Absolutely, I found especially annoying the statement in the article that says "films are never the work of an individual: they are products of a collective, and children of compromise." Well, Hollywood blockbusters for sure, there's scarcely a hint of directorship in those. But smaller or independent productions, which are not directed to the masses, are another thing.

Maybe what Kubrick did was to make movies that look like big Hollywood productions, with the big budgets and the polished look, but at the same time keeping the type of control and freedom that usually only small independents have. His movies are at the same time beautiful, extremely original, and very approachable- things that rarely go together.