Doesn't it though?
I mean directors like Kubrick, Hitchcock and John Landis that acted like dictators. See twilight zone accident.
also, why are people who complain about bosses complaining, also complain about every petty detail online? like 24/7? you'd be very irritable bosses
Dr. Strangelove
Full Metal Jacket
A Clockwork Orange
A bunch of not bad films:
2001
Lolita
Barry Lyndon
The Shining
Spartacus
One real turd of a film:
Eyes Wide Shut
And a bunch of forgettable filler:
All the other films he made.
Compare this to the Anti-Kubrick, Clint Eastwood, who made:
Unforgiven
Mystic River
Million Dollar Baby
Letters From Iwo Jima
Gran Torino
And a bunch of okay films:
Pretty much everything else
And it’s pretty obvious that you don’t need to be an abusive taskmaster like Kubrick to make great art.
just ask reddit and reverse the results to know who is better
How I would rate 2001 depends entirely on my criteria.
For cinematography and vfx I would give it an 11 out of 10. Ground breaking.
For story and entertainment, I'd give it a -1. It is an anti-film in that sense. The most mind-numbingly boring and drawn out piece of "film" that I have ever had the displeasure of trying to sit through.
And I say that as a self-professed film nerd. I admire Kubrick a lot. But I can't stand 2001, at least when I judge it by the same criteria that I judge other films.
Film is visual story telling. Emphasis on "story."
Putting aside Dave & Hal (which make their appearance so late into the "film" that I've already been asleep for 3 hours - yes I'm exaggerating), when you take away identifiable protaganoists and antagonists, with backstories, goals, motivations and obstacles what you are left with is more of an exhibition.
2001 was more of a 1960s speculative endeavour into humanity's future at the dawn of the space age than it was a story told through imagery. It lacked plot, character development, relatibility and it's pacing was so slow and drawn out that it's hard to maintain your attention throughout.
When you judge it for what it was, there is a lot of greatness there. Many of its visual effects were truly groundbreaking and influenced filmmaking for decades to come.
But when you compare it to films that you actually want to re-watch for entertainment value ... I would put it in the "awful" category. But that's just my personal opinion.
Kubrick definitely did not play by those rules.
these "mid" films would be among the top 10 ever easily
but according to him "tough" guy Eastwood can surpass it
Security, escort this guy out of the building.
MMA fighters, for example, put themselves at tremendous risk because they're chasing their own personal ideas of "greatness." And there are many examples of "struggling artists" throughout history that gave up on relationships and money because they were chasing something that they believed in.
I'm not defending Kubrick's managerial style, and I don't know anything about the individual that they are talking about and what drove him. I just don't have any difficulty imagining that this person believed in something very personal that he was chasing. Something that the rest of us can't relate to but that meant a great deal to him. We don't have to imagine that Kubrick had him brainwashed or "enslaved" to accept that he could have made a personal choice that the rest of us are incapable of understanding, in pursuit of a value that he held above all others, because it was a deeply personal choice.
MMA fighters generally chase their own glory, to get their own hand raised in the ring. Not become a personal servant to another person's ego.
I'm not even saying whether I think it's morally right or wrong. Only that it's not hard to imagine the scenario.
Your MMA example is also missing the imbalanced power dynamic that you usually have in an abusive relationship.