SK and Modernism
FMD
Postmodernism arose. It's not that I want to fight over whether
SK's work is or isn't modernist or postmodernist, mainly because
postmodernism is such an ill-defined (or, more generously, fluid
and dynamic) notion that the debate would quickly become merely
terminological. But I'll throw out a way of seeing SK's work as
a
continuation, or perhaps perfection, of the original "High
Modernist" project, and see what happens.
I'm thinking, at this initial stage, in crudely generic terms.
By
"modernism" I mean the cultural matrix created in the wake of
Marx, Nietzsche, Freud, Frazer, and the Great War, and in
particular the early works of say Joyce, Woolf, Eliot, Pound,
Stein, H.D., Williams, Stravinsky, Schonberg, Picasso, and
Braque.
More particularly, I'm thinking of Pound's early formulation of
his modernist project as "Imagism." Consider its tenets: (1)
opposition to the sentimental or emotionally manipulative and
mannered, preference for singular images that are sharp, clear,
arresting, and immediate; (2) opposition to traditional narrative
and verse form in favor of "free verse," fragmentation,
disjunction, juxtaposition, and freedom of choice in subjects and
means; (3) [related to (1)] minimalist aesthetic, preference for
economy of means, terseness, precision; (4) all of this seen as
being in the service of freeing the creative energies of the
artist from the restrictions of past forms so as to create images
that are fresh, satisfying, and alive and that stimulate fresh
responses in the reader/viewer.
This seems to serve rather well at least to a good first
approximation to SK's aesthetic. The general cultural atmosphere
that SK imbibed was broadly existentialist and absurdist, and
that
is within the general family of concerns we associate with
Nietzsche, Freud, and the rest. He eschews sentimentalism and
the
"feelgood" approach to film, and follows a broadly experimental,
eclectic path with respect to means (nothing is automatically
ruled out or in). He favors image over discourse or narrative,
and his images have the immediacy and crispness and autonomy one
associates with an Imagist aesthetic. He relies too on
juxtaposition and fragmentation. Like the Modernist-Imagist
classics, his films often seem to consist of several "non-
submersible elements" that are juxtaposed as series rather than
linked in a conventionally narrative form, and the elements have
the minimalist sense one finds in Imagism.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Gordon Stainforth
<0d1278fe...@usw-ex0101-008.remarq.com>,
FMD
<fmdolan...@socrates.berkeley.edu.invalid>
wrote:
I dont know what others will think on this NG, but this to
me is one of the sharpest and most succinct
commentaries that I've read on SK's work for a long
time.
I think this thread could be highly stimulating.
Gordon
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
Thornhill
two here. "Serious" artists following say 1900 or so,
especially in literature and related fields of 'words', could
hardly help from being influenced by psychoanalytic theory,
'contemporary' literature and poetry as well as he the war, from
which so much was derived. This is why the twentieth-century is
largely connected to _Ulysses_ and "The Waste Land", which were
on parallel courses and published close to simultaneously.
But,the latter has probably had more effect in the visual arts
if only because it is *shorter* and seemingly more
comprehensible. There are many films in the latter part of the
century that have been touched by TS Eliot, if mostly
unwittingly. "The Waste Land" can be found in: 'Citizen Kane',
'Soylent Green', 'Planet of the Apes', episodes of 'Twilight
Zone', 'The Bed-Sitting Room', 'Eraserhead', 'Elephant Man',
'Blade Runner', 'Alien', 'The Sacrifice', 'Stalker' and near
endless number of others (though they are largely science
fiction...not too challenging to norms).
Set within the milieu of the 20th C, is it easy to name any
films by Kubrick, Chris Marker, Tarkovsky, Bunuel, Stroheim,
etc. that were *not* given birth by this century's benchmark?
(in the case of Bunuel, he was in the first generation of real
Paris Modernism).
OT here (or is it??): has anyone commented on the striking
similarities between EWS and "Les Demoiselles d'Avignon"? The
'brand' of modernist painting still affects at the end of the
century (though I don't mean to suggest that SK never thought of
the connection!).
And I'll have to see how like the Futurist and Vorticist
precepts were with what you quote from Pound.
Thornhill
Flip My Burger
gordonst...@globalnet.co.uk.invalid wrote on 00-06-02 20.51:
There are a lot of interesting and complicated theories here on the NG. In
your observation how aware was SK of the these type of ideas?
SK was obviously a very curious and intelligent man but, was he more of an
intellectual or an instinctual artist?
For example would he have considered the above idea?
Did he discuss films in these terms?
The picture of him that I get from the NG is of an autodidactic regular guy
type. Similar to Woody Allen in some ways. Allen denies being an
intellectual and says he prefers a night of spaghetti and basketball over
intellectual arm-wrestling.
If you have addressed this line of questioning before please don't bother to
respond.
BTW, thanks for being here.
Flip
Fernando Burjato
OT here (or is it??): has anyone commented on the striking
similarities between EWS and "Les Demoiselles d'Avignon"? The
'brand' of modernist painting still affects at the end of the
century (though I don't mean to suggest that SK never thought of
the connection!).
I'm sorry, Thornhill, but..."striking" similarities between
them? Could you be more specific? i cannot see much connection
between them...
I think that we can find some "modern" characteristics in
Kubrick, refering to form...most of the meaning in his films are
given by images, very self-counscious("this is s film", they
say, in a more or less dreamlike way). What I call meaning here
is a "visual" meaning, not a literary one. The pig man (or dog,
bear, whatever)in TS, for instance, 2001 ending, for instance.
They don't "explain" anything, but contribute to an atmosphere
and even work as independent images with a life of their own.
I'm thinking in modernism in painting...the "getting free of
literature in painting", that most modern artists wanted. It's
funny, even though all of SK films are based on books, almost
none of them (except, maybe, Lolita) are "literary" (in the
sense modernists said that, say, Messoinier's (or neoclasics, in
a general way) paintings were "literary").
Fernando
Fernando Burjato
this sense), or the most abstract...
Somebody wrote that "The Shinig" is "about watching 'The
Shining'", and I think the same could be said about FMJ or EWS.
I'm not saying that they have a story (very good ones, in my
opinion), but it seems that the story is submited on the images,
and not the opposite.
And I think that, although we can say that about almost all of
SK films, in theese thre it gets a more radical aspect...images
"building" the story, not exactly telling or revealing the
story...
vincent_p...@my-deja.com
Very interesting point, but I think it depends of which movies we talk
about. Some of his movies could be called modern, some postmodern...
Some are even at the meeting point of several sensibilities.
For example, the Shining (if that has been talked about already, sorry
in advance) If it is "modern" in some way, it is also "post..." in his
relecture of the genre, and maybe the two ways are linked with great
subtlety in this film -any thoughts?- (And also the two ways could be
seen as a funny echo of Jack's problem as a writer (Jack can't find
something really new to write, so he rewrites endlessly the same
phrase. Or maybe the contrary: he does find something new, and
his "book" is really "modern"...).
Very good thread, FMD
(and not a "coldly intellectual" discussion at all: the question
relates directly to the emotions that SK films give).
Vincent
> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion
Network *
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet -
Free!
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Thornhill
Thornhill
FMD
In article <152ea9d6...@usw-ex0101-006.remarq.com>,
Thornhill <cthornhil...@worldnet.att.net.invalid> wrote:
>Set within the milieu of the 20th C, is it easy to name any
>films by Kubrick, Chris Marker, Tarkovsky, Bunuel, Stroheim,
>etc. that were *not* given birth by this century's benchmark?
>(in the case of Bunuel, he was in the first generation of real
>Paris Modernism).
Quite true. It would be wrong to say that SK is the ONLY
modernist in film, surely. To really get down to the problem one
would have to consider the huge question of the relationship of
film generically to Modernism generically, which would include
the
question of the relationship of Modernism, especially as concerns
its avant-garde elements, to popular culture, and a host of other
big questions. Where does theater come in, for example? In the
40s and 50s, theater seemed to be the preferred mode of
contemporary art for intellectuals (Eliot's plays, Beckett,
Sartre, etc.), some time during the 60s, films seems to have
displaced theater in their affections. So granting that SK is a
Modernist, the question then becomes what is distinctive about
his
modernism -- is it mainly in the quality of the achievement, i.e.
is he just the greatest Modernist in film? Or can something more
elaborate be said, either about his aesthetic, formally, or in
terms of theme (or both)? How does SK's cinematic modernism
compare with that of some other film-makers you cited?
vincent_p...@my-deja.com
Fernando Burjato <fburjato...@zaz.com.br.invalid> wrote:
> Somebody wrote that "The Shinig" is "about watching 'The
> Shining'", and I think the same could be said about FMJ or EWS.
Do you know where this quote comes from?
Thanks in adavance,
Vincent
Gordon Dahlquist
> ..and maybe the last three SK's films are the most "modern" (in
> this sense), or the most abstract...
> Somebody wrote that "The Shinig" is "about watching 'The
> Shining'", and I think the same could be said about FMJ or EWS.
> I'm not saying that they have a story (very good ones, in my
> opinion), but it seems that the story is submited on the images,
> and not the opposite.
> And I think that, although we can say that about almost all of
> SK films, in theese thre it gets a more radical aspect...images
> "building" the story, not exactly telling or revealing the
> story...
I would say that, from 2001 on, the manner in which the "story" is told is
inextricable from the story's "content". for all that they each are
demonstrably "kubrick" films, the narrative structure is quite particular
to each film.
to me, it's this coupling of form and content (or form-as-content) that
marks kubrick as particularly modernist artist. it's his refusal of
irony as a legitimate end in itself that distances his work from
post-modernism. for all the scathing insight and yes, irony, in his work,
his vision as an artist is a passionate and moral one.
Thornhill
>compare with that of some other film-makers you cited?
Fine question, but..."No Time, No Time...Sit, sit!"
For later,
Thornhill
vincent_p...@my-deja.com
100...@watsol.cc.columbia.edu>,
Gordon Dahlquist <gd...@columbia.edu> wrote:
> to me, it's this coupling of form and content (or form-as-content)
that
> marks kubrick as particularly modernist artist. it's his refusal of
> irony as a legitimate end in itself that distances his work from
> post-modernism. for all the scathing insight and yes, irony, in his
work,
> his vision as an artist is a passionate and moral one.
>
I'm not sure I agree with you, Gordon: a postmodernist doesn't always
use irony as an end in itself. He can still have a very passionate and
moral vision, right?
FMD
In article <Pine.GSO.4.10.10006021652370.5346-
100...@watsol.cc.columbia.edu>, Gordon Dahlquist <
gd...@columbia.edu> wrote:
is told is
>inextricable from the story's "content".
form-as-content) that
>marks kubrick as particularly modernist artist.
I completely agree. But by analytically, artificially
distinguishing form from content, we might be able to see
precisely how they are inextricably joined.
>it's his refusal of irony as a legitimate end in itself that
distances his work from
>post-modernism. for all the scathing insight and yes, irony,
in his work,
>his vision as an artist is a passionate and moral one.
Again I tend to agree, but then, I'm not convinced there is any
such thing as postmodernism except as the attempt to make
something for "after" Modernism. The idea seems to be that
because Modernism became academically canonical, it has become
assimilated and domesticated and is somehow restrictive in the
way
the Modernists felt that Romanticism was, and so must be rebelled
against in turn. But HAS modernism really been assimilated?
Beckett and Wallace Stevens are usually regarded as "post"
Modernists with a little "p," in the sense that they come after
the High Modernists and inherit or build on their achievements.
But have we really assimilated Stevens? Have we even assimilated
the later Joyce? I'm not sure we've even assimilated Emily
Dickinson or Emerson. And have avowedly postmodern works truly
achieved anything distinctive? Obviously its too early to tell,
but in any case the "post" label seems premature except in a
strictly chronological sense.
Irony, though, is central to Modernism, though I notice I didn't
stress it in that list of Imagistic aesthetic elements I posted.
What passes for postmodernist irony sometimes seems closer to
cynicism. As for passionate and moral, yes, but never
sentimental
and moralistic.
FMD
In article <8h98av$a82$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, vincent_pappalardo@my-
deja.com wrote:
>For example, the Shining (if that has been talked about
already, sorry
>in advance) If it is "modern" in some way, it is also "post..."
in his
>relecture of the genre, and maybe the two ways are linked with
great
>subtlety in this film -any thoughts?
By "relecture" do you mean re-reading, that he is "commenting on"
the horror genre? If so I agree, but do not find that to be
especially post-modern -- we find it in ULYSSES and THE WASTE
LAND, etc. On the other hand, it's what SK is up to, not labels,
that matters, and that sort of ironic reflexivity isn't an
element
I stressed in the specifically IMAGISTIC theory of Modernism I
initially threw out. So maybe this points to the limitations of
that particular aesthetic and the need to allow for other
elements, especially irony and reflexivity (regardless of how we
may wish to label the latter).
Thornhill
who said it, but I believe there was a review in Film Commnet of
the time which had this line (roughly): "It's about Jack
Nicholson playing Jack Torrance playing Jack Torrance, King of
the Mountain".
And along this self-replicating line, the repeating of the
"unit" over and over is quite the focus of great gaggles of
other Modernists (whether fresco or vintage, knowing or un-):
Pinter, Borges, Gertrude Stein, Keaton, Braque, Magritte, the
Futurists, TSE, Nabokov, Reich (Steve and 3rd), Beckett,
Stevens, etc, etc, etc, etc. The list is etcetera, etcetera,
etcetera....................interminable.
Etcetera.
Can't recall who did the film circa 1924 of the washer woman in
Paris walking up the stairs (etcetera) but never arriving at the
top, a tape a tape loop a tape loop before anyone knew what a
tape loop was! (Leger?). Resnais and Conner and other late
personal filmmakers extended this "start now...end never"
effect. What better imagistic blast for the heart of the 20th
C.?
Thornhill
vincent_p...@my-deja.com
FMD <fmdolan...@socrates.berkeley.edu.invalid> wrote:
>
> In article <8h98av$a82$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, vincent_pappalardo@my-
> deja.com wrote:
> >For example, the Shining (if that has been talked about
> already, sorry
> >in advance) If it is "modern" in some way, it is also "post..."
> in his
> >relecture of the genre, and maybe the two ways are linked with
> great
> >subtlety in this film -any thoughts?
>
> By "relecture" do you mean re-reading, that he is "commenting on"
> the horror genre? If so I agree, but do not find that to be
> especially post-modern -- we find it in ULYSSES and THE WASTE
> LAND, etc.
Just "commenting on" wouldn't be; I'm talking about "re-playing" or "re-
making" in some way. Well, since the movie is at some kind of
intersection between "re-playing" the genre and making someting
completely new, it's a point one can argue.
Maybe I feel a postmodern side that's less in the *movie* than in Jack:
he is "re-playing, over-playing, over-over-playing..." himself; he does
an "over-parody" -do we say that?- of his madness (he does it so much,
we feel that all is going to explode), and in this way, there's IMO a
kind of relationship present-past that gives a postmodern feeling.
Do you see what I mean?
On the other hand, it's what SK is up to, not labels,
> that matters, and that sort of ironic reflexivity isn't an
> element
> I stressed in the specifically IMAGISTIC theory of Modernism I
> initially threw out. So maybe this points to the limitations of
> that particular aesthetic and the need to allow for other
> elements, especially irony and reflexivity (regardless of how we
> may wish to label the latter).
Do you speak about the limitations of which particular aesthetic?
(Sorry, my english is not great).
Gordon Stainforth
<B55DD84A.1A67%FlipB...@hotmail.com>, Flip My
Burger <FlipB...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Gordon
> >
> There are a lot of interesting and complicated
> theories here on the NG. In
> your observation how aware was SK of the these type
of
> ideas?
OK - deep breath - obviously everything I say here is
just my opinion and judgement, for what it is worth, and
others who knew him may disagree with me.
In answer to your first question I would say that SK was
very aware of ‘these type of ideas’, as you so carefully
word it. As a true artist he had a very wide range of
interests - just about as wide as it’s possible to be, I
reckon. He had a very sharp mind which seemed to be
able to absorb things very quickly, perhaps much of it
almost unconsciously. The very last thing he would ever
have done, I believe, is ‘study’ any philosophers and
psychologists like Nietzsche and Jung in any kind of
laborious, scholarly way. His creative life was just too
full, and I think the way he worked was just too intuitive.
I think he was someone who just ABSORBED things,
and then in a way transformed them.
> SK was obviously a very curious and intelligent man
> but, was he more of an
> intellectual or an instinctual artist?
Absolutely the latter, 100 per cent. Not an ‘intellectual’
at
all.
> For example would he have considered the above
idea?
I think he would have been fascinated and interested by
it, possibly a bit amused by the sheer earnest intensity
of it.
> Did he discuss films in these terms?
Absolutely never. In a funny kind of way I actually think it
‘went against the grain’ for him. As being all too
cerebral, with the danger of intellectual bullshit kind of
muddying the picture. (As so often happens here, of
course, with this NG)
I’ve said this several times before, but I was always
impressed by the way he would NEVER enter into any
kind of discussions about his films, let alone
intellectual ones. I’ve been in social situations where
he’s been keeping a remarkably low profile, when
someone has asked him some quite intellectual
question - as we often have on this NG - and he has
just shut up like a clam. Meaning: you won’t get
anything out of me, sorry ... let’s talk about something
else. Almost like a taboo subject.
> The picture of him that I get from the NG is of an
> autodidactic regular guy
> type. Similar to Woody Allen in some ways. Allen
> denies being an
> intellectual and says he prefers a night of spaghetti
> and basketball over
> intellectual arm-wrestling.
Autodidactic - absolutely right. Interesting what you say
about Woody Allen, because he has always struck me
as much more ‘intellectual’ than Stanley, and I, as a
Kubrick fan, would say that was one of WA’s
weaknesses. (His intellectual cleverness has quite
often smothered his cinematic cleverness)
> If you have addressed this line of questioning before
> please don't bother to
> respond.
> BTW, thanks for being here.
> Flip
I’m here because I am still absolutely fascinated by
Stanley and his work. It’s very hard to explain, but
although he was a rather quiet and totally
unpretensious person - often somewhat remote,
occasionally annoyingly so - he is still, in a rather subtle
way, the most interesting character I have ever met in
my life. SO unusual, an absolute one-off: multifaceted
and totally fascinating (I think I may have said
something like that before, but it’s about the only way I
can express it) Quiet, canny, with an incredible inner
toughness, and absolutely ruthlessly honest with
himself and what he had set out to do. Very calm and
very tough. Not overly impressed by the way many
people conduct themselves (which is probably why he
was so fond of animals). OK, I’ve said enough,
probably much more than enough!
FMD
In article <8h9h5e$gk2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, vincent_pappalardo@my-
deja.com wrote:
>Just "commenting on" wouldn't be; I'm talking about
"re-playing" or "re-
>making" in some way. Well, since the movie is at some kind of
>intersection between "re-playing" the genre and making someting
>completely new, it's a point one can argue.
>Maybe I feel a postmodern side that's less in the *movie* than
in Jack:
>he is "re-playing, over-playing, over-over-playing..." himself;
he does
>an "over-parody" -do we say that?- of his madness (he does it
so much,
>we feel that all is going to explode), and in this way, there's
IMO a
>kind of relationship present-past that gives a postmodern
feeling.
>Do you see what I mean?
I see what you mean with respect to Jack and the film, yes, I
think. Leaving aside the question of whether it is "postmodern,"
it is fascinating in itself. It is as if Jack is trying very
hard
to be Jack, and it reminds me of Sartre's description of "being a
waiter" in BEING AND NOTHINGNESS. The waiter he observes in the
cafe isn't just waiting on tables; he is "playing at" being a
waiter, and so is being a waiter in a manner that is
exaggerrated,
intensified, and for that reason a bit comical but also uncanny,
uncanniness being one thing we expect from ghosts and spirits and
revenants. It happens from the start. In the "interview" scene,
Jack is already playing at being a writer -- remember the overly-
casual way he corrects the hotel manager's assertion that he is a
teacher, with one of the oldest cliches there is: "teaching has
been just a way of making ends meet"; he's REALLY a writer. Then
as the caretaker he plays at being a writer (and in fact seems to
let Wendy do all the caretaker work that the manager had so
carefully explained to him). Then he decides to play at being
the
caretaker....
>Do you speak about the limitations of which particular
aesthetic?
I just meant, not the intrinsic limits of Imagism, but the limits
on its utility as a way of getting at SK's aesthetic. These
questions of irony and appropriation are of course simply HUGE,
and my instinct at present is to start small, with a crude
framing
device as it were, and then see what must be added to deal with
the subtleties and complexities.
Joe Berry
>A quick dive in....as for the "watching watching" I don't know
>who said it, but I believe there was a review in Film Comment of
>the time which had this line (roughly): "It's about Jack
>Nicholson playing Jack Torrance playing Jack Torrance, King of
>the Mountain".
I think that piece was by Frederick Jameson. If not, it at least echoes
similar observations made by Jameson around the same time ('81).
>Can't recall who did the film circa 1924 of the washer woman in
>Paris walking up the stairs (etcetera) but never arriving at the
>top, a tape a tape loop a tape loop before anyone knew what a
>tape loop was! (Leger?).
You are correct, sir: Fernand Leger, Ballet Mecanique (1924).
<jnb>
Gordon Stainforth
> > Gordon
> >
> There are a lot of interesting and complicated
> theories here on the NG. In
> your observation how aware was SK of the these type
of
> ideas?
I'M SENDING MY LAST MSG AGAIN!! I wrote in MS Word
and pasted it across, but it can't handle inverted
commas (I think it's mostly about Bill Gates versus the
Macintosh!) So my apologies. Let's try again! What I
said was:
OK - deep breath - obviously everything I say here is
just my opinion and judgement, for what it is worth, and
others who knew him may disagree with me.
In answer to your first question I would say that SK was
very aware of these 'type of ideas', as you so carefully
word it. As a true artist he had a very wide range of
interests - just about as wide as it's possible to be, I
reckon. He had a very sharp mind which seemed to be
able to absorb things very quickly, perhaps much of it
almost unconsciously. The very last thing he would ever
have done, I believe, is 'study' any philosophers and
psychologists like Nietzsche and Jung in any kind of
laborious, scholarly way. His creative life was just too
full, and I think the way he worked was just too intuitive.
I think he was someone who just ABSORBED things,
perhaps indirectly, and then in a way transformed them.
> SK was obviously a very curious and intelligent man
> but, was he more of an
> intellectual or an instinctual artist?
Absolutely the latter, 100 per cent. Not an 'intellectual'
at
all.
> For example would he have considered the above
idea?
I think he would have been fascinated and interested by
it, possibly a bit amused by the sheer earnest intensity
of it all.
> Did he discuss films in these terms?
Absolutely never. In a funny kind of way I actually think it
'went against the grain' for him. As being all too
cerebral, with the danger of intellectual bullshit kind of
muddying the picture. (As so often happens here, of
course, with this NG)
I've said this several times before, but I was always
impressed by the way he would NEVER enter into any
kind of discussions about his films, let alone
intellectual ones. I've been in social situations where
hes been keeping a remarkably low profile, when
someone has asked him some quite intellectual
question - as we often have on this NG - and he has
just shut up like a clam. Meaning: you wont get anything
out of me, sorry ... let's talk about something else.
Almost like a taboo subject.
> The picture of him that I get from the NG is of an
> autodidactic regular guy
> type. Similar to Woody Allen in some ways. Allen
> denies being an
> intellectual and says he prefers a night of spaghetti
> and basketball over
> intellectual arm-wrestling.
Autodidactic - absolutely right. Interesting what you say
about Woody Allen, because he has always struck me
as much more intellectual than Stanley, and I, as a
Kubrick fan, would say that was one of WA's
weaknesses. (i.e His intellectual cleverness has quite
often smothered his cinematic cleverness)
> If you have addressed this line of questioning before
> please don't bother to
> respond.
> BTW, thanks for being here.
> Flip
I'm here because I am still absolutely fascinated by
Stanley and his work. It's very hard to explain, but
although he was a rather quiet and totally
unpretensious person - often somewhat remote,
occasionally annoyingly so - he is still, in a rather subtle
way, the most interesting character I have ever met in
my life. SO unusual, an absolute one-off: multifaceted
and totally fascinating (I think I may have said
something like that before, but it's about the only way I
can express it) Quiet, canny, with an incredible inner
toughness, and absolutely ruthlessly honest with
himself and what he had set out to do. Very calm and
very tough. Not overly impressed by the way many
people conduct themselves (which is probably why he
was so fond of animals!). OK, I've said enough,
FMD
In article <8h9h5e$gk2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, vincent_pappalardo@my-
deja.com wrote:
>Just "commenting on" wouldn't be; I'm talking about
"re-playing" or "re-
>making" in some way. Well, since the movie is at some kind of
>intersection between "re-playing" the genre and making someting
>completely new, it's a point one can argue.
>Maybe I feel a postmodern side that's less in the *movie* than
in Jack:
>he is "re-playing, over-playing, over-over-playing..." himself;
he does
>an "over-parody" -do we say that?- of his madness (he does it
so much,
>we feel that all is going to explode), and in this way, there's
IMO a
>feeling.
One of Jameson's criteria for "postmodernism" is the absence of
historical depth, the elimination of past and future tenses in
favor of sheer, discontinuous presence. One way to do that, I
suppose, is to turn the present moment into a mere repetition, so
that past, present, and future, while still in some sense
recognized, become equivalent. Jack's way of "overplaying"
himself might contribute to something like that, I suppose. From
Jameson's point of view it wouldn't be parodic, because parody
requires a standard that is being abused and postmodernism is
supposed to have no awareness of standards, even as things to be
overcome -- Jameson says it is pastiche rather than parody. In a
way, Jack is a mere pastiche, but on the other hand we tend to
see
him as a failure (failed writer, husband, father), which argues
against the film's postmodernity (on Jameson's criteria).
Fernando Burjato
similarities with "Demoiselles d'Avignon". If the orgy scene
recalls some paintings, I wold say...a James Ensor one, maybe?
Fernando Burjato
"horror mivie" makes it a postmodern piece. Picasso, in
"Demoiselles D'Avignon" makes a sort of pastiche from the
traditional way of representing the nude, the use of colours,
and construction of volume. We can see it as a revisitation of
Ingres'nudes, if we will, and Picasso woldn't at all be a
postmodern.
Think that if there is really (i'm not quite sure)a distinction
between modern and post-modern, it's not in the act of re-
creating (which we find in Picasso, in Van Gogh, Joyce...), nor
in the use of parody itself (the surrealists, specially
Picabia), but in the meaning that the art of past have to the
artist. Picasso re-creates Ingres, David, Cranach, Poussin, but
he views himself attached to this tradition; the same we can say
about Joyce and Homer, Van Gogh and Milliet.
But when, for instance, Warhol quotes de Chirico, or Jeff Koons
re-creates 18th century's stauary, we can see that they're sort
(just a sort)of aliens to their culture, that they don't have
the same intimacy with them that the moderns had with their
inspirers.
Maybe post-modernists do what they want with tradition because
it doesn't mean much to them, while modernists do what they do
with tradition because it's a too heavy weight to them. That's a
difference.
well, I don't know if I made myself clear, but I think that I
would put Kubrick - and The Shining among Picasso or
Joyce...there's no distance between Kubrick and movie
tradition...
Fernando
P.S.
"(...)The Shining is really about nothing at all, (...) this is
a film about the experience of watching The Shining."
It's from an article called "Resident Phantoms", by Jonathan
Romney, in the "Sight and Sound" magazine, september 1999
FMD
In article <0065e208...@usw-ex0102-084.remarq.com>,
Fernando
Burjato <fburjato...@zaz.com.br.invalid> wrote:
>Think that if there is really (i'm not quite sure)a distinction
>between modern and post-modern, it's not in the act of re-
>creating (which we find in Picasso, in Van Gogh, Joyce...), nor
>in the use of parody itself (the surrealists, specially
>Picabia), but in the meaning that the art of past have to the
>artist. Picasso re-creates Ingres, David, Cranach, Poussin, but
>he views himself attached to this tradition; the same we can say
>about Joyce and Homer, Van Gogh and Milliet.
>
>But when, for instance, Warhol quotes de Chirico, or Jeff Koons
>re-creates 18th century's stauary, we can see that they're sort
>(just a sort)of aliens to their culture, that they don't have
>the same intimacy with them that the moderns had with their
>inspirers.
>
>Maybe post-modernists do what they want with tradition because
>it doesn't mean much to them, while modernists do what they do
>with tradition because it's a too heavy weight to them. That's a
>difference.
>
can be parodic, because it's reacting against a tradition that it
feels to be oppressive, while postmodernism is pastiche, because
tradition has been turned into mere information that is to be
manipulated in a pragmatic manner. (Though Jameson also says,
not
entirely consistently, that Modernism becomes a newly oppressive
cultural establishment.) So Warhol can use soup cans or de
Chiricos, and Lichtenstein can paint comics or Davids; it's all
the same to them, all raw material.
FMD
"coverings" act as subliminal stimulants of the violence that
Jack
eventually enacts: when things are covered up, one's impulse is
to raise the curtain, pull off the masks, hack through the veneer
-- in Jack's case, with an axe.
vincent_p...@my-deja.com
FMD <fmdolan...@socrates.berkeley.edu.invalid> wrote:
>
> In article <8h9h5e$gk2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, vincent_pappalardo@my-
> deja.com wrote:
>
> >Just "commenting on" wouldn't be; I'm talking about
> "re-playing" or "re-
> >making" in some way. Well, since the movie is at some kind of
> >intersection between "re-playing" the genre and making someting
> >completely new, it's a point one can argue.
> >Maybe I feel a postmodern side that's less in the *movie* than
> in Jack:
> >he is "re-playing, over-playing, over-over-playing..." himself;
> he does
> >an "over-parody" -do we say that?- of his madness (he does it
> so much,
> >we feel that all is going to explode), and in this way, there's
> IMO a
> feeling.
> >Do you see what I mean?
>
> I see what you mean with respect to Jack and the film, yes, I
> think. Leaving aside the question of whether it is "postmodern,"
> it is fascinating in itself. It is as if Jack is trying very
> hard
> to be Jack, and it reminds me of Sartre's description of "being a
> waiter" in BEING AND NOTHINGNESS. The waiter he observes in the
> cafe isn't just waiting on tables; he is "playing at" being a
> waiter, and so is being a waiter in a manner that is
> exaggerrated,
> intensified, and for that reason a bit comical but also uncanny,
> uncanniness being one thing we expect from ghosts and spirits and
> revenants. It happens from the start. In the "interview" scene,
> Jack is already playing at being a writer -- remember the overly-
> casual way he corrects the hotel manager's assertion that he is a
> teacher, with one of the oldest cliches there is: "teaching has
> been just a way of making ends meet"; he's REALLY a writer.
Exactly! This interview, regarding "Jack playing Jack...", has some
incredible tones in Jack's acting if one takes a real look at it:
watch Jack in the last sentence: "And, uh... as far as my wife is
concerned, huh...":
it's almost as if there's something in the air, he's veeeery slightly
overplaying, you wouldn't notice it... It's almost scary. If you were
in this room with them, you'd think "Wait a minute, something's wrong
here! They're playing their lines or what? It's a set-up!"
By the way, these "covers", or "coats" (is it english?) one upon the
other, appear to be what deeply inhabits the film, in its spirit:
"covers" of forgetting hide the hotel's evil past; "covers" are the
different images of different times that Danny sees when he's shining;
they make Jack over-act, like if he puts "an acting, upon an acting,
upon..."; the blood from the elevator recovers us; the sheets of snow;
even the walls and the doors look like they have too many coats of
painting; everything in the hotel's furniture is thick, heavy (and the
clothes too); even the Tex Avery lightning (in the Bear suit, and the
axe through the door scenes) give us subliminally the feeling
of "coated by cartoon colors"!
Flip My Burger
Very interesting. Thanks so much for your detailed response!
Flip
Home
gordonst...@globalnet.co.uk.invalid wrote on 00-06-03 02.33:
> In article
> <B55DD84A.1A67%FlipB...@hotmail.com>, Flip My
> Burger <FlipB...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Gordon
>>>
>> There are a lot of interesting and complicated
>> theories here on the NG. In
>> your observation how aware was SK of the these type
> of
>> ideas?
>
> OK - deep breath - obviously everything I say here is
> just my opinion and judgement, for what it is worth, and
> others who knew him may disagree with me.
>
> In answer to your first question I would say that SK was
> very aware of ‘these type of ideas’, as you so carefully
> word it. As a true artist he had a very wide range of
> interests - just about as wide as it’s possible to be, I
> reckon. He had a very sharp mind which seemed to be
> able to absorb things very quickly, perhaps much of it
> almost unconsciously. The very last thing he would ever
> have done, I believe, is ‘study’ any philosophers and
> psychologists like Nietzsche and Jung in any kind of
> laborious, scholarly way. His creative life was just too
> full, and I think the way he worked was just too intuitive.
> I think he was someone who just ABSORBED things,
> and then in a way transformed them.
>
>> SK was obviously a very curious and intelligent man
>> but, was he more of an
>> intellectual or an instinctual artist?
>
> Absolutely the latter, 100 per cent. Not an ‘intellectual’
> at
> all.
>
>> For example would he have considered the above
> idea?
>
> I think he would have been fascinated and interested by
> it, possibly a bit amused by the sheer earnest intensity
> of it.
>
>> Did he discuss films in these terms?
>
> Absolutely never. In a funny kind of way I actually think it
> ‘went against the grain’ for him. As being all too
> cerebral, with the danger of intellectual bullshit kind of
> muddying the picture. (As so often happens here, of
> course, with this NG)
>
> I’ve said this several times before, but I was always
> impressed by the way he would NEVER enter into any
> kind of discussions about his films, let alone
> intellectual ones. I’ve been in social situations where
> he’s been keeping a remarkably low profile, when
> someone has asked him some quite intellectual
> question - as we often have on this NG - and he has
> just shut up like a clam. Meaning: you won’t get
> anything out of me, sorry ... let’s talk about something
> else. Almost like a taboo subject.
>
>> The picture of him that I get from the NG is of an
>> autodidactic regular guy
>> type. Similar to Woody Allen in some ways. Allen
>> denies being an
>> intellectual and says he prefers a night of spaghetti
>> and basketball over
>> intellectual arm-wrestling.
>
> Autodidactic - absolutely right. Interesting what you say
> about Woody Allen, because he has always struck me
> as much more ‘intellectual’ than Stanley, and I, as a
> Kubrick fan, would say that was one of WA’s
> weaknesses. (His intellectual cleverness has quite
> often smothered his cinematic cleverness)
>
>> If you have addressed this line of questioning before
>> please don't bother to
>> respond.
>> BTW, thanks for being here.
>> Flip
>
> I’m here because I am still absolutely fascinated by
> Stanley and his work. It’s very hard to explain, but
> although he was a rather quiet and totally
> unpretensious person - often somewhat remote,
> occasionally annoyingly so - he is still, in a rather subtle
> way, the most interesting character I have ever met in
> my life. SO unusual, an absolute one-off: multifaceted
> and totally fascinating (I think I may have said
> something like that before, but it’s about the only way I
> can express it) Quiet, canny, with an incredible inner
> toughness, and absolutely ruthlessly honest with
> himself and what he had set out to do. Very calm and
> very tough. Not overly impressed by the way many
> people conduct themselves (which is probably why he
> was so fond of animals). OK, I’ve said enough,
> probably much more than enough!
>
> Gordon
>
>
Katharina once wrote that when SK would read an insightful analysis from a
fan he would say to his wife "Gee, I didn't know I was so smart".
Wonderful!
MA
FMD
In article <1ffcfa6b...@usw-ex0110-076.remarq.com>, Gordon
Stainforth <gordonst...@globalnet.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>Absolutely the latter, 100 per cent. Not an 'intellectual'
>at
>all.
I realize that you are presenting this based on your personal
observations, not as a comprehensive picture of SK. Even so I
wonder how to square this with the personality that appears in
interviews, and also in Michael Herr's memoirs, which seems to
delight in intellectual inquiry (and also I want to make sure I
understand you correctly). I wonder whether you would accept a
distinction between intellectuals (people who are in love with
ideas) and scholars (people who are not only in love with ideas
but who acquire and present systematic or formal knowledge of
them). Could SK have been an intellectual under this
description?
In Herr's memoirs, and also to some extent in those of the
despised Raphael, I often had the feeling that SK loved soaking
up
ideas from others, almost as if he were interested in getting a
sense of their density and texture and dynamics, as it were --
that knowing them in this way mattered to him more than
conceptual
or systematic understanding. This is an admirable approach to
knowledge, in my opinion -- it reminds me of Christie in John
Cowper Powys's WOLF SOLENT, if you know the novel. Perhaps the
attitude does include a certain suspicion of ideas, too, but
that's not unheard-of among intellectuals.
Is any of this at all consistent with what you were saying, or am
I off the rails?
I wonder too whether there wasn't development in this area --
whether SK went from the young, hyper-intellectual reader of
deterrence theory and cosmology of DS and 2001, to the more
intuitive investigator of the hidden and occulted and Dionysian
in
TS, FMJ, and EWS. Perhaps the turning-point is 2001, when he
rejects the overly analytical and literalistic Clark script and
goes for feeling instead.
vincent_p...@my-deja.com
Fernando Burjato <fburjato...@zaz.com.br.invalid> wrote:
> I wouldn't say that because of its naked woman and masks EWS has
> similarities with "Demoiselles d'Avignon".
If the orgy scene
> recalls some paintings, I wold say...a James Ensor one, maybe?
Yes, in the orgy. In general EWS recalls very much Paul Delvaux, don't
you think?
There are some paintings of him at
http://ucolick.org/~agp/delvaux.html
or
http://www.artchive.com/artchive/D/delvaux.html
vincent_p...@my-deja.com
vincent_p...@my-deja.com wrote:
> There are some paintings of him at
> http://ucolick.org/~agp/delvaux.html
Sorry, www.ucolick.org...
Gordon Stainforth
FMD <fmdolan...@socrates.berkeley.edu.invalid>
wrote:
>
> In article <1ffcfa6b...@usw-ex0110-076.remarq.com>,
Gordon
> Stainforth <gordonst...@globalnet.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
> >Absolutely the latter, 100 per cent. Not an 'intellectual'
> >at
> >all.
>
> I realize that you are presenting this based on your personal
> observations, not as a comprehensive picture of SK. Even so I
> wonder how to square this with the personality that appears in
> interviews, and also in Michael Herr's memoirs, which seems to
> delight in intellectual inquiry (and also I want to make sure I
> understand you correctly). I wonder whether you would accept a
> distinction between intellectuals (people who are in love with
> ideas) and scholars (people who are not only in love with ideas
> but who acquire and present systematic or formal knowledge of
> them). Could SK have been an intellectual under this
> description?
Maybe, just. But I still dont think it’s quite right because it’s become
too vague. I mean, I think there’s a distinction between intellectual
ideas and artistic ideas. Stanley seemed to be much more in love
with the art of the film - with visual imagery and stories with
mythic/timeless themes (and to some extent with ‘musical and
poetic emotions’) - than with intellectual theories and arguments.
Of course SK had an intellectual side to him, but I would not
therefore describe him as an intellectual, any more than I would
describe him as a chess player because he played chess, or a
marksman because he was in a local shooting club. Actually I’d
sooner describe him as those, because those were activities he
took part in, whereas I never ever saw him as it were ‘wearing the
hat’ of an intellectual e.g discussing intellectual theories about
movie-making. In other words, he never seemed remotely like a
university don or even a lecturer. He tended to keep his intellectual
ideas very much to himself (perhaps as a deliberate secret ... his
political views being a good example). In another walk of life I can
imagine him much more as a ‘mad’ scientist than an academic
philosopher, or a military general rather than a politician.
Of course it’s possible that between movies, and very much in
private, he opened up on these issues, but I doubt it. Generally
speaking, he would not be drawn, and preferred other people to
discuss his work.
I know that he took an enormous amount of care with the few
interviews he gave, and as far as I know these were never verbal
but were always written answers to written questions, and that he
spent a lot of time editing them.
> In Herr's memoirs, and also to some extent in those of the
> despised Raphael, I often had the feeling that SK loved soaking
> up
> ideas from others, almost as if he were interested in getting a
> sense of their density and texture and dynamics, as it were --
> that knowing them in this way mattered to him more than
> conceptual
> or systematic understanding.
I think here you are absolutely spot on. I couldnt have expressed it
better myself. As an artist he was a great observer and absorber. I
think the phrase ‘texture and dynamics’ is very good.
>This is an admirable approach to
> knowledge, in my opinion -- it reminds me of Christie in John
> Cowper Powys's WOLF SOLENT, if you know the novel. Perhaps
the
> attitude does include a certain suspicion of ideas, too, but
> that's not unheard-of among intellectuals.
I havent read Wolf Solent (perhaps I should now!) I think he was
certainly suspicious of learned and academic intellectual analysis,
but it would be truer to add ‘but that’s not unheard-of among
ARTISTS’. I think like many artists he liked the fact that his work
could be interpreted in a wide range of ways.
>
> Is any of this at all consistent with what you were saying, or am
> I off the rails?
No, your comment about ‘soaking up ideas’ is very consistent with
what I was saying. Not ‘off the rails’ ... no ... but I think maybe you
are trying to put him on the wrong rails - or, to push the metaphor,
to put him on to rails of the wrong guage. Actually, on second
thoughts, I think the whole concept of ‘rails’ (neat, linear, clear-cut)
would have been an anathema to him - it seems to me that he
was much more interested in paradoxes and riddles, and in the
contradictions and self-destructive follies of human nature. Or to
put it more grandly, in the darker and least understood aspects of
the ‘human condition’.
>
> I wonder too whether there wasn't development in this area --
> whether SK went from the young, hyper-intellectual reader of
> deterrence theory and cosmology of DS and 2001, to the more
> intuitive investigator of the hidden and occulted and Dionysian
> in
> TS, FMJ, and EWS. Perhaps the turning-point is 2001, when he
> rejects the overly analytical and literalistic Clark script and
> goes for feeling instead.
Again, for the reasons I’ve said, I think ‘hyper-intellectual’ is a bit
strong ... maybe in the context of Hollywood he might have been
seen that way! But I believe he was ALWAYS suspicious of the
‘over-analytical’, as you put it.
Gordon
--
Gordon Stainforth
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~gordonst
Thornhill
think) superb points, and surprisingly they ALL fit together,
despite apparent disjunction (we are talking about Modernism,
aren't we?). Stanley is neither "an intellectual" (that phrase,
unhappily a disreputable pigeonhole at least since the McCarthy
era), nor 'just' "an artist", but something of both, in between
and other. As a filmmaker, you are unlikely to get ahead in any
way whatsoever with "nominalizations" and Raphaelian 'horn-tooty-
lage'. Oh, it can be fun, sure, but seriously!...it just is NG,
mostly (that's *not* 'News Group' for you AMK'ers). And to try
to 'explain' to your compatriots just what you are doing, or
think you are doing, is futile...almost utterly hopeless and
self-defeating. Often, if there is some 'scheme' you want to
explore in a film and you see clearly that you want to engage
with that 'thing', you set sail for it...then, HOLY MOLY!...you
find it has become a Protean-battle (that's for Frederic!!). It
shifts and squirms, it twists, it is unbeatable and intransigent
and appalling. The only choice then is to retrench or change
settings somewhat. Maximum flexibility is 'The Password, Sir'.
If you want to nail the Protean, expect to spend much time,
life, sweat and tears (hopefully, not too much blood). SO much
gets thrown out, yet SO much is perversely discovered through
that very same ejection! THAT is a substantial part of the
process, even if it starts with a "splendid" idea. Hopefully,
the idea can survive the creating of it, the shooting of it,
etc., and will flourish beyond merely the 'completion' of it.
I imagine, and there are confirmations and rejections on every
side, that Stanley "clamed-up" simply because it was counter-
productive not to do so. Second nature. Talkative chess-
player? What's that? Everyone has there own interpretations
whether of words from a director (or elsewise) or from that
director's film. Even here on this NG, long, gruelling and
foolish debates over "Stanley Kubrick: Saint or Monster??"
(wasn't that a headline in the Inquirer??) have sadly tested and
even sapped energy, time, patience and devotion. One can hardly
trust that people have your precise experience, or that they are
psychic and you can just "beam" them, whether audience or
collaborators. This is partly why Stanley seems, to me, more
often like a clay-sculptor rather than simply a filmmaker: a
sculptor of artistic/emotive/idea worlds that move well beyond
what most filmmakers consider acceptable results. Here, in the
"post-art" world, this NG (that's 'News Group' for you
shooters), there can be plenty of lively discussion (mostly, one
hopes!) but in the "art world" - the making, the doing - that
seems to me ALL, and that which only *follows* reflection, not
which preceeds it.
Here, a little interpretive theory - just mine, mind! - and
nothing new at all - is that the difference between theory and
action is often such an abysmal and yawning gulf that it is VERY
easy not to see any connection whatever. The things I learned
at university re: film were good for a little something, but
mostly for me to understand that the actual MAKING (in the 'real
world') was *completely* different and divorced from the
THINKING and TALKING and WATCHING. And in the industry, the
knowledge from school was almost nothing but a hindrance to be
jettisoned as swiftly as possible.
I suspect the above 'analysis' of Theory and Action, slender as
it may be, applies in every way to Stanley's films:
How many is enough?:
"The Killing" -
1) The Plan,
2) "What's the difference?"
"Dr. Strangelove" -
1) "I am not going to go down in history as the greatest mass
murderer since Adolph Hitler!,
2) "Mein Fuhrer! I can WALK!"
"2001" -
1) "I am a HAL-9000 computer...",
2) "Just a moment...just a moment..."
"Barry Lyndon" -
1) "...but of tomorrow and all the wonders it would bring",
2) "I have not received satisfaction"
"The Shining" -
1) "My wife's a confirmed ghost story and horror film addict",
2) "Great Party, isn't it??"
"Full Metal Jacket" -
1) "...and you will ALL be able to do the same thing!",
2) "I want you to listen, and listen good!"
One could say that these 'versals' and 'reversals' are the very
substance of his films (but, nothing new there. See Herakleitos
for 'theory').
A late note. Whether "intellectual", "scholar" or "artist",
seems to me the Playboy interview is unique in the astounding
range of his thought and the acuteness he has brought to the
life of the mind and life of art. Thank God he has given for us
to share (or, if you're not of that bent, "Thanks, Stan!").
Thornhill
vincent_p...@my-deja.com
Gordon Stainforth <gord...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
But I still dont think it’s quite right because it’s become
> too vague. I mean, I think there’s a distinction between intellectual
> ideas and artistic ideas. Stanley seemed to be much more in love
> with the art of the film - with visual imagery and stories with
> mythic/timeless themes (and to some extent with ‘musical and
> poetic emotions’) - than with intellectual theories and arguments.
>
I unserstand what you say, but personally I don't think that it's
*necessarely* vague: my personal opinion on the subject of Intellect
vs. Art (independently of the man SK) is that there are two ways of
approaching art by "thinking" (a certain way of thinking) and by using
words:
the first way is to try to have a better understanding (but in the
sense "feeling", not "intellectual comprehension") of an artwork, by
using words at the SERVICE of emotion, at the service of the artwork
(the artwork which is BEYOND words and intellect).
the second way (the bad way IMO) is to try to reduce the artwork to a
simple intellectual discourse (of course if he just wants to say a
discourse, why a filmmaker would make a movie instead of just saying
the discourse loud to the crowd).
Well sometimes, the borderline between the two ways can even be thin.
To me, art is here to "drive us mad" (to disorientate us, put us in a
state of fascination, bewilderment), but that doesn't mean one can not
approach art also by thinking and talking.
Words (which are here to *orientate*) are used in a good way if they
participate to lead us MORE to the disorientation of art, to its
confusion (I mean a good confusion, like when you're in love).
I have -personally, I don't mean it as a rule- a much deepest "above-
words" fascination for some artworks (not all, but some) because I have
*thought* about them.
Any opinions about this?
Vincent
Thornhill
one-to-one correlation. Just a connection.
>Maybe post-modernists do what they want with tradition because
>it doesn't mean much to them,
A fine sentence fragment summary of post-modernism. But there's
an anomaly I want to tackle here:
Though modernists often parodied and 're-fashioned' art that
came before, there was, minimally, the Futurists and avante-
gardists in the Soviet Union who looked upon venerable art with
the same contempt Little Alex looks upon an old drunkie: Just as
soon look at you as kill you.
Some (extended) extracts from The Futurist Manifesto and bouncy,
Clockwork fun and good for lashings of the old
Ultraviolence...at least for Mansonian [Marilyn] teeny-boppers!
F. T. Marinetti, 1909:
`Come, my friends!' I said. `Let us go! At last Mythology and
the mystic cult of the ideal have been left behind. We are going
to be present at the birth of the centaur and we shall soon see
the first angels fly! We must break down the gates of life to
test the bolts and the padlocks! Let us go! Here is they very
first sunrise on earth! Nothing equals the splendor of its red
sword which strikes for the first time in our millennial
darkness.'
We drove on, crushing beneath our burning wheels, like shirt-
collars under the iron, the watch dogs on the steps of the
houses.
Death, tamed, went in front of me at each corner offering me his
hand nicely, and sometimes lay on the ground with a noise of
creaking jaws giving me velvet glances from the bottom of
puddles.
`Let us leave good sense behind like a hideous husk and let us
hurl ourselves, like fruit spiced with pride, into the immense
mouth and breast of the world! Let us feed the unknown, not from
despair, but simply to enrich the unfathomable reservoirs of the
Absurd!'
As I raised my body, mud-spattered and smelly, I felt the red
hot poker of joy deliciously pierce my heart.
Then with my face covered in good factory mud, covered with
metal scratches, useless sweat and celestial grime, amidst the
complaint of staid fishermen and angry naturalists, we dictated
our first will and testament to all the living men on earth.
MANIFESTO OF FUTURISM
*We want to sing the love of danger, the habit of energy and
rashness.
*The essential elements of our poetry will be courage, audacity
and revolt.
*Literature has up to now magnified pensive immobility, ecstasy
and slumber. We want to exalt movements of aggression, feverish
sleeplessness, the double march, the perilous leap, the slap and
the blow with the fist.
*We declare that the splendor of the world has been enriched by
a new beauty: the beauty of speed. A racing automobile with its
bonnet adorned with great tubes like serpents with explosive
breath ... a roaring motor car which seems to run on machine-gun
fire, is more beautiful than the Victory of Samothrace.
*There is no masterpiece that has not an aggressive character.
*Poetry must be a violent assault on the forces of the unknown,
to force them to bow before man.
*We are on the extreme promontory of the centuries! What is the
use of looking behind at the moment when we must open the
mysterious shutters of the impossible? Time and Space died
yesterday. We are already living in the absolute, since we have
already created eternal, omnipresent speed.
*We want to glorify war - the only cure for the world -
militarism, patriotism, the destructive gesture of the
anarchists, the beautiful ideas which kill, and contempt for
woman.
*We want to demolish museums and libraries, fight morality,
feminism and all opportunist and utilitarian cowardice.
It is in Italy that we are issuing this manifesto of ruinous and
incendiary violence, by which we today are founding Futurism,
because we want to deliver Italy from its gangrene of
professors, archaeologists, tourist guides and antiquaries.
Italy has been too long the great second-hand market. We want to
get rid of the innumerable museums which cover it with
innumerable cemeteries.
Museums, cemeteries! Truly identical in their sinister
juxtaposition of bodies that do not know each other. Public
dormitories where you sleep side by side for ever with beings
you hate or do not know. Reciprocal ferocity of the painters and
sculptors who murder each other in the same museum with blows of
line and color. To make a visit once a year, as one goes to see
the graves of our dead once a year, that we could allow! We can
even imagine placing flowers once a year at the feet of the
Gioconda! But to take our sadness, our fragile courage and our
anxiety to the museum every day, that we cannot admit! Do you
want to poison yourselves? Do you want to rot?
What can you find in an old picture except the painful
contortions of the artist trying to break uncrossable barriers
which obstruct the full expression of his dream?
To admire an old picture is to pour our sensibility into a
funeral urn instead of casting it forward with violent spurts of
creation and action. Do you want to waste the best part of your
strength in a useless admiration of the past, from which you
will emerge exhausted, diminished, trampled on?
Indeed daily visits to museums, libraries and academies (those
cemeteries of wasted effort, calvaries of crucified dreams,
registers of false starts!) is for artists what prolonged
supervision by the parents is for intelligent young men, drunk
with their own talent and ambition.
For the dying, for invalids and for prisoners it may be all
right. It is, perhaps, some sort of balm for their wounds, the
admirable past, at a moment when the future is denied them. But
we will have none of it, we, the young, strong and living
Futurists!
Let the good incendiaries with charred fingers come! Here they
are! Heap up the fire to the shelves of the libraries! Divert
the canals to flood the cellars of the museums! Let the glorious
canvases swim ashore! Take the picks and hammers! Undermine the
foundation of venerable towns!
The oldest among us are not yet thirty years old: we have
therefore at least ten years to accomplish our task. When we are
forty let younger and stronger men than we throw us in the waste
paper basket like useless manuscripts! They will come against us
from afar, leaping on the light cadence of their first poems,
clutching the air with their predatory fingers and sniffing at
the gates of the academies the good scent of our decaying
spirits, already promised to the catacombs of the libraries.
They will crowd around us, panting with anguish and
disappointment, and exasperated by our proud indefatigable
courage, will hurl themselves forward to kill us, with all the
more hatred as their hearts will be drunk with love and
admiration for us. And strong healthy Injustice will shine
radiantly from their eyes. For art can only be violence,
cruelty, injustice.
The oldest among us are not yet thirty, and yet we have already
wasted treasures, treasures of strength, love, courage and keen
will, hastily, deliriously, without thinking, with all our
might, till we are out of breath.
Look at us! We are not out of breath, our hearts are not in the
least tired. For they are nourished by fire, hatred and speed!
Does this surprise you? it is because you do not even remember
being alive! Standing on the world's summit, we launch once more
our challenge to the stars!
Your objections? All right! I know them! Of course! We know just
what our beautiful false intelligence affirms: `We are only the
sum and the prolongation of our ancestors,' it says. Perhaps!
All right! What does it matter? But we will not listen! Take
care not to repeat those infamous words! Instead, lift up your
head!
Standing on the world's summit we launch once again our insolent
challenge to the stars!
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, Marinetti did have at least 10 years, but the best of the
Futurists, Boccioni at the top, were all "cured" in glorious war
about 5 years later. That pretty well put the kabosh on the
Futurists. They popped up a while later, those who survived, as
Mussolini's fascisti. What the Great War couldn't tame, the Un-
Great War taught.
To some of the Modernists, there was respect not merely for the
art of the past, but simply the past. The Futurists were
talented, but rather like Droogies - Just cut off the face of
the world and "What a glorious feeling! I'm haaaa-pppeeee
again!!!". Many of the 'post-modernists' (Chris Burden,
Warhol,etc.) begin to resemble their dawning century
predecessors. In that sense, they begin to peel-off from
resemblance to Eliot, Joyce, Woolf and other 'modernists', etc.
Thornhill
In article <0065e208...@usw-ex0102-084.remarq.com>,
Fernando Burjato <fburjato...@zaz.com.br.invalid> wrote:
>I don't think that the fact that The Shining revisits the genre
>"horror mivie" makes it a postmodern piece. Picasso, in
>"Demoiselles D'Avignon" makes a sort of pastiche from the
>traditional way of representing the nude, the use of colours,
>and construction of volume. We can see it as a revisitation of
>Ingres'nudes, if we will, and Picasso woldn't at all be a
>postmodern.
>Think that if there is really (i'm not quite sure)a distinction
>between modern and post-modern, it's not in the act of re-
>creating (which we find in Picasso, in Van Gogh, Joyce...), nor
>in the use of parody itself (the surrealists, specially
>Picabia), but in the meaning that the art of past have to the
>artist. Picasso re-creates Ingres, David, Cranach, Poussin, but
>he views himself attached to this tradition; the same we can say
>about Joyce and Homer, Van Gogh and Milliet.
>
>But when, for instance, Warhol quotes de Chirico, or Jeff Koons
>re-creates 18th century's stauary, we can see that they're sort
>(just a sort)of aliens to their culture, that they don't have
>the same intimacy with them that the moderns had with their
>inspirers.
>
>Maybe post-modernists do what they want with tradition because
>it doesn't mean much to them, while modernists do what they do
>with tradition because it's a too heavy weight to them. That's a
>difference.
>
>well, I don't know if I made myself clear, but I think that I
>would put Kubrick - and The Shining among Picasso or
>Joyce...there's no distance between Kubrick and movie
>tradition...
>
>Fernando
>
>P.S.
>
>"(...)The Shining is really about nothing at all, (...) this is
>a film about the experience of watching The Shining."
>
>It's from an article called "Resident Phantoms", by Jonathan
>Romney, in the "Sight and Sound" magazine, september 1999
>
>
FMD
Stainforth makes just the right point: that SK's ratiocination
was subordinated to his art. Clearly, if SK lived for IDEAS
mainly, he'd have been a writer, not a film-maker. Which reminds
me: I'm intrigued by GS's observation that SK did his interviews
in writing. Nabokov followed the same policy, even more
rigorously, I suspect, than Kubrick - I've read a few interviews
that at least APPEAR to have been spontaneous (perhaps they were
edited later). I wonder whether there's a connection?
Rod Munday
Xref: news.demon.co.uk alt.movies.kubrick:73604
Path:
news.demon.co.uk!demon!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!nntp.news.xara.net!xara.net!gxn.net!diablo.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!newsfeed.icl.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.he.net!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!sn-inject-01!WReNclone!WReNphoon3.POSTED!WReN!not-for-mail
X-Originating-Host: 128.32.100.200
Organization: http://www.remarq.com: The World's Usenet/Discussions
Start Here
Subject: SK and Modernism
From: FMD <fmdolan...@socrates.berkeley.edu.invalid>
Newsgroups: alt.movies.kubrick
FMD, this is a great post even if my need to contest some of it is
equally as great it seems:-)
>>On "Jung and EWS," the topic of SK in relation to Modernism and Postmodernism arose. It's not that I want to fight over whether SK's work is or isn't modernist or postmodernist, mainly because postmodernism is such an ill-defined (or, more generously, fluid and dynamic) notion that the debate would quickly become merely terminological. But I'll throw out a way of seeing SK's work as a continuation, or perhaps perfection, of the original "High Modernist" project, and see what happens.<<
Is post-modernism ill defined as opposed to modernism? When the latter
is used to describe such a wide variety of artistic, architectural, as
well as social and even scientific ideologies spanning the late 19th
century to this one. Now if that isn't ill defined, I don't know what
is!
I think modernism is better defined (perhaps) as a sensibility rather
than a movement. i.e. it was an attitude so prevalent in 20th century
thought that its assumptions were largely felt intuitively rather than
thought consciously. This sensibility was predicated on the
unprecedented social and technological changes brought about by the
industrial revolution in the mid 19th century and not on manifestos or
philosophical treatises - these only came later, as intellectuals tried
to articulate the currents of change buffeting their age. Just to pick
two examples of technological change that illustrate the strength of
industrialisation's impact on the human psyche...... The invention of
the reproducible object (for instance the Ford Model T car) through mass
production: that led to the demise of the craftsman, and the invention
of photography: that led to a marginalisation of representational art,
(Remember, the artist was the only means - before photography - by
which people could store and retrieve visual memories).
So what are the main features of a “modern” sensibility?
1/ Modernists put their faith in certain truths which they considered
self-evident and unquestionable. Science as a means of understanding the
universe and a faith in progress etc. But their relationship to truth
was always pragmatic: unlike religious truths which were served by a
devout and unquestioning following, modernist truths were things which
served primarily the modernists and their needs - i.e. scientific truths
brought forth technological success which led to the improved quality of
material existence, and cosmological/psychological truths that could, it
was hoped, be used to cancel out the modernist’s need to believe in
anything greater than himself. This inward-looking "faith" was also
present in much of the work of the modern art movement with its emphasis
on subjectivity and feeling rather than in depicting the world..... the
importance of the artist in his painting.
2/ The post-modern theorist Lyotard I think perceptively identified
several disparate tendencies in modernism as manifestations of its
reliance on grand or meta-narratives. One Grand Narrative is a
Modernists unshakeable belief in technological progress. This, on closer
examination , is revealed to be rather naive act of faith - fulfilling a
quasi-religious function, the positive side of this faith was its
promise to extend the powers of the human body through technology (see
McLuhan) the negative was expressed through repressive agencies which
acted upon the body (see Foucault). Related to his belief in progress
was the modernist's belief in a meaningful pattern to history. This
emerged out of enlightenment thinking, specifically Hegel's notion of
the human goal of absolute knowledge (Marx later paid ironical homage to
Hegel with his theories of dialectical materialism and historicism).
3/ A modernist aesthetic distrusted any kind of embellishment, be it
rhetorical in literature, romantic in music, or decorative in
architecture and so on. The modern mantra of "function before form"
resulted in an aesthetic which was stripped down and, ironically,
primitive (for example; compare some of Picasso’s work with African
sculpture). Perhaps modern architecture can be defined as architecture
after Freud as everyone suddenly realised just what all those domes and
spires were really saying!! The resultant stripping away of layers of
symbolic meaning from buildings - the gargoyles of the unconscious -
created modern architecture: objects which was transparent in terms of
meaning; functional in terms of design - Machines for living in.
4/ The invention of the “individual” and “society” as the dominant
metaphors for our time. It is hard to image that these concepts just
didn’t exist before the industrial revolution but this is in fact the
case. Nature is another totally modern concept, as people had to be
separated from it, living in towns, in order to develop their
sentimentalised love of fresh air and countryside. Even
totalitarianism, the modern equivalent of despotism, can be seen as an
ironic homage to individualism because of its strong need to suppress
individual thinking at all costs.
>>I'm thinking, at this initial stage, in crudely generic terms. By "modernism" I mean the cultural matrix created in the wake of Marx, Nietzsche, Freud, Frazer, and the Great War, and in particular the early works of say Joyce, Woolf, Eliot, Pound, Stein, H.D., Williams, Stravinsky, Schonberg, Picasso, and Braque. <<
Not forgetting French impressionist Paul Cezanne who first questioned
that the reality of things external to the mind could be represented in
art because he argued representation had to account for the possibility
of >doubt< that the artist sees things as they really are. Cezanne’s
work influenced all the other painters you mention . Also Einstein,
whose Special theory of Relativity (pub 1905) effectively cancelled out
the objective view of time and space as immutable and absolute which had
dominated since the time of Newton. I really disagree that Frazer is
modernist btw - The Golden Bough, at least, seems as modern as Thomas
Carlisle!!
>>More particularly, I'm thinking of Pound's early formulation of his modernist project as "Imagism." Consider its tenets: (1) opposition to the sentimental or emotionally manipulative and mannered, preference for singular images that are sharp, clear, arresting, and immediate; (2) opposition to traditional narrative and verse form in favor of "free verse," fragmentation, disjunction, juxtaposition, and freedom of choice in subjects and means; (3) [related to (1)] minimalist aesthetic, preference for economy of means, terseness, precision; (4) all of this seen as being in the service of freeing the creative energies of the artist from the restrictions of past forms so as to create images that are fresh, satisfying, and alive and that stimulate fresh responses in the reader/viewer.<<
You have IMO distorted the Imagist Manifesto to fit your needs here?
Imagism as Pound envisioned it was concerned entirely with modernising
poetry, the main tenants of it were:
I. Direct treatment of the "thing," whether subjective or objective.
2. To use absolutely no word that does not contribute to the
presentation.
3. As regarding rhythm: to compose in sequence of the musical phrase,
not in sequence of the metronome.
Here's a section from the Imagist manifesto: (See
http://poetry.about.com/arts/poetry/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://dept.english.upenn.edu/~afilreis/Alumverse/imagism-def.html).
Which seems to confirm that its major concerns were not those that you
mentioned - this is not to say of course that they were not in the
manifesto (I haven’t read the entire document) but I think there is
enough evidence here to suggest that they were minor points.
1. To use the language of common speech, but to employ the exact
word, not the nearly-exact, nor the merely decorative word.
2. We believe that the individuality of a poet may often be better
expressed in free verse than in conventional forms. In poetry, a new
cadence means a new idea.
3. Absolute freedom in the choice of subject.
4. To present an image. We are not a school of painters, but we
believe that poetry should render particulars exactly and not deal in
vague generalities, however magnificent and sonorous. It is for this
reason that we oppose the cosmic poet, who seems to us to shirk the real
difficulties of his art.
5. To produce a poetry that is hard and clear, never blurred nor
indefinite.
6. Finally, most of us believe that concentration is of the very
essence of poetry.
>>This seems to serve rather well at least to a good first approximation to SK's aesthetic. The general cultural atmosphere that SK imbibed was broadly existentialist and absurdist, and that is within the general family of concerns we associate with Nietzsche, Freud, and the rest. He eschews sentimentalism and the "feelgood" approach to film, and follows a broadly experimental, eclectic path with respect to means (nothing is automatically ruled out or in). He favors image over discourse or narrative, and his images have the immediacy and crispness and autonomy one associates with an Imagist aesthetic. He relies too on juxtaposition and fragmentation. Like the Modernist-Imagist classics, his films often seem to consist of several "non-submersible elements" that are juxtaposed as series rather than linked in a conventionally narrative form, and the elements have the minimalist sense one finds in Imagism.<<
I think the parts of the imagist manifest you have chosen to quote are
good descriptions of SK’s aesthetic, but I find it hard to believe that
SK would have be influenced directly by it, although I don’t think for a
moment that was what you were actually suggesting - TS Eliot’s Wasteland
is a famous example of an Imagist influenced poem - incidentally it was
annotated by Pound.
I like you find a strong modernist sensibility in Kubrick’s work, there
is certainly not the feeling of - "nothing is true everything is
permitted" that characterises much of post modernism. But there is also
a strong scepticism of, if you like, the “metaphysics” of modernism in
especially regarding technology and human progress, which can be read
almost a critique of untrammelled optimism of the modernist movement.
Kubrick was always away in the down side of the modernist movement, the
flaws in human nature that were magnified without the controlling
influence of a living God. This could not go unnoticed I think to any
Jew living in the 20th century. However I think that behind the surface
scepticism lurks a very powerful humanism in Kubrick that means that all
his work, on one level, can take on the form of a cautionary Fable -
that rather trite conclusion should be set against Kubrick tendency to
favour ambiguity of meaning, I think ultimately his possible sympathy
for certain theories and approaches over others was subordinated by an
instinctive grasp of the truth of a situation emerging even as the
cameras rolled perhaps.
Regards, Rod Munday
FMD
It reminds me that the term Modernism can cause as much trouble
as
Postmodernism. Outside literary circles, modernism, or rather
modernity, refers of course to everything that has happened since
the 17th century or so to destroy the pre-modern, and create the
modern, world, economically, socially, culturally, etc. I was
thinking in a much narrower sense: Modernism as a literary
movement, and specifically Imagism. As you point out, the latter
was meant as a way to do poetry, and I didn't mean to deny that.
All I want to do is use it for the purposes of getting at what we
might call the poetics of SK's body of work. (And in all
humility
I must say that I think the crude little summary of Imagism that
I
posted is a reasonably faithful presentation of the fuller
version
you cite - I was working from memory but by God I think I got it
right!)
You cite The Waste Land as Imagistic. Another famous example is
the bit from Pound's "In a Station of the Metro": "The
apparition
of these faces in the crowd, / Petals on a wet, black bough." To
me, this little metaphor bears a promising resemblance to many of
SK's most memorable cinematic moments, such that, for example, I
wouldn't hesitate to characterize the jump-cut from bone-weapon
to
earth orbiter in 2001 "Imagistic." Can anyone think of further
examples? Or counter-examples?
Thornhill
nothing slips, no regrets. My understanding is that may be why,
mostly, there were no interviews past the '60's: the mag or
whatever would neither submit to the requirement, or simply
didn't think it was worth the time and trouble. I don't guess
Stanley was unhappy with that Executive Decision.
Thornhill
Thornhill
>us in a >state of fascination, bewilderment)
One-half. But it is also, though it is not often mentioned, to
provide connection with health. The really good stuff, the
stuff that screws you up good and right, is usually the best -
the most challenging, the most rewarding and the most like a
kind of shadow for life (well, as long as stock runs through
sprockets, it actually *is* a shadow!). But then, Aristotle had
a word or two on this. I don't think that he used the word
"homeopathy" though. Associated idea. No one has ever set
straight just why "fear & pity" are used to purge disorder and
produce the opposite of madness, a kind of harmony. So, tragedy
becomes a medicine. So too with comedy (but leaving out the
pity and fear, usually). How these things work is quite a
mystery (maybe it got cleared up in the Comedy section of the
discourse. A lost Holy Grail).
Fernando Burjato
I don't like the idea of artist/critic as necessarely an
opposition, and I think you're right when you say that talking -
or criticizing - about a film (or any work of art)doesn't mean
putting it as if it were a discourse of ideas, only.
("the first way is to try to have a better understanding (but in
the sense "feeling", not "intellectual comprehension") of an
artwork, by using words at the SERVICE of emotion, at the
service of the artwork (the artwork which is BEYOND words and
intellect")
The best work a critic can do is not try to "explain" the work
of art, but question and wander about it.
And, yes, "thinking" about a film is the only way not just to
understand, but to enjoy it (if you don't take the word "think"
in a poor way).
I have read very insightful criticism (not much on films, I must
agree)that made me think that there're many ways of writing
about art that are not high-brow bullshit.
Fernando
Fernando Burjato
to what we see in Delvaux's paintings. That's a good point. We
can see it in Millich shop, also.
I've though also in Gustave Moureau...the colors, not the themes
or atmosphere.
FMD
"However I think that behind the surface scepticism lurks a very
powerful humanism in Kubrick that means that all his work, on one
level, can take on the form of a cautionary Fable - that rather
trite conclusion should be set against Kubrick tendency to favour
ambiguity of meaning, I think ultimately his possible sympathy
for
certain theories and approaches over others was subordinated by
an
instinctive grasp of the truth of a situation emerging even as
the
cameras rolled perhaps."
An astute observation. Not to be overly categorical -- all this
is just meant as a crude approximation to something more
carefully
articulated -- but are Dadaist or Surrealist tenets helpful in
getting at this "spontaneous" dimension? Looking at the Magritte
pictures on exhibition at SFMOMA, I was struck, anachronistically
enough, by how Kubrickian some of them are. Magritte is said to
have been un-Parisian because he rejected the idea of giving
oneself over to the unconscious in favor of paradoxical, non-
narrative, but highly conceptual works. Yet he was on excellent
terms with the unconscious in the sense of what is unmasterable
by
human calculation. Is there a Magrittean dimension to SK?
Gordon Stainforth
Thornhill <cthornhil...@worldnet.att.net.invalid> wrote:
> I imagine, and there are confirmations and rejections on every
> side, that Stanley "clamed-up" simply because it was counter-
> productive not to do so. Second nature. Talkative chess-
> player? What's that?
YES! I think this is probably v close to the truth.
>Everyone has there own interpretations
> whether of words from a director (or elsewise) or from that
> director's film. Even here on this NG, long, gruelling and
> foolish debates over "Stanley Kubrick: Saint or Monster??"
> (wasn't that a headline in the Inquirer??) have sadly tested and
> even sapped energy, time, patience and devotion.
Yes - what a waste of time that was! Without being too facetious,
you could probably ask that question of just about anybody on this
planet.
>One can hardly
> trust that people have your precise experience, or that they are
> psychic and you can just "beam" them, whether audience or
> collaborators. This is partly why Stanley seems, to me, more
> often like a clay-sculptor rather than simply a filmmaker: a
> sculptor of artistic/emotive/idea worlds that move well beyond
> what most filmmakers consider acceptable results. Here, in the
> "post-art" world, this NG (that's 'News Group' for you
> shooters), there can be plenty of lively discussion (mostly, one
> hopes!) but in the "art world" - the making, the doing - that
> seems to me ALL, and that which only *follows* reflection, not
> which preceeds it.
YES!
> Here, a little interpretive theory - just mine, mind! - and
> nothing new at all - is that the difference between theory and
> action is often such an abysmal and yawning gulf that it is VERY
> easy not to see any connection whatever. The things I learned
> at university re: film were good for a little something, but
> mostly for me to understand that the actual MAKING (in the 'real
> world') was *completely* different and divorced from the
> THINKING and TALKING and WATCHING. And in the industry,
the
> knowledge from school was almost nothing but a hindrance to
be
> jettisoned as swiftly as possible.
YES! Absolutely. I went to film school, and like you, when I went
into the industry I had to jettison most of that nebulous theorising.
Film-making is really a very visceral thing.
> A late note. Whether "intellectual", "scholar" or "artist",
> seems to me the Playboy interview is unique in the astounding
> range of his thought and the acuteness he has brought to the
> life of the mind and life of art. Thank God he has given for us
> to share (or, if you're not of that bent, "Thanks, Stan!").
Yes.
Fernando Burjato
works have a heavier air, when Magritte's paintings are, in my
opinion,...almost epigrams, inteligent and concise.
(I love both artists, but it is not the issue, here)
In Magritte's pictures we cannot see the brushstrokes, in
Kubricks's work, we can.
Kubrick is an artist of time (and its rethoric), while
Magritte's world is one of simultaneity, when anything exactly
happens.
Fernando
vincent_p...@my-deja.com
FMD <fmdolan...@socrates.berkeley.edu.invalid> wrote:
Jack's way of "overplaying"
> himself might contribute to something like that, I suppose. From
> Jameson's point of view it wouldn't be parodic, because parody
> requires a standard that is being abused and postmodernism is
> supposed to have no awareness of standards, even as things to be
> overcome -- Jameson says it is pastiche rather than parody. In a
> way, Jack is a mere pastiche, but on the other hand we tend to
> see
> him as a failure (failed writer, husband, father), which argues
> against the film's postmodernity (on Jameson's criteria).
I think you're right, my definition of it was rather a bad abridgement.
BTW, I guess my blurred feeling of something postmodern in TS came more
precisely from the fact that TS, when parodying the "horror movie full
of blood", seems to BECOME really, at a point, the horror movie full of
blood. (I don't mean it as a flaw, it's intentional) It's pretty
strange, I feel that every time I see the axe scene f.ex.
The film seems to transform itself at a point -because Jack wants it,
that's an important detail-, and become bigger, heavier, to attain
that "horror movie re-play", where the audience knows "what's gonna be
around... every corner...".
And he subtelty is of course that the more it parodies the genre with
2nd degree, the more it looks like "first degree horror film", because
the horror genre is itself something "bigger than life". So the attempt
of parody in TS looks like a never-ending quest, which is a good
mirroring of Jack's never-ending attempt through eternity to kill his
family, as well as the attempt of the "best people" to hide the past
evil.
Well, maybe I'm subconsciously influenced by the TS ads and promotion,
with the big Here's Johnny face, etc, but I'm not sure.
But anyway, all of that would still come from parody, and it'd mean a
standard, as you say. So, yes, I agree with you.
Vincent
FMD
In article <8helqs$rlk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, vincent_pappalardo@my-
deja.com wrote:
>So the attempt
>of parody in TS looks like a never-ending quest, which is a good
>mirroring of Jack's never-ending attempt through eternity to
kill
>his family, as well as the attempt of the "best people" to hide
>the past evil.
I share your feeling about this film, the ending of which seems
especially paradoxical in this light because on first reading it
appears generic: two of the good guys get away. But then one
realizes -- and pardon me for repeating something I wrote in
another thread; I hope this isn't a violation of protocol -- that
Danny's experiences with his father at the Overlook (not to
mention the abuse he suffered at his father's hands even before
he
got there) ensure that he will grow up to become Jack. Thus the
climax of TS when Jack and Danny run through the maze: Danny is
running from his future self and Jack is in pursuit of his former
self. One runs from his future, the other tries to catch up with
his past. The sheer impossibility of that situation, and the
rage
and terror it evokes, are very moving.
Gordon Dahlquist
On Fri, 2 Jun 2000 vincent_p...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Gordon Dahlquist <gd...@columbia.edu> wrote:
> > to me, it's this coupling of form and content (or form-as-content)
> > that marks kubrick as particularly modernist artist. it's his refusal
> > of irony as a legitimate end in itself that distances his work from
> > post-modernism. for all the scathing insight and yes, irony, in his
> > work, his vision as an artist is a passionate and moral one.
>
> I'm not sure I agree with you, Gordon: a postmodernist doesn't always
> use irony as an end in itself. He can still have a very passionate and
> moral vision, right?
can you think of an example?
Gordon Dahlquist
On Fri, 2 Jun 2000, FMD wrote:
>
> In article <8h9h5e$gk2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, vincent_pappalardo@my-
> deja.com wrote:
> >Just "commenting on" wouldn't be; I'm talking about
> "re-playing" or "re-
> >making" in some way. Well, since the movie is at some kind of
> >intersection between "re-playing" the genre and making someting
> >completely new, it's a point one can argue.
> >Maybe I feel a postmodern side that's less in the *movie* than
> in Jack:
> >he is "re-playing, over-playing, over-over-playing..." himself;
> he does
> >an "over-parody" -do we say that?- of his madness (he does it
> so much,
> >we feel that all is going to explode), and in this way, there's
> IMO a
> >kind of relationship present-past that gives a postmodern.
> >feeling.
>
> One of Jameson's criteria for "postmodernism" is the absence of
> historical depth, the elimination of past and future tenses in
> favor of sheer, discontinuous presence. One way to do that, I
> suppose, is to turn the present moment into a mere repetition, so
> that past, present, and future, while still in some sense
> recognized, become equivalent. Jack's way of "overplaying"
> himself might contribute to something like that, I suppose. From
> Jameson's point of view it wouldn't be parodic, because parody
> requires a standard that is being abused and postmodernism is
> supposed to have no awareness of standards, even as things to be
> overcome -- Jameson says it is pastiche rather than parody. In a
> way, Jack is a mere pastiche, but on the other hand we tend to
> see him as a failure (failed writer, husband, father), which argues
> against the film's postmodernity (on Jameson's criteria).
in addition to this, the shining - and all of sk's "genre" films - is
very much conceived in reference to the genre it's obliterating (which is
why the criticism of pauline kael or stephen king is always so amusing -
they complain that the film fails because it doesn't go through the hoops
of a conventional horror film - it doesn't scare them the way they want to
be scared, never imagining another option). the shining's not a pastiche
any more than ulysses is a pastiche of homer - and the difference between
the way those works build on "classic" models and the way, say, michael
graves appropriates classical architectural references is to me a telling
measure of how and where modernism and post-modernism part ways.
Thornhill
Welcome to the club. Then again ("shall I ask "Then again"
again?"), would you want to be a part of any club that would
have you as a member? If you did join stated 'unstated' club,
would you then find yourself apart?
Your 'hypertext' comment is a gem. A quasi-predecessor may be
commercials airing during the evening news, especially during
war coverage. Then again, maybe not. In any case, "Surrealists
of the World Unite! You got nothing to lose."
An exquisite corps...uh, thread.
Fin again -
Thornhill
David Kirkpatrick
As a lurker in this thread, I would love to see a list of artists in
various media considered "post-modern".
To me, post-modern has a definite meaning when applied to architecture,
a little less when applied to music (I think of minimalism as
post-modern, but suspect this may be an idiosyncratic view) -- but
things become blurred when I look at other arts. (I'm just as happy
with a classification that subsumes "postmodernism" into "late"
modernism.
Film is an odd case, since we don't have a lot of 18th and 19th century
film for comparisons. In a sense, an artist's choice of film in place
of theatre is a modernist choice, as is the choice to be a photographer
instead of a painter. And I suspect that modernism in theatre is
largely a reaction to movies, as modernism in painting is (largely) to
photography -- an attempt to concentrate on the power of the unique
properties of the medium in order to survive amid techno-upstarts.
Somewhere I got the notion that what "juxtaposition" is to modernism,
"hypertext" is to postmodernism.
Or should I say,
juxtaposition modernism
"'"hypertext" is to postmodernism' thought David", wrote David. (see
footnote)
By these criteria, Douglas Hofstadter is my favorite post-modernist and
"Godel Escher Bach" the ultimate postmodern text. Or "Le Tons Bon de
Marot".
But I emphasize that I'm quite unsure what "post-modern" means.
David
FMD
In article <393BEC16...@home.com>, David Kirkpatrick <
dak...@home.com> wrote:
>As a lurker in this thread, I would love to see a list of
artists in
>various media considered "post-modern".
In poetry, Michael Davidson is frequently cited as such, along
with parts of Paul Muldoon.
In literature: Sorrentino (MULLIGAN STEW), Barth (LOST IN THE
FUNHOUSE, GILES GOAT-BOY), Pynchon (THE CRYING OF LOT 49,
GRAVITY'S RAINBOW), and parts of DeLillo, going back to Nabokov
and Borges. More popularized, middle-brow versions are Mark
Leyner (I SMELL ESTHER WILLIAMS and MY COUSIN, MY
GASTROENTEROLOGIST) and Douglas Couplans (GENERATION X).
In architecture, I suppose one would have to name Robert Venturi
(LEARNING FROM LAS VEGAS), Robert Graves, and Frank Gehry.
In painting, David Salle, perhaps?
FMD
In article <089caa26...@usw-ex0104-033.remarq.com>,
Fernando
Burjato <fburjato...@zaz.com.br.invalid> wrote:
>A Magrittean aspect in SK? maybe, but I think that Kubrick's
>works have a heavier air,
True enough. What I have in mind, though, concerns technique.
For instance, in 2001 when Bowman blasts into the airlock: the
dramatic contrast between the sight of the explosion and the
silence of the image. Compare that to Magritte's paintings of
row
houses in which everything below the roofline is night,
everything
above day. In both cases a powerful image is created by a fairly
straightforward violation of how things normally go together.
This is part of SK's "Imagism," too, I think. Another "Image" in
this sense is the first, fairly extended shot of Bowman's face as
he enters the stargate: it begins with a recognizable human
face,
and then is shaken to the point where the facial features and the
colored reflections of the helmet glass blend into something that
is simultaneously beautiful and horrifying (sublime?). This
transformation - dissolution of the face seems to be a theme that
is present in many of the films, e.g. TS and FMJ.
vincent_p...@my-deja.com
100...@watsol.cc.columbia.edu>,
Gordon Dahlquist <gd...@columbia.edu> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 2 Jun 2000 vincent_p...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Gordon Dahlquist <gd...@columbia.edu> wrote:
> > > to me, it's this coupling of form and content (or form-as-content)
> > > that marks kubrick as particularly modernist artist. it's his
refusal
> > > of irony as a legitimate end in itself that distances his work
from
> > > post-modernism. for all the scathing insight and yes, irony, in
his
> > > work, his vision as an artist is a passionate and moral one.
> >
> > I'm not sure I agree with you, Gordon: a postmodernist doesn't
always
> > use irony as an end in itself. He can still have a very passionate
and
> > moral vision, right?
>
> can you think of an example?
>
Andy Warhol's art has passion, and definitely a moral vision -in the
good sense of the word-.
Behind (or "in") what Warhol shows us, there's one of the most sincere,
anguished, and even metaphysical visions that I've personally seen, in
all forms of art.
About films, well, as David stated, defining a postmodern film is not
easy, and depends on what you put in this definition which is not clear
at all (I'm not an expert on the PM theories). I'd say it's rather a
state of mind.
Do you consider f.ex. a film like Godard's "Le Mépris/Contempt" as
postmodern? Then that would be an example.
And Jean-Pierre Melville films. F.ex. "Le Cercle Rouge/The Red Circle"
(which is a masterpiece). It may be disillusionned and manierist, it
has in spite of that a real belief in something, behind the famous mask
of Melville.
David Culpepper
Gordon Stainforth wrote:
> >
> > I wonder too whether there wasn't development in this area --
> > whether SK went from the young, hyper-intellectual reader of
> > deterrence theory and cosmology of DS and 2001, to the more
> > intuitive investigator of the hidden and occulted and Dionysian
> > in
> > TS, FMJ, and EWS. Perhaps the turning-point is 2001, when he
> > rejects the overly analytical and literalistic Clark script and
> > goes for feeling instead.
>
> Again, for the reasons I've said, I think 'hyper-intellectual' is a bit
> strong ... maybe in the context of Hollywood he might have been
> seen that way! But I believe he was ALWAYS suspicious of the
> 'over-analytical', as you put it.
>
> Gordon
>
threads in SK's films, I find myself stepping back and remembering that
this is a Stanley Kubrick Film. SK makes this easy! I can imagine Kubrick
integrating bits and pieces of read or experienced sources in his work, but
primarily as tools or items of interest in the service of his own vision.
At the risk of endorsing Kubrick as Modernist (I resist the idea), the event
of Kubrick using other sources of idea and vision is comparable to Picasso's
African phase; we may gain insight and experience thru studying or viewing
African mask and sculpture, and while this may enhance or even completely
change our perspective of Picasso's work - Picasso is not African. We are
viewing Picasso's synthesis of that experience.
re-Kant
tobasco
David Culpepper
Fernando Burjato wrote: >
> well, I don't know if I made myself clear, but I think that I
> would put Kubrick - and The Shining among Picasso or
> Joyce...there's no distance between Kubrick and movie
> tradition...
>
I don't know that I agree. Where do we find the subverting ( dare i say
deconstructing?), of genre and the the Hero principle in film prior to
Kubrick (at least to the extent Kubrick carries it)? In the case of the
Hero, certainly Chaplin comes to mind in the Little Tramp, but even there
we have a clearly sympathetic figure. If Kubrick is integrated in film
tradition - it is that of Stanislavsky and Ophuls, while i can see certain
similarities and tones - i'd say Kubrick goes so far beyond that tradition
as to be --a filmmaker of a different color altogether.
Tobasco
> Fernando
>
> P.S.
>
> "(...)The Shining is really about nothing at all, (...) this is
> a film about the experience of watching The Shining."
>
> It's from an article called "Resident Phantoms", by Jonathan
> Romney, in the "Sight and Sound" magazine, september 1999
>
>
David Culpepper
Rod Munday wrote: >
> Is post-modernism ill defined as opposed to modernism? When the latter
> is used to describe such a wide variety of artistic, architectural, as
> well as social and even scientific ideologies spanning the late 19th
> century to this one. Now if that isn't ill defined, I don't know what
> is!
>
architecture and theater? Where is the meeting ground. Further if
modernism is reduced to the simplest form of "that which is now" , then
post-modern is inherent in the very concept. As is pre-modern. I find
Pynchon's Mason & Dixon to be remarkably interesting in this context. A
work that does not negate the historical - while not endorsing historicism.
BL and M&D have more than a little in common.
>Perhaps modern architecture can be defined as architecture
> after Freud as everyone suddenly realised just what all those domes and
> spires were really saying!! The resultant stripping away of layers of
> symbolic meaning from buildings - the gargoyles of the unconscious -
> created modern architecture: objects which was transparent in terms of
> meaning; functional in terms of design - Machines for living in.
>
But aren't the modern clean-lined domes and spires equally phallo-centric?
The emperor has new clothes?
> I like you find a strong modernist sensibility in Kubrick's work, there
> is certainly not the feeling of - "nothing is true everything is
> permitted" that characterises much of post modernism. But there is also
> a strong scepticism of, if you like, the "metaphysics" of modernism in
> especially regarding technology and human progress, which can be read
> almost a critique of untrammelled optimism of the modernist movement.
> Kubrick was always away in the down side of the modernist movement, the
> flaws in human nature that were magnified without the controlling
> influence of a living God. This could not go unnoticed I think to any
> Jew living in the 20th century. However I think that behind the surface
> scepticism lurks a very powerful humanism in Kubrick that means that all
> his work, on one level, can take on the form of a cautionary Fable -
> that rather trite conclusion should be set against Kubrick tendency to
> favour ambiguity of meaning, I think ultimately his possible sympathy
> for certain theories and approaches over others was subordinated by an
> instinctive grasp of the truth of a situation emerging even as the
> cameras rolled perhaps.
>
I certainly don't argue that Kubrick has more than a thread of the modernist
in him, but I'm not so sure that the idea of post-modern is so easily
typified as an "anything goes" sensibility. I'll be starting a thread in a
few days dealing with what I see as Kubrick's deconstructivist approach with
attention to both feminist and anti-logocentric themes that I detect in his
films ( and maybe some Kubricean linguistics as well).
But on the topic of Kubrick's Humanism. I recognize the empathy for
humanity in Kubrick's film. But Humanism, as I understand it, in essence
replaces God, fate, the Tao- whatever with the (non-Jung) Self.
"I am the captain of my own ship."
"I am the master of my own destiny."
I see very few masters of their own destiny in SK's films. Certainly
characters make transcendant choices at crucial moments, Barry at the duel,
Wendy and Danny, Joker at the end, Dr Bill at various junctures. But the
larger scheme is beyond their control. I suppose Humanism is yet another
classification that becomes more ambiguous as we examine it closely.
Tobasco
FMD
In article <bwK%4.30397$XW1.1...@typhoon.hawaii.rr.com>, "David
Culpepper" <culpep...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>Fernando Burjato wrote: >
>> well, I don't know if I made myself clear, but I think that I
>> would put Kubrick - and The Shining among Picasso or
>> Joyce...there's no distance between Kubrick and movie
>> tradition...
>>
>
>I don't know that I agree. Where do we find the subverting (
dare i say
>deconstructing?), of genre and the the Hero principle in film
prior to
>Kubrick (at least to the extent Kubrick carries it)?
I realize it's risky to speak for someone else, but I don't think
that Fernando meant that Kubrick was traditional when he wrote
that "there is no distance between K and the tradition." The
issue was between a "modernist" awareness of tradition as
something to be overcome or subverted, and a "postmodernist"
indifference to tradition, the idea being that SK is a modernist
in the sense that he is aware (but critically aware) of the
tradition. So what you say actually supports Fernando's point,
if
I understand both of you correctly.
FMD
In article <iaL%4.30404$XW1.1...@typhoon.hawaii.rr.com>, "David
Culpepper" <culpep...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>I'll be starting a thread in a
>few days dealing with what I see as Kubrick's deconstructivist
>approach with attention to both feminist and anti-logocentric
>themes that I detect in his films ( and maybe some Kubricean
>linguistics as well). But on the topic of Kubrick's Humanism. I
>recognize the empathy for humanity in Kubrick's film. But
>Humanism, as I understand it, in essence replaces God, fate, the
>Tao- whatever with the (non-Jung) Self. "I am the captain of my
>own ship.""I am the master of my own destiny." I see very few
>masters of their own destiny in SK's films. Certainly
characters
>make transcendant choices at crucial moments, Barry at the
duel,
>Wendy and Danny, Joker at the end, Dr Bill at various junctures.
>But the larger scheme is beyond their control.
I agree and look forward to reading what you have to say on the
subject.
Rod Munday
>
> >Perhaps modern architecture can be defined as architecture
> > after Freud as everyone suddenly realised just what all those domes and
> > spires were really saying!! The resultant stripping away of layers of
> > symbolic meaning from buildings - the gargoyles of the unconscious -
> > created modern architecture: objects which was transparent in terms of
> > meaning; functional in terms of design - Machines for living in.
> >
>
> But aren't the modern clean-lined domes and spires equally phallo-centric?
> The emperor has new clothes?
I was thinking of the "pure" modernism of Le Corbusier. Some modern
architects are guilty of diluting the message. Have you seen Gropius'
work in Saudi Arabia??
> > I like you find a strong modernist sensibility in Kubrick's work, there
> > is certainly not the feeling of - "nothing is true everything is
> > permitted" that characterises much of post modernism. But there is also
> > a strong scepticism of, if you like, the "metaphysics" of modernism in
> > especially regarding technology and human progress, which can be read
> > almost a critique of untrammelled optimism of the modernist movement.
> > Kubrick was always away in the down side of the modernist movement, the
> > flaws in human nature that were magnified without the controlling
> > influence of a living God. This could not go unnoticed I think to any
> > Jew living in the 20th century. However I think that behind the surface
> > scepticism lurks a very powerful humanism in Kubrick that means that all
> > his work, on one level, can take on the form of a cautionary Fable -
> > that rather trite conclusion should be set against Kubrick tendency to
> > favour ambiguity of meaning, I think ultimately his possible sympathy
> > for certain theories and approaches over others was subordinated by an
> > instinctive grasp of the truth of a situation emerging even as the
> > cameras rolled perhaps.
> >
> I certainly don't argue that Kubrick has more than a thread of the modernist
> in him, but I'm not so sure that the idea of post-modern is so easily
> typified as an "anything goes" sensibility.
Neither do I. That was overly simplistic. In my defence I was trying to
offer an example of the difference between modernism and post
modernism. I don't think modernism can be called relativist while I
think that's a pretty good adjective to describe post modernism's
cynicism; its obsessions with surfaces and irony. By comparison,
modernism seems to me an all-together more serious endeavour; serious
because it attempts to dignify its obsessions through appropriately
reverent language and seeks to divine the depths as well as the limits
of its worldview, its probing the depths being analogous to it's search
for the inner truth and immutability of its core values.
I'll be starting a thread in a
> few days dealing with what I see as Kubrick's deconstructivist approach with
> attention to both feminist and anti-logocentric themes that I detect in his
> films ( and maybe some Kubricean linguistics as well).
> But on the topic of Kubrick's Humanism. I recognize the empathy for
> humanity in Kubrick's film. But Humanism, as I understand it, in essence
> replaces God, fate, the Tao- whatever with the (non-Jung) Self.
> "I am the captain of my own ship."
> "I am the master of my own destiny."
> I see very few masters of their own destiny in SK's films. Certainly
> characters make transcendant choices at crucial moments, Barry at the duel,
> Wendy and Danny, Joker at the end, Dr Bill at various junctures. But the
> larger scheme is beyond their control. I suppose Humanism is yet another
> classification that becomes more ambiguous as we examine it closely.
>
> Tobasco
I think SK is part of the humanist tradition because the message I get
from his films is that he believes humanity has having nothing greater
than themselves to rely on or guide them. But, I believe he also saw the
unbearable psychic pain inherent in such a realisation. And the defences
our race erects to protect itself from that pain. Hate in the final
analysis banishes fear doe it not? Hence SK's strong interests in myths;
as a way for humanity to vicariously experience something greater than
ourselves. I think Kubrick saw the need for us to extend the boundaries
of possibility around ourselves. That was perhaps his artistic project.
So that we would not think ourselves to be at the centre. So we would
not see the horizon as a boundary and stop moving towards it. A race
that does not see beyond itself is destined to perish.
Regards Rod Munday
Fernando Burjato
English that mine)All art relates to tradition, in a way or
other - subverting, being reverent or anything else is a way of
answering to it.
I wasn't saying that Kubrick is a traditionalist, but that he
looks at tradition not being a foreigner to it, and works.his
relation to film history is "organic" - Max Ophuls, or any great
director that influenced him are not seen as mere "raw
matherial" to work on, but chapters of film history - in which
he includes himself.
Fernando
Home
> I think SK is part of the humanist tradition because the message I get
> from his films is that he believes humanity has having nothing greater
> than themselves to rely on or guide them. But, I believe he also saw the
> unbearable psychic pain inherent in such a realisation. And the defences
> our race erects to protect itself from that pain. Hate in the final
> analysis banishes fear doe it not? Hence SK's strong interests in myths;
> as a way for humanity to vicariously experience something greater than
> ourselves. I think Kubrick saw the need for us to extend the boundaries
> of possibility around ourselves. That was perhaps his artistic project.
Lovely!
Gordon Dahlquist
On Tue, 6 Jun 2000 vincent_p...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Gordon Dahlquist <gd...@columbia.edu> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 2 Jun 2000 vincent_p...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > > Gordon Dahlquist <gd...@columbia.edu> wrote:
>
> > > > to me, it's this coupling of form and content (or form-as-content)
> > > > that marks kubrick as particularly modernist artist. it's his
> > > > refusal of irony as a legitimate end in itself that distances his
> > > > work from post-modernism. for all the scathing insight and yes,
> > > > irony, in his work, his vision as an artist is a passionate and
> > > > moral one.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure I agree with you, Gordon: a postmodernist doesn't
> > > always use irony as an end in itself. He can still have a very
> > > passionate and moral vision, right?
> >
> > can you think of an example?
>
>
> Andy Warhol's art has passion, and definitely a moral vision -in the
> good sense of the word- Behind (or "in") what Warhol shows us, there's
> one of the most sincere, anguished, and even metaphysical visions that
> I've personally seen, in all forms of art.
I'm not so sure. I can recognize the depth of warhol's critique - and for
all its glibness, it is penetrating - but I'd hardly call his work
passionate. I recognize his importance, but placing him next to an artist
like francis bacon - to me, anyway - makes plain how arid, startched and
cold warhol's work actually is. beyond this, doesn't warhol's work make
the same point rather relentlessly? the main source of impact seems to be
the exact phenomenon of placing different "charged" images through the
same factory silkscreen: mao, jackie, "disasters", the last supper - the
point that they are "equal" and equally "processed" is not an irrelevant
one, but it's rooted in a worldview bleached of the very idea of
"significance".
I know what you mean about the "other" world that warhol implies, but I am
really not at all convonced that this "other" is what he's interested in
at all - as opposed to say, bacon, or freud, or even david hockney.
> About films, well, as David stated, defining a postmodern film is not
> easy, and depends on what you put in this definition which is not clear
> at all (I'm not an expert on the PM theories). I'd say it's rather a
> state of mind.
>
> Do you consider f.ex. a film like Godard's "Le Mépris/Contempt" as
> postmodern? Then that would be an example. And Jean-Pierre Melville
> films. F.ex. "Le Cercle Rouge/The Red Circle" (which is a masterpiece).
> It may be disillusionned and manierist, it has in spite of that a real
> belief in something, behind the famous mask of Melville.
I wouldn't actually call godard a post-modernist at all - I think his
notion of collage is very modernist: he's extremely connected to a notion
of "classicism" in both form and content, and there's a consistency of
reference within his films that's quite rigorous, despite its playful
quality.
my notion of post-modern film, in terms of popularly-released narrative
film, would probably be closer to derek jarman or peter greenaway, who use
anachronism and imposed structure in personal and often quite arbitrary
ways, with various success. and of course, there's someone like greg
araki, who touts himself as a "post-modern filmmaker" - though in many
such cases, the line between "post-modern" and "unable to tell a story"
can get murky.
which is certainly another thing that plagues "post-modern" work in any
field - it's an easy label for the lazy (pastiche is a very big pillow to
fall back on).
FMD
ancient meaning of "passionate" is something like "passive," so
perhaps we can accomodate his work by recovering that
signification. Sk often cultivates the look and feel of the
detached observer, as well. The anti-Romantic impulse, at least
in the sense of a contempt for mere sentiment, is an important
dimension of Modernism, though, so that doesn't really serve to
mark off Modernism from Postmodernism....
David Culpepper
Gordon Dahlquist wrote:
which is certainly another thing that plagues "post-modern" work in any
field - it's an easy label for the lazy (pastiche is a very big pillow to
fall back on).
Well GD, do you really think Thomas Pynchon is falling back on pillows? Or
Derrida? Or David Byrne for that matter? How about the Cirque du Soleil?
Methinks politics regarding this cafe-sign called post-modernism is afoot.
Same as it ever was
Tobasco
rmtan...@my-deja.com
035.remarq.com>,
FMD
<fmdolan...@socrates.berkeley.edu.invalid>
wrote:
>
> In article <089caa26.5dc8ced6@usw-ex0104-
Internet's Discussion Network *
> The fastest and easiest way to search and
participate in Usenet - Free!
>
>
While I'm not familiar with the painter of which
you speak (nor am I extremely well versed in any
areas of painting), the two examples seem
different to me. The painting you describe
sounds like one that subverts or perverts what is
generally excepted as reality, or a real
situation (night and day coexisting in one
spot). What is seen in the painting could not
exist, based on what we have accepted as truth.
While, the Airlock scene in 2001 goes along with
what we know to be "true." There is no sound in
a vaccum (Notice that we get back the natural
sound of the ship once the vaccum is sealed
off). But since we are not used to existing in
vaccums, not hearing the explosion does go
against most expectations (but not what science
has "presently" proven). And as far as Bowman's
face when passing through the Stargate, well
until we've taken that trip, we can't really
comment on what that "should" look like. In any
case, I think it worked well in communicating
Bowman's awakening (whether you consider it one
of intellectual, spiritual, or another nature).
Come to think of it, many of Kubrick's films play
with the idea of awakenings, such as Dr. Bill's
sexual awakening to the world in EWS. Ironic, I
guess, that it takes place in such a dreamlike
reality. Anyone interested in a thread on
Kubrick's Awakenings?
Ryan Tanner
FMD
In article <8hujbi$qpq$1...@nnrp2.deja.com>, rmtan...@my-deja.com
wrote:
>While I'm not familiar with the painter of which
>you speak (nor am I extremely well versed in any
>areas of painting), the two examples seem
>different to me. The painting you describe
>sounds like one that subverts or perverts what is
>generally excepted as reality, or a real
>situation (night and day coexisting in one
>spot). What is seen in the painting could not
>exist, based on what we have accepted as truth.
>While, the Airlock scene in 2001 goes along with
>what we know to be "true." There is no sound in
>a vaccum (Notice that we get back the natural
>sound of the ship once the vaccum is sealed
>off). But since we are not used to existing in
>vaccums, not hearing the explosion does go
>against most expectations (but not what science
>has "presently" proven).
I think it comes to the same thing, since the idea of living in
space is just a prop for exploring the idea of living in a world
that defeats common sense and in which the ways we have evolved
to
act in the world become oddly irrelevant. It does enhance the
irony of the scene, i.e. that it is via a form of "realism" that
we are given a surreal experience.
>
>Come to think of it, many of Kubrick's films play
>with the idea of awakenings, such as Dr. Bill's
>sexual awakening to the world in EWS. Ironic, I
>guess, that it takes place in such a dreamlike
>reality. Anyone interested in a thread on
>Kubrick's Awakenings?
>
Good idea!
vincent_p...@my-deja.com
> >=20
> > Andy Warhol's art has passion, and definitely a moral vision -in the
> > good sense of the word- Behind (or "in") what Warhol shows us,
there's
> > one of the most sincere, anguished, and even metaphysical visions
that
> > I've personally seen, in all forms of art.
>
> I'm not so sure. I can recognize the depth of warhol's critique -
and for
> all its glibness, it is penetrating - but I'd hardly call his work
> passionate. I recognize his importance, but placing him next to an
artist
> like francis bacon - to me, anyway - makes plain how arid, startched
and
> cold warhol's work actually is.
I assure you that you don't see what's really in Warhol.
beyond this, doesn't warhol's work make
> the same point rather relentlessly? the main source of impact seems
to be
> the exact phenomenon of placing different "charged" images through the
> same factory silkscreen: mao, jackie, "disasters", the last supper -
the
> point that they are "equal" and equally "processed" is not an
irrelevant
> one, but it's rooted in a worldview bleached of the very idea of=20
> "significance".
>
That's precisely the drama Warhol expresses in his work. There's
something like a desperate SEARCH for significance.
> I know what you mean about the "other" world that warhol implies, but
I am
> really not at all convonced that this "other" is what he's interested
in
> at all - as opposed to say, bacon, or freud, or even david hockney.
It is, it's ALL about that. I invite you to watch his work again
Gordon, his series, his Marilyns, his electric chairs, etc. and take
the time. It's not "my opinion", it's right there in the work. His
fascination for Image is passionate (even if it's maybe in
a "psychotic" way), and has a search for sprituality in it.
> > Do you consider f.ex. a film like Godard's "Le M=E9pris/Contempt" as
> > postmodern? Then that would be an example. And Jean-Pierre Melville
> > films. F.ex. "Le Cercle Rouge/The Red Circle" (which is a
masterpiece).
> > It may be disillusionned and manierist, it has in spite of that a
real
> > belief in something, behind the famous mask of Melville.
>
> I wouldn't actually call godard a post-modernist at all - I think his
> notion of collage is very modernist: he's extremely connected to a
notion
> of "classicism" in both form and content, and there's a consistency of
> reference within his films that's quite rigorous, despite its playful
> quality. =20
Yes, this point is right.
Vincent
Gordon Dahlquist
well, I don't think it regarding derrida, and I think it less about
pynchon (who strikes me as less post-mod than mod, frankly) - though I
think his last two books are seriously flawed and, yes, underwritten, and
yes, run out of gas, though I wouldn't term him lazy in the way I'm using
above - nor in any other way, my dissatisfaction with vineland and mason &
dixon being a source of disappointment, not critical relish. but david
byrne? he seems years and years past his best work - indeed, any work that
seems fresh - and I think appropriation (more than pastiche) has indeed
fluffed a few pillows for an otherwise sparsely furnished room of his ...
as for cirque du soliel, I've seen four or five shows of theirs, enjoyed
them all, and enjoyed each one less than the last. a friend is now a lead
singer in the vegas show, and she swears by it, but it's always struck me
that they quite willfully back away from any larger narrative or even
narrative synthesis - even though each show trades on it constantly -
more out of laziness than anything. some of it is clearly ideological -
and that's totally fine - but some of it is elegant and coy posturing
which, for me, has grown thin.
but none of these types are really what I'm referring to - certainly
pynchon and derrida are first-rate, and byrne and CdS often so. I'm
thinking more of someone like michael graves, or someone like kathy acker,
or robert wilson, or laurie anderson, or even jeff koons. some of these
people's work - koons excepted - is quite lovely, or cunning, or
remarkable. but equally much of it strikes me as fatuous, lazy, and
even condescending - though almost always "clever".