A Clue to Kubrick's Esthetic? (long)
David Kirkpatrick
provided by the Kubrick Site or by an amk contributor, and I'm not sure
of the source, but I believe it was Ken Adam discussing his experience
in designing sets for Stanley Kubrick, probably the set of 2001 in
particular. What I do remember is a remark that Kubrick demanded that
Adam's designs fulfill the criteria that they be "realistic,
interesting, and beautiful or esthetically superior". Ideally a design
should be all three, but the minimum requirement was that it have at
least two of these three features, Adam recalled.
A few remarks:
1. Kubrick's devotion to realism is well-known. It is reflected in the
authentic cockpit in Dr. Strangelove, the silence space in 2001 (to pick
one of many instances of "good science" informing that film), the
authentic costumes and lighting in Barry Lyndon and the noted
verisimilitude of the basic training experience in Full Metal Jacket.
2. Also well-known is the fact that Kubrick's devotion to realism is not
blind; for example, characters rarely stammer in a Kubrick film the way
they do in a Woody Allen film and Kubrick films are often criticized as
formalistic and praised as stylish. Kubrick was known to often discard
performances that were perfectly believable, but not sufficiently
"interesting". I have not done thorough research on this question but
it appears that the word "interesting" often comes up in Kubrick's
diction in interviews. Even his words against drug use for creative
inspiration turn on the observation that to the "tripper", everything
seems interesting, including things which are transparently banal.
3. But the distinction between the realistic and the interesting is not
in itself very interesting until the further distinction is introduced:
that between the "interesting" and the "beautiful, or esthetically
superior". The first thing about this part of Kubrick's remark is that
it is there at all. In most of his published conversations, Kubrick
shies away from anything resembling the terminology of esthetics,
usually focusing on the degree to which his or other people's films are
truthful. But is Kubrick more like a Zola or Victor Hugo, or is he more
like James Joyce? Joyce also paid great attention to realistic detail
in his works, but he also had a in his approach that transcended that of
the most satirical realists as well as what might be called a spiritual
agenda (e.g. of transferring the pretensions of religion to art) that
transcends the seriousness of the grimmest of realists.
4. Joyce also makes three-way distinctions regarding esthetics through
the voice of Stephen Dedalus: between "integritas", "harmonia" and
"claritas" and between "epic", "lyrical" and "dramatic". I won't
explore the possible parallels here, except to note that confronting
esthetics with a three-part analysis may be parallel enough. Let it
suffice for me to intimate that the three-part structure of Ulysses may
be as much a reflection of Joyce's conception of the structure of
esthetics, spirituality and consciousness as the four-part structure of
Finnegans Wake reflects Vico's theory of history (and therefore human
and social nature).
5. On the face of it the distinction between "interest" and "beauty or
esthetic superiority" suggests the distinction between entertainment and
art, between the surface of experience and its depths. One way of
characterizing the distinction between "realism", "interestingness" and
"beauty" is that a common synonym to "beauty" as used in the artistic
and scientific worlds is the word "elegance", which has something to do
with "simplicity". In science, there is beauty or elegance in there
being a simple solution to an apparently complex problem, e.g. a simple
equation. In art, an elegant form of expression is one which is simple
and clear, yet new. (Newness per say doesn't make it more elegant or
beautiful, but does make it worthy of appraisal as a creative or
artistic act.) If beauty or elegance is associated with simplicity,
then realism is associated with complexity and randomness. If "purity"
is often glorified when praising beauty, then "richness" is the
counterpart for praising realism. Realism is as messy as beauty is
neat. But what is interesting? Clearly, it is something in-between.
Not in the sense that a political moderate lies between a political
liberal and a political conservative, but in the way that life lies
between birth and death or perhaps as a figure-ground relationship lies
between figure and ground. In terms of degree of complexity, one might
make the distinction between the simple, the compound and the
complicated, or between simplicity, finite complexity and infinite
complexity. Compounds are structures of finite complexity. They are
intrinsically "interesting" because they tease the mind (and maybe soul)
with intimations that they may be either simpler than they appear or
more complicated than they appear or both. It takes a great artist like
Brancusi to make a simple egglike interpretation of a face interesting
and a great artist like Pollack to make a chaotic drip-painting
interesting. In the former case, interest depends on finding the
complex within the simple and in the latter, finding the simple within
the complex. To the relatively naďve art lover perhaps impressionism
makes itself easiest to be found interesting.
6. One thing that struck me about Kubrick's "esthetic triage" is it
parallels the three-way distinction made by John Canaday in "Seminars on
Art" between the basic orientations in visual art of "realism",
"expressionism" and "abstraction". (I'm not saying he invented this
distinction; it appears in a Book-of-the-Month-Club series of books on
art appreciation and the history of art aimed at the general reader put
out by New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art in the late 50's.) The
author makes a point of highlighting the expressionistic and abstract
elements to be found in realistic works, the realistic and abstract
elements within primarily expressionistic works, and the realistic and
expressionistic elements within works generally characterized as
"abstract". Of course, the parallel I have in mind is between Canaday's
and Kubrick's "realism", between Canaday's "expressionism" and Kubrick's
"interestingness" and between Canaday's "abstraction" and Kubrick's
"beautiful or esthetically superior".
7. There is a more fundamental way of characterizing the contrast
between "realism" and "abstraction" or between "realism" and "beauty or
the esthetically superior" and that is that realism is to immanence as
abstraction or beauty is to transcendence. In binary terms, a
representation of a thing transcends the thing itself and conversely the
thing itself is more immanent than its representation. The realm of the
interesting lies in-between as the realm of the human is more immanent
than the angelic realm of ideas or Platonic forms yet more transcendent
than the realm of animal life or the physical universe. The "real"
world lies there as if it had no problems, but just "is"; the beautiful
or transcendent or abstract world spans the real world as if it were a
solution to its problems; but what is interesting is the realm of the
problematic. To make a film "interesting" is to fill it with problems;
to make it "beautiful" is to offer solutions; to make it "real" is to
make those problems and solutions relevant to the real world by showing
an appreciation of the real world as if it existed for itself and not
merely as an object of the artist's puzzlings and de-puzzlings.
8. A theory of acting styles might be derived along the lines of the
remarks by Canaday and Kubrick. There are essentially two basic
alternatives to acting that strives to be as realistic as possible.
One, corresponding to expressionism might be called "melodramatic",
whereas the alternative style, namely "comic", is more analogous to
abstraction. Alternative terms to "melodramatic" might be "emotional",
"empathetic", "sympathetic", "expressive" or "humanistic". By
"melodramatic" acting I do not mean to imply "bad"; of course,
melodramatic acting can be comically bad, but since I am drawing a
distinction between "melodramatic" and "comic", it should be
understandable that the difference I am referring to is a matter of
intent, not quality. Good melodramatic acting draws the viewer into the
emotions of the situation and makes the viewer ignore the comic elements
of the situation and ignore the aspects of the acting or dialogue that
may be unrealistic. "Emotional" may seem like a better term for this
kind of acting, except that I don't think melodramatic acting needs to
be emotional. What distinguishes this approach from realistic or comic
is not the sheer amount of emotion, but rather the how the stylization
in the performance is designed to invite the viewer to either identify
with either a romantic or tragic protagonist. "Heroic" is another
possible term for this approach, but so is "human". The basic idea
behind this acting is that whatever distortion from pure realistic
imitation it takes is directed towards (or tends to have the result of)
producing an emotional response by encouraging positive or negative
empathy towards the character. Whereas melodramatic acting encourages
the viewer to feel something, Comic acting, by contrast, encourages
thinking and laughing. What "melodramatic" acting is to the "romantic"
and "tragic" modes, "comic" acting is to the "ironic" and "comic"
modes. Note that I am including in the concept "comic" acting any
performance which is stylized in such a way as to communicate ideas and
intellectual insights more than emotions and empathic insights. Thus it
includes performances filled with dry, black humor which inspires
flashes of recognition, but not necessarily any gales of laughter. What
distinguishes melodrama is that it is expressionistic rather than either
realistic or abstract, whereas comic acting involves abstracting the
amusing aspect of human foibles and misfortunes, usually taking
liberties with both the realism of depiction and the sensitivity with
which tragedy is acknowledged. Note that realistic drama tends to
depict highly probable occurrences, comedic drama tends to depict highly
improbable occurrences, and melodrama tends to depict events which are
likely enough to allow suspension of disbelief yet surprising enough to
produce a visceral reaction.
9. Whereas realism depicts raw facts of behavior, comedy abstracts
theories of behavior, theories which might not be convincing and might
be perceived as facetious, but nevertheless engage the intellect.
Expressionistic or melodramatic acting, by contrast, is neither about
immanent facts nor transcendent theories or rules but rather deals on
the same plane as myth. Not in the sense that myth is on a higher plane
than normal experience, but in the sense that myth is more abstract and
stylized than facts, but more concrete and particular than rules or
theories or ideas or concepts.
10. Pure realism is as uninteresting and unengaging as pure melodrama is
unconvincing and pure farce is uninvolving. All good acting probably
mixes the goals of realism, melodrama/expressionism, and
comedy/abstraction. Nevertheless, it is probably true that most acting
performances and indeed most films fall into one dominant category of
the three, with touches of the other two styles just enough to keep them
from being caricatures. One might say that situation comedies are
low-definition comedies and farces are high definition. Hollywood at
its least manipulative is low-definition melodrama; at its most
manipulative, high-definition. What might be called the "cinema-verite"
or "anti-Hollywood" style of non-comic filmmaking is rarer and harder to
distinguish between high-definition and low-definition. However, at the
level of individual performance, realism is probably as common an
approach as expressionism or abstraction. Typically, the lead roles in
a film will be portrayed with the most expressionism whereas secondary
characters will be divided into comic and realistic modes. Indeed, the
expression "character actor" is usually applied to actors who are either
good at disappearing into a convincing character or at representing a
comic stereotype.
11. If we regard realism, melodramatic expressionism and comic
abstraction as the primary colors of acting styles, then a
distinguishing feature of performances in Kubrick films is that the
three colors seem to be mixed with much greater balance than the norm:
as if every moment in a Kubrick film was 33% real, 33% expressively
stylized and 33% comically and intellectually stylized. This partly
explains why Kubrick films have such an uncanny feel and why they are so
controversial. Filmgoers are used to getting their realism,
expressionism and abstraction relatively straight. It is easy to
recognize good realistic acting, emotionally affecting acting and good
comic acting; realism makes a whole world believable whereas comedy
makes the pain in it thoroughly transcendable and even enjoyable, and
melodrama catches one in-between: it is surreal in a way that is more
interesting than the merely real, but more grippingly real than a mere
joke. Realism tends to show how we are all victims; comedy and
abstraction shows how we are all fools; melodrama turns us into
protagonists sharing the same skin and negotiating a suspenseful world
which has the danger of randomness but the hope of grand design. Comedy
presents the world as if it were designed by a comedian (or by God if it
is a Divine Comedy); realism admits to the various ways in which events
and structures are random. Realism admits that Hitler was kind to
animals (a factoid that muddies more important truths) whereas melodrama
paints a more consistent portrait of evil and comedy abstracts
components of Hitlerism to devise the concepts of the Soup Nazi or the
Jazz Police.
12. What is uncanny about Kubrick films is that there is more realism
and comedy than one would expect in a melodrama, more realism and
melodrama than one would expect in a comedy, and more melodrama and
comedy than one would expect according to a naturalistic ideal. There
is a line from Wayne's World, "I laughed, I cried, I hurled": this might
be taken as a flippant way of expressing the trichotomy:
comedy/abstraction, melodrama/expressionism, naturalism/realism.
Amusement, sentiment and disgust are reactions to transcending society,
living amid society and being aware of one's immanence in the physical
world. In a sense, Dogme95 is a kind of imperative to invoke hurling
but never laughing or crying. Try to enjoy a Kubrick film as an
exercise in naturalism and you will be subverted by wit and passion.
But try to wallow in the passion and you will be subverted by the wit
and naturalism. But try to enjoy escape the human nightmare by
consuming a Kubrick film as an escapist comedy and its reality and
passion will bite you in the butt. Like a Kafka novel, Kubrick films
are best appreciated if one accepts that they occupy a kind of twilight
zone. It seems to me that in a Kubrick film, not only does the acting
mix the virtues and difficulties of realism, expressionism and
abstraction, so does the script underlying the performances as well as
the photography that frames it. One of the impressive aspects of
Kubrick's films is that almost every frame works as an interesting still
photograph. This is an aspect of his films which tends towards
transcendence, i.e. places the viewer above the work of art. The many
lengthy takes in Kubrick films contributes to the enveloping of the
viewer in the imaginary world, heightening the realism of the
experience. This is a tendency towards "immanence", i.e. placing the
viewer beneath the world of art, into a world of enchantment. A Kubrick
set never looks like a set; it may look like an unreal place, but it is
always a place with a compelling sense of place, never just a set. But
just as important to the Kubrickean feel of a film as its abstract
beauty and its concrete realism is its provocative expressionism. The
visual element most corresponding to this esthetic value is the way in
which Kubrick uses lighting, color and camera angles and movement to
reflect the dynamism of the story at any given moment. Keep in mind
that this observation is as much about the structure of esthetic
concepts as it is about a specific filmmaker, so there is a tautological
element to the whole argument. The aspect of the argument that I admit
is a matter of opinion is that Kubrick seems to try to balance these
three basic esthetic values at an exceedingly microscopic level. I
would also opine that on the whole, he is the filmmaker most successful
at maintaining this balance.
13. Abstraction, comedy and esthetic detachment are all associated with
maximum stylization and the keeping of distance from an object of
study. Each avoids sentimentality by maintaining distance. Realism is
associated with minimum stylization; it avoids sentimentality by looking
at things close up, "warts and all", clinically as opposed to
theoretically. Expressionism on the other hand flirts with
sentimentality by looking at things with the same proximity as
feelings. It seems to me that expressionism comes in three
temperatures: warm, hot and cool. No special technical meanings here-let
colloquial usage be your guide. "Sexy" is "hot", "heroic" is "cool" and
"sympathetic" is "warm".
14. Note that although the style of Norman Rockwell may be described as
realistic, the content may be described as expressionistic. Note also
that we tend to have warm feelings about the past, e.g. towards children
who remind us of our own childhood, whereas the stylishly futuristic or
avant-garde tends to be associated with the metaphor "cool" and the
"hotness" of sexuality arguably has a lot to do with living intensely in
the present tense. In a sense, expressionism, while putting us touch
with our emotions also enhances our sense of being in a temporal
context. Realism, by contrast, takes us outside time by encouraging the
microscopic study of objects; and abstraction takes us outside time by
telescoping our focus to the semantic or conceptual plane. Part of the
power of Picasso's Guernica has to do with its combination of realistic,
expressionistic and abstract virtues. At the same time it delivers and
expressionistic, emotional, rhetorical, humanistic wallop, it also
tantalizes the senses with objects that can be recognized and teases the
mind with compositional form and ideas about the nature and history of
representation and art themselves.
15. Simple as 1-2-3 but just as complex.
David Kirkpatrick
Christopher Jenkins
David Kirkpatrick
>
> David all your posts are interesting. ...Do you mind if I ask what you 'do'?
Thank you. (I wish people would respond to their contents a little more
often though.)
For what it's worth, how I make a living is as a computer programmer
(nothing too cutting edge, just Microsoft Access databases for
business). If I come across as more of an "artsie", I should perhaps
add that I've done post-graduate work in Psychology and owe most of my
ideas to an eclectic pattern of "outside" reading and thinking. The
post you just responded to lies closes to my main writing project at the
moment, a kind of Pythagoras meets Wittgenstein meets McLuhan experiment
which has been going on in my mind for two decades.
My background in film is nothing to go on about. But have seen every
Kubrick film since Killer's Kiss in a movie theatre, and his films have
affected me more than anyone else's.
David