Kubrick, Evolution and Primitiveness
Matthew Dickinson
I am not burned on a stake for doing so.
Take a look at this site, if you haven't already:
http://www.underview.com/2001/dom/doma.html#top
Is that an Australian Aborigine? It looks like one.
Does anyone have any ideas on just what Kubrick was thinking here? I
cannot help but assume he was thinking Aborigines and perhaps
sub-saharan Africans were genetically more primitive than whites (and
probably asians, as well). I wonder what really made him change his
mind about using them? Imagine the uproar he could have caused had he
not changed his mind and suggested Aborigines (and maybe Africans)
were a "missing link" to "our" (white, asian) past. For what it's
worth, it's my own opinion this is indeed the case, but only slightly.
I don't consider myself racist though, and please understand that I do
not mean to imply Kubrick was racist either, because I know of no
evidence that he was. It is curious, though, that he primarily worked
with white actors, had nothing but whites in the modern sections of
"2001," and seemed primarily interested in white civilization in his
work.
Matthew
Eric the Spamless
[snip]
> Does anyone have any ideas on just what Kubrick was thinking here? I
> cannot help but assume he was thinking Aborigines and perhaps
> sub-saharan Africans were genetically more primitive than whites (and
> probably asians, as well).
I haven't seen those pictures before. No, I think he was thinking that
primative man was more primative than modern man (and the explicit focus is
on technological advancement; "genetic" advancement is implied). The fact
that the dawn of man sequence takes place in Africa is just a coincidence,
and the logical choice since it is consistent with our understanding of
where civilization did begin.
> I wonder what really made him change his
> mind about using them? Imagine the uproar he could have caused had he
> not changed his mind and suggested Aborigines (and maybe Africans)
> were a "missing link" to "our" (white, asian) past.
Why "asian"? Anyway, again: The setting of Africa was probably a given. He
had to depict Moonwatcher et al in some way. He chose the ape-men that we
all know. It was a good choice:
- although I'm not sure of the position of mainstream anthopology and
archaology in the 1960s, I know it's now believed that tool-using predates
homo sapiens. So again, it's the logical and accurate choice.
- the less resemblance they bear to any specific group of people, the more
they resemble some generic "higher primate," the more clear the "dawn of
man" theme is. The focus is the quantum leap between pre- and post-
monolith Moonwatcher; eveything in between -- from Moonwatcher through to
Bowman -- is less important, which is why it's completely skipped in the
film. Race (in the sense of white/black/asian or whatever divisions you
prefer) is also unimportant; the only races are ape, man, and overman.
- what would the alternative be? European-looking people in prehistoric
Africa? Don't you think that would have been even more objectionable? I
don't think he could have won this one, if that was his concern.
For what it's
> worth, it's my own opinion this is indeed the case, but only slightly.
> I don't consider myself racist though, and please understand that I do
> not mean to imply Kubrick was racist either, because I know of no
> evidence that he was. It is curious, though, that he primarily worked
> with white actors, had nothing but whites in the modern sections of
> "2001," and seemed primarily interested in white civilization in his
> work.
Yes, and largely interested in its problems and failures. Actually, I was
going to offer a bunch of conjecture about possible reasons for the
whiteness of Kubrick's work, and 2001 in particular, but there are so many
possible reasons and non-reasons. I think The Shining, at least, is a very
racially-aware film which shows quite a critical view of "white
civilization."
> Matthew
Peter Tonguette
>Yes, and largely interested in its problems and failures. Actually, I was
>going to offer a bunch of conjecture about possible reasons for the
>whiteness of Kubrick's work, and 2001 in particular, but there are so many
>possible reasons and non-reasons. I think The Shining, at least, is a very
>racially-aware film which shows quite a critical view of "white
>civilization."
Absolutely. I think most of the films are very racially aware and from the
very beginning (the black parking attendant in "The Killing" - it's one of the
film's most painful to watch scenes). I mean, the basic premise of "The
Shining" pivots around the horrific white treatment of minorities throughout
history. Less explicitly, like the absence of women in "Full Metal Jacket,"
the absence of minorities in roles of power in "Eyes Wide Shut" is itself a
deeply felt "presence," you might say. But this is a subject worth talking
about because it speaks to Kubrick's continual engagement with American culture
throughout his work.
Peter
Wordsmith
The Kubrick-was-out-of-touch-with-America-because-he-removed-himself-from-her-
physically school of critical thought is one I've never understood. He
viewed his homeland from a distance and nailed down what he saw as her faults:
memory fetishes in a ruined hotel manifesting themselves as ghosts.
Wordsmith
dutch_angle
> very beginning (the black parking attendant in "The Killing" - it's one of the
> film's most painful to watch scenes).
Explain.
> I mean, the basic premise of "The
> Shining" pivots around the horrific white treatment of minorities throughout
> history.
Explain.
> Less explicitly, like the absence of women in "Full Metal Jacket,"
Isn't the role of the female sniper very important?
> the absence of minorities in roles of power in "Eyes Wide Shut" is itself a
> deeply felt "presence," you might say.
Explain.
> But this is a subject worth talking
> about because it speaks to Kubrick's continual engagement with American culture
> throughout his work.
Explain.
d.a.
Peter Tonguette
>> I think most of the films are very racially aware and from the
>> very beginning (the black parking attendant in "The Killing" - it's one
>of the
>> film's most painful to watch scenes).
>
>Explain.
You need the fact that that scene of explicit racism is painful to watch
explained to you?
>> I mean, the basic premise of "The
>> Shining" pivots around the horrific white treatment of minorities throughout
>> history.
>
>Explain.
Don't you think the Overlook Hotel is a decent metaphor for American culture
and American history? Built on Indian burial ground, populated by "all the
best people," and sucking people like Jack Torrance in by playing off their
racist tendencies?
>> Less explicitly, like the absence of women in "Full Metal Jacket,"
>
>Isn't the role of the female sniper very important?
Vitally important, but it only reinforces what I'm talking about: the killing
of the female sniper is the final (albeit metaphorical) shedding of any of the
characters' "feminine" characteristics.
>> the absence of minorities in roles of power in "Eyes Wide Shut" is itself
>a
>> deeply felt "presence," you might say.
>
>Explain.
I guess it's just a coincidence that so many minority characters are in roles
of service in the film, while tycoons like Ziegler and his ilk party into the
night...
>> But this is a subject worth talking
>> about because it speaks to Kubrick's continual engagement with American
>culture
>> throughout his work.
>
>Explain.
This is what this newsgroup's come to, eh - explanation needed for as simple a
statement as many of Kubrick's films are directly engaged with American culture
and American imperialism. Screw it.
Matthew Dickinson
> "Matthew Dickinson" <stal...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> [snip]
> > Does anyone have any ideas on just what Kubrick was thinking here? I
> > cannot help but assume he was thinking Aborigines and perhaps
> > sub-saharan Africans were genetically more primitive than whites (and
> > probably asians, as well).
>
> I haven't seen those pictures before. No, I think he was thinking that
> primative man was more primative than modern man (and the explicit focus is
> on technological advancement; "genetic" advancement is implied). The fact
> that the dawn of man sequence takes place in Africa is just a coincidence,
> and the logical choice since it is consistent with our understanding of
> where civilization did begin.
Where does the Dawn of Man sequence take place? I thought it was the
savannahs (?) of sub-Saharan Africa, where civilization did >not<
begin. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, though.
He was still concerned with genetic advancement (a loaded term, I
admit), even if it was kick started by the appearance of the monolith
and the first use of tools. The idea of using Australian Aborigines in
the place of these obviously genetically primitive ancestors does
imply he thought they were more genetically primitive than the
historical adherents to civilization: whites and Asians, and to a
lesser extent, people of sub-Saharan African descent. If he didn't
think this, he at least thought they >looked< more primitive. I point
out "genetically" because there's no question that technologically and
culturally, Aborigines were some of the most primitive on the planet
at the time. They look more like Moonwatcher and his people than any
other modern race of man, and biologically speaking, appearances are
revealing. However, there's a hole in this theory in that Aborigines
are much more closely related to the Koreans, Japanese, Micronesians,
and South Chinese than they are of people of sub-Saharan African
descent. Indeed, I've often thought they seemed more like Asians in
their behavior and personality.
> > I wonder what really made him change his
> > mind about using them? Imagine the uproar he could have caused had he
> > not changed his mind and suggested Aborigines (and maybe Africans)
> > were a "missing link" to "our" (white, asian) past.
>
> Why "asian"?
I point them out because they're probably of a similar genetic
distance from our ape ancestors as whites are, but I'm rather new to
this subject and wouldn't be surprised if I am proven wrong.
> Anyway, again: The setting of Africa was probably a given.
Yes, it was a given because 200,000 years ago almost all humans lived
in Africa and this was more than 200,000 years ago.
> He
> had to depict Moonwatcher et al in some way. He chose the ape-men that we
> all know. It was a good choice:
> - although I'm not sure of the position of mainstream anthopology and
> archaology in the 1960s, I know it's now believed that tool-using predates
> homo sapiens. So again, it's the logical and accurate choice.
Right.
> - the less resemblance they bear to any specific group of people, the more
> they resemble some generic "higher primate," the more clear the "dawn of
> man" theme is. The focus is the quantum leap between pre- and post-
> monolith Moonwatcher; eveything in between -- from Moonwatcher through to
> Bowman -- is less important, which is why it's completely skipped in the
> film. Race (in the sense of white/black/asian or whatever divisions you
> prefer) is also unimportant; the only races are ape, man, and overman.
Yes, in the final film it's "ape, man, and overman" but for a while he
did seem to be considering using Aborigines as an example of species
or subspecies below "man." I think it was wise he did not do this
because Aborigines have been far more advanced than apes for many
thousands of years. The question is, did he classify them as human? I
would hope so, but I'm not so sure.
> - what would the alternative be? European-looking people in prehistoric
> Africa? Don't you think that would have been even more objectionable? I
> don't think he could have won this one, if that was his concern.
More objectionable? Yes... it would be more absurd. Even most
"anti-racist" people would probably admit that if penned in a corner.
> For what it's
> > worth, it's my own opinion this is indeed the case, but only slightly.
> > I don't consider myself racist though, and please understand that I do
> > not mean to imply Kubrick was racist either, because I know of no
> > evidence that he was. It is curious, though, that he primarily worked
> > with white actors, had nothing but whites in the modern sections of
> > "2001," and seemed primarily interested in white civilization in his
> > work.
>
> Yes, and largely interested in its problems and failures. Actually, I was
> going to offer a bunch of conjecture about possible reasons for the
> whiteness of Kubrick's work, and 2001 in particular, but there are so many
> possible reasons and non-reasons. I think The Shining, at least, is a very
> racially-aware film which shows quite a critical view of "white
> civilization."
Yes, his films are very racially aware, even when they do not star
races other than whites in them, because he seemed very concerned with
how the white man ticked and what made him unique. The future in
"2001" and the Victorian era in "Barry Lyndon" show white man at his
"civilized" pinnacles.
I too have a bunch of speculation about reasons for the whiteness in
his work, but I don't really know how to articulate them... And more
specifically there's arguably some Jewish sensibility in his work,
too...
Matthew
dutch_angle
> >> very beginning (the black parking attendant in "The Killing" - it's one
> of the
> >> film's most painful to watch scenes).
> >
> >Explain.
>
> You need the fact that that scene of explicit racism is painful to watch
> explained to you?
No.
Why are most of the films very racially aware?
>
> >> I mean, the basic premise of "The
> >> Shining" pivots around the horrific white treatment of minorities throughout
> >> history.
> >
> >Explain.
>
> Don't you think the Overlook Hotel is a decent metaphor for American culture
> and American history?
No, I don't.
I don't like metaphors, symbols and what have you.
It simplifies art.
It exists only for bad critics and bad filmmakers.
> Built on Indian burial ground, populated by "all the
> best people," and sucking people like Jack Torrance in by playing off their
> racist tendencies?
So this makes The Shining a "very racially aware film"?
Not to me.
>
> >> Less explicitly, like the absence of women in "Full Metal Jacket,"
> >
> >Isn't the role of the female sniper very important?
>
> Vitally important, but it only reinforces what I'm talking about: the killing
> of the female sniper is the final (albeit metaphorical) shedding of any of the
> characters' "feminine" characteristics.
If one thinks in metaphors, perhaps.
I don't think that way.
>
> >> the absence of minorities in roles of power in "Eyes Wide Shut" is itself
> a
> >> deeply felt "presence," you might say.
> >
> >Explain.
>
> I guess it's just a coincidence that so many minority characters are in roles
> of service in the film, while tycoons like Ziegler and his ilk party into the
> night...
Ah, I see.
And this makes Eyes Wide Shut a "very racially aware film"?
Not to me.
>
> >> But this is a subject worth talking
> >> about because it speaks to Kubrick's continual engagement with American
> culture
> >> throughout his work.
> >
> >Explain.
>
> This is what this newsgroup's come to, eh - explanation needed for as simple a
> statement as many of Kubrick's films are directly engaged with American culture
> and American imperialism.
It is your choice to answer a question.
I'm curious and so I ask questions.
Besides that, of course, I happen to disagree.
How "aware" are you:
> Screw it.
That quite sums it up.
Thanks for your time.
d.a.
JW Moore
wrote:
The "Dawn of Man" title is semantically vague enough to allow Kubrick
substantial leeway regarding the appearance of his "apes". Keeping in
mind what we knew of human paleontology in the mid-60s (the Leakeys
were still fairly early in their Olduvai Gorge operation), I'd say
Kubrick's representation of our ancient ancestors was as faithful as
one could expect. With the hindsight of more recent fossil findings,
though, we now know that Moonwatcher & Co. are physiologically closer
to the Australopithecene genus than later Homo (i.e. Man), which
stretches the definition of "Dawn" and "Man" to the breaking point.
The famous "Lucy" for example (A. afarensis) lived 3-4 million years
ago and was barely 3 feet tall, yet was fully bipedal.
The use of tools, however, does not appear for another 1 million years
or so, with Homo habilis. This human ancestor fashioned stones for the
purposes of cutting, scraping, smashing etc., rather than hunting and
homicide. These quibbles aside, Kubrick's famous visual epiphany in
"2001" brings home the more profound implications of the tool (be it
bone or computer) for human evolution. For instance:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/aaas/2001-03-01-tooluse-evolution.htm
The timescale involved in human evolution is of critical importance
because modern man is a very recent branch on the family tree,
appearing 100-200,000 years ago. The species H. sapiens includes
Australian aborigines, American Indians, Kalihari bushmen and any
other socio-ethnic group whom we enlightened Caucasoids deem
"primitive". By definition, there is no such thing as "genetically
more primitive" members of the same species. Recent studies of
mitochondrial DNA in present-day populations support the "out of
Africa" model of human migration starting 170,000 years ago, thence
thru the middle East to Asia, reaching New Guinea and Australia
20-30,000 y.a. and Europe 15,000 y.a.
Obviously we've learned a lot since the mid-60s, but even back then
nobody with any familiarity with primate evolution (including Kubrick
and certainly Clarke) believed for a second that dark-skinned races
were genetically distinct from whites, much less the frankly racist
notion that Africans or Australian aborigines represented a "missing
link" to the ape. That distinction falls to Proconsul, an African
fellow who lived 16 million years ago.
Kubrick's use of white actors I would say reflects more on the subject
matter than the director. He obviously had nothing against minorities
acting in his films, if he thought they were right for the particular
part. If Kubrick is guilty of underrepresenting minorities, then so is
just about every other Western director I can think of, save Spike
Lee. Foreign films are even less ethnically diverse. Kurosawa's films
have Japanese actors because the subject matter demands it. A white
actor in "Rashomon" (even if he spoke Japanese) would look just as
absurd as an Asian actor in "Barry Lyndon." Was Fellini racist for
using Italian actors?
As to "2001" specifically: the shooting started about the same time as
the Apollo program, which like NASA itself was an all-white, all-male
operation. The only other player in the "space race" was the Soviet
Union, which at least allowed a woman in its space program. In light
of the extreme hostility and distrust that existed between the US and
USSR in the mid-60s, it was quite farsighted of Kubrick and Clarke
even to have an American exchanging pleasantries (strained and
disingenuous though they were) with a group of Russians aboard a space
station that would accomodate both.
~~Jack
David Kirkpatrick
The word "aboriginal" appears to be used in the most generic sense here.
Keep in mind that these are words published in the 21st century in
which "aboriginal" is a cultural rather than a racial concept. Native
Americans are aboriginal because they were in America before the
Europeans. The word is roughly equivalent to "native". I believe the
main point of Richter's words was that the original conception of the
"Dawn of Man" characters would have involved a lot of human nakedness.
The fact that the test-makeup "apeman" looks more like an Australian
aboriginal than, say, an Australipithicus (which has the same
etymological connection to Australia as Austria, by the way, namely that
it is south of something) is the fact that you could not fit the head of
a human into the skull of a real pre-human.
By "going hairy", as it were, achieves 4 things:
1) Side-steps the nudity problem
2) Emphasizes the animality rather than proto-humanity of the primates
prior to the monolith, thus emphasizing how important the tool-making
discovery is
3) Avoids the kind of racial connotations you suggest, however
unintentional they might be. After all, lighter pigmentation almost
certainly didn't appear in humanity until humans moved north. It would
be awkward in the extreme if instead of Man going from hairy to
hairless, went from black to white -- to the tune of the Blue Danube
(following ATZ, no less).
4) By placing "furry" humanoids in the desert this suggests that there
may have been a recent climactic change, putting our ancestors in a
relatively sudden crises situation. There is a sense of "necessity is
the mother of invention" in more than one place in 2001. That realism
counters the surrealism of the monolith "magic".
By the way, while European prejudices about African and Australasian
blacks may have something to do with Europeans having thinner noses and
thinner lips, have they perhaps totally overlooked the male body hair
factor?
But to speak on the subject of Kubrick's apparent focus on "white
people", I believe this is the same kind of half-truth as the idea that
his films care about men rather than women. His films are dominated by
European and American men because they largely directed at the roots of
European and American culture, which are largely the product of white
male imagination and will and limitations. The universal suffrage, so
to speak, in Kubrick's oevre is not in who it's about, but who it's for.
Just because a cadaver happens to be one race or sex or nationality
doesn't mean that not everyone is invited to the autopsy or that they
might not all learn something from it.
Here perhaps two wrongs do make a right. The alleged coldness of
Kubrick's eye on the affairs of flawed white men of privilege ought to
make it all the more accessible to "outsiders". Of course there are no
real outsiders in an empire.
David
Boaz
> I don't like metaphors, symbols and what have you.
> It simplifies art.
> It exists only for bad critics and bad filmmakers.
Then you may as well exclude every great poet, novelist, painter,
playwright and filmmaker who ever lived, as all of the great works of
theater, literature, art, poetry and cinema have metaphors, symbols
and what have you. And if you don't think they exist then you haven't
been paying attention.
Boaz
Padraig L Henry
wrote:
>dutch_angle masturbated over the word "explain":
Not really. Its just another unhinged looney filling the on-going AMK
vacuum ...
Padraig
Padraig L Henry
wrote:
>dutch_angle masturbated over the word "explain":
>
Not really. Its just another unhinged looney filling the on-going AMK
vacuum ...
Padraig
David Kirkpatrick
>>>>I think most of the films are very racially aware and from the
>>>>very beginning (the black parking attendant in "The Killing" - it's one
>>>>
>> of the
>>
>>>>film's most painful to watch scenes).
>>>>
>>>Explain.
>>>
>>You need the fact that that scene of explicit racism is painful to watch
>>explained to you?
>>
>
> No.
> Why are most of the films very racially aware?
>
>
>
>>>>I mean, the basic premise of "The
>>>>Shining" pivots around the horrific white treatment of minorities throughout
>>>>history.
>>>>
>>>Explain.
>>>
>>Don't you think the Overlook Hotel is a decent metaphor for American culture
>>and American history?
>>
>
> No, I don't.
> I don't like metaphors, symbols and what have you.
> It simplifies art.
> It exists only for bad critics and bad filmmakers.
What an outrageously extreme position!
So your credo is "A cigar is always just a cigar"?
This might be a good time for you to commit to some remarks of a
positive nature, such as:
Are there any good critics in your opinion (aside from that one essay by
Sontag which you seem to have taken to heart)?
Are there any good filmmakers that you could name, and can you name any
criteria other than your personal taste?
If metaphorical meaning is not a valid artistic vehicle, then how does
art distinguish itself from journalism or science or technical manuals?
Do you favor literal meaning always over metaphorical meaning? Do you
favor visceral experience always over any form of thought?
>>Built on Indian burial ground, populated by "all the
>>best people," and sucking people like Jack Torrance in by playing off their
>>racist tendencies?
>>
>
> So this makes The Shining a "very racially aware film"?
> Not to me.
>
Can you give an example of an additional occurence in The Shining that
would change it from being racially unaware to aware?
You've asked for explanations. But what would constitute the type of
response that would count as an "explanation" to you? Would-be
explainers have a right to know. If the explanation were "meaningful",
would that be self-defeating quality in your eyes?
David
M4RV1N
writes:
>The "Dawn of Man" title is semantically vague enough to allow Kubrick
>substantial leeway regarding the appearance of his "apes". Keeping in
>mind what we knew of human paleontology in the mid-60s (the Leakeys
>were still fairly early in their Olduvai Gorge operation), I'd say
>Kubrick's representation of our ancient ancestors was as faithful as
>one could expect. With the hindsight of more recent fossil findings,
>though, we now know that Moonwatcher & Co. are physiologically closer
>to the Australopithecene genus than later Homo (i.e. Man), which
>stretches the definition of "Dawn" and "Man" to the breaking point.
Actually they (Kubrick and Clarke) were thinking of Australopithecus africanus
as the man-apes of "2001." A primary text they used was Robert Ardrey's
"African Genesis," and as Geoffrey Alexander once pointed out, if you turn to
page 175 you'll see a drawing of an australopithecene sitting the midst of
animal bones and pondering them! They pushed the date of A. Africanus back an
additional million years (and that turned out to be right). The drawing looks
like Moonwatcher except it has short hair, but no one knows whether or not they
might have had the long fur of chimps, and that's what Kubrick went with in the
film.
>The famous "Lucy" for example (A. afarensis) lived 3-4 million years
>ago and was barely 3 feet tall, yet was fully bipedal.
As I said above, they turned out to be right because Lucy was found about a
decade after the film was released and 4 million years ago was on the money.
>The use of tools, however, does not appear for another 1 million years
>or so, with Homo habilis. This human ancestor fashioned stones for the
>purposes of cutting, scraping, smashing etc., rather than hunting and
>homicide.
Here though, we must make a distinction between artifact tools and found tools.
It's highly likely that all Australopithecenes used found tools, if for no
other reason than that their brains were the same size as chimps, and chimps
use various found tools. They even engage in slight modifications that are
learned tactics (culture). As I always point out though, it seems to me at
least that the tool use of Moonwatcher is not the significant "Dawn of Man"
element (purely a poetic term for a segment of the film, BTW), but rather it's
the conceptualization of a way to extend his power, kill a tapir for food, and
change his future.
These quibbles aside, Kubrick's famous visual epiphany in
>"2001" brings home the more profound implications of the tool (be it
>bone or computer) for human evolution. For instance:
>
>http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/aaas/2001-03-01-tooluse-evolution.htm
>
>The timescale involved in human evolution is of critical importance
>because modern man is a very recent branch on the family tree,
>appearing 100-200,000 years ago. The species H. sapiens includes
>Australian aborigines, American Indians, Kalihari bushmen and any
>other socio-ethnic group whom we enlightened Caucasoids deem
>"primitive". By definition, there is no such thing as "genetically
>more primitive" members of the same species. Recent studies of
>mitochondrial DNA in present-day populations support the "out of
>Africa" model of human migration starting 170,000 years ago, thence
>thru the middle East to Asia, reaching New Guinea and Australia
>20-30,000 y.a. and Europe 15,000 y.a.
>
>Obviously we've learned a lot since the mid-60s, but even back then
>nobody with any familiarity with primate evolution (including Kubrick
>and certainly Clarke) believed for a second that dark-skinned races
>were genetically distinct from whites, much less the frankly racist
>notion that Africans or Australian aborigines represented a "missing
>link" to the ape. That distinction falls to Proconsul, an African
>fellow who lived 16 million years ago.
Exactly right. Skin color, hair, and minor feature differences are of zero
consequence from a genetic standpoint. If we had not wiped out the
Neanderthals then we would actually have issues of two kinds of human beings,
but considering they actually had bigger brains perhaps it would have been
>our< problem had they gained the upper hand in Europe.
>Kubrick's use of white actors I would say reflects more on the subject
>matter than the director. He obviously had nothing against minorities
>acting in his films, if he thought they were right for the particular
>part. If Kubrick is guilty of underrepresenting minorities, then so is
>just about every other Western director I can think of, save Spike
>Lee. Foreign films are even less ethnically diverse. Kurosawa's films
>have Japanese actors because the subject matter demands it. A white
>actor in "Rashomon" (even if he spoke Japanese) would look just as
>absurd as an Asian actor in "Barry Lyndon." Was Fellini racist for
>using Italian actors?
I think you clearly see a concern with racism. The point about it in TS and
FMJ, as two examples, is clear.
>As to "2001" specifically: the shooting started about the same time as
>the Apollo program, which like NASA itself was an all-white, all-male
>operation. The only other player in the "space race" was the Soviet
>Union, which at least allowed a woman in its space program. In light
>of the extreme hostility and distrust that existed between the US and
>USSR in the mid-60s, it was quite farsighted of Kubrick and Clarke
>even to have an American exchanging pleasantries (strained and
>disingenuous though they were) with a group of Russians aboard a space
>station that would accomodate both.
Good points.
Mark Ervin
dutch_angle
> > It simplifies art.
> > It exists only for bad critics and bad filmmakers.
>
> Then you may as well exclude every great poet, novelist, painter,
> playwright and filmmaker who ever lived, as all of the great works of
> theater, literature, art, poetry and cinema have metaphors, symbols
> and what have you. And if you don't think they exist then you haven't
> been paying attention.
The great works of theater, literature, art, poetry and cinema merely
INVITE you to think and interpret in terms of metaphors, symbols and
what have you, at most. Do not mistake this for eternal truth; it
might be YOUR "truth" only.
I dislike labeling art in that silly one-track-minded
pseudo-intellectual fashion of supposed metaphors, symbols etc. If a
thousand people experience a single film (or any work of art) the
event of that experience produces a thousand films, at least, a
thousand different views on it, at least. Why should that single
individual experience ever be pidgeonholed into the pidgeonholes of
metaphors, symbols and what have you? Why should one assume that a
true, inspired and gifted artist would "hide" that what he wants to
express by the use of such silly labels?
Besides that, you obviously don't pay any attention to what I was
saying, as I didn't say "metaphors, symbols and what have you do not
exist". I said: metaphors, symbols and what have you only exist for
bad critics and bad filmmakers.
I sure pay enough attention, that is: enough attention to see that
once one gives a clue of disagreement, one is told "screw it". I
suppose that is a metaphor in your view. I would say, it is neither
metaphor, nor is it evolution; it is pure primitiveness. Or a sign of
"racial awareness", for that matter.
And as for the Overlook Hotel in the film: it is pure Kubrick.
I don't need anyone's cheap historical blabla lessons on American
history and culture to "read" this film.
After all: what is American culture these days? Is it about redoing a
great spiritual work of art, Tarkovsky's Solaris, and messing it up
into the vacuum freakshow by stylistic chameleon Soderbergh?
Soderbergh as the modern American artist? Laughable. His Solaris is
just a metaphor for America's copy-paste-and-waste-culture.
What's next on the list? Soderbergh's Stalker?
Anything else?
d.a.
Peter Tonguette
>great spiritual work of art, Tarkovsky's Solaris, and messing it up
>into the vacuum freakshow by stylistic chameleon Soderbergh?
>Soderbergh as the modern American artist? Laughable. His Solaris is
>just a metaphor for America's copy-paste-and-waste-culture.
The broad strokes with which you dismiss an entire film culture is sad indeed.
And it's an insult to the major film artists working in America when, in fact,
you should direct your rage - as I do - to the corporations which limit and
control what art is produced and how widely it is, or is not, seen.
But have you >seen< Soderbergh's "Solaris"? Given what we both know about the
American studio system, aren't you the least bit pleased - I'm assuming you
have seen it, given your bile toward it - that a work this serious and
ambitious has been financed by a major studio? You needn't worry because it's
tanking at the box office... just like the other major works of art from the
studio system in recent memory, "Eyes Wide Shut" and "The Thin Red Line"...
Peter
dutch_angle
> >great spiritual work of art, Tarkovsky's Solaris, and messing it up
> >into the vacuum freakshow by stylistic chameleon Soderbergh?
> >Soderbergh as the modern American artist? Laughable. His Solaris is
> >just a metaphor for America's copy-paste-and-waste-culture.
>
> The broad strokes with which you dismiss an entire film culture is sad indeed.
Read more carefully.
I do not dismiss "an entire film culture".
I certainly dismiss Soderbergh's Solaris as "culture", yes.
> And it's an insult to the major film artists working in America when, in fact,
> you should direct your rage - as I do - to the corporations which limit and
> control what art is produced and how widely it is, or is not, seen.
I certainly meant it as an insult to Soderbergh, yes.
His redo is an insult to film culture.
It's Soderbergh's Always.
>
> But have you >seen< Soderbergh's "Solaris"?
I have. Anything wrong with that too?
> Given what we both know about the
> American studio system, aren't you the least bit pleased - I'm assuming you
> have seen it, given your bile toward it - that a work this serious and
> ambitious has been financed by a major studio?
I'm not pleased, not even a bit, since I do not like Soderbergh's
Solaris.
And I don't think Soderbergh is a devoted film artist.
He's smart, but smart as a copy-paste-artist.
Exactly what makes his redo so "serious" and "ambitious"?
And how does that make "American culture", or "culture" at all?
> You needn't worry because it's
> tanking at the box office... just like the other major works of art from the
> studio system in recent memory, "Eyes Wide Shut" and "The Thin Red Line".
And was I discussing EWS or TTRL? I wasn't.
Besides that, I wouldn't consider these films as works of art "from
the studio system"; that's your way of putting it.
And of course, of course, it is all too predictable to see what you
have chosen to react to: the fact that I do not like Soderbergh's
Solaris. Another reason to show some of your "racial awareness". I
suppose SS's Solaris also shows "racial awareness"?
I asked this question:
After all: what is American culture these days? Is it about redoing a
great spiritual work of art, Tarkovsky's Solaris, and messing it up
into the vacuum freakshow by stylistic chameleon Soderbergh?
Read more carefully. Try again.
d.a.
dutch_angle
> >statement as many of Kubrick's films are directly engaged with American culture
> >and American imperialism. Screw it.
>
> Not really. Its just another unhinged looney filling the on-going AMK
> vacuum ...
>
Brilliant response.
d.a.
dutch_angle
>
> So your credo is "A cigar is always just a cigar"?
No, not my credo.
I prefer smoking a pipe.
"Ceci n'est pas une pipe"...
I like that for a credo.
>
> This might be a good time for you to commit to some remarks of a
> positive nature, such as:
>
> Are there any good critics in your opinion (aside from that one essay by
> Sontag which you seem to have taken to heart)?
Yes.
>
> Are there any good filmmakers that you could name,
Yes.
> and can you name any criteria other than your personal taste?
Yes.
>
> If metaphorical meaning is not a valid artistic vehicle, then how does
> art distinguish itself from journalism or science or technical manuals?
Let me say only this:
Art is a different medium of communication. Art provokes a mixture of
thoughts and feelings, interpretation beyond the matter-of-fact-ness
of life, so to speak, into the realms of the spiritual, for instance.
Journalism, science and technical manuals are far more matter-of-fact,
expresses and informs us more about these matters-of-fact(s).
There's no meaning at all in whatever artwork.
There's only meaning in our interpretation and relation about art.
A good artist, a good filmmaker, doesn't set out to "do a good
metaphor".
You cannot "film" or "photograph" or "paint" a metaphor.
If you do, you are a bad artist.
That's why I like Magritte's "Ceci n'est pas un pipe".
>
> Do you favor literal meaning always over metaphorical meaning?
Are these the only "meanings" you can come up with?
How come you think I would favor literal meaning over metaphorical
meaning?
Where exactly do I favor "literal meaning"?
That's a thought you produce, out of your free will; it's not me.
> Do you favor visceral experience always over any form of thought?
No.
I don't think this is a good time to really answer any of these
questions, since these questions do not arise from any real interest
or integrity. Answer these questions yourself first, before aiming
them at me.
Why do you ask me those questions?
Because I have chosen to firmly disagree with someone, with you also
perhaps?
You asume much more than I have actually said. That is your choice.
Answering those questions would almost certainly lead up to another
never-ending discussion on the matters of "metaphors" and "symbols".
That discussion would only make any sense if you can accept my view on
it.
Let's see what answering the above questions would lead up to:
1. I answer the questions thouroughly. That would give you the
oportunity to "proof" how these critics, artists, and work of arts,
are much concerned with metaphors and symbols.
2. I don't answer the questions. That would give you the oportunity to
"proof" how I refuse to explain something myself.
That is how you try to control the discussion.
You are not interested in discussion.
You are only interested in what you think yourself.
Which is good for you.
Discussion can be rewarding, once you respect someone's personal
thoughts and views. It should not, I think, be the goal to "convince"
someone.
You cannot convince me.
Once the questions that are asked are the product of real interest and
respect, discussion can be interesting, even rewarding.
>
>
> >>Built on Indian burial ground, populated by "all the
> >>best people," and sucking people like Jack Torrance in by playing off their
> >>racist tendencies?
> >>
> >
> > So this makes The Shining a "very racially aware film"?
> > Not to me.
> >
>
> Can you give an example of an additional occurence in The Shining that
> would change it from being racially unaware to aware?
No, I can not. Can you?
Let's look at some "metaphorical explanation":
"Don't you think the Overlook Hotel is a decent metaphor for American
culture
and American history? Built on Indian burial ground, populated by 'all
the
best people,' and sucking people like Jack Torrance in by playing off
their
racist tendencies?"
How can a metaphor be decent? Can it also be not-decent?
Would a filmmaker use a not-decent metaphor?
What is meant here with "decent"?
What exactly is the importance of the supposed metaphor?
Could the Overlook Hotel also be a "metaphor" for the mind?
If so, can the Overlook Hotel be two "metaphors"?
Could the Overlook Hotel be a "metaphor" for space and time?
If so, can the Overlook Hotel be three "metaphors"?
Could the Overlook Hotel also be a "symbol"?
Why accept that Jack Torrance is "sucked in"?
Why accept that 'all the best people' are playing off their racist
tendencies?
Aren't there other tendencies?
The whole "metaphor"-way of thinking doesn't really strike me as very
inspiring.
To me, a "metaphorical" statement simplifies the art of The Shining.
It would be more satisfying (and still not perfect) to read something
like "To me, personally, the Overlook Hotel might represent elements
of the nature of American history and culture"; that is a far more
carefully written statement that, important, also expresses ones own
limitations of interpretation.
All it really is, of course, is personal interpretation and that is
not the same as "the" meaning.
The word "metaphor" is not needed; it is only a very very limited
lable.
And all lables simplify art.
I sure like to read critics, and I as much enjoy to agree and to
disagree with them. But I always get suspicious once I read words like
"symbols" and "metaphors", or a statement like "this film is
about...".
Still, to me, discussion is bouncing thoughts, not trying to be
"right", or to distinguish "right" from "wrong".
>
> You've asked for explanations. But what would constitute the type of
> response that would count as an "explanation" to you?
I could. Could you?
I started out with a simple "explain".
I was curious because someone chose to say that The Shining, for
instance, was supposed to be "racially aware". I would like someone to
explore that statement, since I cannot agree with that single
statement. It doesn't really make sense to me. But perhaps a more
firmly explored layout of thoughts would make (more) sense to me.
I don't make the rules. Do you?
And as a result of that single and simple question, "explain", someone
choses to answer with "screw it". That's poor explanation, isn't it?
The only "racial awareness" that shows itself, is the way others
react.
> Would-be explainers have a right to know. If the explanation were "meaningful",
> would that be self-defeating quality in your eyes?
You see how you already have the answers? You are not the least
interested in discussion, are you?
How exactly can you come up with a conclusion that suggests: if the
explanation is meaningful, than that would be a self-defeating
quality? How, exactly?
I dislike metaphors and symbols.
Is that the same as "meaningful explanation"?
As someone who likes language, you should read more carefully.
But do try again.
d.a.
Mikko Pihkoluoma
>A good artist, a good filmmaker, doesn't set out to "do a good
>metaphor".
Who said creating metaphors is the purpose of art?
>You cannot "film" or "photograph" or "paint" a metaphor.
>If you do, you are a bad artist.
I understand you might respect Kubrick as an artist. Now can someone dig me
out any given quote where Kubrick admits to have intentionally created a
metaphor. I know I've read at least one concerning 2001...
>Let's look at some "metaphorical explanation":
>"Don't you think the Overlook Hotel is a decent metaphor for American
>culture
>and American history? Built on Indian burial ground, populated by 'all
>the
>best people,' and sucking people like Jack Torrance in by playing off
>their
>racist tendencies?"
>
>How can a metaphor be decent? Can it also be not-decent?
Easily. A metaphor is decent if it's intellectually and technically decent.
The same thing for the opposite.
>Would a filmmaker use a not-decent metaphor?
Steven Spielberg has used a lot of metaphors that could be described
not-decent.
>What is meant here with "decent"?
I think what Peter actually refers to is that it's rather obvious: it works
for the film as a whole.
>What exactly is the importance of the supposed metaphor?
For one thing it provides an opportunity for social commentary in a horror
story.
>Could the Overlook Hotel also be a "metaphor" for the mind?
Yes.
>If so, can the Overlook Hotel be two "metaphors"?
Yes.
>Could the Overlook Hotel be a "metaphor" for space and time?
Perhaps.
>If so, can the Overlook Hotel be three "metaphors"?
Definitely.
>Could the Overlook Hotel also be a "symbol"?
I haven't thought of it that way, but I guess it might.
>Why accept that Jack Torrance is "sucked in"?
Because all evidence points to that.
>Why accept that 'all the best people' are playing off their racist
>tendencies?
They are, that is why.
>Aren't there other tendencies?
Most probably.
>The whole "metaphor"-way of thinking doesn't really strike me as very
>inspiring.
>To me, a "metaphorical" statement simplifies the art of The Shining.
>It would be more satisfying (and still not perfect) to read something
>like "To me, personally, the Overlook Hotel might represent elements
>of the nature of American history and culture"; that is a far more
>carefully written statement that, important, also expresses ones own
>limitations of interpretation.
>All it really is, of course, is personal interpretation and that is
>not the same as "the" meaning.
No it's not only a personal interpretation. I believe there exists plenty of
essays that mention this fact. There are reasonable, articulate, objective
and sane reasons to believe that Kubrick intended the Overlook Hotel to be,
among other things, a some kind of metaphor for American culture.
We are seperate souls who enjoy this film. Some of us still come to the same
conclusions, independently. Is it unreasonable to believe that the artist
may have actually intended it that way?
>The word "metaphor" is not needed; it is only a very very limited
>lable.
>And all lables simplify art.
Do you think that intellectual interpretations that try to reach something
objective destroy the magic of the film? It seems to me (I'm making an
assumption -- you don't have to tell me that -- it's a common practise in
the world of ngs) that you're afraid of that kind of literature. Why?
I've read dozens of articles on EWS and I still am able to find new things
about it. It still remains quite a magic film to me.
>> You've asked for explanations. But what would constitute the type of
>> response that would count as an "explanation" to you?
>
>I could. Could you?
>
>I started out with a simple "explain".
It came off absolutely irritating.
>I was curious because someone chose to say that The Shining, for
>instance, was supposed to be "racially aware". I would like someone to
>explore that statement, since I cannot agree with that single
>statement. It doesn't really make sense to me. But perhaps a more
>firmly explored layout of thoughts would make (more) sense to me.
I'm not going to give you anything but few observations from the film. You
are free to ignore these facts as only coincidence.
The Shining is the only Stanley Kubrick film which has an African American
actor in one of the main roles.
It was the first SK film that mentioned Indians; SK sent one of his
daughters to look for specifically Indian carpets and whatnot to fill the
sets with them.
Danny is wearing two shirts that have a picture on them, one of them is
Mickey Mouse the other one is Apollo 11(?).
The appearance of the USA's flag is countless.
In the second (or was it third?) final close-up we see that Jack is at a
party which took place on July 4th.
>And as a result of that single and simple question, "explain", someone
>choses to answer with "screw it". That's poor explanation, isn't it?
Your own attitude has caused it. If you truly have the best intentions and
are sincere in your inquiries you should try to sound more polite than
"Explain".
Mikko
mark de rozario
>
> You are not interested in discussion.
> You are only interested in what you think yourself.
Must it be pointed out that you interrupted what might have been an
interesting discussion on race in Kubrick with your by now familiar
peremptory one-line dismissals? David's questions seem to me
legitimate: why can't you make a _positive_ contribution instead of
policing other people's discussions? It's by now abundantly clear that
you regard any attribution of social/ political/ economic/ cultural
themes to Kubrick films as sullying their spirtual integrity - or
rather the integrity of your spiritual 'response'. Fine. Ignore
threads which feature such discussion. Start your own 'cult of
ineffability' threads.
Your exhortation to 'explain' is of course no such thing, since it's
clear that you a priori dismiss any social/cultural explanations as
unworthy. And you must be aware that this can only lead into the very
pointless meta-discussions you affect to dislike. But which, funnily
enough, your posts always end up producing. Here's where you come back
with something like: 'You have misinterpreted my position. Good for
you.' If you are going to say something like that, do us all a favour
and clarify your position, or better still, post something positive
instead of derailing others' discussions into this same old impasse.
mark de rozario
>
> I dislike labeling art in that silly one-track-minded
> pseudo-intellectual fashion of supposed metaphors, symbols etc. If a
> thousand people experience a single film (or any work of art) the
> event of that experience produces a thousand films, at least, a
> thousand different views on it, at least. Why should that single
> individual experience ever be pidgeonholed into the pidgeonholes of
> metaphors, symbols and what have you? Why should one assume that a
> true, inspired and gifted artist would "hide" that what he wants to
> express by the use of such silly labels?
>
Ask Leonard Wheat --- you two are like bizarre inversions of each other ----
Matthew Dickinson
> The word "aboriginal" appears to be used in the most generic sense here.
> Keep in mind that these are words published in the 21st century in
> which "aboriginal" is a cultural rather than a racial concept. Native
> Americans are aboriginal because they were in America before the
> Europeans. The word is roughly equivalent to "native". I believe the
> main point of Richter's words was that the original conception of the
> "Dawn of Man" characters would have involved a lot of human nakedness.
Looks like you're right. I emailed Underview and got this response:
"I actually meant the description in a generic sense, as in
'first or earliest'. It's usually taken to mean Australian, but from
the
picture I wouldn't really like to guess where he came from."
> The fact that the test-makeup "apeman" looks more like an Australian
> aboriginal than, say, an Australipithicus (which has the same
> etymological connection to Australia as Austria, by the way, namely that
> it is south of something) is the fact that you could not fit the head of
> a human into the skull of a real pre-human.
But why make the "apeman" look like an Australian aborigine? And if he
doesn't look like that (I still think that is a native Australian in
those pictures), then he at least looks much more like an Australasian
or a sub-Saharan African than, say, a white or Asian. I suspect
Kubrick was at least thinking these look closer to our ape ancestors
(because they really do) and if he was thinking that could he also
have been thinking their minds were more primitive genetically? Or was
he just going to associate one primitive >culture< with another? I
don't know that there are any definite answers to these questions
because there is too little information, but I was curious if anyone
else had wondered similar things.
> By "going hairy", as it were, achieves 4 things:
>
> 1) Side-steps the nudity problem
> 2) Emphasizes the animality rather than proto-humanity of the primates
> prior to the monolith, thus emphasizing how important the tool-making
> discovery is
> 3) Avoids the kind of racial connotations you suggest, however
> unintentional they might be. After all, lighter pigmentation almost
> certainly didn't appear in humanity until humans moved north. It would
> be awkward in the extreme if instead of Man going from hairy to
> hairless, went from black to white -- to the tune of the Blue Danube
> (following ATZ, no less).
> 4) By placing "furry" humanoids in the desert this suggests that there
> may have been a recent climactic change, putting our ancestors in a
> relatively sudden crises situation. There is a sense of "necessity is
> the mother of invention" in more than one place in 2001. That realism
> counters the surrealism of the monolith "magic".
Good reasons...
> By the way, while European prejudices about African and Australasian
> blacks may have something to do with Europeans having thinner noses and
> thinner lips, have they perhaps totally overlooked the male body hair
> factor?
What do you mean?
I think racial prejudices have always been at least equally based in
behavioral differences than physical differences.
> But to speak on the subject of Kubrick's apparent focus on "white
> people", I believe this is the same kind of half-truth as the idea that
> his films care about men rather than women. His films are dominated by
> European and American men because they largely directed at the roots of
> European and American culture, which are largely the product of white
> male imagination and will and limitations. The universal suffrage, so
> to speak, in Kubrick's oevre is not in who it's about, but who it's for.
> Just because a cadaver happens to be one race or sex or nationality
> doesn't mean that not everyone is invited to the autopsy or that they
> might not all learn something from it.
>
> Here perhaps two wrongs do make a right. The alleged coldness of
> Kubrick's eye on the affairs of flawed white men of privilege ought to
> make it all the more accessible to "outsiders". Of course there are no
> real outsiders in an empire.
>
> David
These are good points, however... we've already got yet another thread
talking about the lack of female fans of Kubrick films, but how about
this: are there many black fans? And is that entirely a matter of
culture? I answer no to both of these questions, but with the hope
that I'm proven wrong. This means his films are largely directed at
the most intelligent of humanity which in general are white and asian
males. I don't mean it is exclusively their domain, but that they are
the ones that will understand the films the best.
I apologize for any offense I'm causing in this thread. I'm not
interested in being controversial for the sake of it. It makes me
nervous and a little sweaty to even suggest these things in public...
Matthew
Matthew Dickinson
> The timescale involved in human evolution is of critical importance
> because modern man is a very recent branch on the family tree,
> appearing 100-200,000 years ago. The species H. sapiens includes
> Australian aborigines, American Indians, Kalihari bushmen and any
> other socio-ethnic group whom we enlightened Caucasoids deem
> "primitive". By definition, there is no such thing as "genetically
> more primitive" members of the same species. Recent studies of
> mitochondrial DNA in present-day populations support the "out of
> Africa" model of human migration starting 170,000 years ago, thence
> thru the middle East to Asia, reaching New Guinea and Australia
> 20-30,000 y.a. and Europe 15,000 y.a.
Here is something I do not understand. If modern man is as recent as
100-200,000 years old, what makes one think evolution stopped then? If
various peoples or races of H. sapiens were separated for a good
100,000 years or more I'd expect them to evolve subtle genetic
differences in their minds, about as subtle as their physical
differences. Unfortunately, these suble differences in the races are
probably great enough to keep us all from ever getting along very
well, but the first step towards getting along better is acknowledging
our differences.
I don't know why there is no such thing as genetic primitiveness
within the same species. The kind of primitiveness I'm talking about
is relative to the observer: in general, it seems to have been mostly
whites who have viewed other races as more primitive, and I cannot
help but wonder if that too is not genetically influenced, in that
perhaps whites are innately driven towards snobbishness,
pretentiousness, and the worry over superiority. I've heard of blacks
who actually believed they were inferior, but it did not seem to
bother them the way it would a white man.
> Obviously we've learned a lot since the mid-60s, but even back then
> nobody with any familiarity with primate evolution (including Kubrick
> and certainly Clarke) believed for a second that dark-skinned races
> were genetically distinct from whites, much less the frankly racist
> notion that Africans or Australian aborigines represented a "missing
> link" to the ape. That distinction falls to Proconsul, an African
> fellow who lived 16 million years ago.
I take back the "missing link" comment which sounds ridiculous to me
now. However, Africans and native Australians do look more like our
ape ancestors than whites or Asians, even if only slightly. Is this
not undeniable? I don't know enough about Australian Aborigines, but
I'd say blacks behave in a more primitive manner, as well. I realize
how racist this sounds, but I do not encourage or condone racism or
hate of other races of any kind. We are all human and should be
treated equally as best as possible even if we aren't equal.
> Kubrick's use of white actors I would say reflects more on the subject
> matter than the director. He obviously had nothing against minorities
> acting in his films, if he thought they were right for the particular
> part. If Kubrick is guilty of underrepresenting minorities, then so is
> just about every other Western director I can think of, save Spike
> Lee. Foreign films are even less ethnically diverse. Kurosawa's films
> have Japanese actors because the subject matter demands it. A white
> actor in "Rashomon" (even if he spoke Japanese) would look just as
> absurd as an Asian actor in "Barry Lyndon." Was Fellini racist for
> using Italian actors?
I agree with you, but I always think of Kubrick as a kind of
extraterrestrial anthropologist that chose to focus on white man and
what he's created. The question is why he never chose other subject
matter, but as you say, this probably signifies nothing given that
every director or artist tends to focus on his own race and past.
> As to "2001" specifically: the shooting started about the same time as
> the Apollo program, which like NASA itself was an all-white, all-male
> operation. The only other player in the "space race" was the Soviet
> Union, which at least allowed a woman in its space program. In light
> of the extreme hostility and distrust that existed between the US and
> USSR in the mid-60s, it was quite farsighted of Kubrick and Clarke
> even to have an American exchanging pleasantries (strained and
> disingenuous though they were) with a group of Russians aboard a space
> station that would accomodate both.
>
> ~~Jack
Yes, I would still say "2001" shows a rather patriarchal future,
though... I guess that's another contrary belief I have, that
patriarchy is probably never going to disappear.
Matthew
Boaz
> > > It simplifies art.
> > > It exists only for bad critics and bad filmmakers.
> >
> > Then you may as well exclude every great poet, novelist, painter,
> > playwright and filmmaker who ever lived, as all of the great works of
> > theater, literature, art, poetry and cinema have metaphors, symbols
> > and what have you. And if you don't think they exist then you haven't
> > been paying attention.
>
>
> The great works of theater, literature, art, poetry and cinema merely
> INVITE you to think and interpret in terms of metaphors, symbols and
> what have you, at most. Do not mistake this for eternal truth; it
> might be YOUR "truth" only.
So, according to this thinking the albatross around the neck of the
Mariner is just a dead bird; the figures on the Grecian urn are just
figures. When Romeo says, "It is the east and Juliet is the sun," he
(or perhaps Shakespeare) has just been down at the tavern too many
times. When Melville writes of the "whiteness of the whale" he's just
speaking literally of the whale's coloring and physical makeup.
> I dislike labeling art in that silly one-track-minded
> pseudo-intellectual fashion of supposed metaphors, symbols etc.
As opposed to your own silly one track minded fashion.
> If a
> thousand people experience a single film (or any work of art) the
> event of that experience produces a thousand films, at least, a
> thousand different views on it, at least. Why should that single
> individual experience ever be pidgeonholed into the pidgeonholes of
> metaphors, symbols and what have you? Why should one assume that a
> true, inspired and gifted artist would "hide" that what he wants to
> express by the use of such silly labels?
I think it was best said by David Kirkpatrick about how the use of
symbols and metaphors separate art from mere journalism. I once posted
something long ago that said the Cro-Magnon man would not just try to
tell the others in his clan how he came about to kill the mastadon for
their dinner, he also felt the urge to preserve the tale through
imagery with cave paintings. The difference there is that it becomes
art, open to interpretation, than just recording a factual event. The
Cro-Magnon man has now created a work to both stroke his ego as well
communicate on a different level about his actions. In another way of
putting it, the journalist will simply state what happened in a
straightforward, literal fashion, while the artist use turns of
phrases to create a more heightened style of telling the same story,
and more often than not will choose symbols or metaphors in his quest
to tell the story.
Actually, it is always good to get a thousand interpretations, if it
comes to that, as it is interesting to see what someone brings to the
table their take on a work of art. That is what goes on (or used to,
for the most part) here on AMK. People post their interpretations
here, and some are worth considering and some aren't. But I can't
recall anyone saying, "This is the one way you should be interpreting
(insert title of Kubrick film of your choice here)."
> Besides that, you obviously don't pay any attention to what I was
> saying, as I didn't say "metaphors, symbols and what have you do not
> exist". I said: metaphors, symbols and what have you only exist for
> bad critics and bad filmmakers.
I was paying attention, and it sounds as if you are saying that
symbols and metaphors exist only for people with bad taste or no taste
at all. Perhaps not even any intelligence. And if that isn't what you
meant, then please EXPLAIN what you mean by bad critics and bad
filmmakers. Who are they? EXPLAIN.
> I sure pay enough attention, that is: enough attention to see that
> once one gives a clue of disagreement, one is told "screw it". I
> suppose that is a metaphor in your view.
No, which says something on how you interpret the way I think.
> I would say, it is neither
> metaphor, nor is it evolution; it is pure primitiveness. Or a sign of
> "racial awareness", for that matter.
And just what does this "pure primitiveness" mean?
> And as for the Overlook Hotel in the film: it is pure Kubrick.
> I don't need anyone's cheap historical blabla lessons on American
> history and culture to "read" this film.
I bet you were a handful to your teachers and professors. What's the
point in going to school if you feel you are smarter than your
teachers? And just how is the Overlook "pure Kubrick?" Pure Kubrick in
what way?
> After all: what is American culture these days? Is it about redoing a
> great spiritual work of art, Tarkovsky's Solaris, and messing it up
> into the vacuum freakshow by stylistic chameleon Soderbergh?
> Soderbergh as the modern American artist? Laughable. His Solaris is
> just a metaphor for America's copy-paste-and-waste-culture.
I can think of other studio produced films that fit that description
much better, especially those that serve no purpose than to bring in
the teenage crowd on Friday nights. I haven't seen the new version
yet, only Tarkovsky's, so I have nothing to say on what Soderberg did,
I only have YOUR interpretation and criticsm of it to go by.
Boaz
Mike Jackson
boa...@yahoo.com wrote on 12/3/02 5:42 PM:
> R.P.J.H...@chello.nl (dutch_angle) wrote in message
> news:<2295770d.02120...@posting.google.com>...
>> The great works of theater, literature, art, poetry and cinema merely
>> INVITE you to think and interpret in terms of metaphors, symbols and
>> what have you, at most. Do not mistake this for eternal truth; it
>> might be YOUR "truth" only.
> So, according to this thinking the albatross around the neck of the
> Mariner is just a dead bird;
Maybe it was to ward off the unwanted advances of the crew that had been at
sea a little too long?
> the figures on the Grecian urn are just figures.
Too bad our USAG wasn't there to crack down on those often indecent images!
> When Romeo says, "It is the east and Juliet is the sun," he
> (or perhaps Shakespeare) has just been down at the tavern too many
> times.
Well, he was a beery swine, but not half as schloshed as Schlegel....
> When Melville writes of the "whiteness of the whale" he's just
> speaking literally of the whale's coloring and physical makeup.
So what was the whale's name all about Alfie?
--
Mike Jackson
Mental Pictures Photography & Design
http://www.mental-pictures.com/
Phone/Fax: 228-696-2702 Cell: 228-918-4596
JW Moore
>>Jack
>writes:
>
>>The "Dawn of Man" title is semantically vague enough to allow Kubrick
>>substantial leeway regarding the appearance of his "apes". Keeping in
>>mind what we knew of human paleontology in the mid-60s (the Leakeys
>>were still fairly early in their Olduvai Gorge operation), I'd say
>>Kubrick's representation of our ancient ancestors was as faithful as
>>one could expect. With the hindsight of more recent fossil findings,
>>though, we now know that Moonwatcher & Co. are physiologically closer
>>to the Australopithecene genus than later Homo (i.e. Man), which
>>stretches the definition of "Dawn" and "Man" to the breaking point.
>
>Actually they (Kubrick and Clarke) were thinking of Australopithecus africanus
>as the man-apes of "2001." A primary text they used was Robert Ardrey's
>"African Genesis," and as Geoffrey Alexander once pointed out, if you turn to
>page 175 you'll see a drawing of an australopithecene sitting the midst of
>animal bones and pondering them! They pushed the date of A. Africanus back an
>additional million years (and that turned out to be right). The drawing looks
>like Moonwatcher except it has short hair, but no one knows whether or not they
>might have had the long fur of chimps, and that's what Kubrick went with in the
>film.
>
I don't recall the drawing, but I read a couple of Ardrey's books as
an anthropology major in the late 70s, by which time the whole "killer
ape" hypothesis (which actually originated with Raymond Dart) was
obsolete. Hours of footage on Kalihari bushmen and other "primitive"
societies seemed to support the "hunter ape" hypothesis, but it too
was later discredited. Based on mounting fossil (esp. dental)
evidence, it's now believed that Australopithecines were foraging
vegetarians, and thus had no need for stone tools. I won't belabor the
point ... Kubrick was making art, not a documentary, and he succeeded
magnificently.
>>The famous "Lucy" for example (A. afarensis) lived 3-4 million years
>>ago and was barely 3 feet tall, yet was fully bipedal.
>
>As I said above, they turned out to be right because Lucy was found about a
>decade after the film was released and 4 million years ago was on the money.
>
>>The use of tools, however, does not appear for another 1 million years
>>or so, with Homo habilis. This human ancestor fashioned stones for the
>>purposes of cutting, scraping, smashing etc., rather than hunting and
>>homicide.
>
>Here though, we must make a distinction between artifact tools and found tools.
> It's highly likely that all Australopithecenes used found tools, if for no
>other reason than that their brains were the same size as chimps, and chimps
>use various found tools. They even engage in slight modifications that are
>learned tactics (culture).
There is evidence of Austs using bones and horns as digging tools, but
not as weapons. The use of tools by contemporary apes is interesting
but not necessarily relevant to Austs. The distinction I would
emphasize is brain size vs. brain structure. The cerebral cortex (esp.
Broca's area, the seat of language) and frontal lobes of A. africanus
are well developed compared to chimps, gorillas, and other modern
apes. These and other anatomical developments are among the many
consequences of bipedalism.
It's fascinating to see the many ways Kubrick renders locomotion in
general, and the human gait in particular. The shadowboxing shot on
the centrifuge (and those haunting Khatchatourian strings), still
astonishes, esp. on the Cinerama screen.
>As I always point out though, it seems to me at
>least that the tool use of Moonwatcher is not the significant "Dawn of Man"
>element (purely a poetic term for a segment of the film, BTW), but rather it's
>the conceptualization of a way to extend his power, kill a tapir for food, and
>change his future.
>
All set in motion by the monolith, the ultimate abstract concept...
The fate of Neanderdude remains one of the great alltime mysteries.
One theory holds that H. sapiens survived because he naturally
gravitated to hilltops and could see approaching game whereas H.
neander kept to his caves. Maybe there was some interbreeding but the
resulting progeny were sterile (like the mule). The cyclical
glaciations of that period must have played a role. Some recent study
suggested we prevailed purely by a chance ... a single gene encoding
for (or inhibiting) a particular protein that just happened to be
advantageous in northern climes. Or maybe it was that monolith.
Whatever the reason, I'm just happy we won. Sapiens rule!!!
>>Kubrick's use of white actors I would say reflects more on the subject
>>matter than the director. He obviously had nothing against minorities
>>acting in his films, if he thought they were right for the particular
>>part. If Kubrick is guilty of underrepresenting minorities, then so is
>>just about every other Western director I can think of, save Spike
>>Lee. Foreign films are even less ethnically diverse. Kurosawa's films
>>have Japanese actors because the subject matter demands it. A white
>>actor in "Rashomon" (even if he spoke Japanese) would look just as
>>absurd as an Asian actor in "Barry Lyndon." Was Fellini racist for
>>using Italian actors?
>
>I think you clearly see a concern with racism. The point about it in TS and
>FMJ, as two examples, is clear.
>
Sparklingly so.
>>As to "2001" specifically: the shooting started about the same time as
>>the Apollo program, which like NASA itself was an all-white, all-male
>>operation. The only other player in the "space race" was the Soviet
>>Union, which at least allowed a woman in its space program. In light
>>of the extreme hostility and distrust that existed between the US and
>>USSR in the mid-60s, it was quite farsighted of Kubrick and Clarke
>>even to have an American exchanging pleasantries (strained and
>>disingenuous though they were) with a group of Russians aboard a space
>>station that would accomodate both.
>
>Good points.
>
>Mark Ervin
~~Jack
dutch_angle
> >metaphor".
>
> Who said creating metaphors is the purpose of art?
I hope nobody, since you cannot create a metaphor.
>
> >You cannot "film" or "photograph" or "paint" a metaphor.
> >If you do, you are a bad artist.
>
>
> I understand you might respect Kubrick as an artist. Now can someone dig me
> out any given quote where Kubrick admits to have intentionally created a
> metaphor. I know I've read at least one concerning 2001...
Yes, provide it. If he has said so, I simply do not agree with him.
>
> >Let's look at some "metaphorical explanation":
> >"Don't you think the Overlook Hotel is a decent metaphor for American
> >culture
> >and American history? Built on Indian burial ground, populated by 'all
> >the
> >best people,' and sucking people like Jack Torrance in by playing off
> >their
> >racist tendencies?"
> >
> >How can a metaphor be decent? Can it also be not-decent?
>
> Easily. A metaphor is decent if it's intellectually and technically decent.
> The same thing for the opposite.
I see. So only if it is intellectually and technically decent.
That's why is it so limited, imperfect and silly.
>
> >Would a filmmaker use a not-decent metaphor?
>
> Steven Spielberg has used a lot of metaphors that could be described
> not-decent.
Really?
Give an example. Explain!
>
> >What is meant here with "decent"?
>
> I think what Peter actually refers to is that it's rather obvious: it works
> for the film as a whole.
The concept of the Overlook Hotel does, not the supposed "metaphor".
>
> >What exactly is the importance of the supposed metaphor?
>
> For one thing it provides an opportunity for social commentary in a horror
> story.
No, a good scene, or a good concept does.
That's all you need.
You make the metaphor, not Kubrick, the artist.
>
> >Could the Overlook Hotel also be a "metaphor" for the mind?
>
> Yes.
I don't think so.
>
> >If so, can the Overlook Hotel be two "metaphors"?
>
> Yes.
I don't think so.
>
> >Could the Overlook Hotel be a "metaphor" for space and time?
>
> Perhaps.
I don't think so.
>
> >If so, can the Overlook Hotel be three "metaphors"?
>
> Definitely.
Can it be four, five, six, seven, hundred, thousand "metaphors"?
>
> >Could the Overlook Hotel also be a "symbol"?
>
> I haven't thought of it that way, but I guess it might.
How?
>
> >Why accept that Jack Torrance is "sucked in"?
>
> Because all evidence points to that.
Which one?
>
> >Why accept that 'all the best people' are playing off their racist
> >tendencies?
>
> They are, that is why.
Explain.
>
> >Aren't there other tendencies?
>
>
> Most probably.
Explain.
>
> >The whole "metaphor"-way of thinking doesn't really strike me as very
> >inspiring.
> >To me, a "metaphorical" statement simplifies the art of The Shining.
> >It would be more satisfying (and still not perfect) to read something
> >like "To me, personally, the Overlook Hotel might represent elements
> >of the nature of American history and culture"; that is a far more
> >carefully written statement that, important, also expresses ones own
> >limitations of interpretation.
> >All it really is, of course, is personal interpretation and that is
> >not the same as "the" meaning.
>
>
> No it's not only a personal interpretation. I believe there exists plenty of
> essays that mention this fact.
Essays are personal interpretation. It's no "fact". It's opinion.
> There are reasonable, articulate, objective
> and sane reasons to believe that Kubrick intended the Overlook Hotel to be,
> among other things, a some kind of metaphor for American culture.
Not a metaphor.
With his team, he came up with a concept that might represent elements
of American history and American culture. How could he "not"?
>
> We are seperate souls who enjoy this film. Some of us still come to the same
> conclusions, independently. Is it unreasonable to believe that the artist
> may have actually intended it that way?
To believe, yes. To make statements that he "did", no.
And certainly not a metaphor.
>
> >The word "metaphor" is not needed; it is only a very very limited
> >lable.
> >And all lables simplify art.
>
>
> Do you think that intellectual interpretations that try to reach something
> objective destroy the magic of the film?
They can never destroy the magic of the film.
The film itself is the magic.
They can only simplify that magic.
> It seems to me (I'm making an
> assumption -- you don't have to tell me that -- it's a common practise in
> the world of ngs) that you're afraid of that kind of literature. Why?
> I've read dozens of articles on EWS and I still am able to find new things
> about it. It still remains quite a magic film to me.
I can most certainly agree with that.
I just don't like metaphors and symbols, because I think they do not
exist.
They can only "exist" in one's own interpretation.
And such interpretation simplifies the art.
That's all. Nothing to be afraid of.
>
> >> You've asked for explanations. But what would constitute the type of
> >> response that would count as an "explanation" to you?
> >
> >I could. Could you?
> >
> >I started out with a simple "explain".
>
> It came off absolutely irritating.
So did the bullshit about "metaphors" and "symbols" to me.
>
> >I was curious because someone chose to say that The Shining, for
> >instance, was supposed to be "racially aware". I would like someone to
> >explore that statement, since I cannot agree with that single
> >statement. It doesn't really make sense to me. But perhaps a more
> >firmly explored layout of thoughts would make (more) sense to me.
>
> I'm not going to give you anything but few observations from the film. You
> are free to ignore these facts as only coincidence.
>
> The Shining is the only Stanley Kubrick film which has an African American
> actor in one of the main roles.
Does this make The Shining "racially aware"?
If the film had two African American actors in a main role, would that
make The Shining more "racially aware"?
Make a list of any film that has an African American actor in one of
the main roles; do you say then say the same?
Is this African American actor also a "metaphor"?
> It was the first SK film that mentioned Indians; SK sent one of his
> daughters to look for specifically Indian carpets and whatnot to fill the
> sets with them.
I see.
And what does this "mean"?
It's a nice piece of info, but what are you saying?
To me, it's about designing a concept.
The design, the choices that are made, make you interpret.
> Danny is wearing two shirts that have a picture on them, one of them is
> Mickey Mouse the other one is Apollo 11(?).
> The appearance of the USA's flag is countless.
> In the second (or was it third?) final close-up we see that Jack is at a
> party which took place on July 4th.
Nice.
What does that "mean"?
A "metaphor"?
>
> >And as a result of that single and simple question, "explain", someone
> >choses to answer with "screw it". That's poor explanation, isn't it?
>
>
> Your own attitude has caused it. If you truly have the best intentions and
> are sincere in your inquiries you should try to sound more polite than
> "Explain".
I see.
Define best intentions.
Define sincere.
Define more polite.
I might try again.
d.a.
dutch_angle
> interesting discussion on race in Kubrick with your by now familiar
> peremptory one-line dismissals?
Not at all.
Provide the brilliant insights, I would say.
I won't stop you.
> David's questions seem to me
> legitimate: why can't you make a _positive_ contribution instead of
> policing other people's discussions? It's by now abundantly clear that
> you regard any attribution of social/ political/ economic/ cultural
> themes to Kubrick films as sullying their spirtual integrity - or
> rather the integrity of your spiritual 'response'. Fine. Ignore
> threads which feature such discussion. Start your own 'cult of
> ineffability' threads.
Why should I?
I just have my own opinion.
The best way is to ignore me, so don't reply.
And if you do reply, come up with decent arguments.
>
> Your exhortation to 'explain' is of course no such thing, since it's
> clear that you a priori dismiss any social/cultural explanations as
> unworthy.
Not at all.
I have never read any deep social/cultural explanation.
I have read a lot of statements.
But surprise me; provide some deep social/cultural explanation.
Let's see how insightful you are.
> And you must be aware that this can only lead into the very
> pointless meta-discussions you affect to dislike. But which, funnily
> enough, your posts always end up producing. Here's where you come back
> with something like: 'You have misinterpreted my position. Good for
> you.' If you are going to say something like that, do us all a favour
> and clarify your position, or better still, post something positive
> instead of derailing others' discussions into this same old impasse.
Whether something is "positive" or "negative"; that's all highly
subjective.
So is opinion and discussion.
I will remember the supposed "Monarch connection" in EWS as silly.
Was that connection a positive one for you?
When someone says "The Shining" shows "racially awareness", the only
thing I can think of is: how silly, but I'd like to see some
explanation.
The result of the discussion on "racial awareness" goes into strange
directions indeed, but certainly not in the positive one; so provide
the arguments that might "proof" how silly I am.
Good luck.
d.a.
dutch_angle
> > pseudo-intellectual fashion of supposed metaphors, symbols etc. If a
> > thousand people experience a single film (or any work of art) the
> > event of that experience produces a thousand films, at least, a
> > thousand different views on it, at least. Why should that single
> > individual experience ever be pidgeonholed into the pidgeonholes of
> > metaphors, symbols and what have you? Why should one assume that a
> > true, inspired and gifted artist would "hide" that what he wants to
> > express by the use of such silly labels?
> >
>
> Ask Leonard Wheat --- you two are like bizarre inversions of each other ----
Another great contribution.
Another proof of good old "racial awareness".
Thanks!
d.a.
dutch_angle
> > INVITE you to think and interpret in terms of metaphors, symbols and
> > what have you, at most. Do not mistake this for eternal truth; it
> > might be YOUR "truth" only.
>
> So, according to this thinking the albatross around the neck of the
> Mariner is just a dead bird; the figures on the Grecian urn are just
> figures. When Romeo says, "It is the east and Juliet is the sun," he
> (or perhaps Shakespeare) has just been down at the tavern too many
> times. When Melville writes of the "whiteness of the whale" he's just
> speaking literally of the whale's coloring and physical makeup.
Do you think so?
I don't.
Disliking "metaphors" and "symbols" doesn't automatically mean that
art doesn't provoke thoughts and feelings, it certainly provokes
interpretation, that you totally seem to rule out here. Strange!
>
> > I dislike labeling art in that silly one-track-minded
> > pseudo-intellectual fashion of supposed metaphors, symbols etc.
>
> As opposed to your own silly one track minded fashion.
Great. Hit me back!
>
> > If a
> > thousand people experience a single film (or any work of art) the
> > event of that experience produces a thousand films, at least, a
> > thousand different views on it, at least. Why should that single
> > individual experience ever be pidgeonholed into the pidgeonholes of
> > metaphors, symbols and what have you? Why should one assume that a
> > true, inspired and gifted artist would "hide" that what he wants to
> > express by the use of such silly labels?
>
> I think it was best said by David Kirkpatrick about how the use of
> symbols and metaphors separate art from mere journalism.
Rather silly and limited, I would say.
Art doesn't use metaphors and symbols.
The people that interpret art provide the metaphors and symbols.
And they usually strike me as very limited lables of art.
Besides that, journalism can also use metaphors and symbols.
> I once posted
> something long ago that said the Cro-Magnon man would not just try to
> tell the others in his clan how he came about to kill the mastadon for
> their dinner, he also felt the urge to preserve the tale through
> imagery with cave paintings.
Yes, so he paints. He doesn't "create" metaphors.
What he "creates" is a painting.
> The difference there is that it becomes
> art, open to interpretation, than just recording a factual event.
Open to interpretation, yes.
> The Cro-Magnon man has now created a work to both stroke his ego as well
> communicate on a different level about his actions. In another way of
> putting it, the journalist will simply state what happened in a
> straightforward, literal fashion, while the artist use turns of
> phrases to create a more heightened style of telling the same story,
> and more often than not will choose symbols or metaphors in his quest
> to tell the story.
Here's where you make the mistake.
He certainly makes choices, but he cannot create a symbol or a
metaphor.
All he can create is a painting.
It will be his audience that "creates" the metaphors and symbols.
>
> Actually, it is always good to get a thousand interpretations, if it
> comes to that, as it is interesting to see what someone brings to the
> table their take on a work of art. That is what goes on (or used to,
> for the most part) here on AMK. People post their interpretations
> here, and some are worth considering and some aren't. But I can't
> recall anyone saying, "This is the one way you should be interpreting
> (insert title of Kubrick film of your choice here)."
I totally agree.
That's why I don't like statements on metaphors and symbols.
>
> > Besides that, you obviously don't pay any attention to what I was
> > saying, as I didn't say "metaphors, symbols and what have you do not
> > exist". I said: metaphors, symbols and what have you only exist for
> > bad critics and bad filmmakers.
>
> I was paying attention, and it sounds as if you are saying that
> symbols and metaphors exist only for people with bad taste or no taste
> at all.
Bad taste perhaps. Everyone has taste, however.
> Perhaps not even any intelligence.
No, that's not what I was saying.
> And if that isn't what you
> meant, then please EXPLAIN what you mean by bad critics and bad
> filmmakers. Who are they? EXPLAIN.
That's a good question. And hey: I'm not irritated!
Bad critics.
I always have the nasty habit to always ask questions. It's especially
important to me to criticize statements, because making statements is
very easy. So I would always ask a question on a given statement. I
might take the risk of being regarded as one irritating son of a
bitch, but I don't care. I am ready to go a long way to search for
some deeper insights and arguments, instead of just making, reading,
statements, no matter how "logical" they seem to be.
If a critic is, for whatever reason, disappointed with a film, but
doesn't provide the arguments, I don't think he shows his
craftmanship, his talent as a critic.
Everyone approaches art with some expectation, experience and certain
levels of personal awareness (political, cultural, social, etc), that
"forms" his vision on the world. Everyone has 'a' taste. So there's no
such thing as "objectivity" in art-criticism, or even journalism. All
depends on one's own personal view, one's own personal interpretation.
This makes criticizing art not an easy job, certainly not when it is
your job, to communicate with an "audience".
One's own personal view on the world, as described above, "forms" the
view on a work of art. Still, I think, a critic should try to approach
the work of art with an open mind, in order to be able to provide the
most significant and insightful view on that work of art. Once he lets
his own personal view get in the way, it might hurt his work as a
critic; I don't say it will, but I think it might...
Words such as "metaphors" and "symbols" do exist, of course, and I
won't deny that. However, I think these words are "dangerous", they
feel very stiff to me. I would never "forbid" to use those words, but
too often I happen to think that the use of these words is too easy,
too simple; these words are/become "dead" to me, that is: meaningless.
These words then do not inspire me.
I will never be convinced when I read a statement like: "the Overlook
Hotel is a metaphor for American culture". It doesn't mean anything to
me. I think: OF COURSE it is! So what? Which hotel in America would
not be a metaphor for American culture, especially when it is part of
a film? You could always defend such a statement, but that doesn't
automatically "mean" anything.
I like Michel Chion's reading of EWS. It's not perfect, but that I do
not and will not ask from anyone. I especially like the way he
introduces his view, his way of explaining his own interpretation. He
provides the elements of his way of thinking, so doesn't just kick
off; he gives me, the reader, the oportunity to really follow his way
of approaching EWS.
I like what he says about "signifiers"; I think that is much more
convincing than "metaphors" and "symbols". He has given, in a way, new
"life" to the "dead" words metaphors and symbols, by introducing
"signifiers". What he says is that a work of art contains
"signifiers", a chain, a collection of "signifiers", that trigger our
interpretation. So what he starts out to do, as the film's critic, is
to interpret those signifiers. He succeeds, I think, in approaching
the film open minded, or rather: as open minded as is possible for
him. And because of this way of laying out his own personal thoughts
on EWS, a wonderful personal insight into Kubrick's film is provided.
But let's look at another critic that I always read: David Walsh.
He is not so impressed with Kubrick, nor with EWS.
Read it here:
http://wsws.org/articles/1999/jul1999/eyes-j30.shtml
Then read his review of The Thin Red Line:
http://wsws.org/articles/1999/jan1999/thin-j23.shtml
Compare both reviews.
Now I like the fact that Walsh is still able to show true respect for
Kubrick and EWS, but it's also quite easy to see how his
"expectations", and his view on the world, kind of "forms" his review.
I kind of know now, by reading a lot of reviews of Walsh, how I must
interpret his interpretations...
He doesn't seem to accept what Michel Chion was saying about
"signifiers".
See how Walsh starts his review: "Eyes Wide Shut is an intriguing
failure". I immediately wonder: what is the failure? Kubrick's film,
or Walsh's critical ability to approach Kubrick's film? It is a
statement, but it's not a statement that he really digs out, explains,
nor does he provide convincing arguments, at least, to me he doesn't.
You can see where it goes "wrong", I think: Walsh thinks Kubrick
"always has a tendency to show off". This is an important part of his
"personal view" on Kubrick, one that he "carries in" when he goes into
the cinema to see EWS...
It highly influences his interpretation. For example, he wonders about
the orgy: "What in the world is the purpose of this scene?"
It seems a good question to me, but Walsh doesn't set out to "answer"
that question, because he has already "decided" that this scene is
Kubrick's tendency to "show off".
Now that isn't like inspiring criticism to me, yet Walsh is honest, I
think, no matter how I disagree with him.
I read the critics a lot. On films that I like, I certainly read a lot
of reviews, not only American ones, but reviews from all over the
world.
I like Sidney Lumet's commentary on the dvd's of The Verdict and Night
Falls On Manhattan; he provides a very pure commentary, without words
like "metaphors" and "symbols"; not surprising to me, since a good
director will never use them.
>
> > I sure pay enough attention, that is: enough attention to see that
> > once one gives a clue of disagreement, one is told "screw it". I
> > suppose that is a metaphor in your view.
>
> No, which says something on how you interpret the way I think.
Of course.
>
> > I would say, it is neither
> > metaphor, nor is it evolution; it is pure primitiveness. Or a sign of
> > "racial awareness", for that matter.
>
> And just what does this "pure primitiveness" mean?
The Battle Of Ego!
>
> > And as for the Overlook Hotel in the film: it is pure Kubrick.
> > I don't need anyone's cheap historical blabla lessons on American
> > history and culture to "read" this film.
>
> I bet you were a handful to your teachers and professors. What's the
> point in going to school if you feel you are smarter than your
> teachers?
I don't feel that I am smarter than my teachers.
As for now, there are no teachers here.
There are many people who provide statements, but that is easy.
(didn't Kubrick say that he never really relied on education? didn't
he feel and think he was "smarter" than his "teachers", that he could
make better films than the ones he saw? anything wrong with that?)
> And just how is the Overlook "pure Kubrick?" Pure Kubrick in what way?
In my interpretation, the Overlook Hotel is pure Kubrick because of
it's concept; it's concept and design of corridors and isolation, the
relation and contrast between it's overall greatness and the sense of
isolation of the characters that inhabit this huge space. A concept
that also, for instance, relates the outside labyrinth with the inside
"labyrinth" of corridors in the hotel. The concept of this
labyrinthian environment strikes me as "pure Kubrick", since it helps
to express a sense of being lost, both physically and mentally. This
kind of concept is pure Kubrick, since he uses similar concepts for
his other films. It is pure, because it is very concrete, it contains,
Chion-a-like, many signifiers that trigger our mind. Kubrick is
carefull in the way he designs these kind of concepts, the environment
that is inhabited by the characters. It certainly represents
"signifiers" of American culture and history, but that doesn't make it
into a "metaphor" or a "symbol". I just don't need those words, these
lables.
>
> > After all: what is American culture these days? Is it about redoing a
> > great spiritual work of art, Tarkovsky's Solaris, and messing it up
> > into the vacuum freakshow by stylistic chameleon Soderbergh?
> > Soderbergh as the modern American artist? Laughable. His Solaris is
> > just a metaphor for America's copy-paste-and-waste-culture.
>
> I can think of other studio produced films that fit that description
> much better, especially those that serve no purpose than to bring in
> the teenage crowd on Friday nights.
Probably, yes.
But that is American culture; it washes all over the world, doesn't
it?
Usually, these films are not presented in any pretentious way.
If I must believe some critics, I should take Soderbergh seriously,
but all I can really think of, having seen his films, is that he is a
chameleon, he has no personal motivation, no personal vision; what he
has is several "modes".
Traffic: the PT Anderson mode.
Solaris: the Kubrick mode.
Full Frontal: the Dogma mode.
Out of Sight: the Tarantino mode.
etc.
He's one hell of a lazy filmmaker.
His Solaris-redo is the Micky and Mini Mouse version.
> I haven't seen the new version
> yet, only Tarkovsky's, so I have nothing to say on what Soderberg did,
> I only have YOUR interpretation and criticsm of it to go by.
Flush it down the toilet, my interpretation. It's of no use.
Go see it. Be surprised.
It's a great metaphor for modern American culture.
d.a.
mark de rozario
> I just have my own opinion.
> The best way is to ignore me, so don't reply.
> And if you do reply, come up with decent arguments.
And I suppose repeating the word 'explain' counts as a 'decent'
argument does it? And oh, so it's possible to have 'decent' arguments,
but not decent metaphors, is it?
And ignoring you implicitly legitimates your demoralising, depressing
posts.
> > Your exhortation to 'explain' is of course no such thing, since it's
> > clear that you a priori dismiss any social/cultural explanations as
> > unworthy.
>
> Not at all.
> I have never read any deep social/cultural explanation.
What _ever_? Or just on AMK? Are you seriously claiming that you are
open to the possibility of sociocultural interpretations, but you just
haven't encountered any yet?
> I have read a lot of statements.
>
> But surprise me; provide some deep social/cultural explanation.
> Let's see how insightful you are.
Let's see how insightful _you_ are. What insights or interpretations
do you have to share with us, beyond wooly-minded, trite platitudes?
Strangely enough, we all (Leonard Wheat apart, perhaps) _know_ that
Kubrick's films are multiple, that no one interpretation is ever
adequate. It goes without saying. That's why we are here. Just as it
goes without saying when someone offers an interpretation that they
are not saying, 'This is the _only_ way to interpret this film.'
>
> > And you must be aware that this can only lead into the very
> > pointless meta-discussions you affect to dislike. But which, funnily
> > enough, your posts always end up producing. Here's where you come back
> > with something like: 'You have misinterpreted my position. Good for
> > you.' If you are going to say something like that, do us all a favour
> > and clarify your position, or better still, post something positive
> > instead of derailing others' discussions into this same old impasse.
>
> Whether something is "positive" or "negative"; that's all highly
> subjective.
> So is opinion and discussion.
Positive, in this context, simply meant offering an interpretation of
some kind, rather than simply dismissing someone who is actually
trying to make a substantive contribution of some kind.
> I will remember the supposed "Monarch connection" in EWS as silly.
> Was that connection a positive one for you?
I'm not going down that route again. Yet another discussion you
ruined. Obviously, the Monarch connection was 'silly.' Or rather:
saying that the Monarch connection was silly is the obvious thing to
say. I and others were interested in exploring if there was more to it
than the obvious, commonsense, man-in-the-street, position would
allow.
>
> When someone says "The Shining" shows "racially awareness", the only
> thing I can think of is: how silly, but I'd like to see some
> explanation.
Yes, that is indeed the only thing you can think, so it would appear.
BTW, how would you account for the Native American designs all over
the Overlook? Or for the fact that the Hotel is built on an 'Indian'
burial ground? (This plot point an addition of Kubrick's, nowhere to
be found in King's novel.) Or for Jack's invocation of Kipling's
'White man's burden'? Just coincidences, I suppose.
>
> The result of the discussion on "racial awareness" goes into strange
> directions indeed, but certainly not in the positive one; so provide
> the arguments that might "proof" how silly I am.
But what would count as evidence of racial awareness for you? Kubrick
coming on screen and saying 'this film is racially aware'? You are
the one obsessed with 'proof'; no-one else thinks that anything can be
'proved' about films.
>
> Good luck.
>
I'll refrain from commenting on the insufferable smugness of that
sign-off.
Mikko Pihkoluoma
>> >A good artist, a good filmmaker, doesn't set out to "do a good
>> >metaphor".
>>
>> Who said creating metaphors is the purpose of art?
>
>I hope nobody, since you cannot create a metaphor.
You truly love to live in a world seperate from the objective existence.
>> >You cannot "film" or "photograph" or "paint" a metaphor.
>> >If you do, you are a bad artist.
>>
>>
>> I understand you might respect Kubrick as an artist. Now can someone dig
me
>> out any given quote where Kubrick admits to have intentionally created a
>> metaphor. I know I've read at least one concerning 2001...
>
>Yes, provide it. If he has said so, I simply do not agree with him.
You don't agree that he tried to create a metaphor? You disagree with him
that there exist a metaphor in 2001?
>> >Would a filmmaker use a not-decent metaphor?
>>
>> Steven Spielberg has used a lot of metaphors that could be described
>> not-decent.
>
>Really?
>Give an example. Explain!
Perhaps not metaphors but symbols... In A.I. he dresses Danny in white
clothes. He frames the shots so that a ring appears above his head...
>> >What is meant here with "decent"?
>>
>> I think what Peter actually refers to is that it's rather obvious: it
works
>> for the film as a whole.
>
>The concept of the Overlook Hotel does, not the supposed "metaphor".
How do concept and metaphor differ? What makes "concept" a reliable term in
your book?
>> >If so, can the Overlook Hotel be two "metaphors"?
>>
>> Yes.
>
>I don't think so.
Why not?
>> >If so, can the Overlook Hotel be three "metaphors"?
>>
>> Definitely.
>
>Can it be four, five, six, seven, hundred, thousand "metaphors"?
Maybe four. It might be n metaphors but I have little reason to believe so.
>> >The whole "metaphor"-way of thinking doesn't really strike me as very
>> >inspiring.
>> >To me, a "metaphorical" statement simplifies the art of The Shining.
>> >It would be more satisfying (and still not perfect) to read something
>> >like "To me, personally, the Overlook Hotel might represent elements
>> >of the nature of American history and culture"; that is a far more
>> >carefully written statement that, important, also expresses ones own
>> >limitations of interpretation.
>> >All it really is, of course, is personal interpretation and that is
>> >not the same as "the" meaning.
>>
>>
>> No it's not only a personal interpretation. I believe there exists plenty
of
>> essays that mention this fact.
>
>Essays are personal interpretation. It's no "fact". It's opinion.
A scientist observes a phenomenon in nature, such as gravity. He develops a
theory. After some time and thought it seems to make sense; it is approved
by other scientists. Is that theory still an opinion?
>> We are seperate souls who enjoy this film. Some of us still come to the
same
>> conclusions, independently. Is it unreasonable to believe that the artist
>> may have actually intended it that way?
>
>To believe, yes. To make statements that he "did", no.
So it's unreasonable to believe, but not to state it as a fact?
>> Do you think that intellectual interpretations that try to reach
something
>> objective destroy the magic of the film?
>
>They can never destroy the magic of the film.
>The film itself is the magic.
>They can only simplify that magic.
How does it simplify it?
>> I'm not going to give you anything but few observations from the film.
You
>> are free to ignore these facts as only coincidence.
>>
>> The Shining is the only Stanley Kubrick film which has an African
American
>> actor in one of the main roles.
>
>Does this make The Shining "racially aware"?
Not as an independent fact.
>If the film had two African American actors in a main role, would that
>make The Shining more "racially aware"?
No.
>Make a list of any film that has an African American actor in one of
>the main roles; do you say then say the same?
No.
>Is this African American actor also a "metaphor"?
In a sense yes.
Like I said, I won't explain it to you. I will provide you with the
necessary information but I will not analyse and try to explain the film
through my interpretation.
Give a moment of thought to the things I mentioned. Watch the film again.
For all I know, you probably have brains. Try to use them.
>> Your own attitude has caused it. If you truly have the best intentions
and
>> are sincere in your inquiries you should try to sound more polite than
>> "Explain".
>
>I see.
>Define best intentions.
>Define sincere.
>Define more polite.
I don't need to. They are perfectly clear. If you are unable to understand
English, it's your problem, not mine. I'm not here to discuss semantics.
Mikko
mark de rozario
> > >A good artist, a good filmmaker, doesn't set out to "do a good
> > >metaphor".
> >
> >
> > >Could the Overlook Hotel also be a "metaphor" for the mind?
> >
> > Yes.
>
> I don't think so.
>
> >
> > >If so, can the Overlook Hotel be two "metaphors"?
> >
> > Yes.
>
> I don't think so.
>
> >
> > >Could the Overlook Hotel be a "metaphor" for space and time?
> >
> > Perhaps.
>
> I don't think so.
>
Anyone feel like they are in the Monty Python argument clinic?
David Kirkpatrick
Oh sorry, that's next door. This is "abuse"!
:-(
David
mark de rozario
Two statements a few sentences apart:
> All
> depends on one's own personal view, one's own personal >interpretation.
>Still, I think, a critic should try to approach
> the work of art with an open mind, in order to be able to provide the
> most significant and insightful view on that work of art. Once he lets
> his own personal view get in the way, it might hurt his work as a
> critic; I don't say it will, but I think it might...
Eh? How can a critic's 'personal view' 'get in the way' if all
interpretations 'depend on one's own personal view'? Explain.
M4RV1N
writes, in part:
>Art doesn't use metaphors and symbols.
Another exemplar of eventually-someone-will-say-absolutely-anything rule.
If true, why discuss it at all? Should you not be participating in a math or
engineering newsgroup, instead of one like this?
Explain.
Mark Ervin
dutch_angle
> >> >metaphor".
> >>
> >> Who said creating metaphors is the purpose of art?
> >
> >I hope nobody, since you cannot create a metaphor.
>
>
> You truly love to live in a world seperate from the objective existence.
What does objective existence look like?
And how come you say that I love to live in a world seperate from the
objective existence?
>
> >> >You cannot "film" or "photograph" or "paint" a metaphor.
> >> >If you do, you are a bad artist.
> >>
> >>
> >> I understand you might respect Kubrick as an artist. Now can someone dig
> me
> >> out any given quote where Kubrick admits to have intentionally created a
> >> metaphor. I know I've read at least one concerning 2001...
> >
> >Yes, provide it. If he has said so, I simply do not agree with him.
>
> You don't agree that he tried to create a metaphor? You disagree with him
> that there exist a metaphor in 2001?
Has he said that?
If he said so: could you quote him? It helps to look at the context.
Of course, 'if' he has said that there's a metaphor in 2001, I would
not agree with him. Our own mind produces interpretation, so it is
also able to produce a metaphor. There's no such thing as a "metaphor"
in a film, or any work of art.
It is just a limited way of "describing" something, to express one's
own interpretation of a work of art.
>
> >> >Would a filmmaker use a not-decent metaphor?
> >>
> >> Steven Spielberg has used a lot of metaphors that could be described
> >> not-decent.
> >
> >Really?
> >Give an example. Explain!
>
>
> Perhaps not metaphors but symbols... In A.I. he dresses Danny in white
> clothes. He frames the shots so that a ring appears above his head...
So he does.
And that is a "symbol" to you? A symbol of what?
What you see is what you have written out here, nothing more, nothing
less: the boy, who's name by the way is David and not "Danny", is
dressed in white; that is a choice Spielberg has made, or that was
made in behalf of him; it might be called an "artistic" choice, if you
will. It is not a "symbol". Your mind creates the "symbol", yet you do
not provide your definition of that supposed "symbol". That's how
limited you are here.
Another choice Spielberg has made, is to frame David in such way that
a ring-shaped lamp appears above his head. Is this a "symbol"? A
symbol of what?
Again, you don't provide any "explanation".
This image triggers your mind; that's a good quality of any
well-thought-of image, although I think that Spielberg is just aping
Kubrick there, isn't he? So how worthy and truthful would that
"symbol" be? A symbol of stealing, perhaps?
How "smart" do you think that would be, showing a ring above a boy's
head and then pretending that to be a symbol; a religious symbol
perhaps? Wow, isn't that cheap? Spielberg winking his religious eyes
to you?
>
> >> >What is meant here with "decent"?
> >>
> >> I think what Peter actually refers to is that it's rather obvious: it
> works
> >> for the film as a whole.
> >
> >The concept of the Overlook Hotel does, not the supposed "metaphor".
>
>
> How do concept and metaphor differ? What makes "concept" a reliable term in
> your book?
Because a concept is something an artist can deal with, in a concrete
way. Because a concept is a series of choices focused on a specific
idea that can be expressed in a concrete cinematic way. A metaphor is
just a subjective lable, a description that only "pretends" something,
but in a limited way. You cannot execute a metaphor. You can execute a
concept.
As an artist, Kubrick can do without the metaphors, but he very much
needs a concept. Without a concept, there's no film.
>
> >> >If so, can the Overlook Hotel be two "metaphors"?
> >>
> >> Yes.
> >
> >I don't think so.
>
>
> Why not?
Because I don't believe in metaphors.
You may think so, but that would only limit your vision.
Or rather "lable" it, for that matter.
>
> >> >If so, can the Overlook Hotel be three "metaphors"?
> >>
> >> Definitely.
> >
> >Can it be four, five, six, seven, hundred, thousand "metaphors"?
>
> Maybe four. It might be n metaphors but I have little reason to believe so.
Jeez, only four? You disappoint me!
Which four methaphors do you mean?
>
> >> >The whole "metaphor"-way of thinking doesn't really strike me as very
> >> >inspiring.
> >> >To me, a "metaphorical" statement simplifies the art of The Shining.
> >> >It would be more satisfying (and still not perfect) to read something
> >> >like "To me, personally, the Overlook Hotel might represent elements
> >> >of the nature of American history and culture"; that is a far more
> >> >carefully written statement that, important, also expresses ones own
> >> >limitations of interpretation.
> >> >All it really is, of course, is personal interpretation and that is
> >> >not the same as "the" meaning.
> >>
> >>
> >> No it's not only a personal interpretation. I believe there exists plenty
> of
> >> essays that mention this fact.
> >
> >Essays are personal interpretation. It's no "fact". It's opinion.
>
>
> A scientist observes a phenomenon in nature, such as gravity. He develops a
> theory. After some time and thought it seems to make sense; it is approved
> by other scientists. Is that theory still an opinion?
Basically, yes.
Yet it wouldn't really help us to "see" it as an opinion.
However, theory might be accepted as "true", such as a theory on
gravity.
There are many theories on time, but does time exist?
Is it not just a way to handle chaos? To deal with it?
I don't think that any metaphor really ever rings as true as
"gravity".
Perhaps, in your opinion you might be able to "deal" with metaphors
and symbols.
Still, I don't like it, I think it simplifies art, it would produce a
rather dissatisfying "theory" on art...
>
> >> We are seperate souls who enjoy this film. Some of us still come to the
> same
> >> conclusions, independently. Is it unreasonable to believe that the artist
> >> may have actually intended it that way?
> >
> >To believe, yes. To make statements that he "did", no.
>
> So it's unreasonable to believe, but not to state it as a fact?
>
> >> Do you think that intellectual interpretations that try to reach
> something
> >> objective destroy the magic of the film?
> >
> >They can never destroy the magic of the film.
> >The film itself is the magic.
> >They can only simplify that magic.
>
>
> How does it simplify it?
Because I think that the intellectual interpretation that tries to
reach something objective doesn't quite sum up a film's magic; it is
only one and therefore limited way of interpretation.
Besides that, I don't really now what to make of your description of a
"intellectual interpretation that tries to reach for something
objective".
Could you provide an example of "reaching for something objective"?
Or how to do this in an intellectual way?
>
>
> >> I'm not going to give you anything but few observations from the film.
> You
> >> are free to ignore these facts as only coincidence.
> >>
> >> The Shining is the only Stanley Kubrick film which has an African
> American
> >> actor in one of the main roles.
> >
> >Does this make The Shining "racially aware"?
>
>
> Not as an independent fact.
So what exactly are you saying?
>
> >If the film had two African American actors in a main role, would that
> >make The Shining more "racially aware"?
>
>
> No.
Why not?
>
> >Make a list of any film that has an African American actor in one of
> >the main roles; do you say then say the same?
>
>
> No.
Why not?
>
> >Is this African American actor also a "metaphor"?
>
>
> In a sense yes.
In a sense. Well is he, or isn't he?
In a sense: in what sense?
>
> Like I said, I won't explain it to you. I will provide you with the
> necessary information but I will not analyse and try to explain the film
> through my interpretation.
Well, fair enough!
I don't think anyone could "explain" The Shining.
> Give a moment of thought to the things I mentioned. Watch the film again.
> For all I know, you probably have brains. Try to use them.
There's a chance I have brains, yes.
And I am trying to use them.
Of course, I have watched The Shining again, and again, and again.
And again!
I have given a thought to the things you have mentioned.
I couldn't see how that provide an insight on the supposed existence
of metaphors and symbols 'in' The Shining.
Try harder to convince me, if you think I am wrong.
>
> >> Your own attitude has caused it. If you truly have the best intentions
> and
> >> are sincere in your inquiries you should try to sound more polite than
> >> "Explain".
> >
> >I see.
> >Define best intentions.
> >Define sincere.
> >Define more polite.
>
> I don't need to. They are perfectly clear. If you are unable to understand
> English, it's your problem, not mine. I'm not here to discuss semantics.
Fair enough, again.
Are you here to dictate how I should behave, or what attitude I should
show, in order to please you?
I'm not here to please you. Perhaps I might challenge you.
However, the "proof" of the existence of metaphors and symbols 'in' a
work of art become less and less convincing.
d.a.
dutch_angle
> > The best way is to ignore me, so don't reply.
> > And if you do reply, come up with decent arguments.
>
> And I suppose repeating the word 'explain' counts as a 'decent'
> argument does it?
It is not called an argument, it is called a question.
Are you against asking questions in a newsgroup?
Oops, pardon me, that was another question.
> And oh, so it's possible to have 'decent' arguments,
> but not decent metaphors, is it?
Whether an argument is decent, that's up to any of us.
Highly subjective.
I don't believe in metaphors, so I also don't believe in decent
metaphors.
> And ignoring you implicitly legitimates your demoralising, depressing
> posts.
Well, we always have your uplifting ones.
Make my day.
>
> > > Your exhortation to 'explain' is of course no such thing, since it's
> > > clear that you a priori dismiss any social/cultural explanations as
> > > unworthy.
> >
> > Not at all.
> > I have never read any deep social/cultural explanation.
>
> What _ever_? Or just on AMK? Are you seriously claiming that you are
> open to the possibility of sociocultural interpretations, but you just
> haven't encountered any yet?
Surprise: I am open to the possibility of sociocultural
interpretation.
I hope I encounter one here, in the near future.
>
> > I have read a lot of statements.
> >
> > But surprise me; provide some deep social/cultural explanation.
> > Let's see how insightful you are.
>
> Let's see how insightful _you_ are.
Yeah, let's do that!
> What insights or interpretations
> do you have to share with us, beyond wooly-minded, trite platitudes?
> Strangely enough, we all (Leonard Wheat apart, perhaps) _know_ that
> Kubrick's films are multiple, that no one interpretation is ever
> adequate. It goes without saying.
Yes, I would call that a wooly-minded, trite platitude.
It's one I can agree with!
> That's why we are here. Just as it
> goes without saying when someone offers an interpretation that they
> are not saying, 'This is the _only_ way to interpret this film.'
Yes, sir. That goes without saying.
Why are you saying it?
> >
> > > And you must be aware that this can only lead into the very
> > > pointless meta-discussions you affect to dislike. But which, funnily
> > > enough, your posts always end up producing. Here's where you come back
> > > with something like: 'You have misinterpreted my position. Good for
> > > you.' If you are going to say something like that, do us all a favour
> > > and clarify your position, or better still, post something positive
> > > instead of derailing others' discussions into this same old impasse.
> >
> > Whether something is "positive" or "negative"; that's all highly
> > subjective.
> > So is opinion and discussion.
>
> Positive, in this context, simply meant offering an interpretation of
> some kind, rather than simply dismissing someone who is actually
> trying to make a substantive contribution of some kind.
I see.
And I must always kindly agree?
Often, I don't. I'm sorry.
Funny thing is, of course, that you start showing the same kind of
"negative" behaviour that you are accusing me of... Not that I care,
but rather inconsequent, don't you think?
Hey, but I have the "insight" to believe more in Michel Chion's
"signifiers" than metaphors and symbols. I have gone into that, didn't
I? Perhaps you do not agree.
But, pfjew, let me see. Something positive that can lighten you up a
bit.
Well, for instance, how would you interpret the moment in EWS when the
Mysterious Woman sacrifies herself, for Bill? Can I describe it that
way, you think?
The moment where she's being taken away, it is by a masked man. This
man is wearing a specific Venetian mask. I did some research:
That mask is called "El Medico dea Peste" (The Plague Doctor),
sometimes called Il Dottore (The Doctor). And this is what I found,
some information on this mask:
"One of the worst scourges for the city of Venice was without any
doubt the Plague, which struck the city on several occasions. Because
of this the "Plague Doctor" isn't a real mask but was a disguise used
by local plague doctors who went on visits wearing this strange
costume to people afflicted with plague. The costume itself is quite
particular: the doctor wore a tunic of pure linen or waxen cloth and
gave him the appearance of a large bird. (more than anything else, he
was considered to be like a mournful vulture) He wore spectacles on
the mask and furthermore always had his trusty staff with which he
removed the clothes of plague-victims, thinking that in this way the
terrible epidemic would not bring him any harm."
I thought that was pretty interesting. Now I wouldn't call the mask a
"metaphor", I would prefer to call it a "signifier", because Michel
Chion's term really rings a bell with me. This mask is perhaps
"signifying" both "the doctor" and "death" or, more specific "the
plague". This signifier would then refer to both Bill, in his
profession as a doctor, one of his "identities", like a confrontation
with his "double". And to a "fate" that is waiting to be "unmasked";
that might perhaps be that woman's death cause, as we later learn that
that woman PERHAPS is Amanda Curran. Or it might refer to Domino's
fate, her being as a HIV-positive.
So I wouldn't make any firm statement on this choice of mask, but it
certainly has triggered a question; if that is a specific Venetian
mask, what would that mask represent, originally? Could Kubrick have
made that choice because of that specific historical meaning? Anyway,
he doesn't "explain", and that's what I like about him.
Well, I will stop here.
Would this be a "positive" contribution to you? Did you know this?
Have you found out about this?
Am I now close to a membership of Kubrick's Secret Fan Society?
Hey, there's even a mask called "Il Capitano" (The Captain).
Remember the masked man that takes the Mysterious Woman upstairs?
Didn't Ziegler lead "Mandy" upstairs in his own mansion?
Isn't there a model ship somewhere in his billiards room?
Are these metaphors and symbols?
Not to me, they strike me as "signifiers". I really do like that term!
>
> > I will remember the supposed "Monarch connection" in EWS as silly.
> > Was that connection a positive one for you?
>
> I'm not going down that route again. Yet another discussion you
> ruined.
Did I?
If I can "ruin" a discussion by being critical, you might be able to
reincarnate that discussion. Be more positive!
> Obviously, the Monarch connection was 'silly.' Or rather:
> saying that the Monarch connection was silly is the obvious thing to
> say. I and others were interested in exploring if there was more to it
> than the obvious, commonsense, man-in-the-street, position would
> allow.
Yes, I am a commonsense man-in-the-street!
I hope I always be.
You should read some analysis of Arthur Schnitzler's work.
If you can: read Hertha Krothoff's Zur Geheimen Gesellschaft in Arthur
Schnitzler's Traumnovelle. I mean: this is ABOUT secret societies!!!!
Do I really have to send you a copy?
Do some research of the use of colors in Traumnovelle and see what
they might refer to, or rather, to which underground group... You
might be surprised.
And you say I ruin a discussion...
>
> >
> > When someone says "The Shining" shows "racially awareness", the only
> > thing I can think of is: how silly, but I'd like to see some
> > explanation.
>
> Yes, that is indeed the only thing you can think, so it would appear.
Yes, I'm sorry for that.
> BTW, how would you account for the Native American designs all over
> the Overlook?
Sounds great!
What Native American designs are you talking about, exactly?
Have you done some research?
What does it refer to?
What does it mean or what could it mean?
I see the Native American designs, yes, that's not too difficult.
I don't see the metaphor, though...
> Or for the fact that the Hotel is built on an 'Indian'
> burial ground? (This plot point an addition of Kubrick's, nowhere to
> be found in King's novel.)
Excitiing stuff! A real thrill!
And do you think this fact does make the Overlook Hotel into a
metaphor?
> Or for Jack's invocation of Kipling's 'White man's burden'? Just coincidences, I suppose.
I wouldn't call it a coincidence, no.
A line of dialogue would be a very specific choice, especially when it
is a Kipling quote.
I wouldn't call it a metaphor though.
>
> >
> > The result of the discussion on "racial awareness" goes into strange
> > directions indeed, but certainly not in the positive one; so provide
> > the arguments that might "proof" how silly I am.
>
> But what would count as evidence of racial awareness for you?
Well, I am open to many things. Go surprise me.
I asked for some evidence, but I haven't seen it yet.
People keep describing what can be seen as elements of the film and
they start fuzzing around with their interpretations, yet no
interpretation on "racial awareness" is really convincing, I can't
help it.
> Kubrick coming on screen and saying 'this film is racially aware'?
I think I would interpret it as one hell of a joke, actually.
You would believe him, wouldn't you?
> You are the one obsessed with 'proof'; no-one else thinks that anything can be
> 'proved' about films.
I'm not obsessed with proof.
That is your way of seeing me, and that's your right.
That's all there is.
By the way: don't you think I have often mentioned that I think a
discussion is about bouncing thoughts, more than it is about ever
really convincing anybody?
I do that in my own limited and perhaps unfriendly way.
> >
> > Good luck.
> >
> I'll refrain from commenting on the insufferable smugness of that
> sign-off.
Till next time!
d.a.
JW Moore
wrote:
>jackpeg...@att.net (JW Moore) wrote in message news:<3deaeb88...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
>
>> The timescale involved in human evolution is of critical importance
>> because modern man is a very recent branch on the family tree,
>> appearing 100-200,000 years ago. The species H. sapiens includes
>> Australian aborigines, American Indians, Kalihari bushmen and any
>> other socio-ethnic group whom we enlightened Caucasoids deem
>> "primitive". By definition, there is no such thing as "genetically
>> more primitive" members of the same species. Recent studies of
>> mitochondrial DNA in present-day populations support the "out of
>> Africa" model of human migration starting 170,000 years ago, thence
>> thru the middle East to Asia, reaching New Guinea and Australia
>> 20-30,000 y.a. and Europe 15,000 y.a.
>
>Here is something I do not understand. If modern man is as recent as
>100-200,000 years old, what makes one think evolution stopped then? If
>various peoples or races of H. sapiens were separated for a good
>100,000 years or more I'd expect them to evolve subtle genetic
>differences in their minds, about as subtle as their physical
>differences. Unfortunately, these suble differences in the races are
>probably great enough to keep us all from ever getting along very
>well, but the first step towards getting along better is acknowledging
>our differences.
>
The differences you describe are cultural, not genetic. Any animal
genome can produce diverse phenotypes (external features) -- witness
the variety in Canis familiaris, aka the dog. There is no, repeat,
>no< genetic difference between the light-skinned peoples of Europe
and dark-skinned peoples of Africa. And while evolution never stops,
per se, the genetic drift required to produce new species takes
millions, not thousands, of years.
>I don't know why there is no such thing as genetic primitiveness
>within the same species. The kind of primitiveness I'm talking about
>is relative to the observer: in general, it seems to have been mostly
>whites who have viewed other races as more primitive, and I cannot
>help but wonder if that too is not genetically influenced, in that
>perhaps whites are innately driven towards snobbishness,
>pretentiousness, and the worry over superiority. I've heard of blacks
>who actually believed they were inferior, but it did not seem to
>bother them the way it would a white man.
I strongly advise picking up a book on cultural anthropology: Steven
Jay Gould, E.O. Wilson, Don Johansen have written numerous informative
but layman-accessible books. A few links I have handy:
http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo/Default.htm
http://www.ecotao.com/holism/hu_evo_intro.htm
~~Jack
dutch_angle
>
> > All
> > depends on one's own personal view, one's own personal >interpretation.
>
> >Still, I think, a critic should try to approach
> > the work of art with an open mind, in order to be able to provide the
> > most significant and insightful view on that work of art. Once he lets
> > his own personal view get in the way, it might hurt his work as a
> > critic; I don't say it will, but I think it might...
>
> Eh? How can a critic's 'personal view' 'get in the way' if all
> interpretations 'depend on one's own personal view'? Explain.
That's quite simple.
I didn't say that all interpretations depend on one's own personal
view.
Since everyone approaches art with personal expectation, experience
and certain levels of personal political, social and cultural
awareness, the result of that approach can never be "objective"; it
will always be subjective.
So when I say that "all depends on one's own personal view, one's own
personal interpretation", I say that one's personal interpretation is
influenced by one's personal view on the world. Yet the more this
influence is indeed acknowledged and used by a critic, the less he
could be able to approach the given work of art open minded. So the
paradox might be that his own personal view on the world might get in
the way of expressing his own best possible personal interpretation.
So, David Walsh might carry in part of his "experience", something
like "Kubrick has the tendency to show off. Perhaps he is right.
However, there's a big chance that this subjective thought will
influence his approach to EWS; it might create a filter through which
he starts forming his personal interpretation. Then it isn't a real
surprise to me when he thinks the Somerton sequence is a "good
example" of "Kubrick showing himself off".
Simple, isn't it?
Try again.
d.a.
dutch_angle
>
> Another exemplar of eventually-someone-will-say-absolutely-anything rule.
No, it's rather an example of cutting away all argument.
So you provide the perfect example of how you are able to follow the
eventually-someone-will-say-absolutely-anything rule.
If you do your best, cutting away discussion, you will be the real
winner!
>
> If true, why discuss it at all?
Yeah, why?
So all things that are "true" cannot or should not be discussed?
If you cut away all arguments and alternatives, well, yes, then why
would you discuss anything?
> Should you not be participating in a math or
> engineering newsgroup, instead of one like this?
Thanks for the tip.
>
> Explain.
I will: Art doesn't use metaphors and symbols.
You provide the symbol and metaphor of censorship.
d.a.
Sam Rouse
R.P.J.H...@chello.nl (dutch_angle) wrote:
> I will: Art doesn't use metaphors and symbols.
> You provide the symbol and metaphor of censorship.
Are you a Scientologist?
mark de rozario
<banging head against brick wall section snipped>
> > And oh, so it's possible to have 'decent' arguments,
> > but not decent metaphors, is it?
>
> Whether an argument is decent, that's up to any of us.
> Highly subjective.
> I don't believe in metaphors, so I also don't believe in decent
> metaphors.
You don't _believe_ in metaphors? Funnily enough, I am in some
sympathy with your suspicion of metaphors/ symbols, but I nevertheless
'believe' in them. What are you saying, they are a myth, like Santa
Claus?
>
<more headbanging snipped>
>
>
> > That's why we are here. Just as it
> > goes without saying when someone offers an interpretation that they
> > are not saying, 'This is the _only_ way to interpret this film.'
>
> Yes, sir. That goes without saying.
> Why are you saying it?
Because it seems to need saying to you. Sir.
>
<another headbang snip>
>
> But, pfjew, let me see. Something positive that can lighten you up a
> bit.
>
> Well, for instance, how would you interpret the moment in EWS when the
> Mysterious Woman sacrifies herself, for Bill? Can I describe it that
> way, you think?
> The moment where she's being taken away, it is by a masked man. This
> man is wearing a specific Venetian mask. I did some research:
>
> That mask is called "El Medico dea Peste" (The Plague Doctor),
> sometimes called Il Dottore (The Doctor). And this is what I found,
> some information on this mask:
>
> "One of the worst scourges for the city of Venice was without any
> doubt the Plague, which struck the city on several occasions. Because
> of this the "Plague Doctor" isn't a real mask but was a disguise used
> by local plague doctors who went on visits wearing this strange
> costume to people afflicted with plague. The costume itself is quite
> particular: the doctor wore a tunic of pure linen or waxen cloth and
> gave him the appearance of a large bird. (more than anything else, he
> was considered to be like a mournful vulture) He wore spectacles on
> the mask and furthermore always had his trusty staff with which he
> removed the clothes of plague-victims, thinking that in this way the
> terrible epidemic would not bring him any harm."
>
> I thought that was pretty interesting.
I agree, it's very interesting. And it fascinatingly fits with my
mention of Foucault a while back. I pointed out that, in Discipline
and Punish, Foucault makes a connection between plagues, masks and
carnival. The plague enabled a carnivalesque dismantling of identity,
a collective festival; or at least it was fictionalized as such.
Discipline responds with a series of strategies whose aim is to
individuate and subjectivize. What then, of the masked plague doctor?
How does he fit in? On the side of the plague/ collective desire or on
the side of discipline/ the private subject? Since the doctor must
move amongst plague victims, he occupies an ambivalent position, on
the borders between discipline and its dismantling.
Mention of plague/ carnival also inevitably puts one in mind of Poe's
Masque of the Red Death, a major intertext, repeatedly invoked, in
King's The Shining --- one of a number of interesting connections
between EWS and TS ---
>Now I wouldn't call the mask a
> "metaphor", I would prefer to call it a "signifier", because Michel
> Chion's term really rings a bell with me. This mask is perhaps
> "signifying" both "the doctor" and "death" or, more specific "the
> plague". This signifier would then refer to both Bill, in his
> profession as a doctor, one of his "identities", like a confrontation
> with his "double". And to a "fate" that is waiting to be "unmasked";
> that might perhaps be that woman's death cause, as we later learn that
> that woman PERHAPS is Amanda Curran. Or it might refer to Domino's
> fate, her being as a HIV-positive.
An interesting analysis. Death and desire are frequently yoked
together in EWS, in a way that is reminiscent of Foucault's 'plague
fictions.'
> So I wouldn't make any firm statement on this choice of mask, but it
> certainly has triggered a question; if that is a specific Venetian
> mask, what would that mask represent, originally? Could Kubrick have
> made that choice because of that specific historical meaning? Anyway,
> he doesn't "explain", and that's what I like about him.
>
> Well, I will stop here.
> Would this be a "positive" contribution to you? Did you know this?
> Have you found out about this?
No, I didn't know it, and yes, this of course is what I regard as a
positive contribution.
> Am I now close to a membership of Kubrick's Secret Fan Society?
I don't know, you would have to ask people who belonged to such a
society.
>
> Hey, there's even a mask called "Il Capitano" (The Captain).
> Remember the masked man that takes the Mysterious Woman upstairs?
> Didn't Ziegler lead "Mandy" upstairs in his own mansion?
> Isn't there a model ship somewhere in his billiards room?
> Are these metaphors and symbols?
> Not to me, they strike me as "signifiers". I really do like that term!
I have problems with metaphors, symbols and signifiers. But I wonder
if you could explain the difference between a signifier and a
metaphor? Why are you so happy with signifiers but unhappy with
metaphors? This is a genuine question; I think a discussion on this
_would_ be interesting.
<snip>
>
>
> > Obviously, the Monarch connection was 'silly.' Or rather:
> > saying that the Monarch connection was silly is the obvious thing to
> > say. I and others were interested in exploring if there was more to it
> > than the obvious, commonsense, man-in-the-street, position would
> > allow.
>
> Yes, I am a commonsense man-in-the-street!
> I hope I always be.
Each to his own.
>
> You should read some analysis of Arthur Schnitzler's work.
> If you can: read Hertha Krothoff's Zur Geheimen Gesellschaft in Arthur
> Schnitzler's Traumnovelle. I mean: this is ABOUT secret societies!!!!
> Do I really have to send you a copy?
You don't _have_ to do anything. Although it does sound like the sort
of thing I would be interested in. Unfortunately, and shamefully, my
linguistic skills do not extend to being able to read it in the
original language. But I'm sure that I'm not the only one at AMK who
would appreciate a summary of it English, if you were willing to
provide it.
> Do some research of the use of colors in Traumnovelle and see what
> they might refer to, or rather, to which underground group... You
> might be surprised.
Is this dealt with in Krothoff's piece? If so, it sounds even more
fascinating. I'm intrigued.
> And you say I ruin a discussion...
I said you ruined _some_ discussions.
> > > When someone says "The Shining" shows "racially awareness", the only
> > > thing I can think of is: how silly, but I'd like to see some
> > > explanation.
> >
> > Yes, that is indeed the only thing you can think, so it would appear.
>
> Yes, I'm sorry for that.
>
>
> > BTW, how would you account for the Native American designs all over
> > the Overlook?
>
> Sounds great!
> What Native American designs are you talking about, exactly?
> Have you done some research?
> What does it refer to?
> What does it mean or what could it mean?
>
> I see the Native American designs, yes, that's not too difficult.
> I don't see the metaphor, though...
I'm not saying there is a metaphor. I'm saying it indicates a racial
theme in TS.
> > Or for the fact that the Hotel is built on an 'Indian'
> > burial ground? (This plot point an addition of Kubrick's, nowhere to
> > be found in King's novel.)
>
> Excitiing stuff! A real thrill!
> And do you think this fact does make the Overlook Hotel into a
> metaphor?
>
No, but - see my answer above - I think it indicates 'racial
awareness' in The Shining.
>
> > Or for Jack's invocation of Kipling's 'White man's burden'? Just coincidences, I suppose.
>
> I wouldn't call it a coincidence, no.
> A line of dialogue would be a very specific choice, especially when it
> is a Kipling quote.
> I wouldn't call it a metaphor though.
Again, neither would I. But I would say it is yet more evidence of
'racial awareness.'
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > The result of the discussion on "racial awareness" goes into strange
> > > directions indeed, but certainly not in the positive one; so provide
> > > the arguments that might "proof" how silly I am.
> >
> > But what would count as evidence of racial awareness for you?
>
> Well, I am open to many things. Go surprise me.
> I asked for some evidence, but I haven't seen it yet.
So you don't think the native American references or the Kipling
allusion have _anything to do_ with race?
> People keep describing what can be seen as elements of the film and
> they start fuzzing around with their interpretations, yet no
> interpretation on "racial awareness" is really convincing, I can't
> help it.
>
I'd like you to at least explain why the above-mentioned features have
nothing to do with race.
<snip>
> > You are the one obsessed with 'proof'; no-one else thinks that anything can be
> > 'proved' about films.
>
> I'm not obsessed with proof.
> That is your way of seeing me, and that's your right.
> That's all there is.
Yes, all I can go on is what you post, where the word 'proof' is used
a number of times.
>
> By the way: don't you think I have often mentioned that I think a
> discussion is about bouncing thoughts, more than it is about ever
> really convincing anybody?
I would agree, of course. I'm not saying that you think that you can
prove your interpretations are valid. I'm saying that you think that
_others_ think they can prove their interpretations are valid.
<snip>
mark de rozario
mark de rozario
> >
> > Explain.
>
>
> I will: Art doesn't use metaphors and symbols.
> You provide the symbol and metaphor of censorship.
>
>
Isn't that what you would call a 'statement' ? It certainly isn't an explanation.
Matthew Dickinson
> On 3 Dec 2002 15:35:29 -0800, stal...@attbi.com (Matthew Dickinson)
> wrote:
> The differences you describe are cultural, not genetic. Any animal
> genome can produce diverse phenotypes (external features) -- witness
> the variety in Canis familiaris, aka the dog.
It's both a matter of culture and genes. It's funny you mention dogs
because they're a good example of how subtle changes in genes lead to
profound differences in behavior. My Dad is a veterinarian and he
estimates at least 60 or 70% of a dog's behavior is based in genes.
Dogs have been bred over a mere hundred or dozens of years to produce
distinct breeds that each have their own specific and predictable
minds and behavior. If you've spent any time around dogs you will
agree that, say, terriers behave differently from retrievers from
birth and on throughout the rest of their lives. And this is similar
to the differences among the races and subraces of mankind. Genes
predetermine much of one's personality, probably most of it.
> There is no, repeat,
> >no< genetic difference between the light-skinned peoples of Europe
> and dark-skinned peoples of Africa.
Are you serious? There's already plenty of obvious genetic differences
among subraces, like between the English and the Indians, West
Africans and East Africans, etc. Do you really believe a German is
born the same as a Jew? I bring up the last two because Hitler was
right in some basic ways that these two subraces were inherently
different from each other, even if I find his actions and beliefs
atrocious and completely immoral.
This is a useful site calculates genetic differences between various
races and subraces. I hope their information is accurate:
http://www25.brinkster.com/humanraces/calc/sforza_profiles.asp?dbname=sforza42world
> And while evolution never stops,
> per se, the genetic drift required to produce new species takes
> millions, not thousands, of years.
I don't know why you're talking about species here. My "missing link"
comment was an inappropriate exaggeration that I take back, but I
don't consider the races different species, though I've wondered if
they're almost that. Even Darwin toyed with the idea that blacks (and
others? I can't remember) were a different species, but, among other
reasons, seeing that all races can interbreed so well changed his
mind.
> >I don't know why there is no such thing as genetic primitiveness
> >within the same species. The kind of primitiveness I'm talking about
> >is relative to the observer: in general, it seems to have been mostly
> >whites who have viewed other races as more primitive, and I cannot
> >help but wonder if that too is not genetically influenced, in that
> >perhaps whites are innately driven towards snobbishness,
> >pretentiousness, and the worry over superiority. I've heard of blacks
> >who actually believed they were inferior, but it did not seem to
> >bother them the way it would a white man.
>
> I strongly advise picking up a book on cultural anthropology: Steven
> Jay Gould, E.O. Wilson, Don Johansen have written numerous informative
> but layman-accessible books. A few links I have handy:
>
> http://www.becominghuman.org/
>
> http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo/Default.htm
>
> http://www.ecotao.com/holism/hu_evo_intro.htm
>
> ~~Jack
Thanks, I'll look at these. I've read a lot of Wilson already and he
supports my ideas that a person's genes determine a great percentage
of one's personality. I mean, hell, he founded sociobiology, didn't
he?
Have you spent much time around people of very different ancestry as
you? Don't you ever get the impression that many of their differences
have been with them since they were born and that they inherited much
of it from their parents? And don't you feel you're a lot like your
parents?
One more thing. In another post of yours, you made a flippant comment
about Neandertals that bothered me: "Whatever the reason, I'm just
happy we won. Sapiens rule!!!" I hope that was a joke. It's far more
racist and immoral than anything I've said so far.
Matthew
M4RV1N
writes:
>> >Art doesn't use metaphors and symbols.
>>
>> Another exemplar of eventually-someone-will-say-absolutely-anything rule.
>
>No, it's rather an example of cutting away all argument.
There's no reason to "cut away" discussion intended to be persuasive; people
learn things from such activity. Arguments are only pointless when no facts,
evidence or logic can be brought to bear (and that's actually almost never the
case unless the topic is religion or superstition).
In the case of a work of art, there are facts (e.g., there are monoliths in
"2001"), evidence (when a monolith appears, mankind changes in some way), and
logic (these two things occuring together repeatedly have meaning). The facts,
evidence and logic here can be brought into the form of an argument (the
monolilths are a causal element in the changes). Because such an argument
sheds light on meaning, it's mindless and counterproductive to want to "cut it
away."
>So you provide the perfect example of how you are able to follow the
>eventually-someone-will-say-absolutely-anything rule.
>If you do your best, cutting away discussion, you will be the real
>winner!
This sentence does not make sense.
>> If true, why discuss it at all?
>
>Yeah, why?
The point here was a necessary corollary to your claim. If all art is without
meaning other than straight equivalance (1 = 1), then there is no reason for
you to have anything to do with alt.movies.kubrick in terms of his work. The
irony which apparently escapes you is that you have previously made many
interpretations of SK film (interpretation is doing analysis of symbolic
content, whether it's obvious or not).
>So all things that are "true" cannot or should not be discussed?
This does not follow from anything I said, however a discussion of math (say)
is probably a pretty dull one. As an example:
* Hey.
** What?
* 2 + 2 = 4.
** Yes, I can see that you are right.
* Yes.
** 3 + 3 = 6.
* Yes, it does.
** Yes, and you know what else?
* What?
** 4 + 4 =/= 1
* No, you're right. I can see that it does not.
And so on.
Now I suppose more sophisticated versions of this do happen on some newsgroups,
but they are not what happens in the discussion of aesthetics, and they are
also not what any discussion of aesthetics has as a goal. Even if there were
an aesthetic interpretation agreed to by everyone (e.g., a cigar can be a
phallic symbol) the fact of the matter here is only about agreement, not about
certainty.
>If you cut away all arguments and alternatives, well, yes, then why
>would you discuss anything?
Well that's an insight rather like saying, "if you take a knife and jab your
eyes out, why would you try to look at anything?"
>> Should you not be participating in a math or
>> engineering newsgroup, instead of one like this?
>
>Thanks for the tip.
Anytime. Run along now.
>> Explain.
>
>
>I will: Art doesn't use metaphors and symbols.
Firstly, there's no need to use both of these terms; a symbol is a sign that
stands in for something else, and a metaphor is a more sophisticated, perhaps
creative, example of a symbol. For exampe, this is a symbol: :-) A
"bear market" is a metaphor. Generally a symbol is immediately apparent and a
metaphor involves more learning (very often bound to language and a literary
form of some kind), but the term "symbol" covers both.
Your novel claim can take one or both of these positions:
1.) No artist has ever created or intended any symbol.
2) No member of the audience (those who apprehend the work) has ever
experienced a symbol in a work of art.
As others have noted, both of these are demonstrably false. It maybe the case
that you actually want the following position:
3) Because certainty of the 1 = 1 kind is not possible as a result of
discussion and argumentation, therefore it must be the case that there are no
symbols in art. This is a fallacy of false analogy. It's like saying people
have heads and nails have heads, and so, like nails, people are of no use
unless you hit them on the head with a hammer. Certainty is not the "solution"
to a discussion of symbolism in art.
For further fun along these lines, you could perhaps visit the appropriate
newsgroups with claims such as, "Buildings don't use supports", and "Animals
don't have cells."
Mark Ervin
Matthew Dickinson
> Are you serious? There's already plenty of obvious genetic differences
> among subraces, like between the English and the Indians, West
> Africans and East Africans, etc. Do you really believe a German is
> born the same as a Jew? I bring up the last two because Hitler was
> right in some basic ways that these two subraces were inherently
> different from each other, even if I find his actions and beliefs
> atrocious and completely immoral.
hmm... bringing up hitler was about as dumb as it gets... for the
record, i don't like hitler at all, and i don't sympathize with him or
any nazis and i find hte holocaust one of the worst times in humanity
that i know of...etc
Mikko Pihkoluoma
>> >> >Would a filmmaker use a not-decent metaphor?
>> >>
>> >> Steven Spielberg has used a lot of metaphors that could be described
>> >> not-decent.
>> >
>> >Really?
>> >Give an example. Explain!
>>
>>
>> Perhaps not metaphors but symbols... In A.I. he dresses Danny in white
>> clothes. He frames the shots so that a ring appears above his head...
>Another choice Spielberg has made, is to frame David in such way that
>a ring-shaped lamp appears above his head. Is this a "symbol"? A
>symbol of what?
>Again, you don't provide any "explanation".
>This image triggers your mind; that's a good quality of any
>well-thought-of image, although I think that Spielberg is just aping
>Kubrick there, isn't he? So how worthy and truthful would that
>"symbol" be? A symbol of stealing, perhaps?
>How "smart" do you think that would be, showing a ring above a boy's
>head and then pretending that to be a symbol; a religious symbol
>perhaps? Wow, isn't that cheap? Spielberg winking his religious eyes
>to you?
Please follow the thread. You don't always have to disagree with me,
especially when *you* wanted *me* to describe a not-decent metaphor. Gladly,
you explained everything about it yourself.
See, this isn't that difficult, is it? I provide you the information and
you use logic. Metaphors are not so much an interpretation than just pure
simpleminded logic. As such, they do exist within the film, within its inner
logic.
>> >> >The whole "metaphor"-way of thinking doesn't really strike me as very
>> >> >inspiring.
>> >> >To me, a "metaphorical" statement simplifies the art of The Shining.
>> >> >It would be more satisfying (and still not perfect) to read something
>> >> >like "To me, personally, the Overlook Hotel might represent elements
>> >> >of the nature of American history and culture"; that is a far more
>> >> >carefully written statement that, important, also expresses ones own
>> >> >limitations of interpretation.
>> >> >All it really is, of course, is personal interpretation and that is
>> >> >not the same as "the" meaning.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> No it's not only a personal interpretation. I believe there exists
plenty
>> of
>> >> essays that mention this fact.
>> >
>> >Essays are personal interpretation. It's no "fact". It's opinion.
>>
>>
>> A scientist observes a phenomenon in nature, such as gravity. He develops
a
>> theory. After some time and thought it seems to make sense; it is
approved
>> by other scientists. Is that theory still an opinion?
>
>Basically, yes.
>Yet it wouldn't really help us to "see" it as an opinion.
And yet you repeatedly take that position. Is it because you don't want to
be of any help? You don't want to contribute to discussions of Kubrick's
films?
>However, theory might be accepted as "true", such as a theory on
>gravity.
But you won't. Why you cease to believe there exists somewhat rational
truths in art?
>There are many theories on time, but does time exist?
>Is it not just a way to handle chaos? To deal with it?
Basically all art and science is about that.
>I don't think that any metaphor really ever rings as true as
>"gravity".
I can't see the difference you're making here.
Isn't the theory of gravity a simplification of the phenomenon? Doesn't it
put labels on a very complicated event? Doesn't it simplify what we
perceive as gravity? Does the theory of gravity then simplify your
experience in life?
What exactly makes the theory of gravity ring more true?
>Perhaps, in your opinion you might be able to "deal" with metaphors
>and symbols.
>Still, I don't like it, I think it simplifies art, it would produce a
>rather dissatisfying "theory" on art...
Does the theory of gravity produce a rather dissatisfying theory of life?
Physics perhaps?
Physics has been rather useful for mankind in its simplifying power, yet I
can't see why it would make our own experience in the universe less
marvellous.
>> Like I said, I won't explain it to you. I will provide you with the
>> necessary information but I will not analyse and try to explain the film
>> through my interpretation.
>
>Well, fair enough!
>I don't think anyone could "explain" The Shining.
That isn't what metaphors are ultimately about. They do not try to explain
art completely. You are afraid of that. And that is why you make such a huge
deal out of this...
>> >> Your own attitude has caused it. If you truly have the best intentions
>> and
>> >> are sincere in your inquiries you should try to sound more polite than
>> >> "Explain".
>> >
>> >I see.
>> >Define best intentions.
>> >Define sincere.
>> >Define more polite.
>>
>> I don't need to. They are perfectly clear. If you are unable to
understand
>> English, it's your problem, not mine. I'm not here to discuss semantics.
>
>Fair enough, again.
>
>Are you here to dictate how I should behave, or what attitude I should
>show, in order to please you?
No. You really have a short memory, don't you? I believe this discussion
emerged from your own complaint. You were accusing everyone else for being
annoyed at you instead of answering your questions.
I tried to explain you why this happened.
Mikko
JSpringer0953
>Subject: Re: Kubrick, Evolution and Primitiveness
Arguments are only pointless when no facts,
>evidence or logic can be brought to bear (and that's actually almost never
>the
>case unless the topic is religion or superstition).
Arguments concerning religion are pointless? That is an astoundingly
closed-minded view for one so "enlightened." Certainly evidence and logic can
be brought to bear in such arguments, but not in the context of such
narrow-minded logical positivism. Are you saying that all metaphysical theories
are pointless, simply because they cannot be demonstrated or measured?
JOn
David Kirkpatrick
> jackpeg...@att.net (JW Moore) wrote in message
news:<3def13dd....@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
>
>>On 3 Dec 2002 15:35:29 -0800, stal...@attbi.com (Matthew Dickinson)
>>wrote:
>>The differences you describe are cultural, not genetic. Any animal
>>genome can produce diverse phenotypes (external features) -- witness
>>the variety in Canis familiaris, aka the dog.
>>
>
> It's both a matter of culture and genes. It's funny you mention dogs
> because they're a good example of how subtle changes in genes lead to
> profound differences in behavior. My Dad is a veterinarian and he
> estimates at least 60 or 70% of a dog's behavior is based in genes.
> Dogs have been bred over a mere hundred or dozens of years to produce
> distinct breeds that each have their own specific and predictable
> minds and behavior. If you've spent any time around dogs you will
> agree that, say, terriers behave differently from retrievers from
> birth and on throughout the rest of their lives. And this is similar
> to the differences among the races and subraces of mankind. Genes
> predetermine much of one's personality, probably most of it.
So you're saying that the difference between a dog and a human being is
the difference between 60 and 51? Kind of puts the cerebral cortex,
language, self-consciousness and human civilization into perspective.
>
>>There is no, repeat,
>>
>>>no< genetic difference between the light-skinned peoples of Europe
>>>
>>and dark-skinned peoples of Africa.
>>
>
> Are you serious? There's already plenty of obvious genetic differences
> among subraces, like between the English and the Indians, West
> Africans and East Africans, etc.
Obviously there are genetic differences between any two individuals who
are not identical twins. That said, Mr. Moore's point is correct:
there's no good reason to believe that there are any non-trivial genetic
differences between ethnic groups as a whole.
Do you really believe a German is
> born the same as a Jew?
Well, duh. I think Stanley Kubrick and Christiane Harlan would be back
me up on this one.
>I bring up the last two because Hitler was
> right in some basic ways that these two subraces were inherently
> different from each other, even if I find his actions and beliefs
> atrocious and completely immoral.
Is that you Pat Buchanan? Any sentence with the phrase "Hitler was
right" in it is in deep trouble if the very next word is not "wing".
> This is a useful site calculates genetic differences between various
> races and subraces. I hope their information is accurate:
>
http://www25.brinkster.com/humanraces/calc/sforza_profiles.asp?dbname=sforza42world
>
I had a look at this website:
Why on earth would a website about race that wasn't racist have a page
with this text:
'As we can see, Swastikas have been present in India and always have
been an important symbol. Some people may think that Swastika symbolises
"evil" are ignorant about its history and the MEANING, itself. Swastika
is a Sanskrit, the ancient classical language of India. Su means Good,
Asti means Existance. Swastika means Good Existance. The symbol of GOOD.'
And "ka" is short for "kaka".
Much better links were provided by Jack:
>>I strongly advise picking up a book on cultural anthropology: Steven
>>Jay Gould, E.O. Wilson, Don Johansen have written numerous informative
>>but layman-accessible books. A few links I have handy:
>>
>>http://www.becominghuman.org/
>>
>>http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo/Default.htm
>>
>>http://www.ecotao.com/holism/hu_evo_intro.htm
>>
>>~~Jack
>>
I would also recommend the PBS series The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow for
some insights into the experience of racism by those who are targeted.
>
> Thanks, I'll look at these. I've read a lot of Wilson already and he
> supports my ideas that a person's genes determine a great percentage
> of one's personality. I mean, hell, he founded sociobiology, didn't
> he?
>
I see: E.O. Wilson founded sociobiology, therefore he must approve of
every way in which it's been misused. As Darwin serves as a "proof" for
Social Darwinism.
> Have you spent much time around people of very different ancestry as
> you? Don't you ever get the impression that many of their differences
> have been with them since they were born and that they inherited much
> of it from their parents? And don't you feel you're a lot like your
> parents?
>
Oddly enough, visible minorities remind me of all the different places
and cultures from which people have migrated, often as refugees and
usually with the hope of finding a land of opportunity and without the
barriers of prejudice and ignorance. Sort of like Dorothy about to meet
the real Wizard of Oz.
However, I can't see how my parents could possibly influence me except
by a sperm and egg donation -- ok, you've got me there.
But seriously, the obvious question your questions raise is why have
these impressions become talking points for your intellect? Is it pure
unmotivated curiosity that views xenophobia not as a human weakness to
be dealt with the appropriate variation of toilet-training but as a
possible key to enlightenment? This suggests to me either cynicism or
naive lack of self-awareness. [Obviously, I'm assuming for the sake
generosity the latter, otherwise my words would be more brutal and abrupt.]
David
dutch_angle
> >> clothes. He frames the shots so that a ring appears above his head...
>
>
> >Another choice Spielberg has made, is to frame David in such way that
> >a ring-shaped lamp appears above his head. Is this a "symbol"? A
> >symbol of what?
> >Again, you don't provide any "explanation".
> >This image triggers your mind; that's a good quality of any
> >well-thought-of image, although I think that Spielberg is just aping
> >Kubrick there, isn't he? So how worthy and truthful would that
> >"symbol" be? A symbol of stealing, perhaps?
> >How "smart" do you think that would be, showing a ring above a boy's
> >head and then pretending that to be a symbol; a religious symbol
> >perhaps? Wow, isn't that cheap? Spielberg winking his religious eyes
> >to you?
>
>
> Please follow the thread. You don't always have to disagree with me,
> especially when *you* wanted *me* to describe a not-decent metaphor. Gladly,
> you explained everything about it yourself.
What exactly did I explain?
The supposed metaphor or the supposed symbol?
>
> See, this isn't that difficult, is it? I provide you the information and
> you use logic. Metaphors are not so much an interpretation than just pure
> simpleminded logic. As such, they do exist within the film, within its inner
> logic.
No, they do not exist within the film; here we do not agree.
And that isn't difficult indeed.
Interpretation often is simpleminded logic, yes.
As with the A.I. example, yes you "provide" the information, yet you
interpret it as "symbol", so it is not the film's inner logic; it is
your inner logic.
> >> A scientist observes a phenomenon in nature, such as gravity. He develops
> a
> >> theory. After some time and thought it seems to make sense; it is
> approved
> >> by other scientists. Is that theory still an opinion?
> >
> >Basically, yes.
> >Yet it wouldn't really help us to "see" it as an opinion.
>
> And yet you repeatedly take that position.
With art, that is the best I can do.
> Is it because you don't want to be of any help?
No.
> You don't want to contribute to discussions of Kubrick's films?
I do.
>
> >However, theory might be accepted as "true", such as a theory on
> >gravity.
>
> But you won't. Why you cease to believe there exists somewhat rational
> truths in art?
I wasn't discussing "rational truths" in art.
I was discussing "metaphors" and "symbols" and how I think they just
do not exist in art, because I think they only can exist in our
interpretation of art.
>
> >There are many theories on time, but does time exist?
> >Is it not just a way to handle chaos? To deal with it?
>
> Basically all art and science is about that.
Perhaps, and these are "questions", not "rational truths", or
"answers", or lables such as "metaphors" and "symbols".
>
> >I don't think that any metaphor really ever rings as true as
> >"gravity".
>
> I can't see the difference you're making here.
> Isn't the theory of gravity a simplification of the phenomenon?
Yes, might be true.
> Doesn't it put labels on a very complicated event?
Yes, might be true.
> Doesn't it simplify what we perceive as gravity?
Yes, might be true.
> Does the theory of gravity then simplify your experience in life?
It might, yes.
> What exactly makes the theory of gravity ring more true?
Perhaps because gravity ain't art?
> >Perhaps, in your opinion you might be able to "deal" with metaphors
> >and symbols.
> >Still, I don't like it, I think it simplifies art, it would produce a
> >rather dissatisfying "theory" on art...
>
> Does the theory of gravity produce a rather dissatisfying theory of life?
> Physics perhaps?
> Physics has been rather useful for mankind in its simplifying power, yet I
> can't see why it would make our own experience in the universe less
> marvellous.
And I'm not denying that, am I?
>
> >> Like I said, I won't explain it to you. I will provide you with the
> >> necessary information but I will not analyse and try to explain the film
> >> through my interpretation.
> >
> >Well, fair enough!
> >I don't think anyone could "explain" The Shining.
>
>
> That isn't what metaphors are ultimately about. They do not try to explain
> art completely. You are afraid of that. And that is why you make such a huge
> deal out of this...
I'm not the only one who's making a huge deal.
I just pointed out that I don't like metaphors and symbols and that I
happen to think that metaphors and symbols do not exist.
That thought caused a series of replies; it's not that terrible, or is
it?
It's not that I am "afraid" of someone explaining art; I just prefer
the mystery of art and it's continuous spell.
A statement such as "the Overlook Hotel is a metaphor for American
culture and history" is a statement that I think is a little too
simple. Words like metaphor and symbol are like bags of air to me.
> >Are you here to dictate how I should behave, or what attitude I should
> >show, in order to please you?
>
>
> No. You really have a short memory, don't you?
Perhaps, yes.
> I believe this discussion emerged from your own complaint.
I didn't start this discussion.
And I wouldn't call it a complaint.
> You were accusing everyone else for being
> annoyed at you instead of answering your questions.
Everyone else?
Then I'm a busy man...
> I tried to explain you why this happened.
And like all explanation, it is limited.
Thanks for trying.
d.a.
dutch_angle
> > Highly subjective.
> > I don't believe in metaphors, so I also don't believe in decent
> > metaphors.
>
> You don't _believe_ in metaphors?
That's what I said, yes.
> Funnily enough, I am in some
> sympathy with your suspicion of metaphors/ symbols, but I nevertheless
> 'believe' in them. What are you saying, they are a myth, like Santa
> Claus?
More like a myth, yes, though not like Santa.
"Masquerading used to be common practice among Venetians, whether rich
or poor, timid or daring. Masked courtesans would participate in the
most wanton games of lust, and confident of their anonymity would shed
all conventional inhibitions. Noblemen, who would normally take
painstaking care not to divulge a hint of their sexual preferences,
could perform in mask acts that at the time were considered immoral
and illegal. Gamblers disguised themselves so they would not be
recognized by their fellow players, and so that transactions of money
or property would not be made public; here, mask-wearing often became
an imperative. For Venetians, life in the crowded calli (the Venetian
narrow streets), courtyards and squares did not afford personal
anonymity nor any sense of privacy. Their need "to escape" was
satisfied by the Venetian's best friend, the mask. It allowed any
common denizen to reveal in public his or her true nature, the truth
kept normally hidden for fear of criticism and denunciation. Repressed
impulses would finally find an outlet, so to speak, where the true "I"
could triumph, if only for a moment, unchaining the masquerading
Venetian from everyday reality and from the norms that governed it."
(from a website on Venetian masks)
>
> >Now I wouldn't call the mask a
> > "metaphor", I would prefer to call it a "signifier", because Michel
> > Chion's term really rings a bell with me. This mask is perhaps
> > "signifying" both "the doctor" and "death" or, more specific "the
> > plague". This signifier would then refer to both Bill, in his
> > profession as a doctor, one of his "identities", like a confrontation
> > with his "double". And to a "fate" that is waiting to be "unmasked";
> > that might perhaps be that woman's death cause, as we later learn that
> > that woman PERHAPS is Amanda Curran. Or it might refer to Domino's
> > fate, her being as a HIV-positive.
>
> An interesting analysis. Death and desire are frequently yoked
> together in EWS, in a way that is reminiscent of Foucault's 'plague
> fictions.'
How would Alice's dream fit into this, you think?
(since it seems so firmly connected, since it seems to "signify" a
connection, to what Bill has experienced at Somerton)
>
> > So I wouldn't make any firm statement on this choice of mask, but it
> > certainly has triggered a question; if that is a specific Venetian
> > mask, what would that mask represent, originally? Could Kubrick have
> > made that choice because of that specific historical meaning? Anyway,
> > he doesn't "explain", and that's what I like about him.
> >
> > Well, I will stop here.
> > Would this be a "positive" contribution to you? Did you know this?
> > Have you found out about this?
>
> No, I didn't know it, and yes, this of course is what I regard as a
> positive contribution.
>
> > Am I now close to a membership of Kubrick's Secret Fan Society?
>
> I don't know, you would have to ask people who belonged to such a
> society.
OK. Where do they meet?
And what's the password?
>
> >
> > Hey, there's even a mask called "Il Capitano" (The Captain).
> > Remember the masked man that takes the Mysterious Woman upstairs?
> > Didn't Ziegler lead "Mandy" upstairs in his own mansion?
> > Isn't there a model ship somewhere in his billiards room?
> > Are these metaphors and symbols?
> > Not to me, they strike me as "signifiers". I really do like that term!
>
> I have problems with metaphors, symbols and signifiers. But I wonder
> if you could explain the difference between a signifier and a
> metaphor? Why are you so happy with signifiers but unhappy with
> metaphors? This is a genuine question; I think a discussion on this
> _would_ be interesting.
Fair question, of course, one that was to be expected.
To me, the word "signifier" is more neutral, in a way.
Words like "metaphor" and "symbol" are too pretentious. (to me!)
The word signifier is like "element", but it is more active, dynamic:
like an element (of the film, for example) that "signifies something";
this "something" is more open to me, than what "metaphor" and "symbol"
suggest or pretend.
If we look at Alice and Bill in front of the mirror in EWS, we can
dissect this single shot into several elements. An important element
might be the mirror. So what Chion does is calling the mirror a
"signifier" and he starts thinking and arguing about what this
signifier does signify. Many critics would call the mirror a "symbol",
and I wouldn't call it "not true", I just don't think it is of any
inspiring use to me.
It is not that Chion uses the word "signifier" over and over again,
but he first explains how he likes to approach a film; and I like that
too, how he introduces his way of looking at things. He provides us
first with his own "limitations", with the whereabouts of the "filter"
that he uses, because, I think, with interpretation and criticism
there's always a (personal) "filter" involved.
And I can accept this critic's tool, the "signifier" as a way to
analyse a given film, because I can accept his opinion that you can
look at all concrete elements of a sequence, or a scene, or a shot, or
(in the end) the whole film; he calls these elements "signifiers". Of
course it is a "lable" too, but one I can accept, because it doesn't
"pretend" something in itself, right away.
So Chion would call a mirror just a "signifier". But mostly he will
not go into one pre-defined direction, like many do once they start
using words like "metaphor" or "symbol". In this way, Chion is able to
really openly discuss the multilayered structure of a film, yet he
also makes clear that it will still be only a limited way to analyse
this film.
So a "signifier", as defined by Chion, is more firmly connected with a
given concrete element that is actually part of the film, without a
definition of subjective thought already written over it; a metaphor
or a symbol is, in my opinion, far more defined with personal
interpretation, and it isn't really part of the film itself, but part
of our interpretation.
> > You should read some analysis of Arthur Schnitzler's work.
> > If you can: read Hertha Krothoff's Zur Geheimen Gesellschaft in Arthur
> > Schnitzler's Traumnovelle. I mean: this is ABOUT secret societies!!!!
> > Do I really have to send you a copy?
>
> You don't _have_ to do anything. Although it does sound like the sort
> of thing I would be interested in. Unfortunately, and shamefully, my
> linguistic skills do not extend to being able to read it in the
> original language. But I'm sure that I'm not the only one at AMK who
> would appreciate a summary of it English, if you were willing to
> provide it.
I read it in a University library, because as far as I know, it is no
longer sold as a book commercially. I will try to write a short
summary; it is interesting to see how Schnitzler, according to
Krothoff, has "hidden" a scheme of clues (for instance by the use of
colors) that refer to some "dangerous" underground political
groups/societies of that time, that were specifically anti-Jewish,
like a pre-Nazi group. One important name: Georg von Schönerer.
> > > BTW, how would you account for the Native American designs all over
> > > the Overlook?
> >
> > Sounds great!
> > What Native American designs are you talking about, exactly?
> > Have you done some research?
> > What does it refer to?
> > What does it mean or what could it mean?
> >
> > I see the Native American designs, yes, that's not too difficult.
> > I don't see the metaphor, though...
>
> I'm not saying there is a metaphor. I'm saying it indicates a racial
> theme in TS.
Yes, but it remains so vague... What racial theme?
> > > Or for the fact that the Hotel is built on an 'Indian'
> > > burial ground? (This plot point an addition of Kubrick's, nowhere to
> > > be found in King's novel.)
> >
> > Excitiing stuff! A real thrill!
> > And do you think this fact does make the Overlook Hotel into a
> > metaphor?
> >
> No, but - see my answer above - I think it indicates 'racial
> awareness' in The Shining.
That I know, by now.
But how does it indicate racial awareness and what does this racial
awareness "look" like, what does it say, how is it related to the
film's drama, to Jack, to Kubrick the artist, what is Kubrick doing
with this racial awareness etc etc.
> >
> > > Or for Jack's invocation of Kipling's 'White man's burden'? Just coincidences, I suppose.
> >
> > I wouldn't call it a coincidence, no.
> > A line of dialogue would be a very specific choice, especially when it
> > is a Kipling quote.
> > I wouldn't call it a metaphor though.
>
> Again, neither would I. But I would say it is yet more evidence of
> 'racial awareness.'
Again, to me that is, I'm sorry, repeated vagueness.
See the questions mentioned above.
> > > > The result of the discussion on "racial awareness" goes into strange
> > > > directions indeed, but certainly not in the positive one; so provide
> > > > the arguments that might "proof" how silly I am.
> > >
> > > But what would count as evidence of racial awareness for you?
> >
> > Well, I am open to many things. Go surprise me.
> > I asked for some evidence, but I haven't seen it yet.
>
> So you don't think the native American references or the Kipling
> allusion have _anything to do_ with race?
Of course they have something to do with race.
But that's not the same as pretending it therefore as "racial
awareness".
I would need more "opinion", so to speak.
Especially problematic to me is the word "awareness", I believe...
>
> > People keep describing what can be seen as elements of the film and
> > they start fuzzing around with their interpretations, yet no
> > interpretation on "racial awareness" is really convincing, I can't
> > help it.
> >
> I'd like you to at least explain why the above-mentioned features have
> nothing to do with race.
That is something I cannot explain, because I wasn't arguing that
these features have nothing to do with race. As I have said, of course
they do, they can, they could refer to "race", but that is not the
same as "racial awareness" of the film. This is a matter of nuance,
perhaps, but an important one to me.
> > > You are the one obsessed with 'proof'; no-one else thinks that anything can be
> > > 'proved' about films.
> >
> > I'm not obsessed with proof.
> > That is your way of seeing me, and that's your right.
> > That's all there is.
>
> Yes, all I can go on is what you post, where the word 'proof' is used
> a number of times.
I didn't start by asking for "proof", that is what others often make
of my attempt to find more and deeper personal opinion and
interpretation.
I don't need "proof" or "evidence", of course not.
> >
> > By the way: don't you think I have often mentioned that I think a
> > discussion is about bouncing thoughts, more than it is about ever
> > really convincing anybody?
>
> I would agree, of course. I'm not saying that you think that you can
> prove your interpretations are valid. I'm saying that you think that
> _others_ think they can prove their interpretations are valid.
OK.
d.a.
dutch_angle
> > You provide the symbol and metaphor of censorship.
>
> Are you a Scientologist?
LOL!!!
No, it's worse.
I'm Dutch.
d.a.
dutch_angle
> learn things from such activity. Arguments are only pointless when no facts,
> evidence or logic can be brought to bear (and that's actually almost never the
> case unless the topic is religion or superstition).
Sounds fair.
>
> In the case of a work of art, there are facts (e.g., there are monoliths in
> "2001"),
Yes.
> evidence (when a monolith appears, mankind changes in some way),
Yes, but this evidence is more able to cause different approaches of
interpretation, I think. Yet the fact that mankind does change in some
way in itself might be regarded as evidence.
> and logic (these two things occuring together repeatedly have meaning).
This "occuring together" causes your interpretation to form the
supposed "meaning".
> The facts,
> evidence and logic here can be brought into the form of an argument (the
> monolilths are a causal element in the changes). Because such an argument
> sheds light on meaning, it's mindless and counterproductive to want to "cut it
> away."
Indeed.
>
> >So you provide the perfect example of how you are able to follow the
> >eventually-someone-will-say-absolutely-anything rule.
> >If you do your best, cutting away discussion, you will be the real
> >winner!
>
> This sentence does not make sense.
Of course not.
The process of cutting away the development of discussion, whether
that is poor or rich is up to you, is an often used trick to misform
the discussion.
>
> >> If true, why discuss it at all?
> >
> >Yeah, why?
>
> The point here was a necessary corollary to your claim. If all art is without
> meaning other than straight equivalance (1 = 1), then there is no reason for
> you to have anything to do with alt.movies.kubrick in terms of his work.
This is what happens if you just start cutting away parts of the
context.
I was indeed saying that there's no meaning in any work of art.
But it is important to also note that I was saying that the meaning is
triggered by the work of art; the meaning of a work of art is caused
by our ability to interpret. So I was saying that it is our
interpretation, our relation to art so to speak, that develops the
meaning.
You can cut this all away, but then it is you who causes the 1 = 1,
not me.
> The irony which apparently escapes you is that you have previously made many
> interpretations of SK film (interpretation is doing analysis of symbolic
> content, whether it's obvious or not).
Which symbolic content are you referring to?
I have also said, which apparently escapes you, that I acknowledge the
words "metaphor" and "symbol", and that I do not deny them. I
certainly will have used them myself. In that case, there's a big
chance that I would like to reword what I was saying, if I used those
words. I am not perfect.
> >So all things that are "true" cannot or should not be discussed?
>
> This does not follow from anything I said, however a discussion of math (say)
> is probably a pretty dull one.
Let's cut the dull example.
> Now I suppose more sophisticated versions of this do happen on some newsgroups,
> but they are not what happens in the discussion of aesthetics, and they are
> also not what any discussion of aesthetics has as a goal. Even if there were
> an aesthetic interpretation agreed to by everyone (e.g., a cigar can be a
> phallic symbol) the fact of the matter here is only about agreement, not about
> certainty.
Absolutely.
A cigar can be a phallic symbol.
One for bad critics and bad artists.
1=1.
>
> >If you cut away all arguments and alternatives, well, yes, then why
> >would you discuss anything?
>
> Well that's an insight rather like saying, "if you take a knife and jab your
> eyes out, why would you try to look at anything?"
That's right.
>
> >> Should you not be participating in a math or
> >> engineering newsgroup, instead of one like this?
> >
> >Thanks for the tip.
>
> Anytime. Run along now.
Because you say so?
Sorry, I hate running.
Thanks for the tip, though.
>
> >> Explain.
> >
> >
> >I will: Art doesn't use metaphors and symbols.
>
> Firstly, there's no need to use both of these terms; a symbol is a sign that
> stands in for something else, and a metaphor is a more sophisticated, perhaps
> creative, example of a symbol.
No need to use both of these terms, indeed.
> For exampe, this is a symbol: :-)
Is it art?
> A "bear market" is a metaphor. Generally a symbol is immediately apparent and a
> metaphor involves more learning (very often bound to language and a literary
> form of some kind), but the term "symbol" covers both.
It can never cover art.
It can only simplify art.
>
> Your novel claim can take one or both of these positions:
>
> 1.) No artist has ever created or intended any symbol.
Many artists have intended symbols, I'm sure.
I wouldn't say they can create a symbol.
> 2.) No member of the audience (those who apprehend the work) has ever
> experienced a symbol in a work of art.
Of course many will claim they have experienced a symbol in a work of
art.
I am not denying that.
But this doesn't therefore mean that the symbol exists in the work of
art.
It's their mind that's "creating" the symbol and it's supposed
"meaning".
>
> As others have noted, both of these are demonstrably false. It maybe the case
> that you actually want the following position:
>
> 3) Because certainty of the 1 = 1 kind is not possible as a result of
> discussion and argumentation, therefore it must be the case that there are no
> symbols in art.
No, I wouldn't actually want this following position.
> This is a fallacy of false analogy. It's like saying people
> have heads and nails have heads, and so, like nails, people are of no use
> unless you hit them on the head with a hammer. Certainty is not the "solution"
> to a discussion of symbolism in art.
You are quite creative.
It's all a symbol of sillyness I would say.
A perfect symbol nevertheless.
>
> For further fun along these lines, you could perhaps visit the appropriate
> newsgroups with claims such as, "Buildings don't use supports", and "Animals
> don't have cells."
Thanks for the tip.
I won't run.
d.a.
dutch_angle
> No. It manages to be both utterly trite and total gobbledeygook. Some feat.
Utterly trite.
Total gobbledeygook.
Good thinking.
d.a.
dutch_angle
> >
> >
> > I will: Art doesn't use metaphors and symbols.
> > You provide the symbol and metaphor of censorship.
> >
> >
> Isn't that what you would call a 'statement'?
No, I would call it two statements.
> It certainly isn't an explanation.
It isn't.
But that's how people explain things here.
d.a.
Sam Rouse
Matthew Dickinson
> So you're saying that the difference between a dog and a human being is
> the difference between 60 and 51? Kind of puts the cerebral cortex,
> language, self-consciousness and human civilization into perspective.
I don't follow you here...
> Obviously there are genetic differences between any two individuals who
> are not identical twins. That said, Mr. Moore's point is correct:
> there's no good reason to believe that there are any non-trivial genetic
> differences between ethnic groups as a whole.
I never understand this. I do not need to read books on genetics to
believe there are subtle innate/genetic differences between the races.
I've just known this from observation, from personal experiences, from
life... you know? And it never surprises me how people these days deny
it (and why do they deny it in the first place? fear?)... It just
seems harmful to deny it. I'm not saying one should be racist or
hateful as an alternative. I just think there'd be greater cooperation
and peace if we didn't deny our obvious differences.
But anyway, if you have book and article sources that prove what you
state, then by all means share them. I don't really have sources for
what I believe, though. I have Rushton's book, for instance, and a
couple of others, but that's it, and I don't draw much from these.
> Is that you Pat Buchanan? Any sentence with the phrase "Hitler was
> right" in it is in deep trouble if the very next word is not "wing".
It was stupid and wrong of me to bring up Hitler in a thread like
this. For the record, as I said elsewhere, I don't like Hitler, I
don't support or sympathize with his or any nazi's policies, or their
movement, their hate, their genocide of millions... etc. I like
nothing of the sort and I wish it would disappear from the world. If
we continue to deny the differences, even more racist movements will
crop up with even stronger supporters because they believe they have
penetrated a taboo subject and have been enlightened.
And come on, don't compare me to Pat Buchanan, okay?
> > This is a useful site calculates genetic differences between various
> > races and subraces. I hope their information is accurate:
> >
> http://www25.brinkster.com/humanraces/calc/sforza_profiles.asp?dbname=sforza42world
> >
>
> I had a look at this website:
>
> Why on earth would a website about race that wasn't racist have a page
> with this text:
>
> 'As we can see, Swastikas have been present in India and always have
> been an important symbol. Some people may think that Swastika symbolises
> "evil" are ignorant about its history and the MEANING, itself. Swastika
> is a Sanskrit, the ancient classical language of India. Su means Good,
> Asti means Existance. Swastika means Good Existance. The symbol of GOOD.'
>
> And "ka" is short for "kaka".
I didn't see this. I paid most attention to their race articles culled
from various outside sources and their race calculator. I'll look at
the site more in depth to see what kind of people they are. I hope I
have not quoted a site hateful to any race. From what I can tell,
their race difference calculator, which I quoted, is accurate.
> I would also recommend the PBS series The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow for
> some insights into the experience of racism by those who are targeted.
I guess you think I need to better understand racist atrocities
throughout history so that I stop suggesting the races are born
differently and things of that nature?
> I see: E.O. Wilson founded sociobiology, therefore he must approve of
> every way in which it's been misused. As Darwin serves as a "proof" for
> Social Darwinism.
No.
> Oddly enough, visible minorities remind me of all the different places
> and cultures from which people have migrated, often as refugees and
> usually with the hope of finding a land of opportunity and without the
> barriers of prejudice and ignorance. Sort of like Dorothy about to meet
> the real Wizard of Oz.
What are you implying? I support no "barriers of prejudice and
ignorance" or anything of that nature.
> However, I can't see how my parents could possibly influence me except
> by a sperm and egg donation -- ok, you've got me there.
I'm not sure I follow you. You will have to speak more simply to me
because my mind is simpler than yours.
It's obvious to me that both genes and parenting influence a child to
be like their parents. I've met few people who truly believe they're
not like their parents, and didn't have similarities with them from a
young age, as well. Is this not common sense?
> But seriously, the obvious question your questions raise is why have
> these impressions become talking points for your intellect? Is it pure
> unmotivated curiosity that views xenophobia not as a human weakness to
> be dealt with the appropriate variation of toilet-training but as a
> possible key to enlightenment? This suggests to me either cynicism or
> naive lack of self-awareness. [Obviously, I'm assuming for the sake
> generosity the latter, otherwise my words would be more brutal and abrupt.]
>
> David
Yes, I've come to learn my naivete is one of my strongest selling
points. But, again, I don't follow you. I am not xenophobic, and I
>do< think it's a weakness that we must always be wary of.
One reason I'm probably fascinated with the subject of race is because
it's such a taboo subject. Perhaps this makes me immature, I don't
know.
There's something else I'd like to say: whatever genetic differences
we find among the races are going to be slight and subtle. But they
are strong enough to generate profound cultural differences over long
periods of time.
Matthew
Winston Castro
wrote:
>David Kirkpatrick <dak...@rogers.com> wrote in message news:<3DF0C2E8...@rogers.com>...
>> So you're saying that the difference between a dog and a human being is
>> the difference between 60 and 51? Kind of puts the cerebral cortex,
>> language, self-consciousness and human civilization into perspective.
>
>I don't follow you here...
>
>> Obviously there are genetic differences between any two individuals who
>> are not identical twins. That said, Mr. Moore's point is correct:
>> there's no good reason to believe that there are any non-trivial genetic
>> differences between ethnic groups as a whole.
>
>I never understand this. I do not need to read books on genetics to
>believe there are subtle innate/genetic differences between the races.
>I've just known this from observation, from personal experiences, from
>life... you know? And it never surprises me how people these days deny
>it (and why do they deny it in the first place? fear?)... It just
>seems harmful to deny it. I'm not saying one should be racist or
>hateful as an alternative. I just think there'd be greater cooperation
>and peace if we didn't deny our obvious differences.
>
Thank you Matthew, for turning this once socially progressive
newsgroup, into an open forum of hate, ignorance and racism.
But you are correct in one regard; genetics and race are taboo
subjects in this society, and I congratulate you on your boldness and
audacity in trying to tackle them.
JW Moore
wrote:
>jackpeg...@att.net (JW Moore) wrote in message news:<3def13dd....@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
>> On 3 Dec 2002 15:35:29 -0800, stal...@attbi.com (Matthew Dickinson)
>> wrote:
>> The differences you describe are cultural, not genetic. Any animal
>> genome can produce diverse phenotypes (external features) -- witness
>> the variety in Canis familiaris, aka the dog.
>
>It's both a matter of culture and genes. It's funny you mention dogs
>because they're a good example of how subtle changes in genes lead to
>profound differences in behavior. My Dad is a veterinarian and he
>estimates at least 60 or 70% of a dog's behavior is based in genes.
>Dogs have been bred over a mere hundred or dozens of years to produce
>distinct breeds that each have their own specific and predictable
>minds and behavior. If you've spent any time around dogs you will
>agree that, say, terriers behave differently from retrievers from
>birth and on throughout the rest of their lives. And this is similar
>to the differences among the races and subraces of mankind. Genes
>predetermine much of one's personality, probably most of it.
>
The point is that they are all still dogs, i.e. the same species. Our
species is strikingly uniform by contrast. And just as most dogs can
be trained to sit, lie down, roll over, etc., humans can be trained to
earn money, wear perfume and believe in God. That's partly what I mean
by culture. Your insistence on identifying "subraces of mankind" tells
me I'm somehow not getting through. There are none.
>> There is no, repeat,
>> >no< genetic difference between the light-skinned peoples of Europe
>> and dark-skinned peoples of Africa.
>
>Are you serious? There's already plenty of obvious genetic differences
>among subraces, like between the English and the Indians, West
>Africans and East Africans, etc. Do you really believe a German is
>born the same as a Jew? I bring up the last two because Hitler was
>right in some basic ways that these two subraces were inherently
>different from each other, even if I find his actions and beliefs
>atrocious and completely immoral.
>
Again, there are no subraces of people. Skin pigmentation obviously is
genetically based, as are a whole host of other physical traits,
including behavior (e.g. predisposition to mental illness). But the
original point as I understood it had to do with brain morphology,
which is totally unrelated to race, much less religion.
>This is a useful site calculates genetic differences between various
>races and subraces. I hope their information is accurate:
>http://www25.brinkster.com/humanraces/calc/sforza_profiles.asp?dbname=sforza42world
>
>> And while evolution never stops,
>> per se, the genetic drift required to produce new species takes
>> millions, not thousands, of years.
>
>I don't know why you're talking about species here. My "missing link"
>comment was an inappropriate exaggeration that I take back, but I
>don't consider the races different species, though I've wondered if
>they're almost that. Even Darwin toyed with the idea that blacks (and
>others? I can't remember) were a different species, but, among other
>reasons, seeing that all races can interbreed so well changed his
>mind.
>
And he said he was studying "finches". What a cad!
>> >I don't know why there is no such thing as genetic primitiveness
>> >within the same species. The kind of primitiveness I'm talking about
>> >is relative to the observer: in general, it seems to have been mostly
>> >whites who have viewed other races as more primitive, and I cannot
>> >help but wonder if that too is not genetically influenced, in that
>> >perhaps whites are innately driven towards snobbishness,
>> >pretentiousness, and the worry over superiority. I've heard of blacks
>> >who actually believed they were inferior, but it did not seem to
>> >bother them the way it would a white man.
>>
>> I strongly advise picking up a book on cultural anthropology: Steven
>> Jay Gould, E.O. Wilson, Don Johansen have written numerous informative
>> but layman-accessible books. A few links I have handy:
>>
>> http://www.becominghuman.org/
>>
>> http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo/Default.htm
>>
>> http://www.ecotao.com/holism/hu_evo_intro.htm
>>
>> ~~Jack
>
>Thanks, I'll look at these. I've read a lot of Wilson already and he
>supports my ideas that a person's genes determine a great percentage
>of one's personality. I mean, hell, he founded sociobiology, didn't
>he?
>
Wilson is gamely attempting to apply the natural sciences to the study
of human nature. His research into ants and other species leads him to
speculate that H. sapiens also is guided by an array of "instinctual
algorithms" -- all a function of evolutionary forces on the human
brain. But here he speaks of human nature generally, not of
individuals or groups, and he explicitly warns against xenophobic
interpretations of his work.
>Have you spent much time around people of very different ancestry as
>you? Don't you ever get the impression that many of their differences
>have been with them since they were born and that they inherited much
>of it from their parents? And don't you feel you're a lot like your
>parents?
>
I've lived with and among people of numerous ethnic groups over the
course of my life, and depite my best efforts I have watched most of
them become Redskins fans. Nuff said.
>One more thing. In another post of yours, you made a flippant comment
>about Neandertals that bothered me: "Whatever the reason, I'm just
>happy we won. Sapiens rule!!!" I hope that was a joke. It's far more
>racist and immoral than anything I've said so far.
>
Jesus. 30,000 fucking years and you still can't joke about
Neandertals. Guess you don't want to hear the one about the Neandertal
and the Cro Magnon who go fishing...
Irony, lad: >that's< what separates us from the other apes.
~~Jack
M4RV1N
writes:
>> In the case of a work of art, there are facts (e.g., there are monoliths in
>> "2001"),
>
>Yes.
>> evidence (when a monolith appears, mankind changes in some way),
>
>Yes, but this evidence is more able to cause different approaches of
>interpretation, I think.
We've not arrived at interpretation yet. I'm not talking about dubious
evidence, nor any qualified kind. An example of evidence is a gunshot wound as
evidence that a gun was fired. Evidence is an indicator.
>> and logic (these two things occuring together repeatedly have meaning).
>
>This "occuring together" causes your interpretation to form the
>supposed "meaning".
It can, but I'm assuming a straightforward deduction of the modus ponens sort.
All men are mortal; Socrates is a man; Socrates is mortal. In this case: A
director takes efforts to corollate two things in a film to form a meaning in
the mind of the viewer; Kubrick corollates monolith and change; the monolith
means change. If one wants to quibble with the first element, one could, but
that can be dealt with rather easily in a separate argument.
I contend the derivation of meaning begins >after facts, evidence and logic are
taken into account<.
>I was indeed saying that there's no meaning in any work of art.
>But it is important to also note that I was saying that the meaning is
>triggered by the work of art; the meaning of a work of art is caused
>by our ability to interpret.
So this is the second position I discussed. Again, artists have
(unfortunately) spoken of intended meanings and symbols, which falsifies this
position. If artist X speaks of his symbol S, audience member Y has been
short-circuited in the ability to "cause" that meaning/symbol.
>> The irony which apparently escapes you is that you have previously made
>many
>> interpretations of SK film (interpretation is doing analysis of symbolic
>> content, whether it's obvious or not).
>
>Which symbolic content are you referring to?
In one case you called Kubrick, "a poet" and a "prophet." No objection to that
of course, but both of those acknowledge symbolic content. Kubrick does not
>actually< rhyme words or predict the future, so your discussion of his work
waxes symbolic here.
>> an aesthetic interpretation agreed to by everyone (e.g., a cigar can be a
>> phallic symbol) the fact of the matter here is only about agreement, not
>about
>> certainty.
>
>Absolutely.
>A cigar can be a phallic symbol.
Art uses symbols. Q.E.D. Not always good ones...
>> >Thanks for the tip.
>>
>> Anytime. Run along now.
>
>Because you say so?
Just being encouraging. Stay if you like.
>> For exampe, this is a symbol: :-)
>
>Is it art?
>
I support the view that anything intended to be experienced can be art. This
Wittgensteinian slipperyism, but necessary (see his writing on the definition
of a "game.").
>> A "bear market" is a metaphor. Generally a symbol is immediately apparent
>and a
>> metaphor involves more learning (very often bound to language and a
>literary
>> form of some kind), but the term "symbol" covers both.
>
>It can never cover art.
>It can only simplify art.
Oh dear. And I thought you were making progress. :-[ (artistic symbol)
Mark Ervin
M4RV1N
writes:
>Arguments concerning religion are pointless?
Not sociological, historical arguments, etc. There is a fact of the matter
that Paul advocated slavery, and so on. I meant "angels on the head of a pin"
type disputes of dogma and competing arguments from authority.
>Are you saying that all metaphysical theories
>are pointless, simply because they cannot be demonstrated or measured?
Basically, yes. The exceptions are exceedingly complex and rare.
Mark Ervin.
Matthew Dickinson
> Thank you Matthew, for turning this once socially progressive
> newsgroup, into an open forum of hate, ignorance and racism.
?
Padraig L Henry
"Usenet posting used to be common practice among Internetians, whether
rich or poor, timid or daring. Usenet-identity courtesans would
participate in the most wanton games of lust, and confident of their
anonymity would shed all conventional inhibitions. Noblemen, who would
normally take painstaking care not to divulge a hint of their sexual
were considered immoral and illegal. Gamblers disguised themselves so
they would not be recognized by their fellow players, and so that
transactions of money or property would not be made public; here,
their crowded suburbia , courtyards and squares did not afford
personal anonymity nor any sense of privacy. Their need "to escape"
It allowed any common denizen to reveal in public his or her true
nature, the truth kept normally hidden for fear of criticism and
denunciation. Repressed impulses would finally find an outlet, so to
speak, where the true "I" could triumph, if only for a moment,
the norms that governed it."
On 6 Dec 2002 12:35:23 -0800, The soliloquizing Solipsist
R.P.J.H...@chello.nl (dutch_angle) wrote:
>To me, the word "signifier" is more neutral,
Neutral of meaning, maybe?
>in a way.
>Words like "metaphor" and "symbol" are too pretentious. (to me!)
"To me". A term you fondly use with gratuitous abandon, dear Kantian
egoist.
>The word signifier is like "element", but it is more active, dynamic:
>like an element (of the film, for example) that "signifies something";
Uh, the signified, perhaps? (But a signifier that adopts a policy of
signified neutrality, of course, elementally speaking. Can't let mere
meaning get in the way of the much more juicy world of neutral
signification, can we?).
>this "something" is more open to me, than what "metaphor" and "symbol"
>suggest or pretend.
Oouuh! AMK's resident solipsist, having long dispensed with the
traditional rhetoric of literary and art criticism, has belatedly
abandoned obscurantist mysticism and discovered the formal, brave new
world of Structuralism!!! Begorrah!! (Believing it to be, er, "more
open," as it were, and not forgetting his mandatory qualifier "to
me.")
Though we can't even mention "post-modernism" just yet, can we? Can
"me"?
But that's just my opinion, which is mine, which is my personal view,
which isn't anyone else's either, just me and my personal opinion,
which is, to me of course, a personal interpretation that is mine
only, as any other view shows that you are not the least
interested in discussion, are you? But not to me, as then that would
be a self-defeating quality (to me!). And that, for me, is why I
dislike metaphors and symbols, especially thousands of them, which
personally speaking, are boring, and any anyway they don't exist.
There are no facts, to me, not even racially aware ones, just
opinions, which in my personal view are mine and mine only, and thats
my own personal interpretation of what to me is my own personal
opinion. You may think otherwise, but that's only your personal
opinion, which gets in the way of an open mind; you interpreted, not
me. Explain it. Accept it. Try again.
Padraig
... this is evolution?
Padraig L Henry
wrote:
>>>The timescale involved in human evolution is of critical importance
>>>because modern man is a very recent branch on the family tree,
>>>appearing 100-200,000 years ago. The species H. sapiens includes
>>>Australian aborigines, American Indians, Kalihari bushmen and any
>>>other socio-ethnic group whom we enlightened Caucasoids deem
>>>"primitive". By definition, there is no such thing as "genetically
>>>more primitive" members of the same species.
The notion of "genetically more primitive" members of a species is of
course a noxious cultural prejudice, except - according to some - in
one remaining problematic area: the progeny of in-breeding or incest,
now generally outlawed (consider their freaky portrayal in films,
from Chinatown to Angels and Insects). Particular groups of
self-regarding humans with a pathological superiority complex (eg past
and present aristocracies, whether real or banana, where uncles marry
nieces or cousins marry cousins, brothers marry sisters etc) who have
practiced this degradation were observed to genetically regress over
generations, reverting back to ancestral type (one of the "rules" of
healthy evolution, that of always increasing/maximising genetic
variety in reproduction, was broken). We might ask why, in
evolutionary terms, this is so, and the usual answer is that of the
increased likelihood of "genetic mutation" (an otherwise random
process that is itself the actual basis of major evolutionary change),
albeit of a degenerate and eventually sterile kind. But then I heard
the wee story of a village in southern Italy where a huge proportion
of the population live to a very advanced and noble age, a phenomenon
previously thought to be largely due to an uber-healthy diet - plenty
of oily fish and fresh fruit and veg copiously wolfed down with
lashings of Chianti in a pleasant Mediterranean climate. Yummy.
Not so; it recently was demonstrated that such longevity was entirely
due to past inbreeding by the population as a result of being cut off
from other communities as an enforced consequence of various conflicts
and "those other people" type prejudices. The gene-set responsible for
such extra mileage has now even been identified (and some genetic
engineers hope to have an "age-stretching pill" some day as a
result!). A "positive" but morally dubious genetic outcome to a
regressive reproductive practice?
>The fate of Neanderdude remains one of the great alltime mysteries.
>One theory holds that H. sapiens survived because he naturally
>gravitated to hilltops and could see approaching game whereas H.
>neander kept to his caves. Maybe there was some interbreeding but the
>resulting progeny were sterile (like the mule). The cyclical
>glaciations of that period must have played a role. Some recent study
>suggested we prevailed purely by a chance ... a single gene encoding
>for (or inhibiting) a particular protein that just happened to be
>advantageous in northern climes.
If it was the result of a random genetic mutation, then of course it
was by chance, as is the norm in evolutionary time, rather than simply
an "appropriate," naturally selected "best fit" with the new
environment. Or am I radically misunderstanding something here?
>Or maybe it was that monolith.
Yes, I'm always - er - intrigued by AMK's fascination, or fixation,
with exclusively Darwinian notions of evolution in the context of
Kubrick's 2001, given that the film is completely ambiguous in that
regard, allowing the monolith mythology to substitute for or challenge
the conventional, pure Darwinian explanation of human evolution ie.
Kubrick offers us an ambiguous, multiple scenario that ultimately
creates a philosophical tension between a part scientific and part
pseudo-religious "explanation" of - or at least commentary on - human
evolution ... Or am I radically misunderstanding something there?
>>>Kubrick's use of white actors I would say reflects more on the subject
>>>matter than the director. He obviously had nothing against minorities
>>>acting in his films, if he thought they were right for the particular
>>>part. If Kubrick is guilty of underrepresenting minorities, then so is
>>>just about every other Western director I can think of, save Spike
>>>Lee. Foreign films are even less ethnically diverse. Kurosawa's films
>>>have Japanese actors because the subject matter demands it. A white
>>>actor in "Rashomon" (even if he spoke Japanese) would look just as
>>>absurd as an Asian actor in "Barry Lyndon."
Wasn't there one in BL? Oh wait, I'm mistaking it for that Hogarth
painting. Or was it a Gainsborough? Or maybe a Stubbs? With the Asian
and African slaves in the background playing with leopards and such
.. :-). And I've just come across Sir Joshua Reynolds (1723-1792)
and his painting of "Omai", which hangs at the Barry Lyndon (or
Brideshead Revisited? I'm confuzzed) location of Vanbrugh's baroque
Castle Howard in Britain. The painting of the servant Omai, then an
Asian "import" from the South Seas, was commented on by Dr Johnson,
who was struck by the "elegance" of Omai's behaviour (comments which
inform us much more about the cultural origins of imperialist racism
and notions of "genetic primitiveness" among "all the best people"):
"Sir, he [Omai] had passed his time in England, only in the best
company; so that all he had acquired of our manners was genteel. As a
proof of this, Sir, Lord Mulgrave and he dined one day at Streatham;
they sat with their backs to the light fronting me so that I could not
see distinctly; and there was so little of the savage in Omai that I
was afraid to speak to either lest I mistake one for the other." (from
The Great Century of British Painting: Hogarth to Turner)
But to resume: Yes, few directors are genuinely multi-cultural, except
for the admirable likes of, for instance, John Sayles and Ken Loach.
>>> Was Fellini racist for using Italian actors?
Donald Sutherland and Anthony Quinn are Italian? Like Peter Sellers
was German ? :-)
Padraig
mark de rozario
> > >Now I wouldn't call the mask a
> > > "metaphor", I would prefer to call it a "signifier", because Michel
> > > Chion's term really rings a bell with me. This mask is perhaps
> > > "signifying" both "the doctor" and "death" or, more specific "the
> > > plague". This signifier would then refer to both Bill, in his
> > > profession as a doctor, one of his "identities", like a confrontation
> > > with his "double". And to a "fate" that is waiting to be "unmasked";
> > > that might perhaps be that woman's death cause, as we later learn that
> > > that woman PERHAPS is Amanda Curran. Or it might refer to Domino's
> > > fate, her being as a HIV-positive.
> >
> > An interesting analysis. Death and desire are frequently yoked
> > together in EWS, in a way that is reminiscent of Foucault's 'plague
> > fictions.'
>
> How would Alice's dream fit into this, you think?
> (since it seems so firmly connected, since it seems to "signify" a
> connection, to what Bill has experienced at Somerton)
Yes: for me one of the most mysterious elements of the film and the
novella. Although of course the dream in Traumnovelle is much more
florid and lengthy than the one in EWS.
A few random thoughts (some of which you are sure to take issue with).
The dream, like the mask on the bed, indicates that the inside - the
internal worlds of the psyche and of the conjugal-domestic - and the
outside - the Ziegler world of wealth/ power and the Domino world of
sex-as-transaction (those two worlds doubling each other, just as
Ziegler's party is doubled by Somerton) - are no longer separable. Or
rather: it is no longer possible to _experience_ them as separate.
Plague is the other side of carnival, just as death is the obverse
side of desire. Both death and desire spell the end of the marital
'forever.'
I'm still not entirely clear on why you prefer the term 'signifier' to
'metaphor' or 'symbol.' What one counts as a 'signifier' and what it
supposedly 'signifies' is no less arbitrary in principle than what one
would describe as a 'metaphor' or a 'symbol.' Anything in a film can
constitute a 'signifier' - a gesture, a colour, shot selection.
> > > You should read some analysis of Arthur Schnitzler's work.
> > > If you can: read Hertha Krothoff's Zur Geheimen Gesellschaft in Arthur
> > > Schnitzler's Traumnovelle. I mean: this is ABOUT secret societies!!!!
> > > Do I really have to send you a copy?
> >
> > You don't _have_ to do anything. Although it does sound like the sort
> > of thing I would be interested in. Unfortunately, and shamefully, my
> > linguistic skills do not extend to being able to read it in the
> > original language. But I'm sure that I'm not the only one at AMK who
> > would appreciate a summary of it English, if you were willing to
> > provide it.
>
> I read it in a University library, because as far as I know, it is no
> longer sold as a book commercially. I will try to write a short
> summary; it is interesting to see how Schnitzler, according to
> Krothoff, has "hidden" a scheme of clues (for instance by the use of
> colors) that refer to some "dangerous" underground political
> groups/societies of that time, that were specifically anti-Jewish,
> like a pre-Nazi group. One important name: Georg von Schönerer.
>
Does this in any way make you revise your opinion of the relevance of
the secret society theme in Traumnovelle/EWS?
> > > > BTW, how would you account for the Native American designs all over
> > > > the Overlook?
> > >
> > > Sounds great!
> > > What Native American designs are you talking about, exactly?
> > > Have you done some research?
> > > What does it refer to?
> > > What does it mean or what could it mean?
> > >
> > > I see the Native American designs, yes, that's not too difficult.
> > > I don't see the metaphor, though...
> >
> > I'm not saying there is a metaphor. I'm saying it indicates a racial
> > theme in TS.
>
> Yes, but it remains so vague... What racial theme?
Blakemore and Cook (http://128.174.194.59/hurt/373/essays/cook.htm)
have both drawn what this might involve to some extent. I think we
will probably agree that both are unnecessarily reductive in their
interpretations. Nevertheless, their idea that The Shining is in part
about the 'overlooking' of the genocide of the Native American
population does explain the persistent Native American references in
the film.
It would not, I hope, be controversial to say that The Shining - like
EWS - is about the American nuclear family (the dysfunctional unit at
the core of patriarchal capitalism). What presuppositions is the
(white) American family unit based upon? In other words, what must it
overlook in order to carry on (dys)functioning?
Jack's identification of himself as Kipling's 'White Man' can be no
accident. The role of patriarchal breadwinner - the one with
'responsibilities' - carries racial, as well as gender, connotations.
Remember that Delbert Grady appeals to Jack's racism by pointing out
that 'a nigger cook' is about to enter the 'situation.'
These are starting points for a discussion of TS's 'racial awareness.'
<snip>
dutch_angle
> ... this is evolution?
You have created a great metaphor.
Thanks for sharing your intelligence!
d.a.
Matthew Dickinson
> The point is that they are all still dogs, i.e. the same species. Our
> species is strikingly uniform by contrast. And just as most dogs can
> be trained to sit, lie down, roll over, etc., humans can be trained to
> earn money, wear perfume and believe in God. That's partly what I mean
> by culture. Your insistence on identifying "subraces of mankind" tells
> me I'm somehow not getting through. There are none.
It is a somewhat tricky, perhaps impossible task to group humanity
into races, much less subraces. I'd group the world into at least four
major races, each of which I think are intuitive to most people:
Asian, Black, White, and Australian Aborigine. Native Americans might
be another, too. But where to draw the line for subraces... that is
difficult and I don't know how to do it. I'm left with just making
guesses. However, to say there are simply none denies the obvious as
well. Even a cursory examination of people's ancestry in one larger
grouping (a race) shows you there is great genetic variety that seems
to be grouped by geography.
We're probably agreeing in part because when you say "our species is
strikingly uniform by contrast" I do agree. But the variety in that
very area of uniformity you speak of is large enough to cause
significant and unfortunate social problems. Again, I think to deny
the races differences will only lead to further problems and more
backhanded racism.
> Again, there are no subraces of people. Skin pigmentation obviously is
> genetically based, as are a whole host of other physical traits,
> including behavior (e.g. predisposition to mental illness). But the
> original point as I understood it had to do with brain morphology,
> which is totally unrelated to race, much less religion.
They're not the same. For instance, there are slight but significant
differences in quantity of gray matter. On average, Asians have the
most, whites somewhere near that, and blacks the least. I'm not sure
where Aborigines fit in here, but I did read once that part of the
visual area of their brain is less developed, while on the other hand
their spatial memory used to tell direction and location is bigger and
more intelligent, probably due to the stress their environment had on
that part of the brain. And as people often say, I'd bet blacks'
musical and body-kinesthetic areas of the brain are different if not
superior in many ways. There's so many more differences, but I'll
leave it at that since I know I've already caused a lot of offense
with this thread.
> Wilson is gamely attempting to apply the natural sciences to the study
> of human nature. His research into ants and other species leads him to
> speculate that H. sapiens also is guided by an array of "instinctual
> algorithms" -- all a function of evolutionary forces on the human
> brain. But here he speaks of human nature generally, not of
> individuals or groups, and he explicitly warns against xenophobic
> interpretations of his work.
Yes... xenophobia... the root of much evil. It's an ugly paradox, but
perhaps those in-groups that show the most xenophobia have the
strongest, tightest, and most meaningful of cultures, and those that
show the least have the weakest, loosest, and least meaningful of
cultures. You can't have both at once.
That said, maybe I'm reading you wrong, but I don't think of myself as
xenophobic at all.
> >One more thing. In another post of yours, you made a flippant comment
> >about Neandertals that bothered me: "Whatever the reason, I'm just
> >happy we won. Sapiens rule!!!" I hope that was a joke. It's far more
> >racist and immoral than anything I've said so far.
> >
> Jesus. 30,000 fucking years and you still can't joke about
> Neandertals. Guess you don't want to hear the one about the Neandertal
> and the Cro Magnon who go fishing...
> Irony, lad: >that's< what separates us from the other apes.
>
> ~~Jack
I read speculations recently that red hair originated in Neandertals,
implying that anyone who has red hair (such as myself) has Neandertal
blood in them. But, ah, am I being a little xenophobic now?
=)
Matthew
Leonid Gavrilov
> ... it recently was demonstrated that such longevity was entirely
> due to past inbreeding by the population as a result of being cut off
> from other communities as an enforced consequence of various conflicts
> and "those other people" type prejudices. The gene-set responsible for
> such extra mileage has now even been identified (and some genetic
> engineers hope to have an "age-stretching pill" some day as a
> result!). A "positive" but morally dubious genetic outcome to a
> regressive reproductive practice?
***
I would appreciate reference to the scientific source (publication) on
this issue, supporting this claim.
The relationship between inbreeding and longevity remain to be studied, see
for example:
M4RV1N
writes:
> A primary text they used was Robert Ardrey's
>>"African Genesis," and as Geoffrey Alexander once pointed out, if you turn
>to
>>page 175 you'll see a drawing of an australopithecene sitting the midst of
>>animal bones and pondering them! They pushed the date of A. Africanus back
>an
>>additional million years (and that turned out to be right). The drawing
>looks
>>like Moonwatcher except it has short hair, but no one knows whether or not
>they
>>might have had the long fur of chimps, and that's what Kubrick went with in
>the
>>film.
>>
>I don't recall the drawing, but I read a couple of Ardrey's books as
>an anthropology major in the late 70s, by which time the whole "killer
>ape" hypothesis (which actually originated with Raymond Dart) was
>obsolete.
Yes, especially their notion that becoming a predator was essential to tool use
and brain development.
>Hours of footage on Kalihari bushmen and other "primitive"
>societies seemed to support the "hunter ape" hypothesis, but it too
>was later discredited. Based on mounting fossil (esp. dental)
>evidence, it's now believed that Australopithecines were foraging
>vegetarians, and thus had no need for stone tools. I won't belabor the
>point ...
No belaboring taken, and I agree. But correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I
have read that it was A. Robustus that was the gentle plant eater (big jaws and
big flat teeth for chewing grains and fruit), whereas if was A. Africanus that
had jaws like ominivorous modern chimps (who sometimes hunt and kill in groups
and eat the meat). And whereas Robustus disappears from the fossil record,
lines of Africanus continue on; implying, I thought, that our ancestors wiped
them out (or out-competed them simpy by virtue of the method--as the opening of
the film makes clear, plant eating in a prolonged drought makes for dim
prospects).
>Kubrick was making art, not a documentary, and he succeeded
>magnificently.
Right, and the basic point still holds. The Dawn of Man was about
conceptualization and "extending the reach" and the segment ends with the
signal from the monolith on the moon. It's a lengthy "dawn."
>>>The famous "Lucy" for example (A. afarensis) lived 3-4 million years
>>>ago and was barely 3 feet tall, yet was fully bipedal.
>>
>>As I said above, they turned out to be right because Lucy was found about a
>>decade after the film was released and 4 million years ago was on the money.
>>
>>>The use of tools, however, does not appear for another 1 million years
>>>or so, with Homo habilis. This human ancestor fashioned stones for the
>>>purposes of cutting, scraping, smashing etc., rather than hunting and
>>>homicide.
>>
>>Here though, we must make a distinction between artifact tools and found
>tools.
>> It's highly likely that all Australopithecenes used found tools, if for no
>>other reason than that their brains were the same size as chimps, and chimps
>>use various found tools. They even engage in slight modifications that are
>>learned tactics (culture).
>
>There is evidence of Austs using bones and horns as digging tools, but
>not as weapons. The use of tools by contemporary apes is interesting
>but not necessarily relevant to Austs. The distinction I would
>emphasize is brain size vs. brain structure. The cerebral cortex (esp.
>Broca's area, the seat of language) and frontal lobes of A. africanus
>are well developed compared to chimps, gorillas, and other modern
>apes. These and other anatomical developments are among the many
>consequences of bipedalism.
I did not know about the lobe difference, but I knew that the way our thumbs
work opposing our fingers is a major difference. Of course it follows that the
brain would have to change just for highly specialized hand movements. The
brain "explosion" is probably related to this and the advent of language.
>It's fascinating to see the many ways Kubrick renders locomotion in
>general, and the human gait in particular. The shadowboxing shot on
>the centrifuge (and those haunting Khatchatourian strings), still
>astonishes, esp. on the Cinerama screen.
I'm sure if he'd known about the knee joints of Lucy, he'd have had the
australopithecenes just walk upright all the time. It'll be interesting if
fossils eventually tell us bipedalism goes way back, say 10my or more. Of
course kangaroos are bipedal and they certainly didn't get big brains out of
the deal. But they don't need or have opposable thumbs. So perhaps an origin
as a brachiating tree animal, and then walking upright at times sets the stage
for what followed.
>>As I always point out though, it seems to me at
>>least that the tool use of Moonwatcher is not the significant "Dawn of Man"
>>element (purely a poetic term for a segment of the film, BTW), but rather
>it's
>>the conceptualization of a way to extend his power, kill a tapir for food,
>and
>>change his future.
>>
>All set in motion by the monolith, the ultimate abstract concept...
>
I agree with Don Daniels that it's the first and only Kantian thing-in-itself
in a Hollywood film.
>>> These quibbles aside, Kubrick's famous visual epiphany in
>>>"2001" brings home the more profound implications of the tool (be it
>>>bone or computer) for human evolution. For instance:
>>>
>>>http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/aaas/2001-03-01-tooluse-evolution.htm
>>>
>>>The timescale involved in human evolution is of critical importance
>>>because modern man is a very recent branch on the family tree,
>>>appearing 100-200,000 years ago. The species H. sapiens includes
>>>Australian aborigines, American Indians, Kalihari bushmen and any
>>>other socio-ethnic group whom we enlightened Caucasoids deem
>>>"primitive". By definition, there is no such thing as "genetically
>>>more primitive" members of the same species. Recent studies of
>>>mitochondrial DNA in present-day populations support the "out of
>>>Africa" model of human migration starting 170,000 years ago, thence
>>>thru the middle East to Asia, reaching New Guinea and Australia
>>>20-30,000 y.a. and Europe 15,000 y.a.
>>>
>>>Obviously we've learned a lot since the mid-60s, but even back then
>>>nobody with any familiarity with primate evolution (including Kubrick
>>>and certainly Clarke) believed for a second that dark-skinned races
>>>were genetically distinct from whites, much less the frankly racist
>>>notion that Africans or Australian aborigines represented a "missing
>>>link" to the ape. That distinction falls to Proconsul, an African
>>>fellow who lived 16 million years ago.
>>
>>Exactly right. Skin color, hair, and minor feature differences are of zero
>>consequence from a genetic standpoint. If we had not wiped out the
>>Neanderthals then we would actually have issues of two kinds of human
>beings,
>>but considering they actually had bigger brains perhaps it would have been
>>>our< problem had they gained the upper hand in Europe.
>>
>The fate of Neanderdude remains one of the great alltime mysteries.
>One theory holds that H. sapiens survived because he naturally
>gravitated to hilltops and could see approaching game whereas H.
>neander kept to his caves.
And being a homeowner can be risky if the environs take a turn for the worse,
whereas being nomadic means if the neighborhood goes to hell you pack up and
get out.
>Maybe there was some interbreeding but the
>resulting progeny were sterile (like the mule). The cyclical
>glaciations of that period must have played a role. Some recent study
>suggested we prevailed purely by a chance ... a single gene encoding
>for (or inhibiting) a particular protein that just happened to be
>advantageous in northern climes. Or maybe it was that monolith.
It baffles me that we ever moved into harsh cold climates. "Let's leave all
this warmth and rain and game and fruit, head up north and eat blubber." Of
course I know these things happen over generations. Still. St00pit.
>Whatever the reason, I'm just happy we won. Sapiens rule!!!
It's not out of the question that we could find Neanderthal DNA in the arctic
somewhere (doubtless there are bodies up there). If we cloned a few and they
were indeed more intelligent, they could be our leaders, our philosopher kings!
Sound like a fun can of worms to open?
Perhaps not, but it might make a good science fiction novel.
Mark Ervin
Padraig L Henry
Gavrilov) wrote:
What makes you think it is a >claim<? It is not a claim.
We need to be very careful here. First, my post makes no mention of a
"relationship" between in-breeding and longevity; rather, it draws
attention to a widely documented scientific study (I first learned
about it on a one-hour Channel 4 [UK] documentary some months ago) of
a particular community in Italy where in-breeding occurred among
certain of their ancestors. The scientists and geneticists undertaking
the study traced the lines of such ancestry, so enabling them to
finally isolate the gene-set responsible for much of that community's
longevity. This "proves" nothing about any >general relationship<
between inbreeding and longevity, a notion that completely misses the
wider issue; the findings of the study simply further confirm that
random genetic mutations can have "positive" as well as negative
outcomes, even in the case of the degrading practice of genetically
regressive reproduction.
Padraig
Mikko Pihkoluoma
R.P.J.H...@chello.nl (dutch_angle) wrote in message news:<2295770d.02120...@posting.google.com>...
> > >> Perhaps not metaphors but symbols... In A.I. he dresses Danny in white
> > >> clothes. He frames the shots so that a ring appears above his head...
> >
> >
> > >Another choice Spielberg has made, is to frame David in such way that
> > >a ring-shaped lamp appears above his head. Is this a "symbol"? A
> > >symbol of what?
> > >Again, you don't provide any "explanation".
> > >This image triggers your mind; that's a good quality of any
> > >well-thought-of image, although I think that Spielberg is just aping
> > >Kubrick there, isn't he? So how worthy and truthful would that
> > >"symbol" be? A symbol of stealing, perhaps?
> > >How "smart" do you think that would be, showing a ring above a boy's
> > >head and then pretending that to be a symbol; a religious symbol
> > >perhaps? Wow, isn't that cheap? Spielberg winking his religious eyes
> > >to you?
> >
> >
> > Please follow the thread. You don't always have to disagree with me,
> > especially when *you* wanted *me* to describe a not-decent metaphor. Gladly,
> > you explained everything about it yourself.
>
> What exactly did I explain?
> The supposed metaphor or the supposed symbol?
Symbolism.
> > See, this isn't that difficult, is it? I provide you the information and
> > you use logic. Metaphors are not so much an interpretation than just pure
> > simpleminded logic. As such, they do exist within the film, within its inner
> > logic.
>
> No, they do not exist within the film; here we do not agree.
Films don't have an inner logic?
You don't think that at least on some level(s) art is communication?
> As with the A.I. example, yes you "provide" the information, yet you
> interpret it as "symbol", so it is not the film's inner logic; it is
> your inner logic.
No. I didn't interpret anything. The symbol is there. You saw it. I
can see it. Most people who pay attention can see it. It's there.
> > >> A scientist observes a phenomenon in nature, such as gravity. He develops
> a
> > >> theory. After some time and thought it seems to make sense; it is
> approved
> > >> by other scientists. Is that theory still an opinion?
> > >
> > >Basically, yes.
> > >Yet it wouldn't really help us to "see" it as an opinion.
> >
> > And yet you repeatedly take that position.
>
> With art, that is the best I can do.
Then you don't want to be of any help when it comes to developing
theories about pieces of art.
> > >I don't think that any metaphor really ever rings as true as
> > >"gravity".
> >
> > I can't see the difference you're making here.
> > Isn't the theory of gravity a simplification of the phenomenon?
[...]
> > Does the theory of gravity then simplify your experience in life?
>
> It might, yes.
Really? In which way?
> > >Perhaps, in your opinion you might be able to "deal" with metaphors
> > >and symbols.
> > >Still, I don't like it, I think it simplifies art, it would produce a
> > >rather dissatisfying "theory" on art...
> >
> > Does the theory of gravity produce a rather dissatisfying theory of life?
> > Physics perhaps?
> > Physics has been rather useful for mankind in its simplifying power, yet I
> > can't see why it would make our own experience in the universe less
> > marvellous.
>
> And I'm not denying that, am I?
I'm trying to say that theories on pieces of art can be useful to
human beings. Through its simplifying, labeling and whatnot, it can
bring one's thoughts to a more abstract level of thinking.
> A statement such as "the Overlook Hotel is a metaphor for American
> culture and history" is a statement that I think is a little too
> simple.
Perhaps it's a simple statement, but essentially it's valid. I just
can't see why you seem to think this statement was supposed to explain
everything about The Shining.
Mikko
dutch_angle
> > > >> clothes. He frames the shots so that a ring appears above his head...
> > >
> > >
> > > >Another choice Spielberg has made, is to frame David in such way that
> > > >a ring-shaped lamp appears above his head. Is this a "symbol"? A
> > > >symbol of what?
> > > >Again, you don't provide any "explanation".
> > > >This image triggers your mind; that's a good quality of any
> > > >well-thought-of image, although I think that Spielberg is just aping
> > > >Kubrick there, isn't he? So how worthy and truthful would that
> > > >"symbol" be? A symbol of stealing, perhaps?
> > > >How "smart" do you think that would be, showing a ring above a boy's
> > > >head and then pretending that to be a symbol; a religious symbol
> > > >perhaps? Wow, isn't that cheap? Spielberg winking his religious eyes
> > > >to you?
> > >
> > >
> > > Please follow the thread. You don't always have to disagree with me,
> > > especially when *you* wanted *me* to describe a not-decent metaphor. Gladly,
> > > you explained everything about it yourself.
> >
> > What exactly did I explain?
> > The supposed metaphor or the supposed symbol?
>
> Symbolism.
I didn't explain a symbol.
I described merely what's on the screen.
>
> > > See, this isn't that difficult, is it? I provide you the information and
> > > you use logic. Metaphors are not so much an interpretation than just pure
> > > simpleminded logic. As such, they do exist within the film, within its inner
> > > logic.
> >
> > No, they do not exist within the film; here we do not agree.
>
> Films don't have an inner logic?
With "they", I refer to "metaphors".
> You don't think that at least on some level(s) art is communication?
The purpose of art was once to communicate.
Nowadays, the purpose of art often is art itself.
Art should, of course, communicate, not on "some", but on many levels.
>
> > As with the A.I. example, yes you "provide" the information, yet you
> > interpret it as "symbol", so it is not the film's inner logic; it is
> > your inner logic.
>
> No. I didn't interpret anything. The symbol is there. You saw it. I
> can see it. Most people who pay attention can see it. It's there.
Nope, it isn't there.
It's in your head, not in the film.
I didn't see it.
All I see is what I have described.
>
> > > >> A scientist observes a phenomenon in nature, such as gravity. He develops
> a
> > > >> theory. After some time and thought it seems to make sense; it is
> approved
> > > >> by other scientists. Is that theory still an opinion?
> > > >
> > > >Basically, yes.
> > > >Yet it wouldn't really help us to "see" it as an opinion.
> > >
> > > And yet you repeatedly take that position.
> >
> > With art, that is the best I can do.
>
> Then you don't want to be of any help when it comes to developing
> theories about pieces of art.
Why not?
The example of gravity is something you came up with.
I don't really see what you're after, or how this is would be a
relevant example of how I don't want to be of any help...
Be happy to think so.
You'd better come up with your theory of a piece of art, then I see if
I can be of any help.
>
> > > >I don't think that any metaphor really ever rings as true as
> > > >"gravity".
> > >
> > > I can't see the difference you're making here.
> > > Isn't the theory of gravity a simplification of the phenomenon?
> [...]
> > > Does the theory of gravity then simplify your experience in life?
> >
> > It might, yes.
>
> Really? In which way?
Because I don't consider it to be very relevant to my experience of my
life.
Yet, the theory of gravity is true in a scientific way.
The mysteries of art isn't like scientific truths, to me.
Metaphorical theories simplify the experience of art.
>
> > > >Perhaps, in your opinion you might be able to "deal" with metaphors
> > > >and symbols.
> > > >Still, I don't like it, I think it simplifies art, it would produce a
> > > >rather dissatisfying "theory" on art...
> > >
> > > Does the theory of gravity produce a rather dissatisfying theory of life?
> > > Physics perhaps?
> > > Physics has been rather useful for mankind in its simplifying power, yet I
> > > can't see why it would make our own experience in the universe less
> > > marvellous.
> >
> > And I'm not denying that, am I?
>
> I'm trying to say that theories on pieces of art can be useful to
> human beings.
Without a doubt.
I would never consider it very useful to me.
> Through its simplifying, labeling and whatnot, it can
> bring one's thoughts to a more abstract level of thinking.
Perhaps.
You can do that without refering to "metaphors" and "symbols".
What do you consider a more abstract level of thinking to be like?
And what is the importance, and relevance, of bringing one's thoughts
on a piece of art, to a more abstract level of thinking?
> > A statement such as "the Overlook Hotel is a metaphor for American
> > culture and history" is a statement that I think is a little too
> > simple.
>
> Perhaps it's a simple statement, but essentially it's valid. I just
> can't see why you seem to think this statement was supposed to explain
> everything about The Shining.
First, I don't think that this statement is supposed to explain
"everything" about The Shining.
Second, whether this statement is essentially valid, is subjective. I
think it's essential-ness is not that relevant. The links between the
Overlook Hotel and American culture and history are rather obvious. So
obvious, actually, that the word "metaphor" or "symbol" is of no need
at all.
They still don't mean anything to me; empty words.
d.a.
JW Moore
>>Jack writes:
>
>> A primary text they used was Robert Ardrey's
>>>"African Genesis," and as Geoffrey Alexander once pointed out, if you turn
>>to page 175 you'll see a drawing of an australopithecene sitting the midst of
>>>animal bones and pondering them! They pushed the date of A. Africanus back
>>an dditional million years (and that turned out to be right). The drawing
>>looks like Moonwatcher except it has short hair, but no one knows whether or not
>>they might have had the long fur of chimps, and that's what Kubrick went with in
>>the film.
>>>
>>I don't recall the drawing, but I read a couple of Ardrey's books as
>>an anthropology major in the late 70s, by which time the whole "killer
>>ape" hypothesis (which actually originated with Raymond Dart) was
>>obsolete.
>
>Yes, especially their notion that becoming a predator was essential to tool use
>and brain development.
>
>>Hours of footage on Kalihari bushmen and other "primitive"
>>societies seemed to support the "hunter ape" hypothesis, but it too
>>was later discredited. Based on mounting fossil (esp. dental)
>>evidence, it's now believed that Australopithecines were foraging
>>vegetarians, and thus had no need for stone tools. I won't belabor the
>>point ...
>
>No belaboring taken, and I agree. But correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I
>have read that it was A. Robustus that was the gentle plant eater (big jaws and
>big flat teeth for chewing grains and fruit), whereas if was A. Africanus that
>had jaws like ominivorous modern chimps (who sometimes hunt and kill in groups
>and eat the meat). And whereas Robustus disappears from the fossil record,
>lines of Africanus continue on; implying, I thought, that our ancestors wiped
>them out (or out-competed them simpy by virtue of the method--as the opening of
>the film makes clear, plant eating in a prolonged drought makes for dim
>prospects).
>
I believe Robustus was the last (i.e. most recent) of the
Australopithecines, preceded by Boisei, Africanus and Afarensis. It's
damned confusing: every year or two introduces a new species to the
family tree, which gets bushier with each discovery. And "preceded" is
a generalization since two or more Aust. species were alive at any
given time (if not in the same place) and H. Habilis was a virtual
conteporary of A. Robustus. Because Habilis had a considerably larger
brain than any Austs. he had need for more dietary energy than veggies
could provide, hence the need for meat, hence the need for tools. So
the theory goes...
>>Kubrick was making art, not a documentary, and he succeeded
>>magnificently.
>
>Right, and the basic point still holds. The Dawn of Man was about
>conceptualization and "extending the reach" and the segment ends with the
>signal from the monolith on the moon. It's a lengthy "dawn."
>
And a helluva brief "infinite".
Opposable thumbs certainly predate bipedalism, which predates brain
development. Future fossil evidence will surely clarify -- or
complicate -- the chronology.
>>It's fascinating to see the many ways Kubrick renders locomotion in
>>general, and the human gait in particular. The shadowboxing shot on
>>the centrifuge (and those haunting Khatchatourian strings), still
>>astonishes, esp. on the Cinerama screen.
>
>I'm sure if he'd known about the knee joints of Lucy, he'd have had the
>australopithecenes just walk upright all the time. It'll be interesting if
>fossils eventually tell us bipedalism goes way back, say 10my or more. Of
>course kangaroos are bipedal and they certainly didn't get big brains out of
>the deal. But they don't need or have opposable thumbs. So perhaps an origin
>as a brachiating tree animal, and then walking upright at times sets the stage
>for what followed.
>
I predict that 20 years hence we'll find bipeds going back much more
than 10 million -- based on how much we've learned in just the last 20
years. That still won't detract from my enjoyment of the film.
>>>As I always point out though, it seems to me at
>>>least that the tool use of Moonwatcher is not the significant "Dawn of Man"
>>>element (purely a poetic term for a segment of the film, BTW), but rather
>>it's
>>>the conceptualization of a way to extend his power, kill a tapir for food,
>>and
>>>change his future.
>>>
>>All set in motion by the monolith, the ultimate abstract concept...
>>
>
>I agree with Don Daniels that it's the first and only Kantian thing-in-itself
>in a Hollywood film.
>
I'll buy that. Indeed, the whole film practically fits that
description. You're aware of its profound effect, but you're not quite
sure what or how. And that's >before< the drugs kick in.
Only "8 1/2" has come close to affecting me that way; but not "2010"
or "10" for that matter.
True, and this was before the invention of equity, refinancing and the
mortgage-interest deduction. A poor investment all around.
>>Maybe there was some interbreeding but the
>>resulting progeny were sterile (like the mule). The cyclical
>>glaciations of that period must have played a role. Some recent study
>>suggested we prevailed purely by a chance ... a single gene encoding
>>for (or inhibiting) a particular protein that just happened to be
>>advantageous in northern climes. Or maybe it was that monolith.
>
>It baffles me that we ever moved into harsh cold climates. "Let's leave all
>this warmth and rain and game and fruit, head up north and eat blubber." Of
>course I know these things happen over generations. Still. St00pit.
>
Well, the Neanders made a pretty good living chasing big game like
reindeer, which provided clothing as well as food. Like all
hunter-gatherers, they went where the food of choice happened to be.
But it was a rather bleak "living" to be sure, one which changed
remarkably little for 100,000 years compared to H. Sapiens. Thus
Neandertal culture seems to have been ill-equipped for the adaptations
needed to compete over the long haul (notwithstanding my doubts about
our own long-term viability.)
>>Whatever the reason, I'm just happy we won. Sapiens rule!!!
>
>It's not out of the question that we could find Neanderthal DNA in the arctic
>somewhere (doubtless there are bodies up there). If we cloned a few and they
>were indeed more intelligent, they could be our leaders, our philosopher kings!
> Sound like a fun can of worms to open?
>
>Perhaps not, but it might make a good science fiction novel.
>
I've read that DNA becomes too badly degraded after 10K yrs -- even
frozen or intombed in amber ala "Jurassic Park" - to be useful as
cloning material. OTOH I've read about amazing genetic research using
DNA sequences much older than 10K yrs. It's over my head either way.
Suffice to say the technology is still in its infancy, and who knows
what will be possible in the future? So hell yeah, let's clone some of
those bad boys. Between that and the coming AI revolution, not to
mention the much-anticipated extraterrestial colonization, the
possibilities are endless. And ominous for the human race.
~~Jack
Padraig L Henry
Michael Corleone please take note):
Secret of Long Life Found?
By Rossella Lorenzi, Discovery News
Living Long in Italy
Sep. 27 — A potentially fatal disease is likely to be associated with
longevity, according to Italian researchers who have been studying
centenarians on the island of Sardinia.
A team of scientists at the university of Sassari found that many
Sardinians over the age of 100 have a deficiency of an enzyme called
G6PD — a sort of a housecleaning agent that helps with glucose
metabolism.
People who have such a deficiency can be affected by a disorder called
acute hemolytic anemia, giving them a severe reaction if they eat fava
beans or inhale their pollen.
The phenomenon, known as favism, affects some 100 million people
world-wide.
"In Sardinia, however, the disease has become a favoring factor. In
centenarians, the incidence of G6PD deficiency is on average double
compared to control groups.
"It is the first time that such a significant difference has been
found between centenarians and the normal population. We suppose that
a yet unknown "longevity gene" is interacting with favism," Luca
Deiana, professor of Clinic Biochemical at the University of Sassari,
told Discovery News.
The finding, details of which will be published shortly in a
scientific journal, emerged during the course of a five-year project
called Akea. Directed by Deiana, the project owes its name to the
traditional Sardinian greeting "A Kent'Annos" — congratulations for
living to a century.
Some 135 people per million live to see their 100th birthday on
Sardinia, while the western average is nearer 75. Centenarians are
scattered around all of the island's 377 municipalities, but in the
mountainous interior around the Nuoro province the prevalence of
centenarians is striking: 240 in every one million people.
While in other countries an average of five women reach the century
for every man who reaches this milestone, on Sardinia the female-male
ratio is only two to one, with an equal number of men and women 100
years old or greater in the Nuoro province.
"This area is the only one in Italy where remaining male life
expectancy at age 85 exceeds the female level", Deiana said.
Among its Methuselahs, Sardinia recorded Antonio Todde, the world's
oldest man, who died this year less than 3 weeks away from his 113
birthday. Now the oldest man on the island, and the third oldest in
the world, is Giovanni Frau, who will turn 112 in December.
Located on the X chromosome, the G6PD gene has been the subject of
extensive studies. Sarah Tishkoff, an assistant professor of biology
at the University of Maryland, discovered that mutations in the gene
can cause not only favism but also appear to offer a resistance to
malaria.
"It is entirely possible that the G6PD locus is important in
longevity, given that it is an important gene for enabling the cell to
deal with oxydative stress, which we know is important for slowing
down the aging process," Tishkoff told Discovery News.
In Sardinian centenarians, the malfunctioning enzyme could interact
with something peculiar from the island. "We are analyzing other
mechanisms, such as the environment, the lifestyle and the diet,
including the island wine," Deiana said.
After all, Antonio Todde's life-promoting substance was a glass of
local red wine made on the rocky hills around Nuoro.
Mikko Pihkoluoma
> > > > >> Perhaps not metaphors but symbols... In A.I. he dresses Danny in white
> > > > >> clothes. He frames the shots so that a ring appears above his head...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >Another choice Spielberg has made, is to frame David in such way that
> > > > >a ring-shaped lamp appears above his head. Is this a "symbol"? A
> > > > >symbol of what?
> > > > >Again, you don't provide any "explanation".
> > > > >This image triggers your mind; that's a good quality of any
> > > > >well-thought-of image, although I think that Spielberg is just aping
> > > > >Kubrick there, isn't he? So how worthy and truthful would that
> > > > >"symbol" be? A symbol of stealing, perhaps?
> > > > >How "smart" do you think that would be, showing a ring above a boy's
> > > > >head and then pretending that to be a symbol; a religious symbol
> > > > >perhaps? Wow, isn't that cheap? Spielberg winking his religious eyes
> > > > >to you?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Please follow the thread. You don't always have to disagree with me,
> > > > especially when *you* wanted *me* to describe a not-decent metaphor. Gladly,
> > > > you explained everything about it yourself.
> > >
> > > What exactly did I explain?
> > > The supposed metaphor or the supposed symbol?
> >
> > Symbolism.
>
> I didn't explain a symbol.
Oh, I think you did.
> I described merely what's on the screen.
And mostly that's enough.
> > > > See, this isn't that difficult, is it? I provide you the information and
> > > > you use logic. Metaphors are not so much an interpretation than just pure
> > > > simpleminded logic. As such, they do exist within the film, within its inner
> > > > logic.
> > >
> > > No, they do not exist within the film; here we do not agree.
> >
> > Films don't have an inner logic?
>
> With "they", I refer to "metaphors".
I realise that. I wrote: "Metaphors are (not so much an
interpretation than) just pure simpleminded logic. As such, they do
exist within the film, within its inner logic."
> > > As with the A.I. example, yes you "provide" the information, yet you
> > > interpret it as "symbol", so it is not the film's inner logic; it is
> > > your inner logic.
> >
> > No. I didn't interpret anything. The symbol is there. You saw it. I
> > can see it. Most people who pay attention can see it. It's there.
>
> Nope, it isn't there.
It IS there.
> It's in your head, not in the film.
No, no, no... All I did was just share few observations from the film.
You drew the same conclusions. A lot of people do. This so obvious
that Spielberg must have thought of making these links connect...
> I didn't see it.
It's funny how you described accurately what you didn't see. You seem
to have a rare gift...
> All I see is what I have described.
And that's just about everything that needs to be seen.
> > > > >> A scientist observes a phenomenon in nature, such as gravity. He develops
> a
> > > > >> theory. After some time and thought it seems to make sense; it is
> approved
> > > > >> by other scientists. Is that theory still an opinion?
> > > > >
> > > > >Basically, yes.
> > > > >Yet it wouldn't really help us to "see" it as an opinion.
> > > >
> > > > And yet you repeatedly take that position.
> > >
> > > With art, that is the best I can do.
> >
> > Then you don't want to be of any help when it comes to developing
> > theories about pieces of art.
>
> Why not?
> The example of gravity is something you came up with.
> I don't really see what you're after, or how this is would be a
> relevant example of how I don't want to be of any help...
> Be happy to think so.
Theory of gravity is an analogy to the statement "the Overlook Hotel
is a metaphor for American culture and history". They both describe
precisely and truthfully what has been observed. Which makes these
"theories" more than just opinions.
If you choose to believe that these kind of statements should not be
made, then you don't want to be of any help.
> > > > >I don't think that any metaphor really ever rings as true as
> > > > >"gravity".
> > > >
> > > > I can't see the difference you're making here.
> > > > Isn't the theory of gravity a simplification of the phenomenon?
> [...]
> > > > Does the theory of gravity then simplify your experience in life?
> > >
> > > It might, yes.
> >
> > Really? In which way?
>
> Because I don't consider it to be very relevant to my experience of my
> life.
And again... How exactly that simplifies your experience in life?
> > Through its simplifying, labeling and whatnot, it can
> > bring one's thoughts to a more abstract level of thinking.
>
> Perhaps.
> You can do that without refering to "metaphors" and "symbols".
>
> What do you consider a more abstract level of thinking to be like?
> And what is the importance, and relevance, of bringing one's thoughts
> on a piece of art, to a more abstract level of thinking?
Basically, more fun for the same money. Opposed to your fear of
simplification theories are most likely to deepen the experience of
life/art by creating new threads of thoughts.
> > > A statement such as "the Overlook Hotel is a metaphor for American
> > > culture and history" is a statement that I think is a little too
> > > simple.
> >
> > Perhaps it's a simple statement, but essentially it's valid. I just
> > can't see why you seem to think this statement was supposed to explain
> > everything about The Shining.
>
> First, I don't think that this statement is supposed to explain
> "everything" about The Shining.
>
> Second, whether this statement is essentially valid, is subjective. I
> think it's essential-ness is not that relevant. The links between the
> Overlook Hotel and American culture and history are rather obvious. So
> obvious, actually, that the word "metaphor" or "symbol" is of no need
> at all.
If you dislike the words 'metaphor' and 'symbol' for their
simplificative power, why can't they be used to describe the obvious
links between The Overlook Hotel and American culture/history?
> They still don't mean anything to me; empty words.
In the world most of us live they do mean something. I might suspect
you have a dictionary where you can look it up, if you have forgotten
their meaning.
Mikko
dutch_angle
> > > > What exactly did I explain?
> > > > The supposed metaphor or the supposed symbol?
> > >
> > > Symbolism.
> >
> > I didn't explain a symbol.
>
> Oh, I think you did.
Oh, exactly: you THINK I did.
The same way you THINK symbols exist in the film, whereas they exist
only in your interpretation.
I didn't say/write: "the symbol can be explained this and thus".
I didn't even use the word.
>
> > I described merely what's on the screen.
>
> And mostly that's enough.
Yes, so we don't need the symbol.
That's why I didn't explain the symbol.
>
> > > > > See, this isn't that difficult, is it? I provide you the information and
> > > > > you use logic. Metaphors are not so much an interpretation than just pure
> > > > > simpleminded logic. As such, they do exist within the film, within its inner
> > > > > logic.
> > > >
> > > > No, they do not exist within the film; here we do not agree.
> > >
> > > Films don't have an inner logic?
> >
> > With "they", I refer to "metaphors".
>
> I realise that. I wrote: "Metaphors are (not so much an
> interpretation than) just pure simpleminded logic. As such, they do
> exist within the film, within its inner logic."
I know.
And I wrote that symbols and metaphors do not exist in the film and
that they can only exist in your interpretation of the film...
>
> > > > As with the A.I. example, yes you "provide" the information, yet you
> > > > interpret it as "symbol", so it is not the film's inner logic; it is
> > > > your inner logic.
> > >
> > > No. I didn't interpret anything. The symbol is there. You saw it. I
> > > can see it. Most people who pay attention can see it. It's there.
> >
> > Nope, it isn't there.
>
> It IS there.
Nope, it isn't there.
>
> > It's in your head, not in the film.
>
> No, no, no... All I did was just share few observations from the film.
> You drew the same conclusions. A lot of people do. This so obvious
> that Spielberg must have thought of making these links connect...
The elements of the film indeed can be seen as links, and they can
connect.
They connect with your thoughts on the film, with your interpretation.
The film on the screen provokes the film in your head; your
interpretation.
It causes you to speak of symbols and metaphors.
Yet these only can exist in your interpretation.
>
> > I didn't see it.
>
> It's funny how you described accurately what you didn't see. You seem
> to have a rare gift...
What I described was, again, what's onscreen.
It was you who suggested that David's white cloths is a symbol, or is
symbolic.
But that doesn't exist in the film; what does exist in the film, is
David's white cloths. You, not the film, provide the symbol, caused by
your interpretation.
That is not a gift, it is only logical.
>
> > All I see is what I have described.
>
> And that's just about everything that needs to be seen.
Exactly.
And it isn't a symbol...
> > The example of gravity is something you came up with.
> > I don't really see what you're after, or how this is would be a
> > relevant example of how I don't want to be of any help...
> > Be happy to think so.
>
> Theory of gravity is an analogy to the statement "the Overlook Hotel
> is a metaphor for American culture and history".
And not a very convincing analogy.
> They both describe
> precisely and truthfully what has been observed.
Nope.
It is mixed with someone's interpretation.
What's onscreen is the Overlook Hotel, not the metaphor, or the
symbol.
The Overlook Hotel represents American culture and history, yes.
So I don't need the words metaphor and symbol; they are empty and
meaningless words.
> Which makes these
> "theories" more than just opinions.
> If you choose to believe that these kind of statements should not be
> made, then you don't want to be of any help.
Well, that is your opininion, it's not fact.
Statements on symbols and metaphors; I don't really care.
All I say is: it's of no real use.
>
> > > > > >I don't think that any metaphor really ever rings as true as
> > > > > >"gravity".
> > > > >
> > > > > I can't see the difference you're making here.
> > > > > Isn't the theory of gravity a simplification of the phenomenon?
> [...]
> > > > > Does the theory of gravity then simplify your experience in life?
> > > >
> > > > It might, yes.
> > >
> > > Really? In which way?
> >
> > Because I don't consider it to be very relevant to my experience of my
> > life.
>
> And again... How exactly that simplifies your experience in life?
And again... Because I don't consider it to be very relevant to my
experience of my life; the experience of my life is richer than that
theory.
>
> > > Through its simplifying, labeling and whatnot, it can
> > > bring one's thoughts to a more abstract level of thinking.
> >
> > Perhaps.
> > You can do that without refering to "metaphors" and "symbols".
> >
> > What do you consider a more abstract level of thinking to be like?
> > And what is the importance, and relevance, of bringing one's thoughts
> > on a piece of art, to a more abstract level of thinking?
>
> Basically, more fun for the same money. Opposed to your fear of
> simplification theories are most likely to deepen the experience of
> life/art by creating new threads of thoughts.
I have no fear for simplication; that is what you think.
(What exactly do you mean with a more abstract level of thinking?)
I don't need symbols and metaphors to deepen the experience of life
and art.
A film can provoke new threads of thoughts, whether they are or are
not abstract leveled, I don't really care.
>
> > > > A statement such as "the Overlook Hotel is a metaphor for American
> > > > culture and history" is a statement that I think is a little too
> > > > simple.
> > >
> > > Perhaps it's a simple statement, but essentially it's valid. I just
> > > can't see why you seem to think this statement was supposed to explain
> > > everything about The Shining.
> >
> > First, I don't think that this statement is supposed to explain
> > "everything" about The Shining.
> >
> > Second, whether this statement is essentially valid, is subjective. I
> > think it's essential-ness is not that relevant. The links between the
> > Overlook Hotel and American culture and history are rather obvious. So
> > obvious, actually, that the word "metaphor" or "symbol" is of no need
> > at all.
>
> If you dislike the words 'metaphor' and 'symbol' for their
> simplificative power, why can't they be used to describe the obvious
> links between The Overlook Hotel and American culture/history?
They can be used, but I won't be impressed.
They pretend to "say" a lot, but they are just empty words for me.
The "obvious links" is not the same as a symbol or a metaphor, and
they can be described without the use of words like symbol and
metaphor.
>
> > They still don't mean anything to me; empty words.
>
> In the world most of us live they do mean something.
What do they mean? What is that "something"?
If they mean something for you: be happy.
They don't mean anything for me, and I'm still happy.
> I might suspect
> you have a dictionary where you can look it up, if you have forgotten
> their meaning.
There's a literary meaning, yes.
I have clearly said that I don't deny the existence of these words.
I just don't think that symbols and metaphors do exist in a work of
art.
And that everything that I have read on the supposed meanings of the
supposed symbols and metaphors are personal, subjective interpretation
that could do very well without these words.
The Overlook Hotel can exist in your head as a symbol and a metaphor.
On screen, it's just a hotel.
In arguing about what it provokes, words like symbol and metaphor are
pretentious and empty at the same time.
>End of loop<
d.a.
