Kubrick studied "Eraserhead"
ANUS409
"a rumor has it that during the release of Eraserhead in '77-'78, Kubrick,
at his English retreat, had his own personal print of the film and viewed
it repeatedly, day in and day out. He had sought to penetrate into the
mystery of the baby's construction, declaring that Eraserhead was the only
film he would have like to have made..."
classic stuff! I wonder if Kubrick tried to make his own "baby". I
wouldn't doubt it!
John B. Morgan
Yes, I remember coming across this as well. For those not into Lynchonia,
this passage appears in one of the critical books on David Lynch (either the
one by Kaleta or Alexander [not Geoff :^) ], I can't remember which). As
"Eraserhead" is one of my favorite films, I was intrigued by this as well. If
true it's an interesting comment on Kubrick's taste. I don't see much of a
resemblance between Lynch and Kubrick's work (besides being masterly auteurs),
although both are very interested in the idea of the "inner landscape" and how
this concept can be conveyed through cinema. Kubrick tends to use the
trappings of extreme realism to convey the idea of a subjective, psychological
reality, while Lynch always creates his own surreal landscape in which to
present a similarly psychological mythology. It's interesting that, if it's
true that Kubrick became obsessed with "Eraserhead" in 1978, that his next film
("The Shining") is the most reality-distorting, surrealist piece in his body
of work with the exception of the last segment of "2001." Albeit in very
different ways, both directors rework timeless, mythological material to
produce modern myths.
Another interesting parallel: Kubrick's technique is often traced back to his
work as a still photographer, while Lynch started as a painter before
becoming interested in "moving paintings."
John Morgan "Very possibly I shall have you slaughtered
The University of Michigan and skewered in my stables and enjoy a slice
jbmo...@umich.edu of you with crisp crackling from the baking
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jbmorgan/ tin basted and baked like sucking
pig with rice and lemon or currant sauce.
It will hurt you."-Bello, in Joyce's ULYSSES
Art H13315
The info about Kubrick and Eraserhead was in quotes. Was this published
anywhere? Would like to know the source, if so.
John B. Morgan
On 1 Aug 1996, Art H13315 wrote:
> The info about Kubrick and Eraserhead was in quotes. Was this published
> anywhere? Would like to know the source, if so.
Yes, as I said in my reply, it's in one of the books on David Lynch recently
published. It's in either the Kaleta or the Alexander book, I can't
recall which since I read them both at the same time. Just look up
"Kubrick" in the index of both and you'll find it.
John B. Morgan
One other similarity between Kubrick and Lynch just occurred to me. A
thematic one: both directors deal with the concept of "original sin" (in a
more secular sense) in their work. Kubrick's characters constantly seek to
escape from the inherently flawed nature of the world; the same could be
said about Lynch's characters, and they have about equal success in doing
so. On a very basic level "Eraserhead" is like "2001." In "2001," humanity
transgresses its natural state by obtaining knowledge of tools, resulting in
murder, and seems unable to escape the wrath of its own savagery until the
transformation at the end. In "Eraserhead" (in one possible interpretation),
Henry is unable to escape the guilt of his own sexual transgression until it
ultimately overwhelms him, and yet Lynch ends the film with a brief shot
suggesting the possibility of transcendent redemption for Henry.
Jake
I watched my letterbox edition of A Clockwork Orange again the other
day. A couple of things came to mind which I still find strange in the
way the film was made:
1. If you notice while Alex is being drowned by his former gang
members, he stays underwater for a LONG time ! Man, I kept counting the
seconds. It is one continous shot, so I can only persume that Kubrick
had McDowell stay underwater all that time - unless he could breathe
through a pipe extended toward the unseen end of the trough.
2. When Alex is given the Ludivico treatment, his eyes are kept open by
wires. This looks fucking painful (excuse my language, but that does
not hit my top list of fun things to do with one's eyes). I can only
again assume that Kubrick had McDowell go through this painful ordeal.
There are also a number of shots with these wires in his eyes and I am
sure that it must have hurt as all hell.
In conclusion, if all these things are true I was wondering if Kubrick
may not have been overly cruel in an effort to gain authenticity. I am
not saying he IS a cruel man, but rather cruel as a director for the
sake of authenticity.
On a final note, I was wondering whether there were other instances in
Kubrick films where he streched his actor's limits in this fashion. I
would not be surprised if some of these came from Full Metal Jacket - I
can only guess that there were a couple of painful scenes for actors in
that film.
Thanks for reading.
Later, amigos.
JAKE.
John B. Morgan
On Tue, 6 Aug 1996, Jake wrote:
> 1. If you notice while Alex is being drowned by his former gang
> members, he stays underwater for a LONG time ! Man, I kept counting the
> seconds. It is one continous shot, so I can only persume that Kubrick
> had McDowell stay underwater all that time - unless he could breathe
> through a pipe extended toward the unseen end of the trough.
As I recall it, I read that there was a tube inside the trough through
which McDowell could breathe during that scene. As obsessive as he is, I'm
sure that even Kubrick would not expect an actor to perform such a scene
without precautions.
> 2. When Alex is given the Ludivico treatment, his eyes are kept open by
> wires. This looks fucking painful (excuse my language, but that does
> not hit my top list of fun things to do with one's eyes). I can only
> again assume that Kubrick had McDowell go through this painful ordeal.
> There are also a number of shots with these wires in his eyes and I am
> sure that it must have hurt as all hell.
This scene is a different story. McDowell actually did sustain a scratched
cornea during the filming of the conditioning scenes. But even here Kubrick
didn't recklessly endanger McDowell's health; the doctor putting eyedrops
into Alex's eyes is a real doctor.
> In conclusion, if all these things are true I was wondering if Kubrick
> may not have been overly cruel in an effort to gain authenticity. I am
> not saying he IS a cruel man, but rather cruel as a director for the
> sake of authenticity.
I think "cruel" is a harsh word, although he is definitely obsessive, as
we have discussed elsewhere. I don't know that Kubrick exposes his actors
to any risks that other directors don't ask out of their actors all the
time...shit happens, even on movie sets. For somebody like Kubrick, who's
trying things that have never been done before, the risks are a bit greater
I suppose.
One of the most bizarre "authenticity" stories I've read is in relation to the
Russian director Andreii Tarkovsky. In his film ANDREII RUBLEV, one scene
calls for a cow to burst into flames. Tarkovsky wanted the scene to look
real, so he actually set fire to a live cow. All of the crew refused to do it,
so AT did it himself (the scene is in the film). They were filming in a rural
area, and when the local villagers learned of what had happened Tarkovsky
had to flee for his life. In comparison, Kubrick's obsessiveness doesn't
seem so bad! :^)
> On a final note, I was wondering whether there were other instances in
> Kubrick films where he streched his actor's limits in this fashion. I
> would not be surprised if some of these came from Full Metal Jacket - I
> can only guess that there were a couple of painful scenes for actors in
> that film.
It's only natural for great directors to expect extraordinary performances
out of their actors. It's the only way groundbreaking films get made. I
think that most actors understand this. In "The Shining" documentary, the
tension between Kubrick and Duvall is clear, as Kubrick was asking A LOT
out of her, but Duvall later admits in an interview that she learned more
from working with Kubrick on one picture than from all the other films she
had ever worked on put together. So, a cruel man? No, just a demanding one,
and one not afraid of taking risks.
Maguen
> 2. When Alex is given the Ludivico treatment, his eyes are kept open by
> wires. This looks fucking painful (excuse my language, but that does
> not hit my top list of fun things to do with one's eyes). I can only
> again assume that Kubrick had McDowell go through this painful ordeal.
> There are also a number of shots with these wires in his eyes and I am
> sure that it must have hurt as all hell.
Although everything you see onscreen is real during that sequence, the man
administering the eyedrops is an actual proffesional, not an actor. The
man I believe worked at some nearby institute. Maybe someone else can
elaborate on his exact position.
> On a final note, I was wondering whether there were other instances in
> Kubrick films where he streched his actor's limits in this fashion.
Uhhhhhhhh..........YEAH!!!! Hey buddy, if you had to assume the title as
director of the movie Killer's Kiss, you'd do the same!!!!!
j.
--
*********************************************************************
"Accused men are always the most attractive. It cannot be guilt that makes them attractive, for they aren't all guilty, and it can't be the justice of the penance laid on them that makes them attractive in anticipation, for they aren't all going to be punished, so it must be the mere charge preffered against them that in some way enhances their attraction"
-FRANZ KAFKA ("THE TRIAL")
*********************************************************************
Ebiri1
In article <fkafka-0608...@ts3-3.wla.ts.ucla.edu>,
fka...@ucla.edu (Maguen) writes:
>> 2. When Alex is given the Ludivico treatment, his eyes are kept open
by
>> wires. This looks fucking painful (excuse my language, but that does
>> not hit my top list of fun things to do with one's eyes). I can only
>> again assume that Kubrick had McDowell go through this painful ordeal.
>> There are also a number of shots with these wires in his eyes and I am
>> sure that it must have hurt as all hell.
>
>Although everything you see onscreen is real during that sequence, the
man
>administering the eyedrops is an actual proffesional, not an actor. The
>man I believe worked at some nearby institute. Maybe someone else can
>elaborate on his exact position.
The man administering the eyedrops was in fact a professional. However,
he is administering the artificial tears not only because otherwise it
would hurt too much, but because otherwise McDowell would have gone blind.
And in fact, both of his corneas were scratched as a result of filming
the scene, and he ended up in the hospital as a result. When he came out,
with a bandage over one eye, Kubrick saw him, and said, "Oh my God. Well,
can we shoot in the other eye?" {This information derived from the recent
BBC documentary.]
So, it sounds like Kubrick is indeed extremely brutal towards his actors.
In the rape scene at the writer's house, McDowell also talks about how he
kept breaking his cane on the actress playing the wife, as Stan the Man
kept having them do the scene over and over again. Well, it was all for a
worthy cause, but it *does* make you wonder...
----------------
"What kind of government do you represent?"
--A Matter of Life and Death (1946)
(a.k.a. Stairway to Heaven)
Kerry Smith
How about hundreds of retakes on scenes? I've heard he's driven
actors nuts with his perfectionism.
That's why they get the big bucks.
AClokworkO
>
>> 2. When Alex is given the Ludivico treatment, his eyes are kept open
by
>> wires. This looks fucking painful (excuse my language, but that does
>> not hit my top list of fun things to do with one's eyes). I can only
>> again assume that Kubrick had McDowell go through this painful ordeal.
>> There are also a number of shots with these wires in his eyes and I am
>> sure that it must have hurt as all hell.
>
>Although everything you see onscreen is real during that sequence, the
man
>administering the eyedrops is an actual proffesional, not an actor. The
>man I believe worked at some nearby institute. Maybe someone else can
>elaborate on his exact position.
It is true, this man was a professional, but the following was taken from
the interview McDowell gave on AOL on December 21, 1995:
>>
Question: In "A Clockwork Orange," did those clamps on your eyes hurt
while you were undergoing treatment?
McDowllM: Well, when I actually had them in my eyes, I didn't feel
anything because my eyes were anesthetized. It was only an hour or two
later, when the anesthetic wore off, that I realized that something was
wrong and the pain was horrific, and in fact I had scratched my corneas.
McDowllM: The clamps are called lid locks, and they're used in delicate
eye operations. But normally the patient is lying on his/her back, whereas
I was sitting up, tied to a chair with a straight jacket on. The doctor,
if you'll notice, was a real doctor from Moorefield's Eye Hospital, who
had to put drops in my eyes every 15 seconds, because if the eye dries up,
then you become blind.
<<
I've read interviews with McDowell right after making ACO where he says
that Kubrick was too controlling, and that he was a person with whom you
could only work once. And I've also seen him say recently that he'd work
with him again in a heartbeat. The Lindsay Anderson trilogy aside,
(comparing his performances in these with ACO is, in my opinion, like
compairing apples and you know what) ACO is considered by most to be, by
far his best performance. While Kubrick might have pushed him pretty far
in the above scene and the near-drowning scene, the reward was incredible,
as McDowell may have begun to realize a few years after the fact.
Theresa Workman (AClok...@aol.com)
---
Eat this sweetish segment or spit it out. You are free."
-A. Burgess, A Clockwork Orange Resucked
Michael Wayne John Bell
I heard that in intereviews with the actors from FMJ. But Kubrick
always backs it up by saying.."The film is the cheapest part of the
movie". Somthing I've always remembered.
Mike
ChrisBelden
re: the scene where alex's head is thrust into the water trough:
if you watch closely, you'll see mcdowell put his hands in the water just
before his head is yanked out...he's obviously removing the air tube he's
been breathing through for the past several moments.
chris b.
Ebiri1
In article <32091E...@cc.umanitoba.ca>, Michael Wayne John Bell
<umbe...@cc.umanitoba.ca> writes:
So sorry to nitpick again, but if I remember correctly, Kubrick said this
when discussing why he printed all his takes. The actual shooting of a
scene over and over again will increase costs substantially.
geoffrey alexander
ChrisBelden <cbe...@198.4.75.51> wrote:
That is to say -- you CONJECTURE :). How did it get put INTO his mouth
to begin with ?
Details, details. :)
geoffrey alexander : http://www.netins.net/showcase/sahaja
Malcolm Inglis
In message <Pine.SOL.3.91.960802...@qbert.rs.itd.umich.edu>
"John B. Morgan" <jbmo...@umich.edu> writes:
> One other similarity between Kubrick and Lynch just occurred to me. A
> thematic one: both directors deal with the concept of "original sin" (in a
> more secular sense) in their work. Kubrick's characters constantly seek to
> escape from the inherently flawed nature of the world; the same could be
> said about Lynch's characters, and they have about equal success in doing
> so. On a very basic level "Eraserhead" is like "2001." In "2001," humanity
> transgresses its natural state by obtaining knowledge of tools, resulting in
> murder, and seems unable to escape the wrath of its own savagery until the
> transformation at the end. In "Eraserhead" (in one possible interpretation),
> Henry is unable to escape the guilt of his own sexual transgression until it
> ultimately overwhelms him, and yet Lynch ends the film with a brief shot
> suggesting the possibility of transcendent redemption for Henry.
I agree with most of that but I would say that in Kubrick's films it
is the system that is flawed, with Lynch it is human nature.
Adam Inglis
geoffrey alexander
Malcolm Inglis <mja...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <Pine.SOL.3.91.960802...@qbert.rs.itd.umich.edu>
> "John B. Morgan" <jbmo...@umich.edu> writes:
>
> > One other similarity between Kubrick and Lynch just occurred to me. A
> > thematic one: both directors deal with the concept of "original sin" (in a
> > more secular sense) in their work. Kubrick's characters constantly seek to
> > escape from the inherently flawed nature of the world; the same could be
> > said about Lynch's characters...
>
> I agree with most of that but I would say that in Kubrick's films it
> is the system that is flawed, with Lynch it is human nature.
No, it IS human nature that is flawed, and if the system is flawed (it
is), then it's because the system is our invention (like HAL)...
geoffrey alexander : http://www.netins.net/showcase/sahaja
char...@mail.idt.net
Another tale of Kubrick "cruelty." According to someone I spoke
with who worked on "Full Metal Jacket," Kubrick would throw tennis
balls at Lee Ermey (who played Sgt. Hartman) to get him "in the
mood."
I guess there are more painful objects, Stanley could have hurled at
him...but hey, it was one hell of a performance.
John B. Morgan
On Sun, 11 Aug 1996, geoffrey alexander wrote:
> No, it IS human nature that is flawed, and if the system is flawed (it
> is), then it's because the system is our invention (like HAL)...
I'm in agreement with Geoff on this, I don't think Kubrick is a Rousseauist
("Man was born free, yet everywhere he is in chains"). "Evil" in Kubrick
films is always the result of individual action, not social conditioning.
We see ample evidence of social wrongdoing as well (ACO, Dr. Strangelove,
etc. being examples), but the first segment of "2001" makes clear the fact
that Kubrick feels that society is savage because we ourselves are savage.
In the Hechinger letter, Kubrick says something to the effect of, "Man is
savage and brutal, and any attempt to construct a social system which fails
to take this into account is probably doomed to failure."
Ebiri1
>Another tale of Kubrick "cruelty." According to someone I spoke
>with who worked on "Full Metal Jacket," Kubrick would throw tennis
>balls at Lee Ermey (who played Sgt. Hartman) to get him "in the
>mood."
>
>
From the depiction of marine training that FMJ gives, and from Ermey's
prior experience, I wouldn't be surprised if Ermey himself *requested*
that tennis balls be thrown at him to get him in the mood.
And yes, golf balls would have been much worse :-)
Malcolm Inglis
In message <1996081117...@unin-01-08.dialup.netins.net>
geof...@netins.net (geoffrey alexander) writes:
> Malcolm Inglis <mja...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
> > In message
<Pine.SOL.3.91.960802...@qbert.rs.itd.umich.edu>
> > "John B. Morgan" <jbmo...@umich.edu> writes:
> >
> > > One other similarity between Kubrick and Lynch just occurred to me. A
> > > thematic one: both directors deal with the concept of "original
sin" (in a
> > > more secular sense) in their work. Kubrick's characters
constantly seek to
> > > escape from the inherently flawed nature of the world; the same could be
> > > said about Lynch's characters...
> >
> > I agree with most of that but I would say that in Kubrick's films it
> > is the system that is flawed, with Lynch it is human nature.
> No, it IS human nature that is flawed, and if the system is flawed (it
> is), then it's because the system is our invention (like HAL)...
> geoffrey alexander : http://www.netins.net/showcase/sahaja
Yes, but man didn't INTEND the system to be flawed. HAL was created
with good intentions, -"wouldn't it be cool to have a computer that
had artificial inteligence", the therapy in Clockwork Orange was
suposed to cure Alex of his taste for ultraviolence, Barry Lyndon's
society was supposed to be polite and stable. It jjust happens that
when the system is put into practise it has detrimental consequences.
Many of Kubricks characters are "evil" but it is the system that
makes things go completely out of control- HALs programming, the
Doomsday machine of Dr Strangelove etc. For Lynch the system has
nothing to do with it, Dennis Hopper in Blue Velvet is quite simply
evil, the flaw is part of his personality. The society of Twin Peaks
and Blue Velvet hides the dark aspects of human nature behind picket
fences and neatly kept lawns, but it doesn't produce them.
Adam Inglis
geoffrey alexander
Ebiri1 <ebi...@aol.com> wrote:
> In article <320E8...@mail.idt.net>, char...@mail.idt.net writes:
>
> >Another tale of Kubrick "cruelty." According to someone I spoke
> >with who worked on "Full Metal Jacket," Kubrick would throw tennis
> >balls at Lee Ermey (who played Sgt. Hartman) to get him "in the
> >mood."
> >
Hmmm. There was a scrap of interview with Ermey in the Channel Four
documentary; Ermey sounds more upbeat about his experience than an
episode like that would suggest...
>
> From the depiction of marine training that FMJ gives, and from Ermey's
> prior experience, I wouldn't be surprised if Ermey himself *requested*
> that tennis balls be thrown at him to get him in the mood.
Strangely, this seems more likely :) ...
geoffrey alexander : http://www.netins.net/showcase/sahaja
Brian Siano
geoffrey alexander wrote:
>
> Ebiri1 <ebi...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <320E8...@mail.idt.net>, char...@mail.idt.net writes:
> >
> > >Another tale of Kubrick "cruelty." According to someone I spoke
> > >with who worked on "Full Metal Jacket," Kubrick would throw tennis
> > >balls at Lee Ermey (who played Sgt. Hartman) to get him "in the
> > >mood."
> > >
> Hmmm. There was a scrap of interview with Ermey in the Channel Four
> documentary; Ermey sounds more upbeat about his experience than an
> episode like that would suggest...
In the _Rolling Stone_ interview, Kubrick praises Ermey's
work ethic, saying that Ermey would play catch with the dialogue coach
while rehearsing lines. That's the story-- not this "tennis ball"
story.
Kevin Fenwick
Re: 'Lidlock' scene
Malcolm McDowell offered some interesting comments on this scene
whilst being interviewed for the recent Channel 4 (UK) documentary
on Kubrick: The man administering the eye drops was indeed a
professional - a specialist from Moorfields (a famous eye
hospital) although apparently these clamps are only normally used
for delicate eye operations whilst the patient is in a horizontal
position. The drops had to be administered to stop the corneas
drying up. McDowell was under considerable pain; both his corneas
were scratched and he had to be given a shot of morphine to numb
his agony. According to McDowell Kubrick on seeing one of his eyes
bandaged up said something like 'can we shoot on the other one ?'
Kevin Fenwick, London
char...@mail.idt.net
Brian Siano wrote:
(snip)
>
> In the _Rolling Stone_ interview, Kubrick praises Ermey's
> work ethic, saying that Ermey would play catch with the dialogue coach
> while rehearsing lines. That's the story-- not this "tennis ball"
> story.
There are several stories. The tennis ball story (suggestive
quotation marks removed) is one of many true stories from the set.
Michael Wayne John Bell
Being a theatre director, catching tennis balls while rehearsing lines
is a common technique. It's great for memorization, remembering lines
while concentrating on something else, and focus. And in a role like
Sgt. Hartman, Ermey had to know his lines so well in order to achieve
that level rhythm and force that makes his part so effective.
Mike