Separated at Birth? 2001 and...
David Kirkpatrick
Last year I rented Un Chien Andalou on a tape that included the ~25
minute film with 2 different soundtracks. One, Bunuel's original
"needle-drop" soundtrack alternating between a tango and Wagner's
Tristan and Isolde. The other, a score composed by avant-garde composer
Mauricio Kagel with strings and dog noises.
I'm not sure why, but recently it occurred to me that it would be
interesting to view 2001 immediately following one of these versions and
immediately preceding the other. Whereas 2001 ends with a sparkling
left eye of the Starchild and begins with a desert panorama, Un Chien
begins with the slicing of a left eye (and a reference to the moon) and
ends with a man and woman sprouting from a beach. Together the two
films form a kind of cycle, 2001 with left-hemisphere dominant and Un
Chien with right-hemisphere gone amok. But the spirit of surrealism
lurks in the 2001 background, as the spirit of cold-blooded Freudian
analysis lies in the loins of Un Chien. Also there is a parallel
between the use of Richard Strauss in 2001 and Wagner in Un Chien and
between Kubrick's use of a waltz and Bunuel's use of a tango.
Both films are extremely visual and non-verbal in their orientation and
are explicitly designed to act on the unconscious at least as much as on
the conscious. Un Chien Andalou is loaded with overt sexual metaphors
and literal sexuality, whereas 2001 is arguably equally loaded with more
covert sexual metaphors. One might say that both films take an
inordinate interest in "docking".
One interesting contrast: many of the most arresting images in 2001 are
inspired by the condition of weightlessness, whereas the most arresting
image in Un Chien is arguably the scene of the man trying to approach a
woman while being weighted down by a piano, two priests and a donkey or
two. It might be a viable interpretation that 2001 is about
evolutionary rising and how it entails a fall and that Bunuel's film is
about a fall (original sin, perhaps) that culminates in a kind of
rebirth (creativity arising pheonix-like from the ashes of perversion,
perhaps). 2001 was once put down as a "shaggy god" story; Bunuel's film
is perhaps a shaggy dog story pushed to its limit, as if it were a trip
off the moon instead of a trip to the moon. Both filmmakers manage to
keep a straight face while telling something of a cosmic joke. Bunuel's
is expressed as microcosmic; Kubrick's as macrocosmic; but through
metaphor, this gap vanishes.
David Kirkpatrick
M4RV1N
><3A5B7DF6...@home.com>
writes:
> Separated at Birth? 2001 and...
>Luis Bunuel's Un Chien Andalou
My first reaction to this was slightly negative, but on thinking about it a
little more it becomes a very intriguing comparison. The biggest difference is
that the goal of surrealism strictly speaking, is to demolish syntagmatic
structure as an aesthetic methodology. "2001" subverts convention in mimicing
pure surrealism, but style is still subserviant to substance.
Both of these films were met with a similar reaction upon their release (40
years apart). Many people stormed out during the first screening of each.
Both films assaulted conventions of the art form and its expected subject
matter. But "Un Chien" was rejected by art-cinema sophisticates while "2001"
was rejected by the usual Hollywood movie premiere crowd.
>Last year I rented Un Chien Andalou on a tape that included the ~25
>minute film with 2 different soundtracks. One, Bunuel's original
>"needle-drop" soundtrack alternating between a tango and Wagner's
>Tristan and Isolde. The other, a
>score composed by avant-garde composer
>Mauricio Kagel with strings and dog noises.
I did not know about the latter version. With the oddness of the visuals, I
would think the original soundtrack would be more complimentary as a kind of
"reality anchor."
>I'm not sure why, but recently it occurred to me that it would be
>interesting to view 2001 immediately following one of these versions and
>immediately preceding the other. Whereas 2001 ends with a sparkling
>left eye of the Starchild and begins with a desert panorama, Un Chien
>begins with the slicing of a left eye (and a reference to the moon) and
Strictly speaking though, "2001" begins with the conjunction of moon, earth,
sun, as a metaphysical image, i.e., the perspective shown is not possible from
any conventional kind of eye. It's a conjunction of the mind. Which, as it
happens is what all of "Un Chien" is. The editing connections (bone-orbiting
weapon platform; man locked out of woman's room is suddenly in her room) these
directors use make mental associations--like the conjuntions do.
> Together the two
>films form a kind of cycle, 2001 with left-hemisphere dominant and Un
>Chien with right-hemisphere gone amok.
That's a very intriguing comparison. "2001" has a narrative foundation for
its surrealism, making it a kind of "surface surrealism." Many people at the
time willingly assumed it was only post modern avante guard emptiness; the same
provocation to walk out as in 1928.
> But the spirit of surrealism
>lurks in the 2001 background, as the spirit of cold-blooded Freudian
>analysis lies in the loins of Un Chien.
And what unites them is an attack on provincialism. A primary point of "2001"
is the total inability to see what's wrong with the posturing tribalism of
mankind, which results in a circular meaningless to existence. "Un Chien"
attacks the provincial bourgeois religious repression of society. In both
films we see people stuck with absurd societal baggage, whether it's water hole
posturing, or dragging a piano, donkeys and clerics around.
> Also there is a parallel
>between the use of Richard Strauss in 2001 and Wagner in Un Chien and
>between Kubrick's use of a waltz and Bunuel's use of a tango.
That really is intriguing as a point of comparison. Both uses of music are
counterpoint of beauty and human failure.
>Both films are extremely visual and non-verbal in their orientation and
>are explicitly designed to act on the unconscious at least as much as on
>the conscious. Un Chien Andalou is loaded with overt sexual metaphors
>and literal sexuality, whereas 2001 is arguably equally loaded with more
>covert sexual metaphors. One might say that both films take an
>inordinate interest in "docking"
Well birth and death images abound in both films. The mechanical copulations
in "2001" have more of an almost cellular reproductive imagery. The shuttle
entering the space station has a definite sperm/ovum imagery, and of course
many analysts have written about the sperm imagery of the discovery. The ovum
like sphere of the Discovery gives birth to the pod, which violently gives
birth to Dave. There are many more such images.
In "Un Chien" much of the sexual imagery is of repression connected to
violence. Of course it's a long time theme of Bunuel's work.
>One interesting contrast: many of the most arresting images in 2001 are
>inspired by the condition of weightlessness, whereas the most arresting
>image in Un Chien is arguably the scene of the man trying to approach a
>woman while being weighted down
>woman while being weighted down by a piano, two priests and a donkey or
>two. It might be a viable interpretation that 2001 is about
>evolutionary rising and how it entails a fall and that Bunuel's film is
>about a fall (original sin, perhaps) that culminates in a kind of
>rebirth (creativity arising
>pheonix-like from the ashes of perversion,
>perhaps).
Well I think Bunuel, Dali and Larker (? was that the poet and third
collaborator's name?) wanted to outrage repressed, self-satisfied, and
religiously straitjacketed society with their images. In "2001" SK and ACC
wanted to open up the closed minds of the same sort of short-sighted people.
The two goals have some common ground and common "sacred cows" to slaughter in
a sense.
> 2001 was once put down as a "shaggy god" story; Bunuel's film
>is perhaps a shaggy dog story pushed to its limit, as if it were a trip
>off the moon instead of a trip to the moon. Both filmmakers manage to
>keep a straight face while telling something of a cosmic joke.
Well the joke's on narrow minded humanity in both cases, but SK's goal is also
vastly more grand in scope. Ultimately one film deflates hypocrasy while the
other points us away from hypocrasy and challenges us to understand our place
in the entire universe.
>Bunuel's
>is expressed as microcosmic; Kubrick's as macrocosmic; but through
>metaphor, this gap vanishes.
Very interesting comparison of films, but I do see the divergences. Both took
a great deal of courage and confidence to make, that's for sure.
Mark Ervin
David Kirkpatrick
I would agree that I would choose the original soundtrack for a
double-bill. But I also like the idea of framing 2001 with both
versions. The Kagel soundtrack is less self-consciously ironic than the
original; although Kagel is known for his weirder stuff, this particular
score is tastefully ambient, rather like Bartok night music, and the dog
sounds are not overdone. E.g. a howl when the moon appears, growling
during a violent scene.
Interesting point about "provincialism".
In a way, Clarke's Law, which has a lot to do with the plot and themes
of 2001, is a kind of extraverted inversion of Freud's "laws" of the
unconscious.
> > 2001 was once put down as a "shaggy god" story; Bunuel's film
> >is perhaps a shaggy dog story pushed to its limit, as if it were a trip
> >off the moon instead of a trip to the moon. Both filmmakers manage to
> >keep a straight face while telling something of a cosmic joke.
>
> Well the joke's on narrow minded humanity in both cases, but SK's goal is also
> vastly more grand in scope. Ultimately one film deflates hypocrasy while the
> other points us away from hypocrasy and challenges us to understand our place
> in the entire universe.
>
> >Bunuel's
> >is expressed as microcosmic; Kubrick's as macrocosmic; but through
> >metaphor, this gap vanishes.
>
> Very interesting comparison of films, but I do see the divergences. Both took
> a great deal of courage and confidence to make, that's for sure.
>
> Mark Ervin
Actually, I didn't mean to minimize the divergences at all. My intent
was show how they compliment each other in a chicken-and-egg kind of
way, not an identical twin kind of way, as in retrospect I see the title
of this post might suggest.
David
thor...@my-deja.com
>Un Chien Andalou is loaded with overt sexual metaphors
> and literal sexuality, whereas 2001 is arguably equally loaded with
more
> covert sexual metaphors. One might say that both films take an
> inordinate interest in "docking".
Paraphrasing EWS, "There's something very important we need to do...".
Appropriately, he IS a "doctor."
> One interesting contrast: many of the most arresting images in 2001
are
> inspired by the condition of weightlessness, whereas the most
arresting
> image in Un Chien is arguably the scene of the man trying to approach
a
> woman while being weighted down by a piano, two priests and a donkey
or
> two. It might be a viable interpretation that 2001 is about
> evolutionary rising and how it entails a fall and that Bunuel's film
is
> about a fall (original sin, perhaps) that culminates in a kind of
> rebirth (creativity arising pheonix-like from the ashes of perversion,
> perhaps). 2001 was once put down as a "shaggy god" story; Bunuel's
film
> is perhaps a shaggy dog story pushed to its limit, as if it were a
trip
> off the moon instead of a trip to the moon. Both filmmakers manage to
> keep a straight face while telling something of a cosmic joke.
Bunuel's
> is expressed as microcosmic; Kubrick's as macrocosmic; but through
> metaphor, this gap vanishes.
>
> David Kirkpatrick
Good stuff, but, is that the most arresting image in the Bunuel?
There's a bundle of 'em that no theory can easily embrace.
Thornhill
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/