Kubrick's a genius, blahblahblah

Rating: Null/10 (12 September 2000)

Don't get me wrong-- his movie has a lot to recommend it. Like all Stanley Kubrick movies, it's unconventional, challenging, and unlike anything any other director could craft.
However, in reading the comments listed here for Paths of Glory, it strikes me that when viewing the work of geniuses, a lot of people have trouble judging objectively. This movie is undoubtedly a cut above the average war film, but can't we have an honest assessment? For starters, Kubrick shows here in his early work his almost complete inability to work with actors. He simply does not get good perormances from his cast. When an actor in one of his movies performs well, it seems almost like an accident. To contrast Kubrick's work with actors with that of a true actor's director, compare Tom Cruise's performance in Eyes Wide Shut with his performance in Magnolia. Night and day. Kirk Douglas gives a good performance in PoG, but when doesn't he?
Another problem I had with this movie is its flat dramatic arc. Kubrick is so strong visually, but he doesn't always seem in command of the story he's telling. Unlike another war movie dealing with a similar plot, The Caine Mutiny directed by the underappreciated Edward Dmytryk, this movie doesn't drive inevitably towards its climax and conflicts so much as it meanders to a conclusion.
And finally, has anyone else noticed that Kubrick's films almost all, at some point or another, go through at least a short period where they seem to be making fun of themselves? The trial sequence in PoG had, to me, an unmistakable tone of mocking parody. Maybe it's just me.