably) only effects-driven films are Spartacus and 2001.
Namarrgon
Tuesday, November 29, 2011 at 12:00 PMHollywood was doing blockbusters long before Spielberg or Kubrick. Gone with the Wind? Ben Hur?
conrad
Monday, November 28, 2011 at 10:15 PMSchindler’s List is not a great film. It’s pretty much a horrible exploitation film devoid of any insight into the Holocaust. And it mythologizes Schindler, a man who saved nobody as all modern research confirms.
Brad
Monday, November 28, 2011 at 11:10 PMGilliam is probably not the right person to critique Spielberg, even though I adore his work from the 80′s and early 90′s. His work is almost in a limbo between both. He shows high technical ability and audaciousness but doesn’t have the narrative power and critical love of Stanley nor the large body of work and all-round critical and financial success of Spielberg. Maybe Terrence Malick’s views on either directors I’d respect, because he’s very much like Stanley.
It’s apples and oranges. The work of Kubrick is sporadic compared to the prolific efforts of Spielberg. They both have high technical prowess but they both wield different storytelling ways with the Kubrick signature much more evident than Spielberg who can change like a chameleon to suit his audience.
They both respected each other. They were colleagues, collaborators and friends. When Kubrick passed away, AI was Spielberg’s ode to him.
I am going to refrain on an Apple-Microsoft, Steve Jobs-Bill Gates analogy. Instead I’ll use a gastronomic one.
French fine cuisine is of the highest-quality, oft pushes boundaries but of petite proportions. Gourmet. Kubrick.
Belgian food is of a good and consistet quality, but filling and of bigger proportions compared to classical French or nouveau French cuisine. Gourmand. Spielberg.
Ozoneocean
Tuesday, November 29, 2011 at 2:37 AMAnd AI was one of Spielberg’s most egregious abortions. It had every single one of the trite cliches he always employs packed in there like sardines. That was a saccharine, tooth rotting nastily overly sentimental piece of super obvious dross.
As an “ode” to Kubrick, this puts the two directors into perspective nicely!
Yes they were two very different sorts of directors, one mainly producing arty stuff and the other specialising in well crafted moneymaking workman-like crowd pleasing productions, but Kubrick would never produce something as horrible as AI, and yet for Spielberg, that’s him trying to be clever…
Sort of like MacDonalds selling healthfood.
That said, hooray for Spielberg- he knows how to make money and he makes a lot of people happy. That’s not a bad thing.
Brad
Tuesday, November 29, 2011 at 3:41 AMOh c’mon it was no Hook. Didn’t mind it but yeah it would have been a whole different beast under Kubrick (the original research and storyboards are testament to the fact), and would’ve only been released this year hah.
How great it would’ve been to see Stanley tackle (or not at all) 3D, IMAX, digital filmmaking and extensive CGI.
moderoy
Tuesday, November 29, 2011 at 8:55 AMHere’s another question to debate. Who is the better composer: Beethoven, or Lady Gaga. Just because many of you simpletons will say Lady Gaga doesn’t mean you’re right. Even Spielberg himself was in awe of Kubrick and would likely agree that he was THE master fimmaker.
Nathan
Tuesday, November 29, 2011 at 10:24 AMSchindler’s List was not all roses. It shows a lot of the horror. The ending is not really a happy one either. He maybe could have gone another way but that is Spielbergs style, it is also based on a true story, how accurately I’m not sure.
chris
Tuesday, November 29, 2011 at 1:31 PMspielburg is like the heart foundation tick for movies nowadays… so it seems… feels like someone pays him enough money, if they are lucky he will assist in one scene and they get his name at the top of the credits and posters to help sell the movie….
but thats just my opinion… don’t get me wrong he is amazing but surely he isn’t assistant director on what seems like 50% of all the blockbusters coming out these days
Steve
Tuesday, November 29, 2011 at 7:02 PMYou seem woefully ignorant of how movie-making works. Spielberg’s name appearing before movies like Michael Bay’s and JJ Abrams aren’t him doing a shoot and getting a credit, he’s the producer. He provides the money to put the team together, including the directors who are essentially his employees, who are hired to shoot the screenplay Spielberg has bought the rights to. Yes, the studios are using “Executive Producer” credit way too liberally, but it NEVER meant to imply a certain level of quality. Only fools thought that in the first place.
Kevin
Tuesday, November 29, 2011 at 5:48 PMA more suitable comparison would be between Kubrick and Aronofsky.
Both directors made cerebral movies that required some mental effort to fully comprehend. Both have made several movies which developed a cult following due to their thematic elements.
I’d have serious trouble picking between the two.