The other night I treated myself to a double helping of Werner Herzog cinema. BBC3 was having a Herzog night and showed Fitzcarraldo and Aguirre, Wrath of God one after the other! And then a documentary to bring us up to date with his more recent activities.

Why am I raving on like a lunatic about this non Hollywood, German film director whose most famous films are so idiosyncratic and away from the mainstream? Not because these two films generally crop up in most film critics top 20 films of all time. Not because both films contain the acting talents of Klaus Kinski, one of the most charismatic and spell binding (not to say unpredictable) presences on celluloid. No, you just have to watch the films to find out how special they are.

 I had seen Aguirre, Wrath of God, many years ago and it left an indelible impression on me. I just had to see it again. The story is based on a real event about a group of conquistadors fresh from defeating and enslaving the Incas in Peru and their search for El Dorado - the fabled city of gold - in the Peruvian jungles of the Amazon. The opening scene of the Spanish conquistadors trudging down the mountain into the Amazon jungle through the clouds is deliberately long with an electronic musical score and it sets the tone and pace for the rest of the film. As they trudge through the mud down into the jungle you have feelings of foreboding, that the jungle is ready to devour them physically and metaphorically. The canon gets stuck, the horsemen get caught in the jungle vines, the river looks menacing. Its not long before the nobles are arguing amongst themselves, and power struggles erupt with the hunch backed Aguirre plotting and conspiring. The expedition starts to devour itself and descend into madness.

What is so good about the film is the intensity of it. Kinski, in particular, is electric as the morose, treacherous and violent nobleman who eventually leads the doomed expedition further in to the jungle and madness. The cinematography is breath-taking with the merciless jungle and the raging river becoming major characters in the unfolding tragedy. It has epic pretensions but the encroaching jungle makes the film close in on itself. The conspiracies and power struggles are shown at close quarters. It explores the relationships between the classes - between the noblemen, the soldiers and the slaves. As it is based on the only surviving account of the expedition by a priest, there is also an examination of the realtionship between the state and the church. It looks real because it is real. The hardships were actual hardships for the actors. They really are miserable! No CGI or special effects here. Reality filmed well can be just as stunning. Long takes, no flash bang editing here. It sucks you in by osmosis. It gets under the skin. The finale shows the rapidly-unravelling raft floating down the river with the few remaining survivors after the indian attacks and the camera swoops in and flys in circles around the stricken craft whilst Aguirre rants at the jungle, the river and the dead bodies that surround him. An incredible death spiral image. Wow. If you can overcome the German dialogue and the sub titles I urge you to watch this film.

Just imagine. Immediately before Aguirre, Wrath of God, was Fitzcarraldo, an equally esoteric and eccentric piece of quality cinema. It has many of the features of Aguirre, Wrath of God. Kinski is on acting duty again but playing a much different character - an eccentric Irshman called Fitzgerald who buys a plot of rubber plantation land in the inaccessible Peruvian jungle. Everyone thinks he’s mad because he has no way of getting the rubber out of the impenetrable jungle. This is a much more uplifting story of one man’s insistence that the impossible can be made possible (with a little help from your friends). The jungle and the river are once again major players but not so malevolent this time and beautifully filmed. There are long takes and deep focus shots of the steam boat sailing around the bends of the river at normal speed against the majestic backdrop of the jungle. There are long takes of the steam boat actually being mechanically hauled over a steep piece of cleared jungle  over to the next river. This is actually happening. You have to marvel at it. Herzog, however, manages to make it seem fantastical at the same time. And the operatic score perfectly compliments the film. It symbolises civilisation of the wilderness as we see the indigenous tribe buy into Fitzgerald’s dreams. And the music teeters between tragedy and triumph as they overcome the various obstacles put in their path. Not only does he manage to make his money from rubber but he also satisfies his passion for opera as he builds the first opera house in the jungle.

Quite simply the images in this film, as in Aguirre, Wrath of God, burn into your skull. Once seen never forgotten. Iconic images you will not see the likes of elsewhere. Both films march to the beat of their own drums. They are multi-layered and complex but worth investing time in to stimulate your mind and your senses. In the current parlance, these are two films to see before you die.

£14.95 (0 Bid) End Date: Thursday Sep-11-2008 12:40:33 BST Buy It Now for only: £15.45 Bid now | Buy it now | Add to watch list

£16.45 (0 Bid) End Date: Thursday Sep-11-2008 12:40:30 BST Buy It Now for only: £16.95 Bid now | Buy it now | Add to watch list

£29.99 End Date: Friday Sep-12-2008 21:08:37 BST Buy It Now for only: £29.99 Buy it now | Add to watch list

£6.45 End Date: Friday Sep-12-2008 17:24:37 BST Buy It Now for only: £6.45 Buy it now | Add to watch list

£4.95 (0 Bid) End Date: Monday Sep-15-2008 16:16:49 BST Bid now | Add to watch list

No, I’m not talking about his drunken rants against Jews but the dark side of his more recent films. Has any one noticed that you have to have a fairly strong stomach to watch the films directed by Mel Gibson? Of course you have. You have to wade through a lot of gore.

It obviously started with Braveheart which is Hollywood through and through. But the violence was quite strong for its time of release. The graphic slitting of throats was a hark back to Peckinpah’s The Wild Bunch. And I feel sure that the final hanging, drawing and quartering scenes might have been even more graphic had it not been for trepidations about censorship. We hadn’t seen anything like this before in such detail and it gave us a feeling of revulsion. But he got away with it and precedents were set. One could argue that the scenes were justified in terms of the film narrative. Wallace had to have a strong motivation to hate the English. What better than to show us (not him, by the way, in the film) the graphic death of his wife at the hands of an English Lord. And the final execution scenes were pure Hollywood to show his lasting legacy to Scotland in the form of continuing rebellion.

Next, The Passion of the Christ, gave us Gibson’s account of the final days of Christ up to an including his crucifixion. He stated that the film was about “faith, hope, love and forgiveness”. I am sorry but the abiding memory I will have of the film is of brutality, graphic scenes of violence and revulsion again. His messages were lost in a sea of gore. The film was unbalanced by the long scenes of torture and violence of the flesh. You could almost put the film into the new Gorno category. There seems to be a delight in the violence.

I have not seen Apocalypto yet but I understand from people who have seen it and from reviews that it is no exception to the Gibson “buckets of gore” mantra. It is stunningly beautiful to look at (the cinematography looks exquisite) and perhaps it is a more fitting historical vehicle for him to explore the darker side of human nature and society’s evils. Human sacrifice in the Mayan civilisation is a central issue here in the narrative and as such gives him licence to explore the issue in detail.

Nevertheless, Gibson makes us (un)willing accomplices or voyeurs in these films. You cannot take your eyes off the screen. Is it real violence? Of course not. But how do they achieve that effect? Is it heightened realism? Over the top for the sake of dramatic effect. Probably. Is it meant to offend and cause revulsion? Again probably. Debate and controversy in the media before opening night always guarantees a decent box office with people wanting to make up their own minds. Does it cater to our baser instincts? Has he tapped into an older human consciousness that is in everyone but is rarely awakened? Don’t know is my answer at the moment. Now I am no prude when it comes to watching violence on screen but Mel Gibson’s violence makes me feel revulsion, titillation and guilt in equal measure. The titillation is that I cannot take my eyes off the screen and the guilt is that I cannot defend not taking my eyes off the screen.

His films are never less than interesting but if his films reflect his thoughts, feelings and predispositions then Mel Gibson has already gone to the dark side.

£11.99 End Date: Wednesday Sep-17-2008 11:42:13 BST Buy It Now for only: £11.99 Buy it now | Add to watch list

£24.99 End Date: Tuesday Sep-09-2008 17:18:40 BST Buy It Now for only: £24.99 Buy it now | Add to watch list

£10.99 End Date: Saturday Sep-13-2008 16:19:15 BST Buy It Now for only: £10.99 Buy it now | Add to watch list

£13.99 End Date: Tuesday Sep-09-2008 11:51:25 BST Buy It Now for only: £13.99 Buy it now | Add to watch list

£13.99 End Date: Tuesday Sep-16-2008 6:23:32 BST Buy It Now for only: £13.99 Buy it now | Add to watch list

1999 was one of my favourite years. I studied film and the cinema for a year at John Leggott sixth form college in Scunthorpe and ended up with an “A” Level in Film Studies. For years I had avidly watched movies at the cinema and on the television and more recently on video. I had even done a short course on the effects of media on society in my university degree in 1973. But I had never been introduced to appreciating films critically. I knew a little about the history of the cinema, a little about the grammar and business of films but this course put it all together and gave me a much greater appreciation of the whole package.

There I was, a forty something guy, going through this course with a group of young sixth form students (18 years old at the most). The lecturer - Alistair Mickie - was a joy, really enthusiastic about his subject and it rubbed off on to everybody. It gave me a great lift to go down to the college one night a week and forget about the worries of the day job. I had decades of experience of watching films over the kids and could quite easily pull out specific examples from my memory. I particularly enjoyed the detailed analyses of parts of films and found new meanings and images that I had never seen before. You suddenly start to understand what the director or the actors meant to get across. The theory gave me an insight into how to watch and understand films better than before. It gave me a new lease of life.

Watching Eisenstein and the old Russian directors showed me what montage was all about. We even tried to do a Proppian analysis of the story in Casablanca - the first time that the teacher had even tried this. Even analysis of more recent films (not necessarily great ones) such as Speed and The Net provided insights into the grammar of film and the underlying story telling. Studying Kubrick as an auteur/author and the rules on different genres and being able to discuss them and listen to different views was quite liberating. We had to watch Citizen Kane, every one had to not because it is supposed to be the greatest film of all time but because, as a student it gave you examples of so many cinematic and editing techniques that it could be an example in almost all of the exam questions. And you could choose to analyse more closely some of your favourite films. I chose Seven Samurai and The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp. Very different but very rewarding.

I don’t consider myself a film geek or even an authority. I am an enthusiast. I can still watch new films and appreciate them better than I used to. I have very eclectic tastes. From Hollywood to Art House, studio blockbusters to small independent films, english, american or sub titled and virtually any genre (although I am not too keen on romantic weepies - my better half loves them wouldn’t you know!). I do know that following that course helped me appreciate films and the cinema a lot more. Reading books is fine but discussion and debate makes it better. I suppose film forums and film chat rooms can provide that sort of outlet for your views nowadays. It opens your eyes and sharpens your senses and gives you a vocabulary to talk about a visual medium.

My main message from this post is to keep learning about film. That way you can get a better appreciation and ultimately more satisfaction watching films whether they are good or bad.

We all know a great film when we see one don’t we? Well not always. What is a great film to someone may be awful to someone else. Films are very subjective. Citizen Kane leaves film critics in raptures but today’s teenager will wonder what all the fuss is about (and probably hate it to boot).

We all have our own ideas about what makes a great film. Are popular films great? You would think that something that draws in audiences in their thousands and millions must be great. Not so. Look at Rush Hour 2 and Pearl Harbour. It could be just that the latest hot film star is appearing in their next movie. Bankable stars in mediocre movies. What about Harrison Ford in Sabrina and Six Days, Seven Nights. Your favourite auteur film director’s latest offering should be great based on past performance. Not necessarily. Even Spielberg slips up occasionally – look at 1942 and Amistad. Conversely, some great films have inauspicious beginnings. What film did little business at the box office but became one of the most successful DVDs of all time and in the process became re-evaluated as a great film? The Shawshank Redemption.

All I’ve tried to do is to show that there is no simple way to forecast what will make a great film. As usual it is a combination of factors that, mixed together and cooked at the right temperature with loving care, produce a great film. I believe that no one factor on its own can produce greatness. Not just the director, not just the star, not just the subject. Not just the story or script.

However, two or usually three or more factors working together can do it. Here is my list of ingredients for greatness.

• Story/ Script – This is the most important ingredient for me. You need a story that grabs the audience and takes them with it on a journey. It must affect the audience’s emotions. You need a script that does justice to the story and provides colour and originality to the action. If you don’t have a good story or script you rely too heavily on other factors and the probability of producing a great film plummets. Watch The Godfather I and II. Great stories from an average book but even better scripts. You are drawn into another world with very different codes of conduct and behaviour and morals. The Shawshank Redemption’s story is gripping even though the script came out of a short story by Steven King. Clint Eastwood’s Unforgiven provides an unusual raw and downbeat view of the old west with no heroes riding off into the sunset.
• Acting – good actors telling a good story gives the basis for greatness. One example of greatness that involves just a good story and great acting is Salvador. James Woods gives a career high performance as the thoroughly unlikeable war photographer who goes to El Salvador to make money and retrieve his reputation and in the process gets caught up in the civil war. Good supporting cast performances particularly by James Belushi as his unwitting sidekick drive the film with a nervous energy that has you wincing and squirming. It could be the film that disproves my previous hypothesis where the acting alone could make this film great. A more recent example might be Forest Whittaker’s portrayal of Idi Amin in The Last King of Scotland.
• Cinematography – By this I mean that what you see on the screen makes you go wow. Not just the CGI although that has to be taken into consideration e.g. The Lord of The Rings. But just consider David Lean’s epic Lawrence of Arabia. Beautiful sweeping cinematography conveys the epic feel of the film, the vastness of the desert, the scale of the battles. However, you can equally be impressed by the edgy quality of the cinematography in something like Traffic or Heat. You can also marvel at the beauty, colour and technical artistry in some of the recent Chinese films such as The House of Flying Daggers and In the Mood for Love. 
• Editing – Editing conveys the pace of the film and splices the narrative together. Poor editing can leave an audience confused or bored. A well edited film will enhance the story telling and adjust the pace of the story to the action. Well edited films will have an internal rhythm to them.
• Direction – You may wonder why I’ve taken so long to get to direction. The director is the ringmaster and as such needs to juggle all the above (and more such as art direction, sound, costume etc.) to come up with a great film. The great ones can coax new meanings and nuances out of formulaic stories and scripts. Stanley Kubrick’s Full Metal Jacket could have been just another Vietnam war movie but he turned it into a psychological study that showed the dehumanisation of young recruits to help them face the horrors of war. They provoke exciting performances from average actors. Just watch the incredible performance of Sharon Stone coaxed out by Martin Scorcese in Casino. They can inject beauty, originality and controversy into what could have been mundane films.  Terence Malick’s Days of Heaven uses beautiful photography of the American mid west plains to reflect the ebb and flow of the story. They can tap into the issues in society today and make films relevant to the audience. Spielberg does a great job of raising discussion of crime detection and the legal system by projecting a future where crimes can be detected before they happen in Minority Report. Even historical films can touch a nerve by reflecting issues that are important in today’s society. Kurosawa’s medieval Japanese masterpiece – Rashomon – is all about deception and the search for truth played out as a whodunit in the case of an alleged rape in the woods. And directors can put their own individual stamp on films which has lead to the cult of auteurism or authorship.

There you are. Only five factors but great films will have at least two and usually more of these factors present. Just think of films you believe are great films and assess them against these factors. It is fairly simple to do. Do they stand up?

In conclusion. Why is Citizen Kane a great film? Well, it has at least three of the above factors. The story is good although a little dated now as it is about the rise of a press baron (loosely based on the life of Randolph Hearst) and shows the arc of his life and the effect on people around him. However, it does not engage the emotions of the audience and is quite cold. Where it scores highly is in the cinematography, the editing and the direction. The cinematography and editing are ground-breaking and extremely well executed and were way ahead of their time. They actually helped to form a new grammar for films. The direction was excellent in that the telling of the story and the use of new cinematography techniques add nuances and layers to the film beyond the story and script. One could argue that the acting was first rate as well from Orson Welles as the eponymous lead and Joseph Cotton. So, 3or 4 out of 5 is pretty good. Whether it is the best film of all time………

£29.99 (0 Bid) End Date: Sunday Sep-14-2008 13:19:39 BST Bid now | Add to watch list

£29.99 (0 Bid) End Date: Sunday Sep-14-2008 13:05:35 BST Bid now | Add to watch list

£45.00 End Date: Sunday Sep-14-2008 19:48:13 BST Buy It Now for only: £45.00 Buy it now | Add to watch list

£29.99 (0 Bid) End Date: Sunday Sep-14-2008 13:19:46 BST Bid now | Add to watch list

£17.99 (0 Bid) End Date: Sunday Sep-14-2008 13:19:46 BST Bid now | Add to watch list

Ken Loach is one of the most successful and feted British film directors of all time. He has won 64 film awards and been nominated for 38 others. Yet he has never made a “commercial” film nor had box office smash hit. And he always struggles to get finance for his films. He is the doyen of European cinema yet politely ignored in the UK and the USA. You won’t see him mixing with the rich and famous of Hollywood, talking deals and the like. You may not have seen any of his films at the cinema in the UK or USA (they tend to get a very limited release, even the ones that have won awards). His DVD releases usually end up in the World Cinema section. Yet he is rarely out of work.

How has this happened? To understand this fascinating enigma you have to understand the man himself, where he has come from and his principles and beliefs.

Loach started in television and made his name initially directing social issue dramas for the BBC. He was so successful that “Cathy Come Home”, an episode from the Wednesday play series in 1966 about homelessness, created such a profound impact on viewers that it actually precipitated changes in the law in the UK. It was a social realist drama using unknown actors and had the feeling of a documentary rather than a traditional drama.

He is passionate about exposing social injustice and highly critical of the state and corporate business. In this respect he might be compared to Michael Moore. He always tells his stories through the eyes of common people and shows the effects of state or big business corruption on them. Dealing with real and contemporary issues is his stock in trade. Needless to say this has not endeared him to the establishment in either the UK or USA.

His political perspective is there for all to see. An unashamed left winger, he does not compromise his political beliefs when making a film and they influence both the subject matter and the way in which the story is portrayed. One can see why this might make him a pariah in Hollywood given the checkered history of communism in Hollywood. His film “Carla’s Song” shows the impact of the popular Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua through the eyes of a refugee who returns to find her family and it shows the role of the US administration in supporting the contras who terrorised these ordinary people. The USA is also vilified in “Land and Freedom” - Loach’s Spanish Civil War epic -  for supporting Franco’s fascist regime. So, he doesn’t expect to make too many influential friends in the USA soon.

However, why he is without honour in his native land is more complex. The UK has generally sanctioned diversity of political opinion. Communism is tolerated in principle as are the various shades of red. But this is in the context of a brightly coloured rainbow of political beliefs. And in Europe this is magnified several fold. However, Loach pushes too many buttons that embarrass the UK ruling elite in his films. Just watch ”Raining Stones”, “Ladybird, Ladybird”, “Family Life”, “Riff Raff” and probably his most famous film “Kes”. They all expose the social malaises of the day by accurately portraying the lives of ordinary people and who are affected by poverty, mental illness, the intrusion of the state (social workers) into our lives, unemployment, poor education etc.

His modus operandi is to tell a story through the eyes of the victim. He uses unknown actors or sometimes even non actors in his films to put the focus on the subject rather than the actors themselves. He shoots the films in a neo realist documentary style to draw you into believing that what you are seeing is real. There are no special effects to wow you or take you off message. A lot of it seems to be improvised although I doubt that this is the case. He takes you along with the characters and their journeys into pain, disillusionment, anger, betrayal. He wants you to feel outraged, as outraged as he is himself by the conditions that these common folk find themselves in.

Because of his consummate film making skills honed over many years he is able to influence people’s opinions. Is it propaganda? Probably, but then every story can be looked at from different points of view. But he always manages to embarrass the government of the day by implying (or even baldly stating) that they are responsible and should do something about the problem he has exposed.

His more overtly political films are “Hidden Agenda” about the murky goings-on in Northern Ireland and the recent “The Wind That Shakes The Barley” about the republican movement in Ireland that fought the Black and Tans in 1920. Both films go into areas that show the British government in a less than flattering light.

His more recent films are starting to turn on corporate business and their exploitation of workers treating them as a commodity rather than people. “Bread and Roses” is about the efforts of two latina cleaners who fight for the right to unionise. “McLibel” follows the famous law case where McDonalds took a postman and a gardener to court in the longest trial in UK legal history (7 years) and created an enormous  PR disaster as a result. His most recent production, “It’s a Free World” focuses on the use of immigrant workers, a hot subject on the UK political radar.

I don’t think that Ken Loach is just a political agitator for the hell of it. He passionately believes in his subjects, he exposes the facts and arguments that you don’t normally get to hear in establishment media. He then skillfully weaves a realistic story to bring out these messages and he wants you to think about what you have seen, not just accept what you hear on the radio or read in the newspapers. He wants to stimulate debate. I see him as Britain’s conscience on social and political issues. In fact, he is more effective than the traditional political opposition parties on single issues. But by adopting this role he nevertheless courts controversy.

In Europe he is adored as one of the standard bearers of social realist film making and his films are major events in France, Germany and Italy. This is where he is able to get funding for his films. They are always low budget but he still needs a cocktail of many different funding sources to finance his film making efforts. Every backer knows that they are involving themselves in a quality product but the financial risks are there.

Loach is uncompromising in his vision of film making. He has to be passionate about his subject matter. He has to do it his way. It has to make a difference, to stimulate debate. If he has to reveal uncomfortable truths then so be it. He won’t fudge issues. And in the process he has to be true to his own beliefs. Ken Loach is a unique film maker of enormous integrity and he still deals with contemporary and relevant issues even after 40 years in the business. We will never see Ken Loach do Hollywood. He could not work in those conditions with major studios. He has carved himself a unique niche in film history outside of the Hollywood machine and his reputation is still growing.

£16.99 End Date: Tuesday Sep-16-2008 20:38:29 BST Buy It Now for only: £16.99 Buy it now | Add to watch list

£15.75 End Date: Tuesday Sep-16-2008 19:09:41 BST Buy It Now for only: £15.75 Buy it now | Add to watch list

£12.00 (3 Bids) End Date: Sunday Sep-14-2008 20:30:00 BST Bid now | Add to watch list

£29.00 (0 Bid) End Date: Tuesday Sep-09-2008 23:20:46 BST Bid now | Add to watch list

£15.75 End Date: Friday Sep-12-2008 19:25:56 BST Buy It Now for only: £15.75 Buy it now | Add to watch list

When I was following my Film Studies A Level course I got the chance to brush up on my auteurs or authors. Kubrick is usually held up as the quintessential example of the auteur. An auteur or author is a concept developed by French critics to denote a director (usually) who is more than just the guy who makes sure the job gets done. They actually put their own unique and indelible stamp on a production. Typically, you can look at the body of work from an author director and see his signature whether it be in the form of recurring themes in the subject matter, visual style, etc. Stanley Kubrick is a great example because his films cross a whole range of genres. Just think of :

• War films (Paths of Glory, Full Metal Jacket),
• Sci Fi (2001 - A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange),
• Horror (The Shining),
• Historical Epic (Spartacus, Barry Lyndon),
• Comedy/ Satire (Dr Strangelove)
• Love and Sex (Lolita, Eyes Wide Shut).

With a Kubrick film you expect to see certain things like:

• Controversy - a lot of his films entertained controversy at the time of their release. Lolita was about adaptation of a controversial novel about what we would now see as paedophilia; Paths of Glory portrayed the shocking treatment of French soldiers in the trenches by their generals; and, A Clockwork Orange was banned because of its graphic violence before Kubrick himself withdrew it from general circulation.
• Arresting images - In each of Kubrick’s films there are images that linger on in the memory. The battle scenes in Spartacus, the balletic violence of the fight scenes in A Clockwork Orange, Slim Pickens final hurrah astride a nuclear warhead in Dr Strangelove…There are so many.
• Technical Excellence and Innovation - For a great many of his later films Kubrick experimented with the latest technology to achieve originality on screen. Barry Lyndon is a good example. Kubrick and his cinematographer found a way to shoot scenes in candlelight and the results achieved provide a remarkable quality of picture. In 2001 - A Space Odyssey, a highly-engineered, circular, revolving stage with camera set up was built to simulate the scenes in a space station. In addition, some of the most sophisticated special effects of that time went into that movie.
• Recurrent themes - Don’t expect a happy ending in a Kubrick film. Even the funniest (Dr Strangelove) ends with the world being destroyed by nuclear bombs! The stench of death is never very far away. Society brutalising the common man - the soldiers in Paths of Glory and Full Metal Jacket, the slaves in Spartacus, Alex in A Clockwork Orange (eventually). There always seems to be an objectivity or detachment in Kubrick’s work. There is always something that makes you think, some shock or contravention of the genre rules. The Shining was described by some critics as the first horror film with the lights on. Music is used in subtle ways to heighten the message being conveyed. Who can forget the spaceships in 2001 waltzing in space to the Blue Danube. Or the world ending in Dr Strangelove to the strains of Vera Lynn singing We’ll Meet Again. And where music met controversy when Kubrick had the temerity to use electronic synthesiser versions of Beethoven’s Ode to Joy in A Clockwork Orange.
• Control -  Ever since his early films up to and including Spartacus, Kubrick would always have total control over the output and finished product. This personal requirement meant that he did not work that often (only 16 films in over 48 years) as studios shyed away from giving a director that much control. He was a perfectionist and would only release a film when he was happy with it. That also meant painstaking and long shooting schedules. Obsessive might be one way of describing him.

As he is no longer with us we can only look back at the significant body of films he left rather than anticipating the next Kubrick controversy.

£49.99 (0 Bid) End Date: Monday Sep-15-2008 19:04:00 BST Bid now | Add to watch list

£69.99 (0 Bid) End Date: Sunday Sep-14-2008 21:22:32 BST Buy It Now for only: £84.99 Bid now | Buy it now | Add to watch list

£29.99 End Date: Sunday Sep-14-2008 19:24:41 BST Buy It Now for only: £29.99 Buy it now | Add to watch list

£29.99 End Date: Tuesday Sep-09-2008 19:23:04 BST Buy It Now for only: £29.99 Buy it now | Add to watch list

£29.99 End Date: Thursday Sep-11-2008 19:22:57 BST Buy It Now for only: £29.99 Buy it now | Add to watch list