Kubrick Tribute Newsnight
Sue Myatt
Newsnight on BBC2. They are promising rare footage of Kubrick working
with Jack Nicholson on The Shining, obviously from the making of the
Shining documentary (I've never seen it so take it to be rare)
This is my first post since his death and I've got to offer my
condolences and say how generally negative obituaries have been in this
country bar a piece in the Telegraph. Its all the Baxter line, a great
technician, a perfectionist and a meglamaniac but not a humanist - a
paranoid pessimist with a grand vision.
I've got to say its a lot of bullshit. There is a coldness in his film
but that is the detachment of observation. That is the space filled by
the thinking viewer and it is the intellectual act that Kubrick's
privileges (gives the viewer equity) rather than some emotional anchor
as is the norm with popular film.
As for the British ACO debate - yes I think he was wrong to deny now
this film in this country, a film so tightly sown to the post-sixties
culture of this country. Alright its message is universal but its
particular setting and concern certainly play to the conflicts in 70's
Britain and as such is part of the fabric of our cultural identity or
memory. Why deny us a key artistic work in his canon and be forced to
watch dodgy laser copies, distorted Secams or endure trips to rickerty
Parisian cinemas. Kubrick should never acceded to the mores of the
luddite tabloid press. Like all great art, we must be given the gift.
Sorry rambling - still I'd like to see concerted ACO British release
discussion continue in this group.
Thank you for your work Stanley, I hope the EWS we see is as much your
as was possible
--
Sue Myatt
Michael Brooke
> This is my first post since his death and I've got to offer my
> condolences and say how generally negative obituaries have been in this
> country bar a piece in the Telegraph. Its all the Baxter line, a great
> technician, a perfectionist and a meglamaniac but not a humanist - a
> paranoid pessimist with a grand vision.
I doubt anyone would seriously deny the "great technician",
"perfectionist" or "grand vision" charges, and I've yet to see anyone
argue convincingly that Kubrick *wasn't* a paranoid pessimist - just
about every single one of his films puts that case forwards with
admirable clarity.
I've always found it rather ironic that for a director who famously
believed in giving himself as many choices as possible, and who made a
film which argued that man's right to choose is what makes him a man ('A
Clockwork Orange'), the overwhelming majority of characters in Kubrick
films have *no* choice: their actions are dictated by insanity ('Dr
Strangelove'), supernatural forces ('2001', 'The Shining'), military and
social systems ('Paths of Glory', 'Barry Lyndon', 'Full Metal Jacket')
and indeed baser impulses ('Lolita'), and they ultimately bear no direct
responsibility for their own actions.
And of course the one major Kubrick protagonist who *does* have a choice
(Alex) chooses to deny other people a choice. So how is that not
pessimistic?
> I've got to say its a lot of bullshit. There is a coldness in his film
> but that is the detachment of observation. That is the space filled by
> the thinking viewer and it is the intellectual act that Kubrick's
> privileges (gives the viewer equity) rather than some emotional anchor
> as is the norm with popular film.
But not just popular film. The problem I have with Kubrick is that
while I find his films to be viscerally exciting, intellectually
stimulating and visually overwhelming, the coldness at the heart of
nearly all of them means that I simply can't love them in the way that I
love, say, the films of Jean Renoir (who is anything but a populist who
believes in "emotional anchors").
I certainly *admire* his work, but I've never shared this rampant
obsession that seems to dominate this newsgroup.
> As for the British ACO debate - yes I think he was wrong to deny now
> this film in this country, a film so tightly sown to the post-sixties
> culture of this country. Alright its message is universal but its
> particular setting and concern certainly play to the conflicts in 70's
> Britain and as such is part of the fabric of our cultural identity or
> memory. Why deny us a key artistic work in his canon and be forced to
> watch dodgy laser copies, distorted Secams or endure trips to rickerty
> Parisian cinemas. Kubrick should never acceded to the mores of the
> luddite tabloid press. Like all great art, we must be given the gift.
>
> Sorry rambling - still I'd like to see concerted ACO British release
> discussion continue in this group.
The situation as I see it is that it depends on who currently owns the
UK rights - in other words, who takes them over now that Kubrick has
died. If it's his estate, I imagine the ban will continue indefinitely.
If, on the other hand, it's Warner Bros, I imagine they won't be able to
reissue the film fast enough.
Michael
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAN SVANKMAJER - ALCHEMIST OF THE SURREAL
http://www.illumin.co.uk/svank
a lavish tribute to the cinema's wildest imagination
----------------------------------------------------------------
PJannell
<<<I've always found it rather ironic that for a director who famously
believed in giving himself as many choices as possible, and who made a
film which argued that man's right to choose is what makes him a man ('A
Clockwork Orange'), the overwhelming majority of characters in Kubrick
films have *no* choice: their actions are dictated by insanity ('Dr
Strangelove'), supernatural forces ('2001', 'The Shining'), military and
social systems ('Paths of Glory', 'Barry Lyndon', 'Full Metal Jacket')
and indeed baser impulses ('Lolita'), and they ultimately bear no direct
responsibility for their own actions.>>>
I have to disagree. If there is any one theme running through Kubricks films
it's that human beings are their own worse enemy. Kubrick's characters are not
done in by God, fate, natural disaster or forces beyond their control. They are
in control, but their grandiose plans and schemes contain the seeds of their
own destruction. It is "a world of shit", but it is a world of our own making.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
"I'd give my god damn soul for a glass of beer."
-Jack Nicholson, The Shining
Gordon Dahlquist
On Tue, 9 Mar 1999, Michael Brooke wrote:
> I've always found it rather ironic that for a director who famously
> believed in giving himself as many choices as possible, and who made a
> film which argued that man's right to choose is what makes him a man ('A
> Clockwork Orange'), the overwhelming majority of characters in Kubrick
> films have *no* choice: their actions are dictated by insanity ('Dr
> Strangelove'), supernatural forces ('2001', 'The Shining'), military and
> social systems ('Paths of Glory', 'Barry Lyndon', 'Full Metal Jacket')
> and indeed baser impulses ('Lolita'), and they ultimately bear no direct
> responsibility for their own actions.
I think we've kicked this around at other times, but this strikes me as a
fundamental misreading of his work. even granting the conventions of
genre in 2001 and the shining, it seems very very clear to me that choice
is what the protagonists in kubrick's films are all about - how personal
choices create a society, how advantage is rationalized by "pragmatism",
how weakness and fear spark aggression. In my opinion your notion of
pre-determination seriously skews the moral questions posed by his work
(which does, it seems to me - and, again, granting his parallel interest
in genre and "storytelling satisfaction" - very much take place within an
ethical, moral vision). do you think he's saying militry and social
systems come out of thin air? do you really think that the (tragically)
comic nature of ripper's sexual disfunction sparking nuclear devastation
isn't the perfectly >logical< outgrowth of the cold war?
If there's bleakness in the worlds of kubrick's films, there's an optimism
in our being able to see that bleakness in context (and a context of
choice) - something that strikes me as very deliberate on kubrick's part
(I'd link him to brecht in this). He may have had some pretty high
standards and an unflinching view of human behavior, but I hardly think
cynic is the right word for a man with such an expansive, understanding -
and yes, even compassionate - view of humanity.
Michael Brooke
>
> I think we've kicked this around at other times, but this strikes me as a
> fundamental misreading of his work. even granting the conventions of
> genre in 2001 and the shining, it seems very very clear to me that choice
> is what the protagonists in kubrick's films are all about - how personal
> choices create a society, how advantage is rationalized by "pragmatism",
> how weakness and fear spark aggression. In my opinion your notion of
> pre-determination seriously skews the moral questions posed by his work
> (which does, it seems to me - and, again, granting his parallel interest
> in genre and "storytelling satisfaction" - very much take place within an
> ethical, moral vision). do you think he's saying militry and social
> systems come out of thin air?
No, but the fact remains that most of the protagonists of his films are
trapped inside such a system - which is usually devised by someone else
- and are powerless to do much about it except try to play by the rules,
whatever those rules may be, because challenging those rules invariably
makes the situation worse.
> do you really think that the (tragically)
> comic nature of ripper's sexual disfunction sparking nuclear devastation
> isn't the perfectly >logical< outgrowth of the cold war?
Absolutely, but this doesn't contradict what I was saying. In fact, it
arguably supports and amplifies my basic point!
> If there's bleakness in the worlds of kubrick's films, there's an optimism
> in our being able to see that bleakness in context (and a context of
> choice) - something that strikes me as very deliberate on kubrick's part
> (I'd link him to brecht in this). He may have had some pretty high
> standards and an unflinching view of human behavior, but I hardly think
> cynic is the right word for a man with such an expansive, understanding -
> and yes, even compassionate - view of humanity.
I didn't actually use the word "cynic" - I was merely answering charges
that he was a paranoid pessimist. And while I appreciate your attempts
to disprove this, I don't really think you have done when set against
the context of the films themselves.
Michael Brooke
> michael wrote:
>
> <<<I've always found it rather ironic that for a director who famously
> believed in giving himself as many choices as possible, and who made a
> film which argued that man's right to choose is what makes him a man ('A
> Clockwork Orange'), the overwhelming majority of characters in Kubrick
> films have *no* choice: their actions are dictated by insanity ('Dr
> Strangelove'), supernatural forces ('2001', 'The Shining'), military and
> social systems ('Paths of Glory', 'Barry Lyndon', 'Full Metal Jacket')
> and indeed baser impulses ('Lolita'), and they ultimately bear no direct
> responsibility for their own actions.>>>
>
>
> I have to disagree. If there is any one theme running through Kubricks films
> it's that human beings are their own worse enemy. Kubrick's characters are not
> done in by God, fate, natural disaster or forces beyond their control. They
> are in control, but their grandiose plans and schemes contain the seeds of
> their own destruction. It is "a world of shit", but it is a world of our own
> making.
I think you're reading rather too much into the films - because none of
them describe the *creation* of a particular world or society, they
merely show what can go wrong after such a world/society has been
established, usually from the point of view of people who have to put up
with rules created and dictated by others.
OK, there's certainly an element of choice regarding rules set by
off-screen protagonists at some undefined time before the films' action
takes place, but *within* the films it seems to me that there's a
certain inevitability about virtually everything that happens,
regardless of the actions of the protagonist in question.
'The Shining' is a very good case in point. While at the early stages
Kubrick takes pains to establish potential reasons for Jack's behaviour
based on personal choices that he's made in the past, the remainder of
the film hints very strongly that none of Jack's choices were in fact
his own - they were all dictated by higher forces (explicitly
supernatural ones in this particular case). And the final shot of the
film makes this point even more explicit.
Rod Munday
> I've always found it rather ironic that for a director who famously
> believed in giving himself as many choices as possible, and who made a
> film which argued that man's right to choose is what makes him a man ('A
> Clockwork Orange'), the overwhelming majority of characters in Kubrick
> films have *no* choice: their actions are dictated by insanity ('Dr
> Strangelove'), supernatural forces ('2001', 'The Shining'), military and
> social systems ('Paths of Glory', 'Barry Lyndon', 'Full Metal Jacket')
> and indeed baser impulses ('Lolita'), and they ultimately bear no direct
> responsibility for their own actions.
>
The answer to you question, it is we - the audience of Kubrick's films -
that have the free will and the power to choose that is conspicuously
lacking in his characters, and that is surely the point of Kubrick
showing us instances where power and freedom can be lost or eroded.
There are strong similarities Between Kubrick’s and Brecht's work in
this respect, both employ the technique of "Verfremdungseffekt"
(alienation effect). Both wanted to elicit their audiences into
thinking about what they were seeing, so that they can analyse
themselves reacting to events on screen, rather than just being carried
away by the spectacle.
IMO all of Kubrick’s films were very personal, made as challenges to
himself as well as his peers, attacking the all pervading complacency
and forgetfulness of the modern world. That he did not patronise his
audience meant that, inevitably, many people were alienated. But I see
his films ultimately as honest, compassionate and unflinching in their
depiction of the human condition.
Regards Rod Munday
Gordon Dahlquist
On Tue, 9 Mar 1999, Michael Brooke wrote:
> Gordon Dahlquist <gd...@columbia.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> > I think we've kicked this around at other times, but this strikes me as a
> > fundamental misreading of his work. even granting the conventions of
> > genre in 2001 and the shining, it seems very very clear to me that choice
> > is what the protagonists in kubrick's films are all about - how personal
> > choices create a society, how advantage is rationalized by "pragmatism",
> > how weakness and fear spark aggression. In my opinion your notion of
> > pre-determination seriously skews the moral questions posed by his work
> > (which does, it seems to me - and, again, granting his parallel interest
> > in genre and "storytelling satisfaction" - very much take place within an
> > ethical, moral vision). do you think he's saying militry and social
> > systems come out of thin air?
>
> No, but the fact remains that most of the protagonists of his films are
> trapped inside such a system - which is usually devised by someone else
> - and are powerless to do much about it except try to play by the rules,
> whatever those rules may be, because challenging those rules invariably
> makes the situation worse.
But I would say that each of his films goes to some lengths to show how
these rules are the result of self-interest and choice. I would also very
much disagree that his protagonists are powerless to make choices.
Certainly the films ripple with irony at these characters' attempts to
force choices (usually made out of self-interest or avoidance), but -
again, granting the different circumstances of each film - it seems that
again and again we see them clearly making choices "as if there were no
option" - but when we're talking about people like humbert humbert,
jack torrance, redmond barry, ripper, alex or even johnny clay - do we
really believe them?
> > do you really think that the (tragically)
> > comic nature of ripper's sexual disfunction sparking nuclear devastation
> > isn't the perfectly >logical< outgrowth of the cold war?
>
> Absolutely, but this doesn't contradict what I was saying. In fact, it
> arguably supports and amplifies my basic point!
My sentence isn't exactly clear - when I say logical, I really mean logic
as determined by consistent examples of comically unexamined pathology ...
perhaps a better example that ripper, or the example that puts ripper's
personal "tragedy" in context is the very end of the film, when we know
the doomsday device has been set off and it's only a matter of time, where
we see the men in the war room glaze over with lust at the prospect of
"sacrificing" the traditional family unit ... as I say, this is a (very
funny, very ironic) choice.
I think this is also something that becomes more the focus with the later
films - barry lyndon, the shining, and fmj all focus on men collaborating
with a system that eats them alive, and rationalizing it out of their
desperate need to assuage "fear and desire". in each film though, we're
presented with alternatives. one can only speculate about ews in this
regard, given the source novel, but it seems pretty consistent ... again,
if these men are trapped from the beginning, not only is the world without
hope, the drama's airless as a dead balloon.
> > If there's bleakness in the worlds of kubrick's films, there's an optimism
> > in our being able to see that bleakness in context (and a context of
> > choice) - something that strikes me as very deliberate on kubrick's part
> > (I'd link him to brecht in this). He may have had some pretty high
> > standards and an unflinching view of human behavior, but I hardly think
> > cynic is the right word for a man with such an expansive, understanding -
> > and yes, even compassionate - view of humanity.
>
> I didn't actually use the word "cynic" - I was merely answering charges
> that he was a paranoid pessimist. And while I appreciate your attempts
> to disprove this, I don't really think you have done when set against
> the context of the films themselves.
well, it's a matter of context. people talk as if the man was another
john calvin, presenting visions of predestined damnnation. obviously he
pursued dark material, and extreme situations - but at the same time, in
each of these situations, he's also found courage, self-less action, and -
even - love. I'm not saying that's all, or even the foremost, of what he
found - the films are not homilies, there is no simple goodness to answer
the vortex. but I do hold onto the comparison with brecht with kubrick,
that there's an implicit (and sometimes explicit) sounding board to each
film that has more to do with finding optimism for humanity than with
"fulfulling" it within the stories, but that this doesn't mean it isn't a
very intentional part of his esthetic.