This is one of the most renowned directors of the 20th century finding his style right in front of our eyes. In the early 1950s, Stanley Kubrick shot a handful short documentary films on topics with certain significance for American culture back then. Before moving on to priests and seafarers, he started with a 16-minute documentary on the unusual profession of prizefighters. This is the very first film by the mastermind.Now imagine, you wake up in the morning. And there's Stanley Kubrick in your bedroom pointing a camera at your dozy face. This is exactly what happened to professional prizefighter Walter Cartier (admittedly Kubrick was still a nobody at this point) who is accompanied the whole day of his fight. Kubrick delivers the pictures and renowned television journalist and Emmy Award nominee Douglas Edwards tells the story.I would say that this is only for you if you're really into boxing, especially the early years or a Kubrick completionist. While some parts are good, mostly the actual fight sequences towards the end or the introduction to the topic in the first 4 minutes, some scenes are quite the opposite, like the "last look in the mirror"-scene which could have been found at a MST3000-episode as well.

It's always interesting to go back to the beginning of a director's career, in this case Stanley Kubrick's, and take a look at his earlier work. Day of the Fight just happens to be the first film by now legendary director Kubrick who is widely regarded as one of the best contemporary directors ever. This film is around about 15-20 minutes long and revolves around the build up to a boxing match the study of the build up will revolve around.Interestingly enough and perhaps the most interesting thing about it is that it was inspired by a photograph Kubrick himself took for a 1949 edition of a magazine. This could be seen as an early example of suspense, with constant reference to the boxing match and its importance made through narrator Douglas Edwards, a good casting for the serious and deep voice the film required. As a short, it works and the suspense and build up maintains some sort of interest as the montage plays out. Kubrick includes all sorts of shots and angles creating the nice range for the eye, my favourite being the low angle on the statue of Mary in the church about half way through.But the focus could well be the fight itself. There is some good camera work to be had out of the actual match and a low angle between a boxer's legs would later be used by Kubrick in Killer's Kiss, another early Kubrick film. I actually would have liked the boxing match's result to have been the other way around as I feel it would've added a new dimension to the short, a sort of anti-climatic spin that might've worked well. But that said, it's worth seeing if for the match itself and the chance to see where it all started off for the great man.

Day of the Fight (1951) *** (out of 4) Kubrick's second short shows us a day in the life of a middle-weight boxer as he prepares for a fight. Even with the boring narration, this film here moves a lot better and the fight scene is rather interesting because it's shown complete as it happened. You can spot Kubrick in a few scenes with his camera.Flying Padre (1951) ** (out of 4) Stanley Kubrick's first film is a documentary about a priest in New Mexico who needs a plane to keep up with all his people. This is a really boring and flat film even with its 9 minute running time. The priest really isn't that interesting and the narration is flat and stiff. God knows better things were to follow from Kubrick.Seafarers, The (1953) ** (out of 4) Overly long and dreadfully boring promotional film for the Seafarers Union, which basically tries to teach people why they should join. This is historically interesting only because it's Stanely Kubrick's first film in color. The rest is pure boredom and it's no wonder Kubrick doesn't want this film seeing the light of day.

It's true, I would not know anything about this short RKO-type documentary if not for the fact that it was the first time that iconoclast Stanley Kubrick picked up a camera with rolling film stock to be screened in theaters. But as a student filmmaker myself, I find it of the utmost fascination - even when it is in a jittery, ragged print like the one I obtained on video - to see the early, primitive works of famous directors (Last Year in Vietnam by Stone, My Best Friend's Birthday by Tarantino, and Les Mistons by Truffaut are others) and the foundations of style. Day of the Fight, to be sure, is not something of incredible note, and it would not be until the Killing that Kubrick would create a great film. Yet through this film, I was constantly aware- and pleased- by how this very typical kind of story was executed.In a way, it's almost of more worth to watch this film with the sound off; the narration, while good at getting to know the very basics of this boxer that's being profiled, it's also a distraction and not very revelatory. As just a succession of images, however, it works a lot more. It's the kind of short documentary that is 70% real, and 30% staged, with Kubrick following the boxer and his brother on the streets of New York, leading up to the fight that will bring him recognition. When looking at how Kubrick uses the camera, it seems fairly simple and, for those looking for all of the Kubrick trademarks, disappointing. But in just looking at how he uses the camera, how he gets his subjects in frame, and the importance of composition and the subtleties of lighting, it's really quite good. And the fight sequence, filmed by Kubrick and a friend, has some cut-away shots that almost ring of the future of Scorsese's Raging Bull (though, of course, still primitive).Is it more of a curiosity, a film for Kubrick die-hard completists looking to have all 16 of his works, docs and features, in their collection? Sure, but it is also one of the better short doc's he made in his formative years, taking a subject he was already interested in (he was a photographer for Look magazine with this boxer under profile) and going a step further. As his sort of film school, this is in terms of the image even more fascinating than the lackluster 'doodle on the fridge' film Fear and Desire.