There is War in This Forest

It's been about 20 years since I last saw a "new" Kubrick film - back in the early 2000s when MGM released a shitty DVD of Killer's Kiss. Bad transfer/sound or not, I watched the hell out of that disc in a very short period of time: initially out of academic curiosity, but for as crude and amateurish as it is, I became addicted to its shadowy atmosphere and pulpy moods. Kubrick didn't do much Crime Noir stuff as it went out of fashion but he certainly had a talent for it as much as any genre. Fear and Desire has some of that, but it's weirder. A lot weirder. 

The setting is an unnamed country during an unnamed war in which four soldiers are trapped behind enemy lines. Or, it's all taking place in the mind of one character with conflicting points of view. Or, it's a metaphor for the madness and banality of war. Even in this earliest effort Stanley was doing Stanley; in terms of theme, story, and character, there are shades of every single one of his films from throughout his entire career. But for as allegorical as it is, it lacks the subtlety that he'd fine-tune over time. It wears its abstractions on its sleeve, largely due to clumsy exposition and voiceover narration, but if one were to strip that away there'd be a greater focus on the images - which is all I was really paying attention to.

Whenever I've done this (explored earlier works from a director I know well) I'm always looking for shots or edits or just general motifs that I recognize, like "Ooh I see some Clockwork Orange here" or "That is so Shining." There were hints of that throughout Fear and Desire: the square, grey wide shots of landscapes weren't exactly giving me Barry Lyndon feels, but even with that movie (as with all his movies) his clear strength and obvious preference was buildings and interiors; structured surroundings used to frame his subjects. Full Metal Jacket was the first Vietnam movie I ever saw that took place in a city instead of a jungle. And sure enough the sparse indoor scenes of Fear and Desire are the most visually compelling - not so much because of the production design but greater control over the lighting. 

Even with the outdoor stuff there were compositions and blocking that were clearly fashioned by a talented photographer. But that's another thing I like to do: Would I notice or appreciate some of these things if I wasn't aware of who was behind the camera? In that mindset I could honestly say that for a movie of this budget and of this era that there were enough bright spots and curiosities that I'd consider it as an arthouse gem made by a filmmaker that I'd keep up with. 

Kubrick immediately began to distance himself from this movie (along with Killer's Kiss) and flat out disowned it later in his career. No big surprise from "Mr. Perfectionist" but I get it, it's no Paths of Glory and I wouldn't even classify it as a "first film" - not in a Duel/Mean Streets/Eraserhead kinda way, but more of an Amblin'/Who's That Knocking.../Grandmother kinda way; his stamp on this movie is palpable even to a casual viewer, and that stamp is one of a genius filmmaker if not the genius filmmaker. Most mainstream directors should only wish they could make something as good as Fear and Desire. 

- Paul