Meticulousness? [Following the AI/Kubrick/Spielberg posts]
Maxime Renaudin
The art of the director lies, partly, in his capacity to master, to control
every inch of the material given to him and to create his own world. I guess
Feuillade, Dwan or Rohmer, among others, are meticoulus film-makers. No
wasted space. Each stone seems to be at the right place. Kubrick could
probably be so described. But...
When there is nothing but meticoulsness in the movie? What about?
When you see a Kubrick's movie, you are continuously impressed by the
precison of the setting, but, to me, continuously annoyed by the emptiness
of machinery too. Kubrick knows how to film a spaceship; I'm not sure he
knows how to film the face of a woman in love.
I believe the self-sufficiency of Kubrick's constructions is the reason of
the vacuity of his work.
septimus
>
> Kubrick knows how to film a spaceship; I'm not sure he
> knows how to film the face of a woman in love.
> I believe the self-sufficiency of Kubrick's constructions is the reason of
> the vacuity of his work.
I would have been tempted to say "amen" if there weren't so many
Kubrick enthusiasts here ... :) Although I'm certainly far from
a Kubrick expert. (How would any filmmaker like it if the final
word of their final film is the f-word, in this case uttered by
Nicole Kidman?)
Paul Gallagher
In <3d6e8395$0$4718$79c1...@nan-newsreader-01.noos.net> "Maxime Renaudin" <maxime....@noos.fr> writes:
>Should a director be (so) meticulous?
>The art of the director lies, partly, in his capacity to master, to control
>every inch of the material given to him and to create his own world. I guess
>Feuillade, Dwan or Rohmer, among others, are meticulous film-makers. No
>wasted space. Each stone seems to be at the right place. Kubrick could
>probably be so described. But...
>When there is nothing but meticulousness in the movie? What about?
>When you see a Kubrick's movie, you are continuously impressed by the
>precision of the setting, but, to me, continuously annoyed by the emptiness
>of machinery too. Kubrick knows how to film a spaceship; I'm not sure he
>knows how to film the face of a woman in love.
>I believe the self-sufficiency of Kubrick's constructions is the reason of
>the vacuity of his work.
I should try to come to defend Kubrick. Not that he needs my help --
I'm sure he could find many advocates in alt.movies.kubrick.
I do think Kubrick is capable of great depths of human feeling, which
are all the more remarkable when they must crack through
the icy surface of his films. I think Kubrick knows many of
his characters from the inside, and he knows how to hurt them:
HAL is most proud of his intellect -- take away his intellect;
Barry Lyndon loves only his younger son -- kill his son;
Dr. Harford's identity derives from being an aloof, privileged,
objective observer -- force him to deal with subjectivity.
Kubrick is cruel but I think he knows something about suffering.
Also Kubrick understands sick environments: every film shows
a poisonous, anti-human culture. Kubrick's contempt
is often ugly, and he offers no personal or political solution,
except perhaps the hope of escape, either in fleeting moments
or outside of time, as in _ 2001_ (although timelessness can
be a prison, as in _The Shining_, as can fleeting moments, as
in _Eyes Wide Shut_). But hopelessness may be more honest than
false hopes.
However, you wrote, 'I'm not sure he knows how to film the
face of a woman in love.' You may be right. Women are
largely absent from many of Kubrick's films. _ Eyes Wide
Shut _ is filled with women, but do we see the faces of
women in love? We don't know; each face is a riddle.
Does Alice love Bill? (Does Nicole Kidman love Tom Cruise?)
Did the woman in the morgue die for Bill? We can't know.
Now I think we can interpret this in a variety of ways.
It might be a statement of personal belief: erotic love may
exist, but Kubrick has examined the evidence for existence
and found it inconclusive. (As Alice's last line indicates, more
experimentation is called for.) I don't know if this is
healthy attitude, but it seems too heartfelt to be cheap cynicism.
Or it might be a statement about perception and representation.
We can't know or show others' true feelings. In other words, Kubrick
is stating that he can't show the face of a woman in love,
because it can't be known and can't be shown. Perhaps HAL and
the mechas in A.I. are empty shells, simple simulations of an
inner lives; perhaps they're more human than the humans, who are,
if not empty, incomplete.
Now, the lucky among us have known love and seen the face of
love and therefore may have no interest in Kubrick's doubts.
And Kubrick's metaphysical musings may seem like easy irony,
or ancient philosophical problems, also uninteresting. So
from where does the fascination of his films derive? It
could be his images are striking, but lack inner meaning.
(Maybe one could blame Kubrick's still photography background,
since a superficial, meaningless, beauty is so common to
still photographs -- probably not.) And indeed my experience
of Kubrick's films often seems purely sensory, in particular
Kubrick's extraordinary lighting (which Spielberg interestingly
made no attempt to replicate: _A.I._ is not lit like a Kubrick
film); only afterwards do I think about it's thematic. But then
a surfeit of interpretations present themselves. But the
themes of Kubrick's films seem so much on the surface, they do
sometimes seem like complicated puzzles: diverting, compelling if
you like that sort of thing, pointless if you don't. So in fact --
after all my rambling -- it is very easy for me to see your point
that 'the self-sufficiency of Kubrick's constructions is the reason
of the vacuity of his work.' But I wind up writing what I wrote
in the first paragraph: there are moments that suggest a profound
depth of feeling. Also, the density of thought, even if many of
the thoughts are less than profound, has its own appeal -- a
sensuousness of thought not unlike Godard or Hitchcock or De Palma.
Plus Kubrick may be making more abstract points than I noticed --
I should read up on what Deleuze has to say about Kubrick, since
Deleuze is usually good at finding highly abstract thought behind the
pictures.
Speaking of De Palma, I'll go off on a tangent and mention the much
reviled _Mission to Mars_, which is to some extent a commentary
on _2001_. It is more human than _2001_. Comparing them I see in
Mission to Mars a recurrent theme of connection and separation,
whereas 2001 seems to emphasize separation. _Mission to Mars_ in
particular emphasizes connection to and separation from the feminine.
I would therefore opine that the the dance between Woody and Terri
and the camera and the death of Woody Blake are things outside the
range of Kubrick's films: perhaps he would feel toward them
the same contempt that the vast majority of critics felt. Hence
_Mission to Mars_ humanizes the world of _2001_, a world of
separation, alienation of mind from body, mind from mind, body
from body, by showing both connection and separation and emotional
and spiritual connections that are more powerful than any physical
separation. However, a point that Olivier Joyard, I think, made, was
that _Mission to Mars_ goes wrong in the final encounter with the
alien. We encounter the Other, and she is just like our image of aliens
from folk culture, and the film states they are us, our forbears.
It's a kind of return to the mother; Jim (Gary Sinise) even enters a
fluid environment not unlike the womb. Hence the ultimate Other is made
rather banal. _Mission to Mars_ humanizes the alien, the Other, but it
is a kind of betrayal of difference to claim that there are no real
differences (though I can think of many reasons why humanism and even
humanistic illusions are to be preferred). 2001 avoids this fault: the alien
remains unseen; it remains alien. There is also the image of embryonic
rebirth. It's an obscure symbol, and I don't think extraterrestrial intervention
played any role in actual human history: I think of Andrew Sarris' comment on
Kubrick's 'naive faith in the power of images to transcend fuzzy feelings
and vague ideas.' But what Kubrick has done, and what the contrast with _Mission
to Mars_ might show, is that there is something beyond the human,
something which must remain fuzzy and vague. _2001_ emphasize its primordial
significance, but at the same time resists anthropomorphizing it -- which is
I think worthwhile. One can't speak of certain things, but we can
point to them. Kubrick's ability to distance himself from the human world seems
closely tied to the ability -- which seems almost a self-contradiction -- to
try to look beyond humanity's horizons.
Also, did you see the link to the Rivette interview I posted a few weeks ago.
Rivette, in addition to saying that Kubrick is 'a machine, a mutant, a Martian'
(is this really so bad?), says that 'when [A Clockwork Orange] came out,
Jacques Demy was so shocked that it made him cry.' (Is this really so bad?)
Paul
Maxime Renaudin
You say "I do think Kubrick is capable of great depths of human feeling".
That's precisely what I refute.
The world according to Kubrick is without any warmth, generosity, love, joy,
or hope... Every relationship seems to consist merely of a power struggle.
K. takes great care to depict mediocrity, stupidity and failure.
This could be a worthwhile philosophy, afer all, I guess.... But... I'm
embarrassed by the style : the irony is so ponderous; the effects are so
insistent; the complexity of whole thing often emphasizes the lack of
subtlety.
I'm not sure I want to start a pro/against K. debate (and this group is
probably not the most appropriate one for that...)
I only wanted (could not resist) to react to your posts.
"Paul Gallagher" <p...@panix.com> a écrit dans le message news:
akokov$oqr$1...@reader1.panix.com...
septimus
>I'm sure he could find many advocates in alt.movies.kubrick.
[Paul Gallagher's eloquent defense of Kubrick excerpted below]
>Or it might be a statement about perception and representation.
>We can't know or show others' true feelings. In other words, Kubrick
>is stating that he can't show the face of a woman in love,
>because it can't be known and can't be shown. Perhaps HAL and
>the mechas in A.I. are empty shells, simple simulations of an
>inner lives; perhaps they're more human than the humans, who are,
>if not empty, incomplete.
True to a fair extent. At the same time, I never feel that Kubrick
wanted to address this in a balanced way. He had a tendency to stack
the deck, populating his films with emotionless, zoombie types.
In _Eyes Wide Shut_, the characters seem explicitly, heavily drugged
most of the time. He is certainly entitled to his vision, however.
>But hopelessness may be more honest than false hopes.
>Now, the lucky among us have known love and seen the face of
>love and therefore may have no interest in Kubrick's doubts.
Human truth is transient. Everyone dies, nothing lasts forever,
our cultures, countries, the entire human race will fade (sooner
rather than later with unelected non-leadership such as Bush and
Cheney's). If that's what Kubrick wants to say (I'm just making
this up), it hardly seems worth the effort. Surely it is the
transient triumph of hope or love that is more exceptional and
interesting?
> in particular
>Kubrick's extraordinary lighting (which Spielberg interestingly
>made no attempt to replicate: _A.I._ is not lit like a Kubrick
>film); only afterwards do I think about it's thematic.
Interesting -- I never noticed that.
>But what Kubrick has done, and what the contrast with _Mission
>to Mars_ might show, is that there is something beyond the human,
>something which must remain fuzzy and vague. _2001_ emphasize its primordial
>significance, but at the same time resists anthropomorphizing it -- which is
>I think worthwhile. One can't speak of certain things, but we can
>point to them. Kubrick's ability to distance himself from the human world seems
>closely tied to the ability -- which seems almost a self-contradiction -- to
>try to look beyond humanity's horizons.
Unfortunately I have come to associate that "something beyond the human"
in Kubrick's films as nothing other than Kubrick himself. I think of
him as combination monolith aliens/star child, gazing down upon the
screwed up human race with something close to contempt. I think of
him as Kirk Douglas in _Paths of Glory_, tongue-lashing the human
race about the error of their ways. I remember someone saying Kubrick
had a God-like point of view, and this would be true if he indeed
intentional adopted a point of view that is utterly distant, outside
of humanity. It is a great, painless simplification -- and perhaps this
is one reason so many moviegoer admire him. Who doesn't like to feel
himself/herself superior to the rest of humanity, at least some of the
time?
Maxime Renaudin
> is stating that he can't show the face of a woman in love,
> because it can't be known and can't be shown.
I'd like to scream my absolute disagreement on that statement.
Don't you believe in Cinema?
If you can't show what HAS TO BE SHOWN, just quit.
Do not want to show it is a fundamental mistake
Do not succeed in showing it is simply a (common) failure
You only have to see:
(Among others of course... I just drop titles that come to my mind right
now...)
Magda Schneider in "Libelei" ('32) by Max Ophuls
Margaret Sullavan in "Only Yesterday" ('33) by John M. Stahl
Dita Parlo in "l'Atalante" ('34) by Jean Vigo
Sylvia Bataille in "Une partie de Campagne" ('36) by Jean Renoir
Margaret Sullavan in "Little Man, Now What?" ('34) by Frank Borzage
Yelena Kuzmina in "By the bluest sea" ('36) by Boris Barnet
Viviane Romance in "Venus Aveugle" ('40) by Abel Gance
Hedy Lamarr in "Samson and Delilah" ('49) by C.B. DeMille
Barbara Laage in "Traviata '53" ('53) by Vittorio Cottafavi
Ingrid Bergman in "Viaggio in Italia" ('53) by Roberto Rossellini
Yvonne Sanson in "Angelo Bianco" ('55) by Raffaello Matarazzo
Le bonheur ('65) by Agnès Varda
Hélène Surgères in "Corps à Coeur" ('78) by Paul Vecchiali
"Paul Gallagher" <p...@panix.com> a écrit dans le message news:
akokov$oqr$1...@reader1.panix.com...
>
Dave C
dismaying, that I scarcely know where to begin.With respect, I think you
both seriously misunderstand Kubrick.
I definitely agree with Paul Gallagher's assertion "I do think Kubrick is
capable of great depths of human feeling". I don't think Kubrick is
unemotional - on the contrary, he is very emotional, he is just not
emotionally manipulative in the way that most filmmakers are nowadays. Most
films tend to attempt draw the viewer into the protagonist's point of view,
so that you imagine yourself personally involved. Kubrick doesn't do that -
his viewpoint tends to be that of a dispassionate observer. Let us do a
small thought experiment - imagine yourself waiting in a public place, let's
say in a train station. Another person, a stranger, waiting on the platform,
collapses. Several station staff, and a passenger who happens to be a
doctor, rush to his aid- an ambulance is called, and promptly arrives -
attempts are made to resuscitate him, but are unsuccessful, and the man
dies. As a witness to these events, which don't concern you personally and
for which you can offer no useful help, would you remain unmoved? Surely you
would be likely to be shaken and upset by what you had witnessed? Are the
events any less tragic? Does a resuscitation attempt have to be filmed as a
rollercoaster ride from the point of view of a directly involved party (e.g.
the doctor) before the audience can feel involved?
septimus said "He had a tendency to stack the deck, populating his films
with emotionless, zombie types."
Have you seen Spartacus, or Paths of Glory, or Lolita? It is certainly the
case that one of Kubrick's major themes is dehumanisation, but his films are
of the form of cautionary tales - "is this how we want to be?(DrS, 2001) -
Is this how our society should be organised?(BL, EWS) - What
responsibilities do we have not to succumb to our baser impulses?(L, ACO,
TS) - Is this just?(POG, FMJ)"
Septimus again "Unfortunately I have come to associate that "something
beyond the human"
in Kubrick's films as nothing other than Kubrick himself. I think of
him as combination monolith aliens/star child, gazing down upon the
screwed up human race with something close to contempt. I think of
him as Kirk Douglas in _Paths of Glory_, tongue-lashing the human
race about the error of their ways. I remember someone saying Kubrick
had a God-like point of view, and this would be true if he indeed
intentional adopted a point of view that is utterly distant, outside
of humanity. It is a great, painless simplification -- and perhaps this
is one reason so many moviegoer admire him. Who doesn't like to feel
himself/herself superior to the rest of humanity, at least some of the
time?"
Don't you think we are all flawed? I certainly do. Again, most filmmakers
take the view "our protagonist - he's just like you, the viewer - put
yourself in his shoes and see how you empathise with the actions he takes".
Kubrick however, says that people are different - if you assume that others
have the same motivations and agenda that you would have in those
circumstances, then you are likely to be mistaken - people are harder to
understand than that, things are often not as they seem. This seems to me
not to be olympian contempt, but a sophisticated and humane recognition of
diversity and complexity.
Paul Gallagher wrote "Women are largely absent from many of Kubrick's films.
_ Eyes Wide
Shut _ is filled with women, but do we see the faces of women in love?"
Given the dispassionate observer viewpoint I've described above, it's
certainly the case that the dispassionate observer is male. However, the way
in which men mistreat and objectify women is an absolutely consistent
Kubrick theme. Alex DeLarge, Barry Lyndon, and Jack Torrance are all
misogynists, but Kubrick wasn't.
Hoping to pursuade you to look again, with fresh eyes.
Dave C
Paul Gallagher
>> In other words, Kubrick
>> is stating that he can't show the face of a woman in love,
>> because it can't be known and can't be shown.
>I'd like to scream my absolute disagreement on that statement.
I was probably wrong. I was trying to be clever, but as the wise
David St. Hubbins said, 'It's such a fine line between stupid and
clever.'
Clearly Bill doubts Alice's fidelity and grows to doubt what he sees.
I think the films intends something more general than just depicting
Bill's inner life. The film feels coherent, despite its meandering story
and my inability to interpret it. The relation between appearances and
truth and what the characters see or fail to see seem to be keys to
the film, but I'm almost definitely wrong to think Kubrick implies that 'a
woman in love' can't be shown. He was an Max Ophuls fan, after all: the
Cinema can show what men are blind to.
>Don't you believe in Cinema?
I can't help noting that a lot of people don't believe in Cinema. I
earlier mentioned the claim that the cinema forces the spectator, whether
male or female, to assume in relation to the image of woman either a
fetishistic/ masochistic role, surrendering to the pleasures of the
erotic image of the woman, or a voyeuristic/ sadistic role, controlling
the woman by means of the story. In either case women cannot be shown as
fully human and autonomous; since the woman is always shown as an object,
it might be said that love, in which the subject treats the other gender
as subject, cannot be shown. It's remotely possible this is what Kubrick
was thinking about -- during all those years in England, he probably picked up
a copy of Screen magazine. In any case I think Bill, the spectator to
the events in the films, is systematically frustrated in his attempts
both to look at and to control what he desires and fears. Or it might
be that Kubrick views sexual relations as usually fetishistic or
sadistic. Bill is unable to assume either role, but at the end
there seems to be some hope of interaction. At least the woman
assumes an active role: Alice asserts her desire. (It might be notable
that it's with a word, 'fuck,' rather than an image. The image itself is
unthreatening, innocent -- a family in an expensive toy store. The woman
assumes control of words, of the story. Mandy tried it
once and died. Alice tries and this time may succeed. I don't see
this an affirmation of traditional values, of Bill's authority.
Instead throughout the film he feared the power of women's sexuality,
which seemed to him symbolically castrating, and tried to control it; here
there is a possibility of accepting Alice and her desire without
needing to control it...)
Now a few minutes after I post this, I may decide that this theory is
nonsense, but for what it's worth here's a summary of Laura Mulvey on
Hitchcock. Her reading reminds me of _Eyes Wide Shut_:
In Hitchcock, by contrast, the male hero always sees what the
audience sees. There are scopophilia moments, 'oscillating between
voyeurism and fetishistic fascination', and the male heroes usually
lose their respectability ('His heroes are exemplary of the symbolic
order and the law'(66)) by succumbing to erotic drives. Sadistic
subjection, and voyeuristic gaze are both directed at women, thinly
justified by acting in the name of legalised power, or because the
woman is classically 'guilty' -- 'evoking castration, psychoanalytically
speaking' (66). Viewers are encouraged to identify, through devices
like 'liberal use of subjective camera from the point of view of the
male protagonist' (66). [A more detailed discussion of Vertigo ensues --
it demonstrates an interesting opinion that the viewer in Hitchcock
films can feel uneasy, complicit, 'caught in the moral ambiguity of
looking' (67), almost as if the sexual pleasures are too blatant, and
too thinly disguised by the apparent morality of the film, its 'shallow
mask of ideological correctness']. (http://www.arasite.org/mulvey.htm)
In addition to these abstruse arguments, I'll add that _Eyes Wide Shut_
affected me strongly. It might just be the pretty lighting (or the
pretty ladies), but the depth of my response, even though I cannot
articulate it, suggests something fundamental is being examined in _Eyes
Wide Shut_.
>If you can't show what HAS TO BE SHOWN, just quit.
>Do not want to show it is a fundamental mistake
>Do not succeed in showing it is simply a (common) failure
>You only have to see:
>(Among others of course... I just drop titles that come to my mind right
>now...)
I agree, or almost agree. There is overwhelming evidence that film can
show the human heart. Even at its worst, it seems more honest than any
other art I know. But I don't quite trust it, a sometimes a little
cynicism seems salutory.
septimus
>
> septimus said "He had a tendency to stack the deck, populating his films
> with emotionless, zombie types."
>
> Have you seen Spartacus, or Paths of Glory, or Lolita?
Barry Lyndon? 2001? Not everyone can be as objective as Paul
Gallagher when it comes to auteurs he likes. But there must
be some basic facts we agree on before we can have a useful
discussion. If you don't think Kubrick has a tendency to
populate his films with emotionless types, which is self-evident,
there is no common ground for discussion.
That doesn't even have to be a negative statement.
Bresson delibereately makes his actors work in what might be
called a non-emotive way, but I adore Bresson. his films are
not "cautionary tales," made to set up his protagonists for
a fall.
> but [Kubrick's] films are
> of the form of cautionary tales - "is this how we want to be?(DrS, 2001) -
> Is this how our society should be organised?(BL, EWS) - What
> responsibilities do we have not to succumb to our baser impulses?(L, ACO,
> TS) - Is this just?(POG, FMJ)"
>
> This seems to me
> not to be olympian contempt, but a sophisticated and humane recognition of
> diversity and complexity.
That is a good description of Eric Rohmer; I am not sure it can describe
Kubrick.
>
> Given the dispassionate observer viewpoint I've described above, it's
> certainly the case that the dispassionate observer is male. However, the way
> in which men mistreat and objectify women is an absolutely consistent
> Kubrick theme. Alex DeLarge, Barry Lyndon, and Jack Torrance are all
> misogynists, but Kubrick wasn't.
It seems that your thesis is that Kubrick is as follows. His films are
cautionary tales. Therefore whatever anyone finds
objectionable/misogynic/
misanthropic about his films (and highly respected critics have used
those words, not just I), what *really* happens is that Kubrick has
the opposite of those objectionable qualities. So if the protaganists
are misogynists, Kubrick loves woman. If they are cold, emotionness,
Kubrick must be the opposite, warm and personable. Is that what you
are trying to say? That may be a viable answer. I don't know about
Kubrick to contradict you. But I certainly have never heard such
justifications from anyone else, including those who admire Kubrick
(like Paul here). So I am very skeptical.
>
Dave C
"septimus" <sept...@millenicom.com> wrote in message
news:3D73DECB...@millenicom.com...
> Dave C wrote:
> >
> > septimus said "He had a tendency to stack the deck, populating his films
> > with emotionless, zombie types."
> >
> > Have you seen Spartacus, or Paths of Glory, or Lolita?
>
> Barry Lyndon? 2001? Not everyone can be as objective as Paul
> Gallagher when it comes to auteurs he likes. But there must
> be some basic facts we agree on before we can have a useful
> discussion. If you don't think Kubrick has a tendency to
> populate his films with emotionless types, which is self-evident,
> there is no common ground for discussion.
Let us try and discuss for a while at least, please! I'm not convinced this
is "self-evident", I'm suggesting that the characters *are* often
emotionally-repressed, which is not the same thing at all.
Certainly, Bowman, Poole, and Floyd *seem* pretty emotionless - except when
you see 2001 projected in 70mm (an experience I've had three times) and can
see the slow burning, smouldering, exasperated cold fury on Bowman's face
when HAL maroons him outside, or his relief on managing to flood the airlock
with oxygen.
As for Barry Lyndon, is he emotionless when confronted with the Chevalier?
or with his dying son? Or how about when he's chopping wood after Nora's
been promised to Captain Quin? - this certainly *seems* superficially to be
just an idyllic picturesque scene....but....he's actually taking out a
murderous rage on those logs (in contrast to the misleading narration!) -
the overarm swing with a weapon is a common Kubrick motif (the
australopithecene in 2001, Alex in A Clockwork Orange, Jack in The
Shining) - and if you're not convinced that this scene deliberately
parallels Jack taking an axe to the bathroom door in TS, then you should
know that in Stephen King's book, Jack uses a mallet, not an axe; Kubrick
changed it. (this issue of cross-references between films is one I've
mentioned here before, and is what my webpage on AI is about)
>
> That doesn't even have to be a negative statement.
> Bresson delibereately makes his actors work in what might be
> called a non-emotive way, but I adore Bresson. his films are
> not "cautionary tales," made to set up his protagonists for
> a fall.
>
> > but [Kubrick's] films are
> > of the form of cautionary tales - "is this how we want to be?(DrS,
2001) -
> > Is this how our society should be organised?(BL, EWS) - What
> > responsibilities do we have not to succumb to our baser impulses?(L,
ACO,
> > TS) - Is this just?(POG, FMJ)"
> >
> > This seems to me
> > not to be olympian contempt, but a sophisticated and humane recognition
of
> > diversity and complexity.
>
> That is a good description of Eric Rohmer; I am not sure it can describe
> Kubrick.
I think you just know Rohmer much better than you know Kubrick
>
> > Given the dispassionate observer viewpoint I've described above, it's
> > certainly the case that the dispassionate observer is male. However, the
way
> > in which men mistreat and objectify women is an absolutely consistent
> > Kubrick theme. Alex DeLarge, Barry Lyndon, and Jack Torrance are all
> > misogynists, but Kubrick wasn't.
>
> It seems that your thesis is that Kubrick is as follows. His films are
> cautionary tales. Therefore whatever anyone finds
> objectionable/misogynic/
> misanthropic about his films (and highly respected critics have used
> those words, not just I), what *really* happens is that Kubrick has
> the opposite of those objectionable qualities. So if the protaganists
> are misogynists, Kubrick loves woman.
Kubrick's immediate family consisted of a wife and three daughters.
In Full Metal Jacket, do you think that it's coincidental that in the
barracks scenes we are told "you will give your rifle a girl's name" - in
Vietnam we see a prostitute, counterpointed by the amazingly satiric use of
the lyrics of Nancy Sinatra's "These Boots Were Made For Walking" - listen
hard for the words of the song, summarising how the vietnamese feel about
the americans - at the same time as the conversation between Joker and the
girl:
"You keep saying you've got something for me.
something you call love, but confess.
You've been messin' where you shouldn't have been a messin'
and now someone else is gettin' all your best.
These boots are made for walking, and that's just what they'll do
one of these days these boots are gonna walk all over you.
You keep lying, when you oughta be truthin'
and you keep losin' when you oughta not bet.
You keep samin' when you oughta be changin'.
Now what's right is right, but you ain't been right yet.
These boots are made for walking, and that's just what they'll do
one of these days these boots are gonna walk all over you.
You keep playin' where you shouldn't be playin
and you keep thinkin' you´ll never get burnt.
Ha!
I just found me a brand new box of matches yeah
and what he know you ain't got time to learn.
These boots are made for walking, and that's just what they'll do
one of these days these boots are gonna walk all over you.
Are you ready boots? Start walkin'!"
The VC sniper turns out to be a teenage girl - note Sgt Hartmann's monologue
about great snipers, on the firing range earlier.
The film says "this is what we've done to ourselves, this is what we've done
to that country, those people". Simply the greatest anti-war film ever made.
> If they are cold, emotionness,
> Kubrick must be the opposite, warm and personable. Is that what you
> are trying to say? That may be a viable answer. I don't know about
> Kubrick to contradict you. But I certainly have never heard such
> justifications from anyone else, including those who admire Kubrick
> (like Paul here). So I am very skeptical.
There's definitely considerable truth in this, but I certainly don't believe
he was all sweetness and light - he was a very complex multifaceted
personality.
You should see the documentary about him, "A Life in Pictures" - it might
change your viewpoint.
The other major issue with Kubrick's films is that they really *do* require
multiple viewings to get the best out of, and, what's more, viewings of not
only the individual film, but (because of the multitude of cross-references)
the whole canon! "Barry Lyndon" is not only one of my favorite films, but
is actually one of the most *moving* films I've ever seen - I know that most
people don't get this, but then most people only watch it once, and decide
that it's slow, boring and interminable, not seeing past the imperturbable
surface, to the turbulent emotions running below, and driving the behaviour
of the characters.
Dave C
Maxime Renaudin
> know that in Stephen King's book, Jack uses a mallet, not an axe;
Incidentally, K. stole this one (the axe stuff) to Dreyer. (I don't blame
him for that.) Very same scene (the axe, the head through the hole) in
"Love One Another" (1922).
Maxime Renaudin
> or with his dying son? Or how about when he's chopping wood after Nora's
> been promised to Captain Quin? - this certainly *seems* superficially to
be
> just an idyllic picturesque scene....but....he's actually taking out a
> murderous rage on those logs (in contrast to the misleading narration!) -
Barry Lyndon amazes me by the tenuousness of the plot anf the lack of
substance of the characters. Crushed by irritating production values. And
these countless optical trackings are killing me! (Am I alone??)
For hours, K. takes good care to drive us away from his characters, through
this extreme alienation process.
When comes the "dying son" stuff, it just doesn't work.
Well... let's say I don't go for that. I may be the Martian... Am I?
septimus
>
> "septimus" <sept...@millenicom.com> wrote in message
> news:3D73DECB...@millenicom.com...
> > Dave C wrote:
> > >
> > > septimus said "He had a tendency to stack the deck, populating his films
> > > with emotionless, zombie types."
> > >
>
> is "self-evident", I'm suggesting that the characters *are* often
> emotionally-repressed, which is not the same thing at all.
[You proceed to point out there are a couple of scenes where the zoombie
types don't act like zoombies.]
I think this is getting off-topic and the distinction is to me
pointless.
The original reference is Paul's suggestion that love is impossible (my
paraphrase). My response was that this seems true only because Kubrick
has a tendency to stack the deck and populate his films with emotionless
character in the first place. Whether these characters show murderous
rage during one scene in the film seems to me beside the point for this
purpose.
>
>
> The film says "this is what we've done to ourselves, this is what we've done
> to that country, those people". Simply the greatest anti-war film ever made.
>
Thanks for your other discussions which I'll not quote. I just want to
make the following comment. Not that I think anyone cares about what I
think, but the last sentence of yours quoted above is precisely the
kind of thing which makes me so skeptical of Kubrick advocates,
particularly those online.
septimus
>>Simply the greatest anti-war film ever made.
> I just want to
> make the following comment. Not that I think anyone cares about what I
> think, but the last sentence of yours quoted above is precisely the
> kind of thing which makes me so skeptical of Kubrick advocates,
Just so that I don't become overly abrupt: I think if you make a
statement like that you are comparing _HMJ_ to something. But
you haven't even named any director or his/her films in this thread,
other than to use them as nameless strawmen to accuse them of being
manipulative. How about I name a few films which are at least
anti-war in some respect: _The Grand Illusion_, _Battle of Algiers_,
_The Thin Red Line_, _Saving Private Ryan_, _Cross of Iron_. (The
last one is not really antiwar, but certainly has plenty of female
"prostitutes" and warriors. And yes, Peckinpath is almost certainly
misogynic, nevertheless, even though I still like him!) If you
want to discuss films in a concrete way, please compare these.
I would appreciate it if we don't continue to split hairs about
how (un)emotional Kubrick's characters are, especially since you
don't give a context or concrete scale to your evaluations.
Paul Gallagher
>The original reference is Paul's suggestion that love is impossible (my
>paraphrase). My response was that this seems true only because Kubrick
>has a tendency to stack the deck and populate his films with emotionless
>characters in the first place.
I'm not at all sure that my interpretations are what Kubrick is really
stating. I now think there's some hope at the end of Eyes Wide Shut. Maybe
a good way to put it is that men control the images (and have precluded
the possibility of human relations), but women like Mandy and Alice can
speak up, take control of the voice (the soundtrack), providing a
slight chance men and women can break through to each other. In other
words _Eyes Wide Shut_ has the same argument as Jean-Luc Godard's and
Anne-Marie Mieville's _ Numero Deux _. Maybe not... Maybe another Jean-Luc
(Picard) said it best: "All that remains is the possibility of communication."
The relation of images to sound in Kubrick's film might be interesting
to investigate. (I'm pretty sure someone has! I should look for
Michael Chion's book on sound in film.) For example, Kubrick's use of
music seems very effective. Some examples seem like simplistic irony
when you describe them in print -- the Blue Danube plus spaceships,
Singin' in the Rain plus ultra-violence, for example -- but they work
emotionally. I'm not sure why -- it might be these examples ask the questions,
why not appreciate the grace of machines, the charm of violence, even
though art has long been hostile to technology, and society cannot
allow violent acts by individuals?
I'll agree that Kubrick stacks the deck to make his points. But some
of the points are interesting, and the faint rays of hope seem brighter
in contrast. It might be useful to compare Kubrick to other cynics. For
example, Billy Wilder's films are often crudely cynical, but they're
funny (which suggests he's hitting some of the right targets), and when
his characters find a way to live in this world, it feels like a victory
and a way toward a new, more realistic morality that makes allowances
for human fallibility and corruption.
It's possible the bitterness in his films wasn't so much an
expression of personal beliefs as it was either an aesthetic choice
or a reaction to something or an attempt to hide something. Because
of the moralizing and sentimentality of many other films and so much
of American culture, Kubrick may have had a determination to avoid
sentimentality and moralizing at all costs. It might also be a way
of avoiding political commitments, despite the often very political
subjects of his films.
In any case since I'm happier quoting other people than trying to form
my own thoughts, I thought I'd mention Robin Wood's attack on
Kubrick in 'Cinema: A Critical Dictionary,' edited by Richard Roud.
Some quotes:
Human creativity is intimately bound up with affirmation, striving
toward, seeking out of that which may be honestly affirmed,
and when that impulse is lost or stunted, creativity becomes
something other, turning sour and destructive, losing its true
vitality...
The assertion of superiority at the expense of the characters seems
to me the chief function of style in A CLOCKWORK ORANGE. The
'technical brilliance' is unremittingly self-conscious and self-
assertive; it seems to say, 'Humanity is debased and disgusting,
but look at this for a piece of filmmaking. In fact a film made
exclusively out of contempt and hatred can only be hateful and
contemptible, and A CLOCKWORK ORANGE seems to me probably the
ugliest film I have ever seen.
Since I'm not sure I understand _A Clockwork Orange_, it's hard
to comment. I'm not sure of Wood's premise that art ought to be
affirmative. There seems to be considerable room between being affirmative
and being hateful. Andy Warhol's adaptation of _A Clockwork Orange_,
_ Vinyl _, is an interesting contrast, since it also refuses to
moralize, but it shows almost no action. The camera is passively
depicting an artificial, but disturbing world. In contrast Kubrick seems
to be making a statement about the real world, positioning himself as
an objective observer -- but then again, maybe he isn't, maybe this
is Alex's view of the world, presented dispassionately. It might be
useful to ask about Kubrick's films, whose point of view is being
presented. Critics like Wood describe Kubrick looking down from Olympean
heights on lowly humanity, and that his obtrusive camera is a sign
of Kubrick asserting his ego. But it might be more complicated than
this, at least in some of his films.
Paul
Matthew Dickinson
> When you see a Kubrick's movie, you are continuously impressed by the
> precison of the setting, but, to me, continuously annoyed by the emptiness
> of machinery too. Kubrick knows how to film a spaceship; I'm not sure he
> knows how to film the face of a woman in love.
> I believe the self-sufficiency of Kubrick's constructions is the reason of
> the vacuity of his work.
"The emptiness of machinery," "Kubrick knows how to film a
spaceship"...I never know for sure what these criticisms mean given
that all technology is a creation and extension of the person who
invented it as well as humanity in general. A technology's functions,
mechanics and design say much about the society that uses it. As his
films continually show, the objects that we create and buy and how we
use them may have as much human meaning in them as the actions of
humans themselves.
That said, Kubrick could certainly film the face of a woman in love,
even if it's arguable that he didn't (but I would make a case for the
Lady Lyndon / Barry courting scene, as well as the other kiss with her
in the bathtub, and maybe even Alice after Bill's confession). It's
silly to say that Kubrick couldn't or didn't film -- and yes, evoke --
all sorts of emotion, as he did so very well, although with the acting
it's obvious it isn't always spontaneous and impromptu, which is
usually considered more "real" or whatever. It's just that usually in
a Kubrick scene a person's face has more meaning and ramification than
the direct dramatic point at hand. Many times his very photographic
style lends itself to expressing a variety of ideas simultaneously,
each veering off in wildly different directions, in an almost static,
non-linear way. (That's the best way I know how to describe it, and I
don't mean to deify him; there's many directors and writers who've
pulled off similar things.)
I agree with most of Dave C's opinions, though he calls Full Metal
Jacket an anti-war film and I disagree about that. Sometimes I think
the film considers a variety of moralities, without expressing strong
allegiance to any certain one. Kubrick had his own thoughts on the
matter: "There may be a fallacy in the belief that showing people that
war is bad will make them less willing to fight a war. But Full Metal
Jacket, I think, suggests that there is more to say about war than
that it is bad."
Matt
Padraig L Henry
wrote:
>I agree with most of Dave C's opinions, though he calls Full Metal
>Jacket an anti-war film and I disagree about that. Sometimes I think
>the film considers a variety of moralities, without expressing strong
>allegiance to any certain one. Kubrick had his own thoughts on the
>matter: "There may be a fallacy in the belief that showing people that
>war is bad will make them less willing to fight a war. But Full Metal
>Jacket, I think, suggests that there is more to say about war than
>that it is bad."
The first difference between a film like FMJ and other "anti-war"
films (what a misleading, meaningless classification; uh, let's create
some more while we're at it: how about pro-human/anti-human films, or
maybe pro-love/anti-love films and pro-murder 'n' rape/anti-murder 'n'
rape films, etc.) is that FMJ is >a priori< so; it starts off from
that humanistic assumption, but then moves into other, much more
important, territory, namely the Why-dynamics of violent combat, and
its implications. The second difference is that other so-called
"anti-war" films wear their polemical, moralising credentials on their
open sleeves, their heavy-handed preaching and often gore-fest
voyeurism invariably undermining their intended sentiments ...
[besides, only psychopaths and greedy, ignorant children make
explicitly "pro-war" films, anyway ...:-) ]
Padraig
... actually, I've just seen yet two more war films, this time from
Bosnia/Croatia: Pretty Village, Pretty Flame and Before The Rain, the
latter especially interesting if only for the excellent lead
performance of good awl rainbow-fashions Milich (Rade Sherbedgia), a
performance that may have stirred Kubrick into choosing him for EWS
(though there's another film from around the same time - mid-1990s -
the name of which escapes me, that features a Yugoslav Milich as a
violent old patriarch, aggressively "possessively protecting" his
daughter ...
Paul Gallagher
>Let us try and discuss for a while at least, please! I'm not convinced this
>is "self-evident", I'm suggesting that the characters *are* often
>emotionally-repressed, which is not the same thing at all.
>Certainly, Bowman, Poole, and Floyd *seem* pretty emotionless - except when
>you see 2001 projected in 70mm (an experience I've had three times) and can
>see the slow burning, smouldering, exasperated cold fury on Bowman's face
>when HAL maroons him outside, or his relief on managing to flood the airlock
>with oxygen.
I noticed that the characters back on Earth -- the couple kissing in
the car on the TV screen, Dr. Floyd's daughter, and Poole's parents --
are perfectly normal, warm and affectionate. The people in space
are cold, but they can't hide their distrust, anxiety, and fear. Those
seem to be the same emotions that the apes at the Dawn of Man showed.
Paul
Matthew Dickinson
> The first difference between a film like FMJ and other "anti-war"
> films (what a misleading, meaningless classification; uh, let's create
> some more while we're at it: how about pro-human/anti-human films, or
> maybe pro-love/anti-love films and pro-murder 'n' rape/anti-murder 'n'
> rape films, etc.) is that FMJ is >a priori< so; it starts off from
> that humanistic assumption, but then moves into other, much more
> important, territory, namely the Why-dynamics of violent combat, and
> its implications. The second difference is that other so-called
> "anti-war" films wear their polemical, moralising credentials on their
> open sleeves, their heavy-handed preaching and often gore-fest
> voyeurism invariably undermining their intended sentiments ...
> [besides, only psychopaths and greedy, ignorant children make
> explicitly "pro-war" films, anyway ...:-) ]
Definitely. Well said.
Matt
septimus
> I'm not at all sure that my interpretations are what Kubrick is really
> stating. I now think there's some hope at the end of Eyes Wide Shut. Maybe
> a good way to put it is that men control the images (and have precluded
> the possibility of human relations), but women like Mandy and Alice can
> speak up, take control of the voice (the soundtrack), providing a
> slight chance men and women can break through to each other.
Interesting point -- although Tom Cruise's character also talks
a lot. But you have to admit this begs the question: how do you
know this hope at the end of EWS is not a false hope? Or is it
(sorry to be sarcastic this once) automatically a true hope if
it is from Kubrick, and automatically a false hope if it is from
anyone else?
Thanks for at least trying to compare Kubrick with Wilder (not
that I am an expert on Wilder either) and trying to put him
in some sort of context. Someone was criticizing comparing
different films (and I assume directors) in this newsgroup
not long ago, but comparisons really help put things in perspective
and give a much needed sense of proportion, I believe.
> The relation of images to sound in Kubrick's film might be interesting
> to investigate. (I'm pretty sure someone has! I should look for
> Michael Chion's book on sound in film.) For example, Kubrick's use of
> music seems very effective. Some examples seem like simplistic irony
> when you describe them in print -- the Blue Danube plus spaceships,
> Singin' in the Rain plus ultra-violence, for example -- but they work
> emotionally. I'm not sure why -- it might be these examples ask the questions,
> why not appreciate the grace of machines, the charm of violence, even
> though art has long been hostile to technology, and society cannot
> allow violent acts by individuals?
Personally I'm not a big fan of the use of music in each case. But
I've probably seen these films far fewer times than you did.
> I thought I'd mention Robin Wood's attack on
> Kubrick in 'Cinema: A Critical Dictionary,' edited by Richard Roud.
> Some quotes:
[deleted]
> Since I'm not sure I understand _A Clockwork Orange_, it's hard
> to comment. I'm not sure of Wood's premise that art ought to be
> affirmative. There seems to be considerable room between being affirmative
> and being hateful.
I agree. "Creativity" can be extremely vital when it is
sour and hateful, sad to say -- witness all the technological advances
made in wartime!
Paul Gallagher
>Interesting point -- although Tom Cruise's character also talks
>a lot. But you have to admit this begs the question: how do you
>know this hope at the end of EWS is not a false hope? Or is it
>(sorry to be sarcastic this once) automatically a true hope if
>it is from Kubrick, and automatically a false hope if it is from
>anyone else?
I think Eyes Wide Shut offers more hope than most of Kubrick's other
films. Many of the films end with futility, absurdity, or insanity.
There might be a momentary respite, like the German girl's song at
the end of Paths of Glory, or a few individuals might escape, but most
of the films seem very pessimistic -- maybe others will disagree. Now
I'm inclined to concede that Kubrick's pessimism is simplistic and
maybe not very interesting, but its main purpose may be to create a framework
on which to build a film. For example Deleuze wrote that Kubrick's films show
society to be like a brain or mind; the boundary between the society's
'mind' and that of individuals is fluid, always changing, and sometimes
breaking down; and while individuals and societies pretend to be
rational, this always conceals a deeper or hidden irrationality
or insanity. One can reject this analysis of society, but it does provide
a useful structure with which to create vivid images and scenes
(Poole inside HAL's hardware, his 'mind,' for example).
2001 seems to be an exception to Kubrick's pessimism; in Deleuze's
terms the relationship between the individual (shown as the Star Child) and
the world (represented by the planet Earth itself) can be reborn on an
entirely new basis. However, this rebirth is in some other dimension; it
seems to have nothing to do with human interaction. Eyes Wide Shut
also seems to offer some way out, but here it involves one human reaching
out to another. So it does seem like a step forward for Kubrick. You
might object that most people already have noticed the value of love and
trust, but in the case of Eyes Wide Shut, and maybe of Kubrick's career as
a whole, the journey of discovery is its own justification. You may not
want to enter this maze, but if you do it's an achievement to find one's
way out.
Paul
septimus
>
> 2001 seems to be an exception to Kubrick's pessimism; in Deleuze's
> terms the relationship between the individual (shown as the Star Child) and
> the world (represented by the planet Earth itself) can be reborn on an
> entirely new basis. However, this rebirth is in some other dimension; it
> seems to have nothing to do with human interaction.
In fact I find it anti-humanistic (and not very optimsitic
either). I do find the ending of _Path of Glory_ you mentioned
rather hopeful. The sequences preceding that, namely the scenes
prior to the execution of the prisoners, are also excellent.
Eyes Wide Shut
> also seems to offer some way out, but here it involves one human reaching
> out to another. So it does seem like a step forward for Kubrick. You
> might object that most people already have noticed the value of love and
> trust, but in the case of Eyes Wide Shut, and maybe of Kubrick's career as
> a whole, the journey of discovery is its own justification. You may not
> want to enter this maze, but if you do it's an achievement to find one's
> way out.
>
I'm not denying that. You can use similar analysis to most artists,
I think. Bergman's pessimision about family relationships, Hemingway's
"lost generation" laments, Wong Kar-Wai's alienation from a bloodless
society. I suppose one has to justify their pessimism, and the more
universally applicable the justification the more relevant their works
become. I'm not going to say anything specific about EWS since I don't
understand much of it either (at least I know it much less than you
do!). It does make for an interesting comparison with _Dekalog 9_,
which I just rewatched; there the tension/distinction between love
and sex is made explicitly while EWS seems to depict them as the same
thing. What I *do* strongly object to is this seemingly wide spread
tendency among Kubrick advocates to lump together the works of all
other directors into one nameless chunk and dismiss them in the most
superficial way imaginable in order to elevate Kubrick. It is
completely irrational, more of a religious ritual among the faithful
than a fruitful way to discuss the merit of his films. Setting aside
the question of whether Kubrick exercise Olympian contempt towards
mankind -- some of his advocates certainly are guilty of Olympian
contempt towards the rest of cinema. (And I obviously don't mean
you.)
Wordsmith
> wrote:
>
> >I agree with most of Dave C's opinions, though he calls Full Metal
> >Jacket an anti-war film and I disagree about that. Sometimes I think
> >the film considers a variety of moralities, without expressing strong
> >allegiance to any certain one. Kubrick had his own thoughts on the
> >matter: "There may be a fallacy in the belief that showing people that
> >war is bad will make them less willing to fight a war. But Full Metal
> >Jacket, I think, suggests that there is more to say about war than
> >that it is bad."
>
> The first difference between a film like FMJ and other "anti-war"
> films (what a misleading, meaningless classification; uh, let's create
> some more while we're at it: how about pro-human/anti-human films, or
> maybe pro-love/anti-love films and pro-murder 'n' rape/anti-murder 'n'
> rape films, etc.) is that FMJ is >a priori< so; it starts off from
> that humanistic assumption, but then moves into other, much more
> important, territory, namely the Why-dynamics of violent combat, and
> its implications. The second difference is that other so-called
> "anti-war" films wear their polemical, moralising credentials on their
> open sleeves, their heavy-handed preaching and often gore-fest
> voyeurism invariably undermining their intended sentiments ...
> [besides, only psychopaths and greedy, ignorant children make
> explicitly "pro-war" films, anyway ...:-) ]
"Horror and moral terror are your friends. If they are not, then they are
enemies to be feared. They are truly enemies."
--Col. Kurtz to Capt. Willard in *Apocalypse Now*
> Padraig
> ... actually, I've just seen yet two more war films, this time from
> Bosnia/Croatia: Pretty Village, Pretty Flame and Before The Rain, the
> latter especially interesting if only for the excellent lead
> performance of good awl rainbow-fashions Milich (Rade Sherbedgia), a
> performance that may have stirred Kubrick into choosing him for EWS
> (though there's another film from around the same time - mid-1990s -
> the name of which escapes me, that features a Yugoslav Milich as a
> violent old patriarch, aggressively "possessively protecting" his
> daughter ...
Yeah, but who's gonna protect her from him? *snicker*
Wordsmith ;)
Paul Gallagher
>What I *do* strongly object to is this seemingly wide spread
>tendency among Kubrick advocates to lump together the works of all
>other directors into one nameless chunk and dismiss them in the most
>superficial way imaginable in order to elevate Kubrick.
Kubrick's films seem to self-consciously swim against the current
of American film. This may help explain both Kubrick's heroic
image and why enthusiasm for Kubrick sometimes translates into disdain
for other films, particularly Hollywood films.
I can understand how Kubrick's films seem to stand out from the rest.
In fact when I was a child, I had little interest in watching movies --
I liked TV series much more -- but I was a Kubrick fan and saw many of
his films.
Paul
Tansal Arnas
> septimus <sept...@millenicom.com> wrote:
>
>> What I *do* strongly object to is this seemingly wide spread
>> tendency among Kubrick advocates to lump together the works of all
>> other directors into one nameless chunk and dismiss them in the most
>> superficial way imaginable in order to elevate Kubrick.
>
> Kubrick's films seem to self-consciously swim against the current
> of American film. This may help explain both Kubrick's heroic
> image and why enthusiasm for Kubrick sometimes translates into disdain
> for other films, particularly Hollywood films.
Then I must be able to swim both ways, because I enjoy Spielberg too.
I don't see why a Kubrick fan must by definition despise certain directors.
Tansal
Maxime Renaudin
> of American film. This may help explain both Kubrick's heroic
> image and why enthusiasm for Kubrick sometimes translates into disdain
> for other films, particularly Hollywood films.
>
> I can understand how Kubrick's films seem to stand out from the rest.
> In fact when I was a child, I had little interest in watching movies --
> I liked TV series much more -- but I was a Kubrick fan and saw many of
> his films.
I'm sorry Paul, but I can't help giving you my interpretation of your words:
Kubrick's fans do not like movies.
They are interested in something else. I still don't get what.
Please don't throw me stones, guys... I'm just trying to understand. (I've
just noticed that we are now with alt.movies.kubrick people...)
Maxime
Maxime Renaudin
> the end of Paths of Glory,
Excellent scene. For once, Kubrick avoid caricature.
His "poilus", very typical with these amazing mustaches and ugly mugs, are
beautiful indeed. Very moving.
What is interesting in this scene is that none is fooled.
The soldiers, Douglas & the audience. Everybody knows this very moment is
just a miracle.
And nothing seems to be feigned.
Winston Castro
wrote:
Because they are exact opposites, polar extremes if you will.
People who like hot and spicy foods, rarely like bland foods as well,
although of course there is no law against such per se or anything
wrong with it.
Spielberg delights in syrup soaked fantasy and the promotion of a
vision and ideal that has never truly existed, i.e., a perfect and
innocent America. Kubrick made brutally harsh statements concerning
the human condition via his films, and pulled no punches. Kubrick is
vindaloo whilst Spielberg is a boiled potato.
septimus
>
> "Paul Gallagher" <p...@panix.com> a écrit dans le message news
> > Kubrick's films seem to self-consciously swim against the current
> > of American film. This may help explain both Kubrick's heroic
> > image and why enthusiasm for Kubrick sometimes translates into disdain
> > for other films, particularly Hollywood films.
> >
> > I can understand how Kubrick's films seem to stand out from the rest.
> > In fact when I was a child, I had little interest in watching movies --
> > I liked TV series much more -- but I was a Kubrick fan and saw many of
> > his films.
I agree partially.
Cassavetes' films arguably stand out even more from the "rest"
(including
those of Kubrick's). There is clearly something else at work here. I
have already stated my own personal experience
with _2001_ (the novel, not the film). I read it when I was 13 and it
was something of a revelation to me. It did wonders to my
self-importance.
As I grew older I had a strong, negative reaction to that book precisely
because of that. It simplifies, leaves out so much stuff that has to do
with human reactions to achieve its myth-like story line. I don't know
whether it is a good thing that things like politics and human
interactions
seem much more important than the space exploration/extraterrestial
speculations of _2001_. Maybe that is a failure on our collective
imagination, a function of our inability to transcend the same old
problems we have been dealing with for centuries. (The U.S.
administration
is still thinking about geopolitics in terms of oil, in the process
likely turning Central Asia into the next Arabia peninsula. Shouldn't
we have more vision than to do that by now?) But there it is. _2001_
(the novel at least) seems so thin and somewhat irrelevant now. I
emphasize this is my own experience; nevertheless, lots of my
technical friends who read nothing but SF adore Kubrick, so I'm not
sure it is all that isolated experience.
>
> I'm sorry Paul, but I can't help giving you my interpretation of your words:
> Kubrick's fans do not like movies.
> They are interested in something else. I still don't get what.
>
Jonathan Rosenbaum is a huge Kubrick fan (putting EWS and AI on top his
best-of-year lists), and no one has ever accused him of not liking
movies.
We clearly shouldn't overgeneralize.
Maxime Renaudin
"septimus" <sept...@millenicom.com> a écrit dans le message news:
> > I'm sorry Paul, but I can't help giving you my interpretation of your
words:
> > Kubrick's fans do not like movies.
> > They are interested in something else. I still don't get what.
> >
> Jonathan Rosenbaum is a huge Kubrick fan (putting EWS and AI on top his
> best-of-year lists), and no one has ever accused him of not liking
> movies.
> We clearly shouldn't overgeneralize.
I was joking. I know serious cinephiles that have some strong interest in
Kubrick's work.
(But Spielberg??)
Maxime Renaudin
"Maxime Renaudin" <maxime....@noos.fr> a écrit dans le message news:
> (But Spielberg??)
My nasty fingers slept again on the keyboard... I did not mean it...
Tansal Arnas
Is that your reasoning for why a Kubrick fan must despise Spielberg, or is
it an explanation of why some people prefer one of the directors to the
other? In any case, your comments sidestep the notion of being able to like
the work of both directors without any contradiction. Kubrick is my
favorite filmmaker, but I really enjoy many of Spielberg's films too,
especially since Saving Private Ryan. I think he is showing signs of
possibly entering a third phase in his career with A.I. and Minority Report.
I'll be interested to see how he present Catch Me If You Can. And there are
few directors as skilled as he in presenting action and suspense, as in Duel
and Jaws and the Indiana Jones trilogy. If Kubrick could be a fan of
Spielberg's, and vice versa, then a viewer could easily be a fan of both.
How does Spielberg go from being syrup-soaked to being a boiled potato?
Tansal
Paul Gallagher
In <3D7C1FE5...@millenicom.com> septimus <sept...@millenicom.com> writes:
>I agree partially.
>Cassavetes' films arguably stand out even more from the "rest"
>(including those of Kubrick's).
I was probably wrong. Anti-Hollywood sentiment probably isn't
essential to Kubrick's appeal. Kubrick is often praised for being
outside Hollywood; so are Cassavetes, Woody Allen, Robert Altman,
etc. But I'm not sure if they have the same admirers as Kubrick. Also, some
critics who look down on Hollywood look down on Kubrick, and
others who love Hollywood love Kubrick. So I was probably off track.
>is still thinking about geopolitics in terms of oil, in the process
>likely turning Central Asia into the next Arabia peninsula. Shouldn't
>we have more vision than to do that by now?) But there it is. _2001_
>(the novel at least) seems so thin and somewhat irrelevant now. I
>emphasize this is my own experience; nevertheless, lots of my
>technical friends who read nothing but SF adore Kubrick, so I'm not
>sure it is all that isolated experience.
That makes sense. There might be a lot of overlap between SF fans
and Kubrick fans. I don't know SF well at all, but I imagine some
of Kubrick's traits might be found in some science fiction writers: a
sense of being distant from and smarter than the rest of humanity --
maybe, maybe not...
>Jonathan Rosenbaum is a huge Kubrick fan (putting EWS and AI on top his
>best-of-year lists),
I noticed that Rosenbaum wrote that he is or was a SF fan.
Paul
Wordsmith
> "Paul Gallagher" <p...@panix.com> a écrit dans le message news
> > Kubrick's films seem to self-consciously swim against the current
> > of American film. This may help explain both Kubrick's heroic
> > image and why enthusiasm for Kubrick sometimes translates into disdain
> > for other films, particularly Hollywood films.
> >
> > I can understand how Kubrick's films seem to stand out from the rest.
> > In fact when I was a child, I had little interest in watching movies --
> > I liked TV series much more -- but I was a Kubrick fan and saw many of
> > his films.
>
> I'm sorry Paul, but I can't help giving you my interpretation of your words:
> Kubrick's fans do not like movies.
> They are interested in something else. I still don't get what.
The most engaging writers use words to go beyond words. The same for
filmmakers like Kubrick: he strove to have images transcend images.
Your "They [Kubrick fans] are interested in something else" gives me a
warm feeling.
Wordsmith :)
Wordsmith
> Should a director be (so) meticoulous?
Yes, if it's in his nature.
> The art of the director lies, partly, in his capacity to master, to control
> every inch of the material given to him and to create his own world. I guess
> Feuillade, Dwan or Rohmer, among others, are meticoulus film-makers. No
> wasted space. Each stone seems to be at the right place. Kubrick could
> probably be so described. But...
> When there is nothing but meticoulsness in the movie? What about?
> When you see a Kubrick's movie, you are continuously impressed by the
> precison of the setting, but, to me, continuously annoyed by the emptiness
> of machinery too. Kubrick knows how to film a spaceship; I'm not sure he
> knows how to film the face of a woman in love.
> I believe the self-sufficiency of Kubrick's constructions is the reason of
> the vacuity of his work.
"Self-sufficiency of construction" = "vacuity"? I don't follow.
Wordsmith :)
Wordsmith
This is but a quibble, but the characters on TV are acting out
scripted parts. Squirt and Poole's parents are, so to speak, "real".
The layering effect
your post alludes to is that good 'ol Kubrick creativity in action.
Wordsmith :)
Maxime Renaudin
"Wordsmith" <word...@rocketmail.com> a écrit dans le message news:
> > I'm sorry Paul, but I can't help giving you my interpretation of your
words:
> > Kubrick's fans do not like movies.
> > They are interested in something else. I still don't get what.
>
> The most engaging writers use words to go beyond words. The same for
> filmmakers like Kubrick: he strove to have images transcend images.
> Your "They [Kubrick fans] are interested in something else" gives me a
> warm feeling.
That's an interesting point.
But I'll stick to images.
I don't believe in/am not interested in transcendence, only in
representation.
Maxime
Maxime Renaudin
An american critic I don't remember the name of said once that Shining was a
movie about tracking shots. That's one of most interesting thought I have
ever heared on Kubrick.
Paul said in one of his previous posts: "And indeed my experience of
Kubrick's films often seems purely sensory, in particular Kubrick's
extraordinary lighting". I could add that the work on the soundtrack is
sometimes also interesting...
I can understand that, but I refuse the idea of a purely sensory approach of
movies. (I admit that Paul is not so categoric on this point.)
I'm sorry to insist on what should be an evidence, but I believe that a
movie - the art of his director - should be considered through the relation
between what the director has to say and the way he chooses to express it.
In Kubrick's case, it seems that one item in the balance is missing.
Pure formal considerations should not be the only subject of a movie.
A tracking shot is only a tracking shot.
Paul Gallagher
>An american critic I don't remember the name of said once that Shining was a
>movie about tracking shots. That's one of most interesting thought I have
>ever heared on Kubrick.
That was Pauline Kael. I think that misses out on a lot of what's
interesting about _The Shining_, where, I think, the tracking shots
contribute to the sense of anxiety and disorientation, of being
haunted by what's absent.
On the other hand, films about tracking shots, such as some of Michael Snow's
films, aren't so bad. I can imagine adding two formal experiments
to get _The Shining_: Michael Snow's Wavelength (tracking shot + assorted
oddness) + Chantal Akerman's Hotel Monterey (sad, deserted hotel
corridors) = Kubrick's The Shining.
>Paul said in one of his previous posts: "And indeed my experience of
>Kubrick's films often seems purely sensory, in particular Kubrick's
>extraordinary lighting". I could add that the work on the soundtrack is
>sometimes also interesting...
>I can understand that, but I refuse the idea of a purely sensory approach of
>movies. (I admit that Paul is not so categoric on this point.)
>I'm sorry to insist on what should be an evidence, but I believe that a
>movie - the art of his director - should be considered through the relation
>between what the director has to say and the way he chooses to express it.
>In Kubrick's case, it seems that one item in the balance is missing.
>Pure formal considerations should not be the only subject of a movie.
>A tracking shot is only a tracking shot.
When I earlier read your words in praise of a woman's face animated by love,
I did reproach myself: do I care more about tracking shots or people?
Of course, as you noted, form and the expression of feeling are
not mutually exclusive -- I just opened a magazine at random and found
this phrase, concerning a scene in _The Little Theater of Jean Renoir_,
"The camera movement is a gesture of love, of great sensuality."
I'll admit that Kubrick's camera movements are rarely gestures of love
and rarely sensual. Instead Kubrick's style often functions to block
access to his characters. Biographers have noted how appropriate
it was that Kubrick's home was surrounded by dozens of "keep
out" signs, and that he preferred communication by electronic means.
When you mentioned pure form, I thought of the tendency toward abstraction
in mid-20th century American art and architecture. Comparisons with
Kubrick may seem peculiar, when one considers Kubrick's obsessive
attention to realistic detail, but I think there is a tendency
toward abstraction in Kubrick's films, also a tendency to use form as
a means of egotistic expression. Maybe not unlike the art and
architecture that emerged in New York while he lived there as
a young man, Kubrick's films evince a desire for bold formal patterns
even at the cost of losing the richness and fullness of life, and
for the expression of, and escape from, alienation and anxiety in the
rigor of form. The grandeur, anxiety, and sense of alienation, also the
coldness, sterility, and contempt, of Kubrick's color films don't seem so
far from an International Style skyscraper or a color field painting.
There might also be in Kubrick's films some other traits of mid-20th
century American art: a desire to assume or create an international style
to escape the supposed provincialism of American culture, and an
expression of contempt for mass society that is not so far from
contempt for humanity in general.
I am being very vague, and I certainly could be wrong about this. There is
also Kubrick the satirist, who despises authority and bureaucracy and
has a keen sense of human and cosmic absurdity. And Kubrick clearly cared
about ideas. But at least I'm mildly curious whether those who like or dislike
Kubrick also like or dislike, say, abstract art or Modern architecture...
Paul
septimus
> few directors as skilled as he in presenting action and suspense, as in Duel
> and Jaws and the Indiana Jones trilogy. If Kubrick could be a fan of
> Spielberg's, and vice versa, then a viewer could easily be a fan of both.
Both directors like gadgets. _2001_ is technically sound on space
travel. But Kubrick's war films suffer from low budget and his
distaste for travel; the realism is limited as a result. (_Spartacus_
is probably the exception.) Spielberg should get a lot of credit for
making the battle scenes and the gadgets so realistic in _Saving
Private Ryan_. In particular, the Tiger I tanks look awesome and
authentic. This is the first time I've seen a serious effort to
recreate German tanks in movies. Just to prove that those Tiger I's
are not made of plywood, Spielberg has them crash into a huge shell
hole. Their recreation is a feat much more impressive than the
dinasours in Jurassic Park (not that I've actually seen any of the
JP's). The Marder II assualt gun also looks really authentic.
Tactically, though, these people are doing strange things. The #1
anti-infantry weapon in WWII tanks is the front-mounted machine
gun. Neither of the Tigers fires a single shot with those machine
guns. No wonder the Germans lose the skirmish! The opening battle
scene (Omaha landing) is brilliant; I think the last battle depicted is
a failure. It is too much of a revenge fantasy. The Germans simply
wander into the gunsight of the GI machine gun crew at point blank
range and are shot down, over and over again. By that point there
would be 10 bodies lying there and any blind man would learn to be
careful! They would have laid down covering fire and either close
in or flank the Americans -- exactly as the 1st Infantry does against
the German bunkers in the opening scenes. These are after all
SS Panzer Grenadiers, the shock troops of the Third Reich. You'd
think they have studied Infantry 101.
> How does Spielberg go from being syrup-soaked to being a boiled potato?
>
Beats me.
> Tansal
Paul Gallagher
>Cassavetes' films arguably stand out even more from the "rest"
>(including
>those of Kubrick's). There is clearly something else at work here. I
>have already stated my own personal experience
>with _2001_ (the novel, not the film). I read it when I was 13 and it
>was something of a revelation to me. It did wonders to my
>self-importance.
>As I grew older I had a strong, negative reaction to that book precisely
>because of that. It simplifies, leaves out so much stuff that has to do
>with human reactions to achieve its myth-like story line. I don't know
>whether it is a good thing that things like politics and human
>interactions
>seem much more important than the space exploration/extraterrestial
>speculations of _2001_.
I don't think _2001_ or Kubrick's films in general are valuable because
of the ideas they express. In fact I'd say a lot of the ideas in _2001_
and other Kubrick films are shallow, or even offensive to me. In previous
posts I described Kubrick weaving his formal ideas around a complicated,
but usually irrelevant, framework of ideas, but I started looking through some
interviews with Kubrick online, and I was surprised how completely wrong
I was about Kubrick's stated intentions.
http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/
and http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/interview.html
He seems genuinely interested in the ideas of his literary sources
and very concerned with fidelity to them. He also emphasized his desire
for strong plots and characters. I may have to rethink my views of
Kubrick's films.
Paul
Padraig L Henry
<p...@panix.com> wrote:
>In <3D7C1FE5...@millenicom.com> septimus <sept...@millenicom.com> writes:
>
>>Cassavetes' films arguably stand out even more from the "rest"
>>(including
>>those of Kubrick's). There is clearly something else at work here.
Welcome to the world of film art.
>I
>>have already stated my own personal experience
>>with _2001_ (the novel, not the film). I read it when I was 13 and it
>>was something of a revelation to me. It did wonders to my
>>self-importance.
If only you had then seen the film instead, it might have provoked you
into wondering about your self-importance.
>>As I grew older I had a strong, negative reaction to that book precisely
>>because of that. It simplifies, leaves out so much stuff that has to do
>>with human reactions to achieve its myth-like story line. I don't know
>>whether it is a good thing that things like politics and human
>>interactions
>>seem much more important than the space exploration/extraterrestial
>>speculations of _2001_.
uh, er, yeah, ta hell with all this 9/11 stuff and let's get back to
Star Trek.
>
>I don't think _2001_ or Kubrick's films in general are valuable because
>of the ideas they express. In fact I'd say a lot of the ideas in _2001_
>and other Kubrick films are shallow,
Relative to what >other< ideas, expressed through >film<, are they
shallow?
>or even offensive to me.
Which of your sensibilities, in particular, did they offend?
>In previous
>posts I described Kubrick weaving his formal ideas around a complicated,
>but usually irrelevant, framework of ideas, but I started looking through some
>interviews with Kubrick online, and I was surprised how completely wrong
>I was about Kubrick's stated intentions.
>http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/
>and http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/interview.html
Education is a wonderful thing ...
>
>He seems genuinely interested in the ideas of his literary sources
>and very concerned with fidelity to them. He also emphasized his desire
>for strong plots and characters. I may have to rethink my views of
>Kubrick's films.
Rethinking one's "views" of Kubrick's films is an on-going project,
Paul. Oh, BTW, in case you hadn't noticed (what with your innocent
dismissals - "irrelevant", "shallow", etc - of his films), this is
AMK.
Welcome. In the reconsidered sense.
Padraig
septimus
> I don't think _2001_ or Kubrick's films in general are valuable because
> of the ideas they express. In fact I'd say a lot of the ideas in _2001_
> and other Kubrick films are shallow, or even offensive to me. In previous
> posts I described Kubrick weaving his formal ideas around a complicated,
> but usually irrelevant, framework of ideas, but I started looking through some
> interviews with Kubrick online, and I was surprised how completely wrong
> I was about Kubrick's stated intentions.
Unlike Maxime Renaudin I have no problem accepting the visual part
of Kubrick's films is sufficient attraction. I'd probably hate
everything Cormac McCarthy stands for outside of his writing.
I'm not going to comment on Padraig Henry's post, for obvious reasons.
septimus
offense or shallow. I'm sure Rosenbaum (for example) will
vehemently disagree with that. (Yes I remember reading his
review where he said he was an SF fan.) I have never thought
very hard about the Kubrick films I've seen, since I have never
been a big fan of them. In the case of _2001_, what I meant to say
was that I have a strong negative reaction about using SF ideas
in _2001_ as substitute for your personal religion/spiritual
experience. Because it is very tempting to do that, and I
guess that's what I did. (SF and religion are always closely
linked; it has been a long time but didn't Clarke himself
wrote the seminal SF short story "The 9 Billion Nams for God"?)
If it is read as a statement about our yearning for spiritual/
transcendental experience/guide/whatever, I guess I don't object
to _2001_.
I don't know about about modern art (architecture in particular),
so I'll shy away from taking up your points about Kubrick's
relation from those.
Paul Gallagher
>I don't know about about modern art (architecture in particular),
>so I'll shy away from taking up your points about Kubrick's
>relation from those.
I was being very vague -- just a vague feeling that Kubrick's later films
feel like a modern (1950's - 1970's) steel-and-glass skyscraper --
grand, imposing, but cold and inhuman. My feeling certainly be wrong,
and even so the same ideas may not be motivating the modern architects
and Kubrick.
Paul
Paul Gallagher
>By the way, I don't necessarily think that Kubrick's ideas are
>offense or shallow. I'm sure Rosenbaum (for example) will
>vehemently disagree with that. (Yes I remember reading his
>review where he said he was an SF fan.)
I'm thinking especially of the texts on http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk
associated with _2001_ and _A Clockwork Orange_. For example, another
thread on alt.movies.kubrick cites this page:
http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0037.html
Kubrick states, for example: "Man isn't a noble savage, he's an ignoble
savage. He is irrational, brutal, weak, silly, unable to be objective
about anything where his own interests are involved..."
Now I disagree with many of the views Kubrick expressed. I had
interpreted the films differently, and I had imagined Kubrick's films were
less literal minded than they appear to be in Kubrick's statements of his
intentions. Much of the complexity and ambiguity of _2001_ and _ACO_,
which I had valued, seems to dissipate due to Kubrick's own words.
If the Dawn of the Man sequence is just a depiction of Ardrey's killer
apes in 'African Genesis,' or A Clockwork Orange simply expresses a view
of man's debased nature, then they are less interesting than I supposed.
Also, the criticisms of Robin Wood, which I quoted earlier and had thought
overly harsh, seem to be confirmed by Kubrick's own words.
For example, Kubrick endorses a kind of genetic determinism. Now this
is not incompatible with art -- such ideas were very common in 19th
century literature, and it is not so far from doctrines of Original
Sin, Fatalism, predestination, etc., which have played a role in
much literature and film. So my disagreements with Kubrick's ideology are
not sufficient to dismiss the films. But when determinism is not
combined with some humane sentiment or some ironic distance or some
acknowledgement of human freedom, then I think it can diminish a work.
Paul
Matthew Dickinson
> Rethinking one's "views" of Kubrick's films is an on-going project,
> Paul. Oh, BTW, in case you hadn't noticed (what with your innocent
> dismissals - "irrelevant", "shallow", etc - of his films), this is
> AMK.
>
> Welcome. In the reconsidered sense.
>
> Padraig
You should at least >try< not to be a jerk, Padraig, even if it goes
against your nature.
Matt
Padraig L Henry
wrote:
>phe...@iol.ie (Padraig L Henry) wrote in message news:<3d7fe631...@news.iol.ie>...
What?
WHAT?
What the FUCK is THIS?
Explain yourself here, Mr Asswipe Dickinson ... (a vain, futile
prospect).
[I was >merely< pointing out - now "immoral," it appears - on a
piff-little newsgroup called alt.movies.KUBRICK, that Mr Gallagher's
dismissal, of Kubrick's contribution to cinema and art, as
"irrelevant", "shallow", etc., was IGNORANT, something he actually
eventually acknowledges in his post, you wilfully pig-ignorant Yank].
And don't fucking try to run away >yet< again from addressing serious
issues, as is >your< (increasingly trolling) demented nurture-nature.
As for your "jerk" remark above, well, [sigh], (you know, in the light
of my having been posting here for around five years, its pretty clear
to me that your posts are even more pathetically twisted than the
likes of LB's) someone like yourself who insidiously and
pathologically attempts to rationalise and justify child abuse, on the
one hand, and future-fantasises about loving, respecting and
worshipping human-replacing zombie robots in a value-free all-science
world, on the other, has more than just a few problems to sort out,
just like too many other posters here.
But I really think I've finally had more than enough of this
pandemically corrupted newsgroup (along with terminally sanitised,
decadent, and "decorous" KubrickNet) and cold, smug, ignorant,
narrow-minded, politically-insular and morally fucked-up Americans for
now and in the future ...
You're welcome to continue wallowing in it all ... and don't forget to
wave your little fucking flag.
Padraig
... Kubrick? WHO? ... who fucking cares!?
[Clearly, none of you lot do ...]. Abort.
Padraig L Henry
wrote:
And I'm not going to comment on your smug, pompous evasions, for
obvious reasons, either.
septimus
>
> I'm thinking especially of the texts on http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk
> associated with _2001_ and _A Clockwork Orange_. For example, another
> thread on alt.movies.kubrick cites this page:
> http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0037.html
> Kubrick states, for example: "Man isn't a noble savage, he's an ignoble
> savage. He is irrational, brutal, weak, silly, unable to be objective
> about anything where his own interests are involved..."
I read that article. It makes for very depressing reading. If Kubrick
really meant what he said, he is guilty of not just using
extraterrestial
aliens to replace religion. Elsewhere he comes across as an egomaniac
when he praises his own films, and his verbose, rambling defense against
Hechinger arguably does his credibility much more damage than
Hechinger's
criticism itself.
> Now I disagree with many of the views Kubrick expressed. I had
> interpreted the films differently, and I had imagined Kubrick's films were
> less literal minded than they appear to be in Kubrick's statements of his
> intentions. Much of the complexity and ambiguity of _2001_ and _ACO_,
> which I had valued, seems to dissipate due to Kubrick's own words.
> If the Dawn of the Man sequence is just a depiction of Ardrey's killer
> apes in 'African Genesis,' or A Clockwork Orange simply expresses a view
> of man's debased nature, then they are less interesting than I supposed.
> Also, the criticisms of Robin Wood, which I quoted earlier and had thought
> overly harsh, seem to be confirmed by Kubrick's own words.
Again, for everyone's sake, I hope he didn't mean everything he said.
You can excuse many of the things he said if he were in his 20's,
but he was 43 at the time ACO came out.
I've stopped cross-posting to akm by the way. I'm sure most of the
people there are intelligent and reasonable but one or two clearly need
therapy. I'm a pretty rapid fan of my favorite directors and sometimes
write more strongly worded defense of them than is necessary; I hope
I have not made them look bad, discredited them by my behavior. That's
the
very least a fan could do.
mark de rozario
no Romantic: he does not buy into the overprivileging of the
subjective and the emotional . Nor is he, in any sense, a humanist:
human beings are not at the centre of his cosmos, and his account of
humanity is, to say the least, not positive. No arguments there,
perhaps. But concluding that his rejection of these doctrines makes
him a cynic, a nihilist or a remote modernist is to be misled by the
humanism and Romanticism his work so effectively challenges.
Odd that someone who made The Shining should be described as
populating his films with 'emotionless zombies.' Jack's homicidal fury
might be many things, but emotionless? Likewise Wendy's sustained
pitch of hysterical terror. 'Emotional zombies' would be a better
description of Jack and Barry Lyndon --- helpless coquettes of the
passions, dancing to someone else's tune ---
Kubrick is clinical, analytical, and that is his greatest service to
us. As Dave C points out, there is a difference between a director
capable of depicting emotions and one who is emotionally manipulative.
Kubrick's films, yes, are cold, impersonal --- but we have to think
carefully about why 'hot' and 'personal' are the
automatically-privileged terms in our post-Romantic culture. Kubrick
shifts the focus away from the subjective experiencing of emotions to
the (social/ cultural/ biotic/ ...) machines which produce those
emotions. Unlike most Hollywood film-makers, Kubrick is no emotional
pornographer - the point is _not_ to identify with the characters.
Such identification would merely reproduce the redundant subjective
narcissism upon which consumer culture runs. What if the point were to
escape from this hall of mirrors? To see ourselves in these
characters, yes, - but from outside, instead of from inside - so that
we appear not now as passionate subjects but mannequins trapped within
the hideous, remorseless machines that produce and feed upon our
subjective intimacies. We are all in the Overlook -- locked into the
treadmill repetition of someone else's past mistakes, the viral time
of abuse-begetting-abuse ---- yet escape is possible: but such escape
is precisely out into the impersonal, the emotionless, the cold of the
Overlook snow rather than the heat of Jack's passion.
In this respect, Kubrick resembles Spinoza - someone who correlated
passion with passivity, and who thought that freedom, far from being
the default position for human beings, was something attained only
when the dense accretion of repetition-compulsions and habit-programs
which constitute human subjectivity was hacked through. God, Spinoza
thought, could not feel hate - or love...
septimus
>
> Kubrick
> shifts the focus away from the subjective experiencing of emotions to
> the (social/ cultural/ biotic/ ...) machines which produce those
> emotions. Unlike most Hollywood film-makers, Kubrick is no emotional
> pornographer - the point is _not_ to identify with the characters.
> Such identification would merely reproduce the redundant subjective
> narcissism upon which consumer culture runs.
That really is the problem with pornagrapy, isn't it. That
the consumers of porn should identify with the characters, treat them
as human beings who think and feel. If these consumers merely
treat the characters as disembodied sex parts, *objectify* them,
treat them as *inhuman*, *then* pornagraphy wouldn't be called
pornagraphy at all.
What if the point were to
> escape from this hall of mirrors? To see ourselves in these
> characters, yes, - but from outside, instead of from inside - so that
> we appear not now as passionate subjects but mannequins trapped within
> the hideous, remorseless machines that produce and feed upon our
> subjective intimacies. We are all in the Overlook -- locked into the
> treadmill repetition of someone else's past mistakes, the viral time
> of abuse-begetting-abuse ---- yet escape is possible: but such escape
> is precisely out into the impersonal, the emotionless, the cold of the
> Overlook snow rather than the heat of Jack's passion.
I just watched some of the newly adapted Beckett plays on PBS last
night. Maybe you should try them. ($144 for the entire set, however.)
>Odd that someone who made The Shining should be described as
>populating his films with 'emotionless zombies.' ...
>Unlike most Hollywood film-makers, Kubrick is no emotional
>pornographer - his films with 'emotionless zombies.'
Having we gone through *exactly* these points already? I have
the feeling I'm listening to an automated answeriing machine.
The much aligned Armond White, who slams movies left and right,
has no problem coming up with surprising comparisons with which
to justify his pans and criticisms. One can actually learn
something new from the juxtaposition, broaden one's perspectives.
>In this respect, Kubrick resembles Spinoza - someone who correlated
>passion with passivity, and who thought that freedom, far from being
>the default position for human beings, was something attained only
>when the dense accretion of repetition-compulsions and habit-programs
> which constitute human subjectivity was hacked through.
Since the only repetition-compulsive and habit-programmed behavior
in this thread comes from Kubrick advocates, I guess we should be
amused.
mark de rozario
> mark de rozario wrote:
> >
> > Kubrick
> > shifts the focus away from the subjective experiencing of emotions to
> > the (social/ cultural/ biotic/ ...) machines which produce those
> > emotions. Unlike most Hollywood film-makers, Kubrick is no emotional
> > pornographer - the point is _not_ to identify with the characters.
> That really is the problem with pornagrapy, isn't it. That
> the consumers of porn should identify with the characters, treat them
> as human beings who think and feel. If these consumers merely
> treat the characters as disembodied sex parts, *objectify* them,
> treat them as *inhuman*, *then* pornagraphy wouldn't be called
> pornagraphy at all.
Well, one of the problems with pornography is that the viewer is
crudely manipulated by the film-maker. Part of this involves
identifying with (at least) one of the characters, albeit objectifying
others at the same time. But the viewer, who imagines himself (gender
designation not accidental here, of course) to be a subject is in fact
objectified by the process of watching (turned into a
stimulus-response machine). And so it is with all 'subjects.'
> I just watched some of the newly adapted Beckett plays on PBS last
> night. Maybe you should try them. ($144 for the entire set, however.)
Yes, I like Beckett ---- but I'm not sure of the relevance of that
here.
> >Odd that someone who made The Shining should be described as
> >populating his films with 'emotionless zombies.' ...
>
> >Unlike most Hollywood film-makers, Kubrick is no emotional
> >pornographer -
>
> Having we gone through *exactly* these points already? I have
> the feeling I'm listening to an automated answeriing machine.
I apologise if that's the case. I thought the point I was making was
slightly different from those made elsewhere, but maybe not. Unlike
some of Kubrick's admirers, I'm not _resisting_ the idea that
'Kubrick' is 'cold' and 'emotionless.' I would, however, resist the
claim that his films do not depict emotions, when they clearly do. But
the films present easy identification with the characters feeling the
emotions, which I think is their strength. That was the point of my
comparison with Spinoza ---- someone who made a distinction between
passions (personalized, subjectified emotions) and affects, which are
impersonal ----
> The much aligned Armond White, who slams movies left and right,
> has no problem coming up with surprising comparisons with which
> to justify his pans and criticisms. One can actually learn
> something new from the juxtaposition, broaden one's perspectives.
Of course. Who is disputing that?
>
> >In this respect, Kubrick resembles Spinoza - someone who correlated
> >passion with passivity, and who thought that freedom, far from being
> >the default position for human beings, was something attained only
> >when the dense accretion of repetition-compulsions and habit-programs
> > which constitute human subjectivity was hacked through.
>
> Since the only repetition-compulsive and habit-programmed behavior
> in this thread comes from Kubrick advocates, I guess we should be
> amused.
A cheap shot --- how is this helping?
septimus
> > Since the only repetition-compulsive and habit-programmed behavior
> > in this thread comes from Kubrick advocates, I guess we should be
> > amused.
>
> A cheap shot --- how is this helping?
It was meant to remind you that some self-reflexiveness is helpful.
This is something Kubrick himself sorely lacked.
He accused everyone of everything from would-be rapists and
murderers (he said everyone secretly wanted to be _Clockwork_'s Alex
-- speak for yourself!) to primal cannabalistic apes, but when he
was on the receiving end of criticism (see the links Paul provided)
he went into his overwrought mode. It was not a pretty sight.
I certainly never accused you of "pornography" and "narcissism."
You slandered lots of filmmakers you didn't bother to name with
those terms and didn't offer a shred of concrete evidence (apart from
your semantic solipsism). So who was hurling cheap shots around here?
I do not consider identification with movie characters "subjective
narcissism." Neither do (did) most of my favorite directors. (Kubrick
probably encouraged identification with Matthew Modine's character
in FMJ.) Instead, it is an essential part of being human. The
best directors put you in the shoes, inside the skins, of many
characters at once.
Is there a worse time for belittling the importance to identify
with others? If more Americans can think of themselves
as victims of foreign invasion (and the inevitable "collateral
damage" both military and economical), if they can imagine themselves
deprived of shelter, food, water, family (not to mention jobs
and other luxuries), they would not have tolerated the current
administration's imperialist, facist lust for war.
I was going to write that Kubrick is probably more pornagraphic
than most other directors in his objectivication of women
(and also by virtue of his last film). I deleted that sentence
before sending out the post. What's the point of provoking an
emotional response among certain Kubrick fans who are already less
than rational to begin with?
I just rewatched _Full Metal Jacket_, but this is getting too long
-- let's save that for another time.