Due to his temperament being fuelled by distrusting technology, Stanle

Dear mindsprout,
I'm happy to help with this.

First of all, it's important to understand the correction diction with "due to." The word "due" is an adjective, so it must modify the target noun, not a phrase or an entire action. See
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/gmat-idiom ... nsequence/
The target noun here is the man [ur=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Kubrickl]Stanley Kubrick[/url], and the man Kubrick himself was not "due to his temperament." (A) & (D) are wrong because of this.

In (D), the structure with "because" + [full clause] is good. Unfortunately, the tense here is the past progressive.
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/gmat-verbs ... ive-tense/
That doesn't work with the logic here. We would say:
Kubrick's temperament was fueled by distrusting technology. = a fixed, constant state in the past
not:
Kubrick's temperament was being fueled by distrusting technology. = awkward, because it makes this sound like an ongoing action that someone was performing, but nature of a person's temperament is not the result of an action that someone else performs. This tense doesn't fit with the logic of the situation.

Choice (E) has what would be a grammatically correct participial modifier, but again, unfortunately, the tense is wrong. It uses the perfect participle, which would imply that the temperament was fueled at one past time, and then Kubrick's action of insulating himself came at another later time. This changes the meaning from the prompt, so this is wrong.

This leaves the OA, (C). This uses a sophisticated grammatical structure known as an absolute phrase:
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/absolute-p ... -the-gmat/
This structure is unfamiliar even to many native-English-speaking Americans, because it appears and is used properly only in very sophisticated writing.
The structure
[noun] +[noun modifier] ---- the most common is [noun] + [participial phrase], which we have here.
operates as a free-standing unit separate from the rest of the sentence, and it general modifies the action of the independent clause with which it is associated. This is an absolute phrase.

Does all this make sense?
Mike