>>212494619I do understand your point, but he rode its massive conventional success to be able to make his own films. He successfully wrangled a bunch of high-caliber actors, many of whom had furthermore taken turns as directors themselves, and he kept order on his set and got the product turned out with success, even though people on the set were thinking "who the fuck is this guy...". He absolutely deserves credit for Spartacus, the details on how the production went down and how it wasn't really "his baby" and how he was just brought in as a hired gun to complete the (large majority of the actual directorial!!!) work are academic.
Kubrick directed Spartacus, actually put in the work/did the job on set, and was entitled to the success and clout that it conferred upon him. It (and his partnership with Kirk Douglas more broadly, the film was really KIRK'S "baby") was his springboard to self-actualize and really start to make films the way that he wanted to make them. It is perfectly reasonable to include it in a Kubrick ranking, or listing. Although it's a fine historical epic in its own right, it falls toward the lower middle of a Kubrick listing, above things like Lolita and The Killing, but below ACO, FMJ and most other mature works, which are almost all better.
