Scorsese described a specific practice: returning to Kubrick’s films to study how one shot led to the next. His recollection invites us to ask what a camera does beyond simply registering movement.
Framing determines which relationships can be seen
In a 2001 interview with Charlie Rose, cited by DGA Quarterly, Scorsese recalled studying Kubrick’s films in theaters and taking notes. He singled out the tracking shots through the trenches in Paths of Glory and the narrative power of Kubrick’s framing. His account points to an attentiveness to technique, not to a catalog of images that Scorsese later copied.
The question can be asked without turning precision into abstract praise: What does this camera position help us understand, and what does it leave out? The same character seen from a distance may appear integrated into an organization; seen up close, they may draw our attention to a reaction. The choice has no fixed meaning. It depends on what is happening around them and on what information the film has already given us.
The composition and perspective in Kubrick’s films make it possible to study this relationship between figure and surroundings. Depth can show people waiting while someone moves forward, or keep a structure that limits the action within the frame. The framing need not pause the story to describe an institution. It can help viewers understand it through the positions and movements of its members.
The transition from one shot to another matters, too. A reaction can change what we just interpreted as confidence; a shift in distance can reveal that someone was being watched. Studying storytelling through framing means preserving that sequence. A collection of isolated frames helps examine compositions, but it removes the duration and temporal relationships that turn those images into a scene.
Moving through a trench does not mean sharing the experience of those who occupy it
In Paths of Glory, Mireau’s walk through the trench brings authority into contact with the bodies and responses he must manage. The general can stop, question, and judge what he encounters. The camera makes these interactions legible without turning the movement into a neutral inspection. People occupy the space, and their ability to respond is not equal to that of the person asking the questions.
Dax’s passage through this environment takes on a different meaning because of its connection to the attack being prepared. The figures at the sides are not merely elements of depth. Their waiting and exposure are part of what the movement allows us to perceive. The continuity of movement links nearby places without guaranteeing that everyone shares the same experience or the same degree of control over what happens next.
The attack on Ant Hill transforms this spatial problem. Outside the trench, moving forward means crossing an area where the body loses its protection. The camera connects movement, obstacles, and danger, but it does not turn the battlefield into a diagram that is entirely available to view. It can keep one trajectory visible while other actions are interrupted by smoke, distance, or shifts in attention.
Comparing the earlier walk with the attack makes it possible to see the difference between continuity of recording and continuity of control. The camera’s ability to follow a movement does not mean the character is in control of their situation. Space offers resistance, and command decisions do not guarantee the outcome they demand. The visual technique makes an action understandable without erasing the limitations of those who must carry it out.
The study of camera movements distinguishes this function from an explanation based solely on the equipment used. The direction of movement, the distance from the body, and the relationship with supporting characters all change what is told. Calling two shots tracking shots is not enough to establish that they perform the same narrative function, even if both use a recognizable camera movement.
Entering a place can reveal privilege rather than obedience
The entrance to the Copacabana in Goodfellas offers a formal comparison with the movements in Paths of Glory. Henry leads Karen through an entrance that passes through work areas before reaching the entertainment space. The movement lets us observe a network of recognition and access. The camera does not explain that access with a definition; it makes it perceptible through doors, greetings, and positions.
The resemblance to a Kubrick tracking shot lies in how movement connects the character to a spatial and human organization. The difference lies in the relationship it reveals. At the Copacabana, Henry displays a level of access that impresses Karen. In the trench, bodies and ranks point to obligations and risks. The same technique of continuity can create fascination, exposure, or criticism, depending on the scene.
This comparison should not be presented as documentary evidence that Scorsese’s shot was based on Paths of Glory. His account of what he learned does not automatically establish this particular connection. It is a critical proposal based on visible techniques. The criteria for evaluating interpretations make it possible to preserve its usefulness without presenting it as a documented intention that was never expressed.
The difference can be verified by looking at the characters’ reactions. Karen takes part in an experience of access that she is still learning to interpret. The soldiers in the trench know the institution that regulates their responses and their bodies. The camera’s continuity does not erase this inequality of information. On the contrary, it lets us see how each character relates to an order that the movement makes visible.
Scorsese’s account is therefore more specific than a general statement of admiration. It identifies a study practice and a question about storytelling. It can be considered alongside the technical learning acknowledged by Spielberg, but it should not be extended to explain his entire filmography. What is documented is an attentiveness to Kubrick; each subsequent comparison needs to show which technique it shares, what changes, and where the available evidence ends.
References: Martin Scorsese, interview with Charlie Rose (2001), cited by Robert Koehler in “Kubrick’s Outsized Influence,” DGA Quarterly, Fall 2017. Films compared: Stanley Kubrick, Paths of Glory (1957); Martin Scorsese, Goodfellas (1990).
View all articles in Kubrick in Other Filmmakers and Visual Culture