"Stanley Kubrick and the Aesthetics of the Grotesque."
Boaz
Naremore, titled "Stanley Kubrick and the Aesthetics of the
Grotesque." (A photo of Kubrick on the FMJ set is on the cover of the
magazine.) Naremore, a professor at Indiana University, is currently
working on a book on Kubrick. Perhaps an expanded version of this
article will find its way into his book as well.
Naremore proposes that what was often dismissed as "cold" and
"indifferent" regarding Kubrick's style is merely his approach
towards the "grotesque," a term which the author suggests is rarely
used in describing cinema, though its presence has been around in film
practically since its inception. Naremore says the origin of the word
"grotesque" goes as far back as 1500, when archeologists discovered
under the city of Rome murals and frescoes in which images of human
heads would appear on the bodies of animals (or vice versa), or on
plants or trees, where candelabras would look like flowers, and all
were "mingled in bizarre fashion, deliberately confusing the animate
with the inanimate." These paintings date back to the emperor
Augustus, and were denounced as "monstrous" and "bastard" by
Vitruvius, a predecessor to Seneca and Petronius, if you catch my
drift. Because these images were found in grottos (the Latin root
"grotte" -- Christ, I *do* sound like Frederic Raphael here), the
word "grotesque" was eventually derived. The French writer
Rabelais, according to Naremore, "used 'grotesque' to describe deformed
or 'lower' aspects of the human body." Perhaps he didn't know
that his own name would someday become an adjective to describe raunchy
sexual humor, so he coined this one instead.
After providing a brief history on the use of "grotesque" from
literature by Dante and Shakespeare to the cinema of von Stroheim,
Welles, Polanski, Lynch and the brothers Coen, Naremore details how
Kubrick's origins as a still photographer helped define his style in
depicting the grotesque. Naremore talks about Kubrick's associations
with Arthur Felig, known more commonly as "Weegee," and Diane
Arbus, and how Susan Sontag particularly disliked the latter's work.
Yet, as we all know, Kubrick would later hire Weegee to shoot stills on
the DS set, and then later Kubrick would echo Arbus' famous
photograph of two sisters in TS.
Naremore has had the opportunity to see "Fear and Desire," and he
calls Kubrick "the first American director to contribute to the
post-war boom in art cinema." He claims that the thing which makes
F&D "artistic" in what he calls "a specifically Kubrick sense"
is "its fascination with the grotesque." Naremore adds, "Its most
effective sequence involves a nocturnal military raid in which a group
of enemy soldiers are taken by surprise as they eat dinner. Kubrick
shows a dying hand convulsively flexing in a bowl of greasy stew and
squeezing a wet clump of bread through its fingers."
(This brings to mind the scene in "Spartacus, when the gladiators
riot in the school; Spartacus grabs Marcellus and drowns him in a vat
of what looks like stew, holding down the trainer's head in it until
the body stops convulsing.)
Anyway, Naremore describes the end of the sequence: "...in an image
designed to evoke both disgust and sardonic amusement, we see a large
close up of one of the victors as he gulps down a bowl of cold gruel
from the dinner table, wipes off his slimy chin and grins with
satisfaction."
(One wonders if Kubrick had more creative control on "Spartacus" he
would have put in a somewhat similar scene there, such as a hungry
gladiator scooping out some stew into a bowl while the body of
Marcellus is sprawled over the table next to the vat, having "one for
the road," as it were, slurping it down before joining Spartacus and
the others as they make their way towards Vesuvius.)
Naremore details the fight between Davy and Vince in "Killer's
Kiss," where they do battle among department store mannequins.
Naremore says, "Whenever I have shown the sequence to students, a few
of them break into laughter. Their response seems to me perfectly in
keeping with at least part of the effect Kubrick is trying to achieve,
in which the horrific, the uncanny, and the sadistically amusing are
suspended in an awkward, uncertain equilibrium." Naremore cites many
possible influences on this sequence, including E.T.A. Hoffman's
story "The Sandman," in which the protagonist falls in love with an
automaton, and where the automaton's creator fights over it with
another character, named Coppola, interestingly enough. (This story
appears, in a slightly different form, in a sequence in Michael Powell
and Emeric Pressburger's film "The Tales of Hoffman," where Moira
Shearer plays the automaton, Olympia. Also, Professor Cocks has cited
Hoffman's story as an influence on Kubrick's work in his book The
Wolf at the Door: Stanley Kubrick, History and the Holocaust.)
Among the many examples of the grotesque Naremore describes in "The
Killing" one in particular is the fight Maurice starts in the
racetrack bar as, "...carnivalistic -- a cross between a Three
Stooges slapstick routine, a monster movie, and a wrestling match on
1950s TV." Naremore talks about Timothy Carey's "reptilian
grin," and his "habit of talking through his teeth." Naremore
also cites the clown mask Sterling Hayden wears in the robbery sequence
and the facial expressions and body language of Marie Windsor and
Elisha Cook as further examples of Kubrick's use of the grotesque.
Naremore details the uses of the "grotesque" in "Lolita," DS,
"2001," ACO, BL and TS. He says that Kubrick is "drawn to coarse
bodily images," pointing out as examples the female sculptures in
ACO, and even making reference to Chris Baker's designs for
"A.I.," most of which were not used in the final film, but which
includes "giant open mouths and other orifices."
Moving on, Naremore goes into a lengthy description of FMJ, which he
feels is the best example of illustrating his thesis on Kubrick's use
of the grotesque. Pointing out Kubrick's camera movements, his choice
of lenses, and the action and facial expressions of Matthew Modine,
Vincent D'Onofrio and (especially) our good buddy Lee Ermey (semper
fi!), Naremore details the scatological and sexual references --
especially the homoerotic ones -- and the overall absurdity of
Hartman's verbal assaults on Joker, Cowboy and especially Pyle, are
all part of Kubrick's attempts to exploit the grotesque in his
subject matter.
There is one odd point of contention regarding this part of the
article. Naremore claims that the word "grotesque" is used by
Hartman (Ermey) in that sequence. Naremore says that Hartman asks Pyle,
"Did your parents have any children that lived?" When Pyle says
yes, Hartman responds, "I bet they were grotesque. You're so ugly
you look like a modern art masterpiece."
Now, in my copy of the screenplay (which is actually the transcript of
the final cut of the film) and in my DVD copy of the film, Hartman
responds, after Pyle says yes, with, "I'll bet they REGRET THAT!"
and then adds, "You're so ugly you COULD BE a modern art
masterpiece!" [My caps for emphasis.] It is too bad that after a very
convincing argument Naremore stumbles over his own feet at this point.
Never at any time in FMJ is the word "grotesque" used. And never at
any time would Kubrick have actors use words -- that is, descriptive
words -- that underline what he is already showing us in the film; it
was never characteristic of him to do that.
On a more positive note, Naremore uses his article to defend
Kubrick's outrageous choices in getting his points across in his
films about the nature of man. In my own observation, comparing "Dr.
Strangelove" with "Fail Safe," we can see the difference between
a "serious" film that depicts an accidental nuclear strike against
Russia as opposed to Kubrick's totally outrageous approach -- yet it
is an approach that is based on carefully researched fact. The major
difference is in how the filmmakers in FS attempt to depict the human
characters as "real" and sympathetic compared to the lengths
Kubrick goes in showing his human characters as political cartoon
caricatures, and with the exception of Group Captain Mandrake (and
maybe the President) none of the characters have any genuine redeeming
qualities. The result, however, is that more people remember DS than
they do FS, the iconic image being Slim Pickens riding the H-bomb down
to its target, with Pickens waving his Stetson and whooping like a
rodeo rider. Sure it is outrageous, and it is definitely
"grotesque," but Kubrick understood that sometimes an artist has to
push the limits in order to show how mankind will itself push the
limits in bringing about its own self-destruction. Despite the one
noticeable aberration by Naremore on FMJ, this article is still worth
looking at.
Boaz
("Gentlemen! You can't fight in here! This is the War Room!")
Yelps
"Boaz" <boa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1160373056.2...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Very interesting post.
Wanted to make one comment
>> On a more positive note, Naremore uses his article to defend
> Kubrick's outrageous choices in getting his points across in his
> films about the nature of man. In my own observation, comparing "Dr.
> Strangelove" with "Fail Safe," we can see the difference between
> a "serious" film that depicts an accidental nuclear strike against
> Russia as opposed to Kubrick's totally outrageous approach -- yet it
> is an approach that is based on carefully researched fact. The major
> difference is in how the filmmakers in FS attempt to depict the human
> characters as "real" and sympathetic compared to the lengths
> Kubrick goes in showing his human characters as political cartoon
> caricatures, and with the exception of Group Captain Mandrake (and
> maybe the President) none of the characters have any genuine redeeming
> qualities.
My comment doesn't have anything book. Eugene Burdick and Harvey Wheeler.
1962 I read it as a 15 year old when it came out. It was an exciting
thriller, page turner, very mainstream approach. in terms of being a
political--WWW3 war --thriller it was a in the genre like Nevil Shute's On
the Beach (1957), Manichurian Candidate (1959) and The Ugly American (last 2
not about nukes but pop political thriller) (1958) (also written by
Burdick) and Red Alert by Peter George (1958) (who sued and won because
fail safe was so much like it) and Alas Babylon (1959) I'm sure I am
forgeting some of them.
On the Time Line I think On the Beach was the first in the genre and the
film was in 1959 and it was a masterpiece. Alas Babylon had a 1960
Playhouse 90 TVspecial. It was scary.
Political Thrillers including the Cold War scare stories were very popular
and big money---these were huge best sellers. By 1964 the genre had already
been going on for a while and it could be laughed about. SK knew Fail Safe
was also coming out on film.
I think the initial shock element of Nuke catastrophe had already happened
with On the Beach and Alas Babylon, which so many people had read and seen
the film and TV special SK was very wise turning it into a genre busting
comedy. I think if it hadn;t been a comedy, it would have lacked the
surprise and originality of DS as it is.
The last scene from the very serious "On the Beach" was still fresh in the
mind. We didnt really need another. The movie Fail Safe, although pretty
decent, also lacked the surprise element. It was kind of old hat by 1964.
dc
Yelps
"Yelps" <birdsnest...@worldyeti.net> wrote in message
news:Z4-dnWd-pvi17rfY...@adelphia.com...
>
> "Boaz" <boa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1160373056.2...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> Very interesting post.
>
> Wanted to make one comment
>
>>> On a more positive note, Naremore uses his article to defend
>> Kubrick's outrageous choices in getting his points across in his
>> films about the nature of man. In my own observation, comparing "Dr.
>> Strangelove" with "Fail Safe," we can see the difference between
>> a "serious" film that depicts an accidental nuclear strike against
>> Russia as opposed to Kubrick's totally outrageous approach -- yet it
>> is an approach that is based on carefully researched fact. The major
>> difference is in how the filmmakers in FS attempt to depict the human
>> characters as "real" and sympathetic compared to the lengths
>> Kubrick goes in showing his human characters as political cartoon
>> caricatures, and with the exception of Group Captain Mandrake (and
>> maybe the President) none of the characters have any genuine redeeming
>> qualities.
>
>
> My comment doesn't have anything (UGH a typo) book. TO DO WITH
> GROTESQUE. I meant to say.
Harry Bailey
This is really interesting, Boaz. I'd also be interested in seeing how
or if Naremore establishes any connection between his idea of the
grotesque with the related genres of the Uncanny and the Gothic (not to
mention the more obvious genres of Horror, monstrous SF, weird realism
and, not forgetting, film noir and German expressionism, the latter of
which Naremore has previously dealt with in that same journal). For
instance (and just as a quick point), take Naremore's drawing attention
to the grotesque as "deliberately confusing the animate with the
inanimate." This is close to the very DEFINITION of the Gothic - as a
flatline precariously balanced between the living and the dead: the
Undead, that which insists, that which persists in spite of everything.
Where do we see clear examples of this in Kubrick? Well, everywhere ...
The Shining: the closing scenes/montage - cutting from Jack frozen in
the cold dead of the Overlook's snow-covered maze to the
"hauntological" (a term coined by Derrida in the 1990s, as contrasted
with the ontological) slow track-in to the "impossible-real" of a
monochrome photo of Jack pictured at a 1921 July 4th soirie at the
Overlook. This uneasy tension and hesitation between living and dead,
between the past and the now, present and not present, eluding the
catagorical definintion of western metaphysics, apparently erased yet
still palpable in traces and echoes and uncanny visitations. And this
same last scene is yet further reinforced by that final song (a
haunting English pop song from the 1930s) that accompanies the track-in
to the photo - another inscripted trace that is neither presence nor
absence but a spectral apparation that both references and eludes such
binary oppositional catagories...(Naremore's example of the Mannequin
scene at the end of The Killing is of course another, albeit less
complex, instance).
Eyes Wide Shut: the obvious one is the morgue scene where Bill stares
at the dead Mandy (or IS it her?), accompanied by flashback voiceover
of Mandy warning Bill at Somerton. But isn't there something ominously
grotesque about so much that happens in this film - even that pool-room
scene in which manipulative, cynical pragmatist Ziegler tries to
explain away Mandy's death as "business as usual", as "everyone's
happy", is sheer grotesquery ...
Full Metal Jacket: Yes, the 1000-yard stare. A brilliant example!
Even 2001 - the protracted, laboured, excruciating killing of the
animate/inorganic HAL versus the instant, whip-lashed, indifferent
killing of the inanimate/organic astronauts. And so on ...
Much, much more to examine here.
Harry Bailey
Apologies, that should be "at the end of Killer's Kiss." Of course The
Killing has the "grotesque" shot of a horrified Clay witnessing a dumb
poodle annihilating all his hubris, arrogance, and "plans for the
future", etc.
ichorwhip
Very interesting stuff Boaz, thanks for sharing it. I can't believe
Naremore botched that line in FMJ. It made me bitter. , )
Anyway, briefly I wanted to point out that ACO is quite abundant in the
grotesque as discussed, and it's in ACO where I'm certain that the word
"grotesque" is actually used:
"Choice! The boy has no real choice, has he? Self interest, fear of
physical pain drove him to that grotesque act of self abasement. Its
insincerity was clearly to be seen. He ceases also to be a creature
capable of moral choice."
i
"piop"
Harry Bailey
Harry Bailey wrote:
>
> Eyes Wide Shut: the obvious one is the morgue scene where Bill stares
> at the dead Mandy (or IS it her?), accompanied by flashback voiceover
> of Mandy warning Bill at Somerton. But isn't there something ominously
> grotesque about so much that happens in this film - even that pool-room
> scene in which manipulative, cynical pragmatist Ziegler tries to
> explain away Mandy's death as "business as usual", as "everyone's
> happy", is sheer grotesquery ...
Some evidence below that Kubrick originally had some necromantic
intentions when filming the morgue scene - evidence from the "corpse"
herself, Mandy:
From: The Independent - 6 August 1999
Title: Giggling with Kubrick by Peter Carty
Whatever happened to the scene in Eyes Wide Shut where Tom Cruise
kissed a corpse?
Julienne Davis was that body.
FAIR DOS, Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman have the monopoly on Eyes Wide
Shut stories. But other members of the cast have tales to tell;
Julienne Davis, for example, the young Californian actress, model and
musician who plays the junkie prostitute Mandy in the film.
Initially, Julienne had reservations about the part. "I thought, oh
my God, this is my first big movie part and I'm playing a drug
addict! prostitute. But then I saw that the character had layers,
undercurrents, and she began to interest me." Davis developed her
character partly through studying other depictions of drug addicts.
"I watched the Uma Thurman character in Pulp Fiction, and I got a lot
out of Trainspotting," she says.
On set, Davis was immediately aware that she was working with an
unusual individual. "Kubrick was more eccentric than most - the way
he looked, the way he did things -and I think that was because of his
intelligence. He didn't approach tasks in a regimented, linear way If
there was A, B, C and D to do it would be, 'Oh yes, D needs sorting
out, and there's G over there, and let's go back to A now.' If
you were quite an organised person it would drive you mad."
They bonded early on. "My father was employed by an offshoot of
Nasa. He worked on one of the computers that put the first infrared
satellite on Mars. Obviously Stanley was into the whole space thing and
he was really impressed. But the most endearing thing I remember is of
him asking for a tape of my music. I almost fell off my chair when he
came back the very next day and said how much he loved it that my voice
was fantastic, that his daughter was a composer and that he'd ring
the managing director of Warners to get him to listen to it - which he
did."
Kubrick, apparently was far from dictatorial. "The atmosphere on set
was light. The only one doing the roaring was the first assistant, and
that's normal." But Kubrick was no pushover, either. "In a scene
with Sidney Pollack I got the giggles. After we had to start to
re-shoot the third time Stanley came up and gave me the stare. And this
stare, I tell you, it's an over-the-glasses kind of stare that bores
into you, and he says, 'Julienne, you have to stop this now."'
She stopped.
Her scenes took, on average, 20 to 30 takes, more on occasion, though
never the 50 upwards that Cruise and Kidman sometimes endured.
"In some of them I had to hold my breath for a minute and a half, and
I couldn't blink, and that was very difficult." This was probably
during the necrophilia sequence in which Tom Cruise kisses a corpse in
a morgue. Kubrick included this scene in early versions of the film,
but it was then dropped. Davis is contractually bound to stay silent
about the plot - Kubrick's control continues from beyond the grave
-and she loyally refuses to comment.
There's much speculation about the reason for this scene's
disappearance. Most obviously, it may have been cut because the film
was too long - Kubrick's edits were often over-length. Or inclusion
could have prejudiced the film's US distribution; parts of the orgy
scene have had to be digitally masked for US audiences.
It's also possible that Kubrick had second thoughts about
representing such "perversion" on screen. The content of A Clockwork
Orange and the subject matter of Lolita are strong counter-arguments to
any suggestions of prudishness. Perhaps, though, as befitting a
contented and ageing family man, his outlook on sexuality had become a
bit staid.
Davis says cautiously "His formative eras were the Forties and
Fifties. He thought of women in a traditional way He liked red lipstick
and high heels." Kubrick was also uncomfortable with overt displays
of affection. "I'd say, 'Hi Stanley' and walk up and give him a
big kiss on both cheeks, and he'd always look kind of pleased and
shocked at the same time."
There were some constraints about the rendering of sexual images. By
Davis's account, Kubrick stipulated that only actresses without
implants could be used for nude shots. "The set was a silicone-free
zone," she giggles. But whether the motivation behind this was
aesthetic, moral or even feminist, is moot.
The work took its toll on Davis. "Afterwards I got ill for a couple
of months. Maybe it was working 12-hour days, maybe it was playing a
druggy - because when you enter that mindset for a period of months
then it starts to affect you." None the less, she is keen on further
suffering; when asked which other directors she'd like to work with,
she says Oliver Stone is her first choice.
------------------------