SK and Post-Modernism
David Culpepper
find that I don't have a lot of conclusions to offer on the question of:
Kubrick:Modernist or POMOist? I keep coming back to the process of
Kubrick's films and not easily reaching a conclusive statement. Which is,
for the most part, a POMO reading anyway.
But I do want to offer someting on the issue, using the essay at the
following link as a baseline for orientation.
http://www.arthistory.sbc.edu/artartists/modpostmod.html
It's accessable and while overly general for a detailed discussion, offers
worthwhile reference points.
The upshot of my assertion that Kubrick's films have more than a bit of
postmodern color to them is not to attempt to place SK in a "camp" of
artists. The exercise of slotting Kubrick into a set of artistic
categorizations, I'll leave to encyclopedists.
My basic question, gentle reader: Where in Kubrick's work do we find
anything that can be construed as being |Absolute|? Where do we find
reason as being anything other than a constructed filter/overlay/projection.
Where do we find formalist modernism (or anything else for that matter), to
be taken as anything other than relativistic in the films? I don't see it
people!
Derrida speaks of Deconconsructivism, (Derrida consdiers himself POMO), as
being rather like topology, asserting that there is no depth that is not in
itself a surface. That in fact, the surface is all that we can know. This
is rather Zen-like in flavor:
"Show me the inside of this box!."
"No, that is the surface of the inside." ad infinitum...
Kubrick is concerned with process, and while he certailnly had an interest
in conclusion; closure is not what SK's films necessarily lead to. SK's
films refute reason as an |absolute| at almost every turn. I view Kubrick's
films as being deconstructive (of logocentrism), as much as anything else.
Kubrick has been accused of nihilsm much as the deconstructive POMOists have
been. Hardly the case. To use Derrida as an example again; laying bare
the concept of Reason as an ineffable "essence" is not intended to remove
the process from our psyche, but to in fact place it in proper perspective.
POMO places reason in perspective as part of a process, opposing the
concept of reason as the center of human experience.
HAL is the flower of the entire structure of logocentric thought.
Turgidson and Strangelove are the very epitome of formal Modernism.
The opposing political parties in ACO are stereotypes of moderist political
thought.
I find BL to be an exceedingly deconstructivist work. Worthy of an another
post altogether.
Again, the view of POMO as being >necessarily< anti-modern is largely one
purported by modernists largely in service of political ends. Kubrick
certainly has some modern sensibilities but his POMO sensibilities are
equally as strong.
Kubrick's films are self-aware if nothing else, they are difficult to
deconstruct because they deconstruct themselves.
Enough for now
Tobasco
Kian Bergstrom
profoundly illuminating with respect to Kubrick's work.
That said, I think that this speaks for a major rift I see in
Kubrick's films, occuring between 2001 and ACO. Up to and
including 2001, Kubrick was the greatest modernist filmmaker
working, I'd say. Starting with ACO, though, his interests and
approaches changed significantly. The critical approaches that
we use to talk about DS, for example, or _The Killing_, are
extremely different from how we speak of _Barry Lyndon_ or _Full
Metal Jacket_. Quite frankly, 2001 included, the earlier films
are, I find, significantly easier to come to terms with. They
make few to no demands upon the viewer, being content to
_present_ a show. With ACO and onward, Kubrick develops a
postmodernist interest in challenging his viewiers.
Kubrick, starting with ACO, seems to me to be rewriting his
previous films, work by work, challenging their generic
conventions and cultural assumptions. Just some quick notes:
The Killing vs. A Clockwork Orange
Johnny Clay and Alex both serve as protagonists in what are
basically crime films. In the first, though, Clay is undone by
random chance, as no plan can ever fully account for the
unexpected. Alex, though a terrible person, is nevertheless a
sympathetic character _upon whom_ the major crime of the film is
committed, which is in the end undone by the unexpected results
of that crime, which, rather than random chance, are evidence of
lack of planning and thinking through.
Paths of Glory vs. Barry Lyndon
Two studies of wartime and injustice and politics. But whereas
POG is, for me at least, weakened by an excessive and somewhat
trite moralizing, BL consistently subverts any attempt by us the
audience to find moral meaning.
Lolita vs. The Shining
Two families, each of which is torn apart by abbarant behavior on
the part of the father figure. While _Lolita_ plays games with
us in making us feel sympathetically for the pedophiliac, and
mocking the pain that his behavior puts on Charlotte and Lolita,
TS turns that the other way around, showing us in detail about
the mental decay of the father while never allowing us to feel
with or for him, instead locating the audience with the abused
and terrified wife and son (a move I would argue is one of the
boldest in all of horror cinema).
Dr. Strangelove vs. Full Metal Jacket
Once again, two war stories, both apocalyptic, though in FMJ the
apocalypse is internalized within Joker's psyche. DS seems to me
to be going out of its way to convince us that it is 'art,' that
all of its moves are 'artistic.' It is, in addition to being a
very entertaining film, also incredibly full of itself. It is
insistent upon its own importance. FMJ, on the other hand, is
the epitome of self-derogatory cinema. It refuses to come to
conclusions about its subjects, refuses to give us the easy
rewards DS did (like Turgidson slapping his belly, of
Strangelove's Nazi salute, which are so pleasurable precisely
because they are so explicitly judgemental). It's not just that
every character is equally shat upon, but each is deliberately
de-mythologized in a way that would ruin a modernist work like
DS.
2001 vs. Eyes Wide Shut
2001's Dave Bowman becomes Bill Harford. Bowman searched the
reaches of space for meaning, while Bill wanders the streets
looking for that same meaning. The dead Frank Poole and the dead
Mandy serve as occasional companions who are unable to go the
whole distance with them, not necessarily because of their
inability, but because of the interference of others. But while
2001 presents for us a vision of the important questions of life
being directly addressed and queried, EWS shows us those
'important questions' debased into a venal inability to discern
people as much other than sexual organs. EWS mocks the concerns
of 2001, turns that film inside out, such that the truths and
questions that bother Bill are such that would make one question
if people like him will ever manage to stop navel-gazing long
enough to even build a spaceship, let alone travel to Jupiter.
2001 shows us the future, while EWS shows us why that future is
ridiculous.
These are just short little summaries of what I see as a major
artistic activity of the later Kubrick. It strikes me as very
important to his project after 2001 that the intellectual climate
changed substantially in 1968 with the publication of Derrida's
_Of Grammatology_ and _Writing and Difference_. Within those two
interwoven books, the foundations of the deconstuctive methods
are laid out.
Each of the five late Kubrick films seem to me to be strongly
influenced by Derrida's thinking, in ways that I really can't
elaborate on much here, as I don't have my books in front of me.
The games and jokes in the later films are disturbingly
mirthless, I think, and mean spirited, and increasingly so as
well. ACO, in addition to being one of the darkest comedies I've
seen, is also a grueling experience to go through, genuinely
unpleasant to watch in a way that nothing in Kubrick's previous
works could have prepared us for. In fact, in the later five
films, we see a great many of moments that, divorced from
context, are offensive, invasive and extremely hard to watch.
Private Pyle's soap beating. Wendy's screaming face as Jack is
chopping down the bathroom door (the single most emotionally
absorbing shot I have ever seen, and also one of the hardest to
sit through with eyes open). Ugliness afte 1986 becomes
integrated into Kubrick's aesthetic method in a way that wasn't
apparent beforehand, and it's the tension between the ugly,
disturbing elements that make up his films and the beauty of the
films themselves that seems perhaps most postmodern about him.
-Kian
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
Thornhill
from the start, both thematically and visually. Have you
forgotten the grotesque combat among the mannequins in "Killer's
Kiss"? No need to detail all the other assorted uglinesses
pre-'86, but it hardly seems a late development in Kubrick's
work. That he is able to lend value to something one might
otherwise wish to turn away from is, I think, his stamp. Just
enough abstraction and just enough empathy are among the
elements that propel his films.
Thornhill
Kian Bergstrom
>"...Ugliness after 1986..."?? Seems to me it has been there
>from the start, both thematically and visually. Have you
>forgotten the grotesque combat among the mannequins in "Killer's
>Kiss"? No need to detail all the other assorted uglinesses
>pre-'86, but it hardly seems a late development in Kubrick's
>work. That he is able to lend value to something one might
>otherwise wish to turn away from is, I think, his stamp. Just
>enough abstraction and just enough empathy are among the
>elements that propel his films.
Please excuse me. I mistyped. What I meant to write was "1968,"
not "1986."
Also:
Sure, there are uncomfortable moments in all of Kubrick's films.
The worst of them is probably the scene between Timothy Cary and
the parking attendant in _The Killing_. My point is that
whatever parts of his early films there are that might make us
wince or want to look away pale in comparison to what we see
after 2001. Before that, they feel to me like the graspings of
an artist struggling to put real life on screen. Afterwards,
they are not grasping at that, but fully achieving it. Prior to
ACO, Kubrick's camera didn't exactly shy away from the ugliness
in life, but when it found that ugliness, it was presented as
aberration, as insult, or as comedic mockery. With ACO, we see
Kubrick coming to terms with the ugliness in life, fully
integrating it without degredation into his art.
Gordon Dahlquist
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000, David Culpepper wrote:
> The upshot of my assertion that Kubrick's films have more than a bit of
> postmodern color to them is not to attempt to place SK in a "camp" of
> artists. The exercise of slotting Kubrick into a set of artistic
> categorizations, I'll leave to encyclopedists.
> My basic question, gentle reader: Where in Kubrick's work do we find
> anything that can be construed as being |Absolute|? Where do we find
> reason as being anything other than a constructed filter/overlay/projection.
> Where do we find formalist modernism (or anything else for that matter), to
> be taken as anything other than relativistic in the films? I don't see it
> people!
I disagree, at least to the extent that I think kian's point is well made
distinguishing between kubrick's before and after aco (though I'm not
quite ready to cede that aco and the works after it are post-modern, they
are certainly more relfexive, more formally sophisticated, and more
complicated as far as narrative is concerned). each of his films before
this, from the killing to 2001, seems to very much utilize a "center" that
the satire/dislocation/provocation of the individual film depends upon.
while the films themselves may be occupied with how relative (or subject
to whim) this center - a moral center, or a notion of "truth" - may be
treated by the characters, the films themselves depend upon a stable
notion of this center - as understood by the audience - to function. the
satire of strangelove or lolita and the hypocrisy of paths of glory are
meaningless without this assumption of a stable barometer to measure and
make sense of their specific variations.
> Kubrick is concerned with process, and while he certailnly had an interest
> in conclusion; closure is not what SK's films necessarily lead to. SK's
> films refute reason as an |absolute| at almost every turn. I view Kubrick's
> films as being deconstructive (of logocentrism), as much as anything else.
> Kubrick has been accused of nihilsm much as the deconstructive POMOists have
> been. Hardly the case. To use Derrida as an example again; laying bare
> the concept of Reason as an ineffable "essence" is not intended to remove
> the process from our psyche, but to in fact place it in proper perspective.
> POMO places reason in perspective as part of a process, opposing the
> concept of reason as the center of human experience.
certainly what you say is true regarding kubrick and reason, though I'm
not sure I see reason alone as the center of modernism. what then do we
make of someone like jackson pollock, or even joyce? this seems more like
a critique of the enlightenment than modernism, per se.
> HAL is the flower of the entire structure of logocentric thought.
> Turgidson and Strangelove are the very epitome of formal Modernism.
> The opposing political parties in ACO are stereotypes of moderist political
> thought.
but the simple fact that the films end in questions as opposed to answers
doesn't imply "post-modernism" any more than does the end of ulysses -
which gets to a "yes" every bit as (or, actually, a hell of a lot moreso)
complicated (for a simple little word) as the "fuck" ending ews.
> I find BL to be an exceedingly deconstructivist work. Worthy of an another
> post altogether.
>
> Again, the view of POMO as being >necessarily< anti-modern is largely one
> purported by modernists largely in service of political ends. Kubrick
> certainly has some modern sensibilities but his POMO sensibilities are
> equally as strong.
> Kubrick's films are self-aware if nothing else, they are difficult to
> deconstruct because they deconstruct themselves.
I'd be interested in hearing more about post-modernism >not< being
anti-modern, because personally it does seem like part of the deal. the
essay you mentioned is interesting, but the author's notion of
"constructive" post-modernism strikes me as pretty flabby. I agree with
you that kubrick's films are very complicated, and that they quite
willfully elude "simple" readings - or at least the films after 2001
do, the ones before that seem actually pretty straightforward, as any
comparison of paths of glory with full metal jacket will reveal.
obviously I think the latter is by far and away the superior film, and
much of that is because of the very complexity of reference you're talking
about, but I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say kubrick's really a
post-modern artist. sort of like I wouldn't say godard is - though he's
more radical in his experimentation than most "cutting edge" artists of
any stripe - I don't think he really gives up the idea of finding a stable
perspective, he just doesn't provide it for the viewer. to me that's more
about being a sophisticated artist than anything else: the works are more
difficult to analyze because they're more complicated, but much of the
complication actually does come from "stable" areas: critiques of social
systems, of class, of "history", etc. similarly, the self-awareness: is
there a work more self-aware than ulysses? I can't really think of one,
though it's also one of the himalayan peaks of modernist art. I don't
think the self-referential nature of the post-2001 films does anything
other than deepen their arguments.
but as you say, this is an interesting discussion - and I think the formal
complexities of these later films are something I've never seen worked out
to my satisfaction - too much of the analysis falls back on bean counting
and color symbolism, but I think this train of conversation gets closer to
it.
Thornhill
mentioned. By 1968 or so, the Production Code was largely
stripped of its onerous rules that held power since 1930. The
choice of ACO to follow 2001 may have had rather a little to do
with that and not merely SK's wish to show more disturbing
things. That certain of his films became more 'graphic' doesn't
substantially alter the core of his work, which seems organic
and of-a-piece. SK's films never did enter the Tarantino Zone
of graphic glee (and too many others to mention), though they
obviously had quite an effect on the latter.
Thornhill
David Kirkpatrick
>
<zoom-snip>
> Derrida speaks of Deconconsructivism, (Derrida consdiers himself POMO), as
> being rather like topology, asserting that there is no depth that is not in
> itself a surface.
Suddenly I feel more positively towards Derrida than I have before.
Topology is the way to go, although I didn't realize the name for it
until I read Roger Penrose's The Emperor's New Mind. Can you give me
the reference for that remark (a book name will do, not necessarily a
page number)?
> That in fact, the surface is all that we can know. This
> is rather Zen-like in flavor:
> "Show me the inside of this box!."
> "No, that is the surface of the inside." ad infinitum...
Nietszche: Consciousness is a surface.
Freud and Jung: they seem to cast the unconscious in the mold of the
conscious. Consciously, I want this; unconsciously I really want that.
The unconscious as a parallel plane, only folded. Mind as organic
origami?
Teaser: I believe topology links the ideas of my intellectual heros:
Frye, McLuhan, Vico, Wittgenstein and yes, Kubrick. And yes, Joyce.
Happy Bloomsday, by the way.
David
Kian Bergstrom
>Kian, I think an overlooked component here needs to be
>mentioned. By 1968 or so, the Production Code was largely
>stripped of its onerous rules that held power since 1930. The
>choice of ACO to follow 2001 may have had rather a little to do
>with that and not merely SK's wish to show more disturbing
>things. That certain of his films became more 'graphic' doesn't
>substantially alter the core of his work, which seems organic
>and of-a-piece. SK's films never did enter the Tarantino Zone
>of graphic glee (and too many others to mention), though they
>obviously had quite an effect on the latter.
You're undoubtedly correct about this. The effect upon Kubrick's
work, and the work of countless other filmmakers, was very much
affected by the loosening of the Production Code and the
institution of the AMPAS Ratings Scheme. But my point isn't that
Kubrick was suddenly able to show breasts on screen. A film like
_Barry Lyndon_, technical aspects aside, would have been
dramatically possible long before the Code died off, I think.
What I'm saying about Kubrick's ugliness is that up until and
including 2001, the style seems very much that extreme behavior
is located on the fringe of society. I'm not talking about bad
things, but rather terrible things. When Kubrick depicts them,
they are abnormal, the acts of people under extreme
circumstances. Starting with ACO, Kubrick's characters start
acting in ways that we as the audience really ought to be quite
bothered by. Sure, the characters in DS are all nuts, but I
think that for all their insanity (and blowing up the world),
there's really not an uncomfortable moment in the film. In fact,
though its themes are quite serious and disquieting, it's not a
film that upsets people. FMJ does upset people. I am _bothered_
by how the characters act in that film, and I think that the film
is a great piece of art precisely because it is able to bring
about that kind of reaction within me. To take comparable
moments, if that's possible, in FMJ, when Joker's camera is
stolen, and the thief does a little martial arts move at him
before fleeing, Joker starts flailing about, mocking him. This
is a really disturbing moment for me, becuase it shows him, a
character that I've been caring about, to be a complete asshole.
Conversely, when Mandrake and Ripper are running around with a
machine gun, we see Mandrake give what might be seen as a similar
reaction to Ripper's madness, but it's laughing _with_ the
audience. Mandrake is a voice of reason in the film. There is
no voice of reason in FMJ, nor is there in any of Kubrick's films
after 2001 (including _Barry Lyndon_; the narrator in that film,
though 'objective,' hardly qualifies).
A while back, there was a short-lived thread on _Lolita_ and ACO,
basically speculating on what would the differences have been if
Kubrick had switched them in his chronological order; that is,
made ACO in 1962 and _Lolita_ in 1971. Honestly, I can't see
that ACO would have interested him, coming off of POG and
_Spartacus_. It's themes are so directly tied into what I'm
seeing as his second period. To put it another way, how could he
have gone to make DS, which, though again it is a serious film in
a way, is a fairly lighthearted romp through the end of the
world, after something so angry and hurtful? I guess I simply
cannot see the totality of Kubrick's work as you do, as an
organic whole. The rift between the first five and the second
five feels to me far too harsh.
For me, I see basically the work of two different filmmakers in
his oeuvre (sp?). With 2001, I think that Kubrick said all that
he had to say. I love 2001, and think its one of the most
amazing things I've ever seen, but it's a film that really ought
to have been at the end of a career, not in the middle. I don't
see how Kubrick could have gone on after it. With ACO, Kubrick
is basically looking at a whole different set of themes, with an
entirely more advanced and interesting visual style, all of which
only grows in difference with BL, TS, FMJ and EWS.
FMD
intention
was specifically to AVOID arguments about whether his work is
Modernist or Postmodernist. I was interested in exploring the
limits of Imagism as a heuristic for SK's film aesthetic or, if
you like, poetics -- theme was a subsidiary issue. However,
given
that the discussion has gone in this direction, a few points on
what has been said.
Thus, the observation that nothing in Kubrick's work can be
construed as being *Absolute* is by no means evidence that it is
Postmodernist rather than Modernist, since the Modernists were
themselves attacking absolutes, including the idea of absolute
literary and moral standards (with, of course, lots of
development
over time and nuances from figure to figure). Similarly, the
idea
that reason in SK's work is presented as a "construction" or a
"projection" -- this too is a staple of Modernism and is central
to the achievements of Eliot, Joyce, Pound, Lewis, etc. And the
rejection of closure, of the organic literary or poetic form, is
probably *the* emblematic gesture of Modernism, as in Eliot's
"fragments shored against ruins" in The Waste Land, and Pound's
haiku-like Images. If Postmodernism is indeed about "opposing
the
concept of reason as the center of human experience," I would
estimate that it is about, oh, 130 years behind the times. Even
Derrida's "deconstruction" is a translation of Heidegger's
"Destruktion" or "Abbau," words for practices that go back to the
period of High Modernism.
The upshot of all this is that unless we can get very clear about
what Modernism really was and what if anything is distinctive
about Postmodernism, the game of classification is going to be
hard to play. On the other hand, if we drop the question of
nomenclature, we might get somewhere: for example to an
appreciation of techniques and themes in SK such as self-
deconstruction, Imagism, the twilight of reason, etc., etc.
FMD
stick with film, formalist cinema in general has a powerful
strand
of self-reflectivity, and formalism -- montage, expressionism,
surrealism -- is certainly "modern," at least so far as
chronology
goes. SK has always, it seems to me, been willing to exploit
both
realist and formalist techniques, but that just testifies to his
independence. (In some of his films, "realism" assumes an
interestingly "formalist" value, a drawing-attention-to its
attempt at transparency, a little like the positive use of
anachronism posited in Borges's "Louis Menard, Author of the
Quixote.") In any case, Postmodernism hasn't cornered the market
on self-reflecitivity.
David Culpepper
FMD wrote
> When I initiated this discussion of SK and Modernism, my
> intention
> was specifically to AVOID arguments about whether his work is
> Modernist or Postmodernist. I was interested in exploring the
> limits of Imagism as a heuristic for SK's film aesthetic or, if
> you like, poetics -- theme was a subsidiary issue. However,
> given
> that the discussion has gone in this direction, a few points on
> what has been said.
>
is Modernist or Post-Modernist. I'm not interested in bracing a binary
straightjacket on the man or his films. To do so would be getting trapped
in a dualism that I find absurd. I'm a Taoist at heart you see.
I'll have more time to flesh out my thoughts on deconstruction in Kubrick's
films later, but I can respond to a few points now.
> Thus, the observation that nothing in Kubrick's work can be
> construed as being *Absolute* is by no means evidence that it is
> Postmodernist rather than Modernist, since the Modernists were
> themselves attacking absolutes, including the idea of absolute
> literary and moral standards (with, of course, lots of
> development
> over time and nuances from figure to figure).
We really are talking about different things here aren't we? Modernism as a
social movement is somewhat different from Modernism as expressed in
architecture, literature and so on. In film the Modernist sensibility
probably originated in Eisenstein and carried on various filmmakers
including Huston and Ford through to early-mid Kurosawa. After that the
very notion of Modernism breaks down as a coherent movement. But again, and
really hoping I don't have to endlessly repeat this, my point is not to
place Kubrick in a "camp" one way or the other. I simply don't see the
practicality of an exercise like that. I'm asserting that Kubrick
deconstructs social issues in a thematic process. I assert that the lack
of absolute is deliberate and performed in a post-structuralist tone. To
classify Kubrick as "A POST-MODERNIST" or "A MODERNIST" is entirely
antithetical to a deconstuctive approach and I simply won't be lured into
the lableling game.
Similarly, the
> idea
> that reason in SK's work is presented as a "construction" or a
> "projection" -- this too is a staple of Modernism and is central
> to the achievements of Eliot, Joyce, Pound, Lewis, etc.
But not in the sense that the deconstructivists have developed the concept,
unless the aforementioned writers had some coherent precognition of semiotic
development.
If Postmodernism is indeed about "opposing
> the
> concept of reason as the center of human experience," I would
> estimate that it is about, oh, 130 years behind the times.
This is a basic post-structuralist tenet. Again, even the most cursory
investigation reveals that the approch of Derrida, Jameson etc, is swimming
in an entirely different context from that of previous approaches.
Even
> Derrida's "deconstruction" is a translation of Heidegger's
> "Destruktion" or "Abbau," words for practices that go back to the
> period of High Modernism.
>
Whew!!! You'll have to support this one.
> The upshot of all this is that unless we can get very clear about
> what Modernism really was and what if anything is distinctive
> about Postmodernism, the game of classification is going to be
> hard to play. On the other hand, if we drop the question of
> nomenclature, we might get somewhere: for example to an
> appreciation of techniques and themes in SK such as self-
> deconstruction, Imagism, the twilight of reason, etc., etc.
>
Well, I do think nomenclature has hmmmm significance. IOW, if I'm to assert
a deconstructivist element or approach in SK's films I expect to have to at
least provide some digressive proof or evidence. But I'm all in favor
"getting somewhere" and then getting somewhere after that...
Tobs
David Culpepper
Gordon Dahlquist wrote..
>
>
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2000, David Culpepper wrote:
>
> > The upshot of my assertion that Kubrick's films have more than a bit of
> > postmodern color to them is not to attempt to place SK in a "camp" of
> > artists. The exercise of slotting Kubrick into a set of artistic
> > categorizations, I'll leave to encyclopedists.
>
> distinguishing between kubrick's before and after aco (though I'm not
> quite ready to cede that aco and the works after it are post-modern, they
> are certainly more relfexive, more formally sophisticated, and more
> complicated as far as narrative is concerned).
Well Gordon, I guess you're going to ignore my statement that I'm not
attempting to place Kubrick's films in a "camp" IOW that I'm not attempting
to slap a giant plastic bag over the films and label them "POSTMODERN".
Identifying elements within a film is not the same as making a generalized
statement.
each of his films before
> this, from the killing to 2001, seems to very much utilize a "center" that
> the satire/dislocation/provocation of the individual film depends upon.
> while the films themselves may be occupied with how relative (or subject
> to whim) this center - a moral center, or a notion of "truth" - may be
> treated by the characters, the films themselves depend upon a stable
> notion of this center - as understood by the audience - to function. the
> satire of strangelove or lolita and the hypocrisy of paths of glory are
> meaningless without this assumption of a stable barometer to measure and
> make sense of their specific variations.
>
My only question at this point, tho I have doubts about the center of DS,
is - what is the barometer of 2001? Where is the center?
An aside, since when has deconstructivism excluded satire and parody as
means of expression? That is: where did the idea come from that
postmodern/post-structural approaches were somehow limited to pastiche?
This may be mostly true in a given trend in the fashion industry or even in
pop-art, but there's more to the story than that. When postmodern thought
eliminates the difference (differance') between high and low art, this does
not signify that only the low remains...
--snipping--
>
> but the simple fact that the films end in questions as opposed to answers
> doesn't imply "post-modernism" any more than does the end of ulysses -
> which gets to a "yes" every bit as (or, actually, a hell of a lot moreso)
> complicated (for a simple little word) as the "fuck" ending ews.
>
>
I find it difficult to answer a reponse to something I never asserted. I
mentioned conclusions and a lack therof, if you somehow misconstrued this as
meaning The End of a film or a novel, i can only say that --------- that's
not what I intended. I personally see conclusions being reached or not
reached throughout the course of most films. Unless of course they are
singular in their (de)construction.
> I'd be interested in hearing more about post-modernism >not< being
> anti-modern, because personally it does seem like part of the deal.
I do want to tackle this in a few days. Lyotard and Jameson both discuss it
in some detail. Derrida also touches on the topic. All I can say for now
is that I'll get back to you.
, but I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say kubrick's really a
> post-modern artist.
I wouldn't label him as such either. Which dosen't indicate that I don't
see postmodern threads in his work.
sort of like I wouldn't say godard is -
When asked what he thought about Godard, Derrida replied "I don't think
about him much at all, maybe I should." (sic)
. similarly, the self-awareness: is
> there a work more self-aware than ulysses? I can't really think of one,
> though it's also one of the himalayan peaks of modernist art.
Certainly self aware, but as I posted to FMD, is this in the same context?
Semiotics was hardly a going thing in Joyce's time and although Saussere's
work was around, I doubt that Jaysus ever heard of him. Don't know that it
would have mattered if he had. lol
In process
Tobasco
Thornhill
>probably originated in Eisenstein and carried on various
>filmmakers
>including Huston and Ford through to early-mid Kurosawa.
I have to speak up here for the unsung. Modernism in film did
not originate with Eisenstein. The Germans and French and
Italians originated it (unhappily, Eisenstein will probably
become the only easily recognizable "name" of the era of Soviet
filmmaking some 100 years hence, being synecdochalized like
Kurosawa is for Japanese filmmaking). The earlier
'establishers' of Modernist film largely came out of the
Dadaists, Surrealists, Futurists and Vorticists in the 'teens
and 'twenties. Let's de-metonymize with the names (at the
least) of Delluc, Kirsanov, Eggling, Richter, Dulac, L'Herbier,
Duchamp, Leger, Man Ray, and too many others to mention. Oh,
and USSR's Dziga Vertov, also among others, who were more
'experimentalist' than Eisenstein ever was.
How Ford and Huston find themselves on your list is beyond me.
However, there are several interesting things in your posts to
consider.
Thornhill
Kevin D. Thomas
Kevin
David Culpepper
> So I take it you find of lot of pomo-eroticism in EWS?
>
David Culpepper
Thornhill wrote:
-----snipped well written post-------
Well Eisenstein did BP in 1925. I left off a bazillion names and probably
inaccurately so in not cataloging the western Europeans, what about Murnau?
If someone were to hold a gun to my head - I'd even call Griffith a
Modernist, Conservative Modernism has been at least as important as the
avant garde IMO. Hence Ford and Huston.
Tobs
>
FMD
>
>We really are talking about different things here aren't we?
We are, my only point being that when I initiated the discussion
the question was about Modernism-with-a-capital M, a movement of
the early 20th century associated with Pound, Eliot, Joyce, etc.,
and specifically with the question of Imagism. Modernity, as the
birth of the modern world, is of course a different (related)
matter. Again, the question for me was whether elements of the
Modernist aesthetic (Imagism) were useful in getting at at least
part of what's going on in SK's work. On the other hand, when
people define Postmodernism by attributing to it characteristics
that are not unique to it, it's hard not to respond by pointing
out the anachronism. And that's all my posts were meant to do --
certainly not to classify SK one way or another.
>I'm asserting that Kubrick
>deconstructs social issues in a thematic process. I assert
that the lack
>of absolute is deliberate and performed in a post-structuralist
tone. To
>classify Kubrick as "A POST-MODERNIST" or "A MODERNIST" is
entirely
>antithetical to a deconstuctive approach and I simply won't be
lured into
>the lableling game.
I think I agree, though one then wants to know how the
deconstruction is performed, etc. Saying that SK is either a
Modernist or a Postmodernist, by the way, is also entirely
antithetical to a Hegelian approach, as well as to a systems
theory approach (Bateson), and so once again doesn't suceed in
isolating a unique postmodern characteristic.
>
>even the most cursory
>investigation reveals that the approch of Derrida, Jameson etc,
is swimming
>in an entirely different context from that of previous
approaches.
>
>
> Even
>> Derrida's "deconstruction" is a translation of Heidegger's
>> "Destruktion" or "Abbau," words for practices that go back to
the
>> period of High Modernism.
>>
>Whew!!! You'll have to support this one.
Well that is how Derrida justifies his introduction of the term,
as a translation / interpretation of Heidegger's usage and
practice in BEING AND TIME, a work that appears in roughly the
right period (see GRAMMATOLOGY). Derrida is quite insistent on
his links to the tradition. Jameson is a different matter,
because of his igiosyncratic Marxism and silly support of Maoism
-
waters far more stagnant than High Modernism, I'd say. So for
all
these reasons I see nothing very original in the postmodernists
--
but here I think we will just have to agree to disagree! -- and
get back to the discussion of Sk. I for one would love to read
something on deconstructive elements in his work, as I feel
intuitively that they are certainly there.
Wordsmith
"David Culpepper" <culpep...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> After stealing a few moments from an overly busy schedule the past
week, I
> find that I don't have a lot of conclusions to offer on the question
of:
> Kubrick:Modernist or POMOist? I keep coming back to the process of
> Kubrick's films and not easily reaching a conclusive statement.
Which is,
> for the most part, a POMO reading anyway.
> But I do want to offer someting on the issue, using the essay at the
> following link as a baseline for orientation.
> http://www.arthistory.sbc.edu/artartists/modpostmod.html
>
> It's accessable and while overly general for a detailed discussion,
offers
> worthwhile reference points.
>
of
> postmodern color to them is not to attempt to place SK in a "camp" of
> artists. The exercise of slotting Kubrick into a set of artistic
> categorizations, I'll leave to encyclopedists.
> anything that can be construed as being |Absolute|? Where do we find
> reason as being anything other than a constructed
filter/overlay/projection.
> Where do we find formalist modernism (or anything else for that
matter), to
> be taken as anything other than relativistic in the films? I don't
see it
> people!
POMO), as
> being rather like topology, asserting that there is no depth that is
not in
know. This
> is rather Zen-like in flavor:
> "Show me the inside of this box!."
> "No, that is the surface of the inside." ad infinitum...
interest
> in conclusion; closure is not what SK's films necessarily lead to.
SK's
> films refute reason as an |absolute| at almost every turn. I view
Kubrick's
> films as being deconstructive (of logocentrism), as much as anything
else.
> Kubrick has been accused of nihilsm much as the deconstructive
POMOists have
> been. Hardly the case. To use Derrida as an example again; laying
bare
> the concept of Reason as an ineffable "essence" is not intended to
remove
> the process from our psyche, but to in fact place it in proper
perspective.
> concept of reason as the center of human experience.
>
> HAL is the flower of the entire structure of logocentric thought.
> Turgidson and Strangelove are the very epitome of formal Modernism.
> The opposing political parties in ACO are stereotypes of moderist
political
> thought.
another
> post altogether.
>
> Again, the view of POMO as being >necessarily< anti-modern is largely
one
> purported by modernists largely in service of political ends. Kubrick
> certainly has some modern sensibilities but his POMO sensibilities are
> equally as strong.
> Kubrick's films are self-aware if nothing else, they are difficult to
> deconstruct because they deconstruct themselves.
>
> Tobasco
>
>
I can name an SK absolute, Dave. Paradox.
Wordsmith : )
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
FMD
David Culpepper
Wordsmith >
> I can name an SK absolute, Dave. Paradox.
>
not sure how absolute that is.
Got any Kubrick examples?
Tobs
David Culpepper
> "There are no absolutes" is another.
>
Damn I hate it when one provides a quote without an attribution.
Wordsmith
Sure. The ending shots of *2001*, *ACO* & *The Shining*. Creative
ambiguity at its best.
FMD
>> >
>> "There are no absolutes" is another.
>>
>
>Damn I hate it when one provides a quote without an attribution.
>
Gordon Dahlquist
On Sat, 17 Jun 2000, David Culpepper wrote:
> Gordon Dahlquist wrote..
> >
> > On Fri, 16 Jun 2000, David Culpepper wrote:
> >
> > > The upshot of my assertion that Kubrick's films have more than a bit of
> > > postmodern color to them is not to attempt to place SK in a "camp" of
> > > artists. The exercise of slotting Kubrick into a set of artistic
> > > categorizations, I'll leave to encyclopedists.
> >
> > I disagree, at least to the extent that I think kian's point is well made
> > distinguishing between kubrick's before and after aco (though I'm not
> > quite ready to cede that aco and the works after it are post-modern, they
> > are certainly more relfexive, more formally sophisticated, and more
> > complicated as far as narrative is concerned).
>
> Well Gordon, I guess you're going to ignore my statement that I'm not
> attempting to place Kubrick's films in a "camp" IOW that I'm not attempting
> to slap a giant plastic bag over the films and label them "POSTMODERN".
> Identifying elements within a film is not the same as making a generalized
> statement.
no, what I was responding to was your statement: "Where in Kubrick's work
do we find anything that can be construed as being |Absolute|? Where do we
find reason as being anything other than a constructed
filter/overlay/projection. Where do we find formalist modernism (or
anything else for that matter), to be taken as anything other than
relativistic in the films? I don't see it people!" - and my point is that
the films before 2001 do portray some coherent notion of authority (moral
or otherwise) that acts as a sounding board for the action/dialogue of the
film.
I am fully willing to see different strains within kubrick's work. in my
opinion though, modernist/post-modernist is really an accurate terminology
to break down those difference. I think kubrick's a fairly
straightforward modernist artist (not that I really care about it one way
or another) and the differences in his work - which I do care about - I
would characterize as a transition from brilliant younger artist to
brilliant sophisticated artist.
and also what I'm saying is that I wouldn't identify some of what you're
talking about as post-modernist - self-referentiality, for example - as
necessarily post-modernist (both joyce and beckett are rife with this,
just as they are routinely engaged with keeping the reader/viewer aware
that they are reading a novel or watching a play), at least a priori, and
specifically with kubrick. to my mind, kubrick's gestures of
self-reference have a lot more in common with brecht (I think he is
brecht's "natural" son to godard's non-crown prince) than with any
post-modern gesture of subverting authority.
> each of his films before
> > this, from the killing to 2001, seems to very much utilize a "center" that
> > the satire/dislocation/provocation of the individual film depends upon.
> > while the films themselves may be occupied with how relative (or subject
> > to whim) this center - a moral center, or a notion of "truth" - may be
> > treated by the characters, the films themselves depend upon a stable
> > notion of this center - as understood by the audience - to function. the
> > satire of strangelove or lolita and the hypocrisy of paths of glory are
> > meaningless without this assumption of a stable barometer to measure and
> > make sense of their specific variations.
> >
> My only question at this point, tho I have doubts about the center of DS,
> is - what is the barometer of 2001? Where is the center?
my immediate answer is the whole notion of the monolith, as it's the
immediate thematic backdrop to the rest of the film's action. equally,
for all that we don't know in 2001 - and for all that we see the
characters unable to comprehends what's happening to them, we do
understand, via the monolith, that explanations to exist (we just don't
know them, or know them yet). however much you want to take the monolith
as a metaphor - which seems perfectly valid to me - the metaphor still
functions as a constant behind the action.
> An aside, since when has deconstructivism excluded satire and parody as
> means of expression? That is: where did the idea come from that
> postmodern/post-structural approaches were somehow limited to pastiche?
> This may be mostly true in a given trend in the fashion industry or even in
> pop-art, but there's more to the story than that. When postmodern thought
> eliminates the difference (differance') between high and low art, this does
> not signify that only the low remains...
I don't think it does, but satire and parody work in different ways, both
to empty the original of meaning, or to add to it. something like ulysses
combines high and low culture in a very bold way, but with the overarching
goal to find the great themes of high culture resonant in low, and
resonant in "everyday" life. in many ways it is a parody of the odyssey,
but one that redefines the object of parody in a way that expands its
meaning (not to say that joyce improves on homer, but that he tries -
seriously - to reinvent it in a comic mode). I think that strangelove
does a similar thing - on a smaller level, obviously - but there is an
underlying desire to seriously reconfigure the whole notion of cold war
paranoia, to expand it, in a rather radical fashion.
on the other hand, something like donald barthelmes' dead father or
coover's spanking the maid - short parodic books, both of which I enjoy -
both have an on-going strategy that exhausts the works/themes they're
referring to, burning them up for fuel as it were. they're books that
work, and are serious, and I'm using them as examples instead of something
like, I don't know, something trashy but fun like mark leyner's et tu,
babe, which is a hoot, but thin - and thin not because it's poorly written
or silly - it's well written, clever and smart - but the cultural
territory engaged, what of value that's really at risk in the comedy, ends
up being so minor. with coover or barthelmes, the territory is larger,
and worthwhile, but this seems to be not because of the relatively
degraded "subject matter" as the writer's skill at reimagining it.
> > but the simple fact that the films end in questions as opposed to answers
> > doesn't imply "post-modernism" any more than does the end of ulysses -
> > which gets to a "yes" every bit as (or, actually, a hell of a lot moreso)
> > complicated (for a simple little word) as the "fuck" ending ews.
> >
> >
> I find it difficult to answer a reponse to something I never asserted. I
> mentioned conclusions and a lack therof, if you somehow misconstrued this as
> meaning The End of a film or a novel, i can only say that --------- that's
> not what I intended. I personally see conclusions being reached or not
> reached throughout the course of most films. Unless of course they are
> singular in their (de)construction.
what I was trying to answer was this: you seemed to categorize different
elements in a number of films as demonstrating modernist points of view,
and that the films, by showing these views in a larger non-exclusive
context, demonstrated a post-modern sensibility. that's all. if you
weren't implying this, then, yes, I simply misread you.
> > I'd be interested in hearing more about post-modernism >not< being
> > anti-modern, because personally it does seem like part of the deal.
>
> I do want to tackle this in a few days. Lyotard and Jameson both discuss it
> in some detail. Derrida also touches on the topic. All I can say for now
> is that I'll get back to you.
I'd be curious to hear more. obviously, I'm sceptical about it, but it
certainly interests me.
> . similarly, the self-awareness: is
> > there a work more self-aware than ulysses? I can't really think of one,
> > though it's also one of the himalayan peaks of modernist art.
>
> Certainly self aware, but as I posted to FMD, is this in the same context?
> Semiotics was hardly a going thing in Joyce's time and although Saussere's
> work was around, I doubt that Jaysus ever heard of him. Don't know that it
> would have mattered if he had. lol
as I say above, I do think different strategies of self-reference exist,
and that much has to do with the context of intention that surrounds them.
equally, a greater artist "naturally" makes what they do work in a way
that usually redefines it to some degree ... and lesser artists fall back
on external guides or a manifesto (of some form ...).
and which is of course the larger point - theorists and artists work in
profoundly different spheres with the same material. usually conscious
attempts on either part to cross boundaries ends up embarrassing all
involved. art doesn't respect proofs, philosophy doesn't trade on
contradiction ... not to say derrida doesn't fill in some of this ground.
Gordon Dahlquist
On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, Gordon Dahlquist wrote:
> - and my point is that the films before 2001 do portray some coherent
> notion of authority (moral or otherwise) that acts as a sounding board
> for the action/dialogue of the film.
in looking this over, "portray" is totally the wrong word, to the degree
that my point is completely unclear: it's not like this "authority" is
personified by anything specific within the film. I should have said
"convey" or "imply" or "contain".
Gordon Dahlquist
On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, Gordon Dahlquist wrote:
> I am fully willing to see different strains within kubrick's work. in my
> opinion though, modernist/post-modernist is really an accurate terminology
> to break down those difference.
jesus fucking christ. I have to stop doing this at work. what I meant to
say was that m/p-m is really >not< an accurate terminology ...
speaking of deconstruction ...
FMD
happened to this friend of mine....
Book That Challenges Office Hierarchies Costs the Author His
Day Job
By JEFF SHARLET
Jeff Schmidt says his employers at Physics Today disliked his
new book, Disciplined Minds: A Critical Look at Salaried
Professionals and the Soul-Battering System That Shapes Their
Lives, so much that they decided to discipline him. In fact,
they fired him.
Mr. Schmidt believes the trouble began after his boss, Stephen
G. Benka, caught a co-worker reading an item about the book in
The Chronicle. "She was laughing out loud when my boss came
along and asked, `What's so funny?'" says Mr. Schmidt.
Apparently, Mr. Benka was not amused by Mr. Schmidt's
statement, quoted from the book, that he'd written Disciplined
Minds (Rowman & Littlefield) partly on time stolen from work.
"He read it right there, but he didn't laugh," says Mr.
Schmidt.
On Wednesday, Mr. Benka asked him to join the publisher,
Randolph A. Nanna, for a trip to the human-resources
department. There a human-resources professional told him that
he was being "terminated with cause" after 19 years at the
magazine, during which Mr. Schmidt says he'd consistently
received above-average or satisfactory evaluations. Then he
was escorted out of the building without being allowed to
return to his office.
Neither Mr. Nanna nor Mr. Benka would comment. Theresa C.
Braun, director of human resources for the nonprofit American
Institute of Physics, which publishes the magazine, said only
that Mr. Schmidt "was not terminated because of the
[Chronicle] article, nor because of the general content of the
book."
Mr. Schmidt, who earned a Ph.D. in physics from the University
of California at Irvine, says they told him that the very
existence of the book was evidence that he wasn't "fully
engaged" at Physics Today.
In fact, Mr. Schmidt's book argues that it is impossible to be
"fully engaged" in a hierarchical institution, an argument
that would hardly strike most people as new or shocking. The
strength of the book, according to its supporters, lies in its
humor and its detailed examination of the particularities of
professional life.
"A witty, incisive, original analysis of the politics of
professionalism," wrote Michael Berube, an English professor
at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, in a jacket
blurb. "Finally, a book that tells it like it is," wrote
Stanley Aronowitz, a sociologist at the City University of New
York.
Or now, for Mr. Schmidt, how it was.
David Culpepper
Gordon Dahlquist wrote :>
>
> specifically with kubrick. to my mind, kubrick's gestures of
> self-reference have a lot more in common with brecht (I think he is
> brecht's "natural" son to godard's non-crown prince) than with any
> post-modern gesture of subverting authority.
>
Not sure what you're driving at with "pomo gesture of subverting
authority" - i imagine the key to that would be "gesture" - would that be
opposed to something "other" than gesture in modernism? I'm only guessing
that we're in agreement that all art is somehow subversive. Kubrick more so
than most.
> my immediate answer is the whole notion of the monolith, as it's the
> immediate thematic backdrop to the rest of the film's action. equally,
> for all that we don't know in 2001 - and for all that we see the
> characters unable to comprehends what's happening to them, we do
> understand, via the monolith, that explanations to exist (we just don't
> know them, or know them yet). however much you want to take the monolith
> as a metaphor - which seems perfectly valid to me - the metaphor still
> functions as a constant behind the action.
>
Let's discuss the monolith: What can be said? 1X4X9 - 36 units of volume in
3D space. IOW it is limited. It has boundaries, or so it appears. One
might consider it a black-body. Smooth. Dark. In the four encounters,
it is compellingly attractive. All reach out to the monolith at each
encounter. In three of the four instances, to specifically achieve tactile
contact - the other may in fact be entirely unconscious - Dave leaves
Discovery - we have no information regarding whether or not he is aware of
the Monolith's presence in Jupiter space- but nevertheless he does venture
out toward the entity. In the triangle Kubrick creates:
Moonwatcher/Floyd/Dave- Monolith- the viewer, it appears to have a
teleological portent - but that future/destiny remains a matter of
probability.
Is the Monolith a symbol? An index? An icon? That is: does it stand in
place of something else? Does it point to something? Is it representative
of another thing altogether?
The monolith may be taken as symbol of an even higher process, the
explanations by Clarke and even Kubrick aside, a symbol would be necessary
for a terrestrially limited mind in encountering a universal event. It has
portent (possibly teleological), in that it points to possibilities,
literally so in "pointing to" Jupiter. Whatever metaphor one wishes to
overlay on it, it does appear to lead man on to wider, deeper development.
Which in turn leads to representational meaning - what is it about the
Monolith that is so enticing? Is it catalyzing a dormant "God" or
"Self"Archetype in the human unconscious? What does Moonwatcher/Floyd/Dave
recognize in the featureless symmetry?
While the Monolith has an (apparently), concrete presence, it's meaning
(significance), is that of an expression (or semiologic sign). Regardless
of the enigmatic connotation, or even self-similar iteration - It is part of
a broader system and as such cannot be considered absolute.
I think that strangelove
> does a similar thing - on a smaller level, obviously - but there is an
> underlying desire to seriously reconfigure the whole notion of cold war
> paranoia, to expand it, in a rather radical fashion.
>
> on the other hand, something like donald barthelmes' dead father or
> coover's spanking the maid - short parodic books, both of which I enjoy -
> both have an on-going strategy that exhausts the works/themes they're
> referring to, burning them up for fuel as it were. they're books that
> work, and are serious, and I'm using them as examples instead of something
> like, I don't know, something trashy but fun like mark leyner's et tu,
> babe, which is a hoot, but thin - and thin not because it's poorly written
> or silly - it's well written, clever and smart - but the cultural
> territory engaged, what of value that's really at risk in the comedy, ends
> up being so minor. with coover or barthelmes, the territory is larger,
> and worthwhile, but this seems to be not because of the relatively
> degraded "subject matter" as the writer's skill at reimagining it.
>
I haven't read Eco in awhile, but as I recall he would be an exception to
this. John Barth? I keep coming back to Pynchon. I'm actually tired of
the modern - post modern duality pigeonholing. I (along with) several
thousands of my betters consider these authors post-modernists (along with
Derrida and McLuhan). In service of utility, I'll continue to consider them
so. Again - post-modern does not equal anti-modern. FMD stated that
Derrida was simply "translating Heidegger - a bit amusing (sorry FMD),
Derrida draws extensively on Dasein concept (I don't have a strikeout key at
the handy). But it's a spring board. Derrida uses (modified) Heideggerian
tools in deconstructing - i fail to see how this is a "translation" or a
refutation. Eco is a huge Joyceian. I really don't know where this idea of
post-modern being necessarily anti-modern comes from. Derrida claims that
PoMism is profoundly historical while refuting historicist postulations; he
(and others), assert that formal modernism became profoundly historicist in
the 40's and 50's. In this sense PoMo would be at odds with modernism. But
I don't see a lot of babies being thrown out with the bathwater - even tho
there might be an awful lot of tubwater for such a small child.
> and which is of course the larger point - theorists and artists work in
> profoundly different spheres with the same material. usually conscious
> attempts on either part to cross boundaries ends up embarrassing all
> involved. art doesn't respect proofs, philosophy doesn't trade on
> contradiction ... not to say derrida doesn't fill in some of this ground.
Agreed, in most instances. However Kubrick takes a rather different
approach to art, dosen't he? While certainly no academic, his voracious
intellectual appetite certainly led him to more than a few theoretical
patterns/non-patterns.
Tobs
>
>
>
>