The Kubrickon

Moderators: DrVolin, 82_28, Elvis, Jeff

Re: The Kubrickon

Postby Elliott Jonestown » Sun Jan 10, 2016 4:02 am

Hi Guys, I just saw this tweet by Kubrick's daughter about her father receiving death threats and always carrying a gun as a result. This potentially lends credence to the Kubrick as whistleblower theory. I hope everyone is having a very good new year. Peace, EJ

https://mobile.twitter.com/ViKu1111/sta ... 7989907456
Hug the tree like it's Mommy.
User avatar
Elliott Jonestown
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2015 10:05 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Kubrickon

Postby Wombaticus Rex » Sun Jan 10, 2016 2:01 pm

Elliott Jonestown » Sun Jan 10, 2016 3:02 am wrote:Hi Guys, I just saw this tweet by Kubrick's daughter about her father receiving death threats and always carrying a gun as a result. This potentially lends credence to the Kubrick as whistleblower theory. I hope everyone is having a very good new year. Peace, EJ

https://mobile.twitter.com/ViKu1111/sta ... 7989907456


Or perhaps, a quality assessment on Kubrick fans!

Definitely an interesting data point, though, thank you.
User avatar
Wombaticus Rex
 
Posts: 10260
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Vermontistan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Kubrickon

Postby guruilla » Sun Jan 10, 2016 2:02 pm

Crackpots make death threats. Intelligence agencies make you dead.
It is a lot easier to fool people than show them how they have been fooled.
User avatar
guruilla
 
Posts: 1383
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:13 am
Location: Canada
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Kubrickon

Postby Iamwhomiam » Wed Feb 10, 2016 2:57 pm

c'mon, Guru, like cats, they enjoy playing with their prey beforehand.
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 5788
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Kubrickon

Postby guruilla » Mon Nov 14, 2016 4:39 pm

I'm choosing to bring this over here as the original thread it began at has several foci besides this one, and because my response to slomo fits precisely with this thread. Hope that's OK with everyone. The subject matter in question, Kek, Egyptian chaos magick and the "unexpcxted" emergence of an id-monster-savior in Donald Trump, is here: https://pepethefrogfaith.wordpress.com/

slomo » Mon Nov 14, 2016 12:46 am wrote: I'm using poorly conceived shorthand words that refer to philosophical concepts that can't be done justice in single a short post. But, basically, I don't think a handful of self-described autists on /pol set out to create a hypersigil to bring about a manifestation of Kek. Rather, I think Kek used a handful of self-described autists on /pol to manifest itself. But to talk about this competently, you'd have to get into what, exactly, Kek is, and how exactly such a thing could occur in conjunction with a bunch of nerds doing nerdy, politically incorrect things, and why such a thing would occur at this exact point in history. You'd also have to get into what causality really is, and that's its own rabbit hole.

My current view is that all metaphysical forces and entities can be understood as sourced in (extensions of) human beings. This is a premise, not a conclusion: if it were true, can we show how it could be so? At least this way, we can start with what is experientially knowable to us, as human beings.

I have had my own encounters with beings or forces which at the time I felt were nonhuman, angelic, demonic, infernal or divine, and I am satisfied that such things exist in some form. But what they are and how they came to be is purely speculative, and if we are going to speculate, we may as well stay as close as possible to what we know.

One thing we know is that human beings have a tendency to try and control things, including or especially one another, and that the desire for power is a primary motivating factor in human behavior and the resulting social arrangements.

Based on this, I’m going to make several propositions to lay the ground for my attempted explanation of “what Kek is.” Firstly, let’s posit groups, in both the past and the present, who understand things about perception, awareness, energy, and human behavior that’s significantly beyond our current scientific, psychological, or religious understanding.

Secondly, let’s posit a desire (for whatever reason) on the part of these groups to establish forms of control and dominance over other people, using this knowledge to do so.

Lastly, let’s suppose that one of the ways they would do this would be to engender forms of worship in the people they want to control.

This relates to some previous points I made here about taboo and social control; see also Rene Girard Violence and the Sacred, and Freud’s Totem and Taboo (although I still haven’t read that one). I’ll leave slomo or someone else to fill in the blanks here, as to how establishing forms of worship (religious values) in a people makes them easier to control. If you create a currency (like the US reserve printing dollar bills), you have control of that currency and that means you also have control over the people who depend on your currency to live. A modern example would be artistic culture and celebrity worship, as evidenced at RI and everywhere else, by which even the most secular-minded people have unexamined admiration for–subjugation to–cultural figures, figures like Russell Brand, Leonard Cohen, Stanley Kubrick, or Lena Dunham.

Put in the most simple terms: is it possible to create gods which people will worship and to thereby become as gods to those people? The short answer is yes. The trick with understanding how gods are created is that it’s a circular process, a positive feedback loop. Gods can only be created through worship, so how do you get people to worship something that doesn’t exist? You have to first create symbols–names, descriptions, images–that represent the imaginary god, and persuade people to direct their worshipful attention towards those symbols: their fear, desire, shock, awe, and wonder. Over time, this directed energy of worshipful attention will animate the symbols and create an “egregore,” which is the concentrated energy of the attention of large numbers of people.

As to how to ensure that the symbols drawing the energy of collective fear-desire then send that energy to the people who created the symbols, i.e., how exactly a strange attractor, energy receptacle, or “cypher” (a code that also siphons), can be designed to receive and then pass on energy to its creators, this is not so clear; but then, this may be the most ancient and secret technology there is, so it’s probably best not to rush in when trying to figure out how it works.

Our best tool is self-examination: since we were engineered by this technology, we can reverse engineer it by deconstructing ourselves.

But coming back to Kek. This would have been a long-term project (all of this is), going all the way back to a pre-Egyptian, “Atlantean” proto-culture of priest-kings, shaman elite, or whatever, being the ones who first fooled people into worshiping them as gods, and so became gods themselves, in some limited sense, who were sustained, empowered, and elevated (maybe literally) by the combined psychic energy of mass worship. (We are talking a kind of high that Mick Jagger can only dream of.)

The final (?) phase of this project (as I think Kubrick anticipated, or was privy to) is now unfolding via the internet, which potentially links together the whole of humanity as a collective unconscious-slash-consciousness, the attention of which can be directed towards any given person, event or symbol (Faceborg being the current primary attractor), in order to “animate” it, i.e., imbue it with the same soul-sentience that’s being harvested from human beings via this collective consciousness trap.

So, we may ask: how could the ancient Egyptians have possibly known the form which this collective brain-link technology would take? They wouldn’t, but then they wouldn’t need to. They wouldn’t have needed to because they were sowing the seeds, the images and the desires, by which this technology would be created. Just as Star Trek gave rise to cell phones, the geeks in Silicon Valley (and on 4chan) have been unconsciously manifesting the dream of their sorcerer ancestors– a dream that was incepted in them while they were still sleeping inside their mother’s wombs (having been incepted in their great grandmothers’ great grandmothers’ wombs) –and bringing into reality.

These unconscious- incepted symbols–god-seeds–are then activated via a waking exposure to images, words, symbols, or sounds, that correspond with that ancient egregore of intent. Like Laurence Harvey staring at the Queen of Diamonds and switching over to his assassin alter, a million geeks are tapping their keyboards in half-trance, decoding Kubrick movies, election data, or Pizza-code for pedophilia, and only half-wittingly unveiling the hidden design of social reality to expose the implicate order of the id. All this would be happening precisely to schedule. It would be a masterpiece of design; but all-too-human in the making.

The attempt to harness an energy that cannot be harnessed (because it’s infinite) is the sorcerer’s apprentice played out on the world stage and collective psyche (as within so without), where the best laid plans of mice and mages invariably lead to nothing besides cracked cosmic egg on the face. Yes, it’s all planned, and no, it will never come off in the end, because it always ends the same way (as those of us who were there in Atlantis well know): as ruins at the bottom of an endless ocean.

In the meantime, to be in the midst of it and be able to see the id becoming conscious of itself, and all the layers of ego-imposed distortion and control shake and shimmy and explode, well, that’s worth paying attention to; not to the shadows that flee but to the blinding light that has chased them away. The man behind the curtain was always going to turn out to be you and me, because we are the only master who made the grass greener on the other side, and who caused the earth to (almost) die out of unrestrained greed for that unreachable world beyond. It's all us.
It is a lot easier to fool people than show them how they have been fooled.
User avatar
guruilla
 
Posts: 1383
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:13 am
Location: Canada
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Kubrickon

Postby slomo » Tue Nov 15, 2016 10:25 am

^^^^ I'll agree to most of what guruilla wrote, with one qualification: an understanding that the word "human" encompasses something much larger than individual human beings. "Humanity" is itself an egregore, a being that exists outside of time and has its own will, independent of our individual egos.
User avatar
slomo
 
Posts: 1781
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 8:42 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Kubrickon

Postby guruilla » Tue Nov 15, 2016 11:59 am

Sync. A spiritual teacher just asked me over at Faceborg if I'd defined what a human being is . . .
It is a lot easier to fool people than show them how they have been fooled.
User avatar
guruilla
 
Posts: 1383
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:13 am
Location: Canada
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Kubrickon

Postby guruilla » Tue Nov 15, 2016 3:45 pm

It doesn't seem that the above is sparking much debate, so here's some specific clues for further mapping the Kek/Kermit memeplex.

Kermit the Frog, first appeared in 1955 on WRC-TV's Sam and Friends then became a regular on Sesame Street, which premiered in 1969, before hosting (more or less) his own Muppet Show.

As author Malcolm Gladwell has stated, "Sesame Street was built around a single, breakthrough insight: that if you can hold the attention of children, you can educate them".[30] Gerald S. Lesser, the CTW's first advisory board chair, went even further, saying that the effective use of television as an educational tool needed to capture, focus, and sustain children's attention.[31] Sesame Street was the first children's show to structure each episode, and the segments within them, to capture children's attention, and to make, as Gladwell put it, "small but critical adjustments" to keep it.[32] According to CTW researchers Rosemarie Truglio and Shalom Fisch, Sesame Street was one of the few children's television programs to utilize a detailed and comprehensive educational curriculum, garnered from formative and summative research.[33]

The creators of Sesame Street and their researchers formulated both cognitive and affective goals for the show. Initially, they focused on cognitive goals, while addressing affective goals indirectly, in the belief that doing so would increase children's self-esteem and feelings of competency.[34][35] One of their primary goals was preparing very young children for school, especially children from low-income families,[36] using modeling,[37] repetition,[38] and humor[31] to fulfill these goals. They made changes in the show's content to increase their viewers' attention and to increase its appeal,[39] and encouraged "co-viewing" to entice older children and parents to watch the show by including more sophisticated humor, cultural references, and celebrity guest appearances.[40]

After Sesame Street's first season, its critics forced its producers and researchers to address more overtly such affective goals as social competence, tolerance of diversity, and nonaggressive ways of resolving conflict.

Sesame Street was part of the ideological-education drive to promote a multicultural paradise of racial & sexual diversity. Of all its avatar-creations, Kermit was probably the most successful in terms of enteirng into the collective consciousness of children and hence adults. I even had my own Kermit doll when I was a kid. And wasn't Kermit kind of ... gay?



This is from #ImWithKer enlists Kermit in the fight against Pepe

We can argue about the finer points of the 2016 election until we're green in the face, but one thing is for certain: No issue has been more important, or more divisive, than frogs.

One frog in particular has hogged the spotlight, though: Pepe. The 4chan-born meme amphibian's name was shouted during Hillary Clinton's watershed speech on the alt-right movement. He has repeatedly resurfaced in neo-Nazi guise, despite creator Matt Furie's insistence that this is just a phase. Clinton's campaign eventually had to issue a statement on Pepe, Donald Trump Jr. denied a relationship with him, and the Anti-Defamation League declared him a hate symbol.

But we all know Pepe isn't the only meme frog out there. We also have Dat Boi, Foul Bachelor Frog, and the #TeaLizard himself, Kermit. The humble leader of the Muppets contains multitudes, but he always seems to be on the right side of history. And as he calmly sips his tea, he projects a certain confidence in our stupid world.

Boys at Jenkins always be crying when they friends trying to get with their ex girl. But that's none of my business tho

— Nate Ashley (@ashtag_16) September 22, 2016
Well, this time something is Kermit's business: the future of the United States. Josh Marshall, editor and publisher of Talking Points Memo, has been tirelessly reporting on Trump and his Pepe army, and he's sick of a one-sided fight. He's enlisting Kermit.
I feel like the rest of us need to get behind a canonical pluralism frog to turn back the tide, re-appropriate what's been lost.

— Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) October 3, 2016
And almost as soon as Marshall declared his allegiance to Kermit over Pepe, a hashtag was born.
@joshtpm #ImWithKer

— Brooklyn Spoke (@BrooklynSpoke) October 3, 2016
Activists quickly took up the cause.
@joshtpm #MakeAmericaKermitAgain

— kenny (@kennyjacobs) October 3, 2016
#ImWithKer

— kenny (@kennyjacobs) October 3, 2016
Only one frog soars above the rest as a symbol of hope and possibility. #takingbackthefrog #teamkermit @joshtpm

— Mike Scholtz (@MikeScholtz) October 3, 2016
Am so about the #imwithker movement. Yay to the people. Yay.

— Angela Workoff (@AngelaWorkoff) October 3, 2016
#Imwithker #ImWithHer
— George A. Hickman (@popmortem) October 3, 2016
Kermit trumps Pepe! #TeamKermit #ImWithKer #ImWithKermit #ImWithHer

— Dr Aussie Jimbo (@WizardOfStraya) October 3, 2016
Hey may not be the frog we deserve, but he's the one we need right now

— Andrew Tumilty (@AndrewTumilty) October 3, 2016
You'd better believe #ImWithKer.

— Brian Jay Jones (@brianjayjones) October 3, 2016
Glad you like it @Konamali1 @AdamsFlaFan @joshtpm Here it is again for your enjoyment. Misery is Joy. #ImWithKer

— JosieHolford (@JosieHolford) October 3, 2016
#ImWithKer because Sesame Street has known about Donald Grump since I was a kid.

— Dusty (@DustinGiebel) October 3, 2016
#ImWithKer because he knows exactly how to best respond to alt-Reich ramblings.

— Alexandra (@AlexandraAimee) October 3, 2016
#ImWithKer because I want something better for us than bigotry.

— jenn (@JezebelButler) October 3, 2016
Thanks to @joshtpm for #TakingBackTheFrog Kermit over Pepe all day. #ImWithKer #TeamKermit #RainbowConnection

— Sandi Allen (@boomboomsandi) October 3, 2016

Response from Pro-Kek channers follows at link:
http://www.dailydot.com/unclick/imwithk ... -election/


Another Sesame St character who resembles Kek is Oscar the Grouch ~ the dark twin of Kermit?

From Know Your Meme:

Why Is Oscar A Grouch refers to a series of images and comics that often try to explain that the Sesame Street character Oscar the Grouch was not always a grouch, and that it was a result of of events that occurred before he lived on Sesame Street. This is frequently done with Vietnam flashbacks, as Sesame Street started in 1968, during the United States involvement in the war at the time.

Spread On March 18th 2015 a comic with Oscar asking why he was a grouch was posted to Imgur.[1] In it, Oscar’s image is superimposed over various scenes of the Vietnam Conflict, suggesting PSTD flashbacks from the event. In a year, this post gained over 10,000 votes and a million views.

Image

On August 15th of the same year, the Tumblr blog for the internet comic “Gone Into Rapture” posted a comic with Big Bird asking Oscar how he came to Sesame Street.[2] The Comic then depicted a flashback with Oscar holding a fellow troop dying in his arms and yelling screaming no, the reverting back to Oscar telling Big Bird no. Withing less than a year this post gained over 4,500 notes.

Image

On December 11th 2015, Reddit user big_fudge_high_score posted a shorted version of the imgur comic to /r/funny.[3] The post gained 5,667 votes (90% positive) before being archived.

Image

Image


Compare with the comfy, easy-going liberal, Kermit:

But That’s None of My Business” is a sarcastic expression used as a postscript to an insult or disrespectful remark said towards a specific individual or group. The phrase was popularized through an image macro series featuring Kermit the Frog from The Muppets and punchlines poking fun at a wide range of faux-pas and questionable behaviors in everyday social situations.

Origin As early as January 2014, Instagram users began posting captioned images of Kermit the Frog with the tag “#kermitmemes” (shown below, left).[4] On June 17th, the earliest known Kermit image macro including the phrase “that’s none of my business” was highlighted by the @kermitbelike[5] Instagram feed in a post mocking delusional women described as being “ratchet


Image

Spread On June 20th, the @thatsnoneofmybusinesstho Instagram[3] feed was created, which highlights pictures of Kermit the Frog with “none of my business” captions. In the first four days, the feed gained over 130,000 followers.


Image

On the same day, Twitter users began tweeting jokes using the hashtags #NoneOfMyBusiness and #Kermit, reaching over 19,000 and 11,000 mentions in the first four days respectively according to the Twitter analytics site Topsy.[3]


Image

On June 22nd, 2014, the single topic blog “Kemit the Snitch” was launched on Tumblr,[1] which highlights notable examples from the image macro series. The first post featured a photograph of Kermit the Frog drinking a glass of iced tea with a caption mocking men who wear fake Jordan sneakers (shown below).


Image

On the following day, YouTuber Bugatti Beez uploaded a video of Kermit the Frog reading notable “But Thats None Of My Business” examples (shown below). In the first 24 hours the video gained over 100,000 views and 480 comments:


(over 3 mil views now)

Image

As of June 2014, there are over 2,100 images uploaded under the tag “kermitmemes” on Instagram.


Precursors to Pepe/Kek:

Feels Bad Man / Sad Frog
Sad Frog is a cartoon drawing of a depressed-looking frog, often accompanied by the text “Feels Bad Man” or “You Will Never X”. It is used to denote feelings of failure or disappointment, either by posting the image or using the phrase “feelsbadman.jpg.” Sad Frog may be seen as the antithesis of Feels Good Man.

The original Sad Frog artwork is based on Matt Furie’s drawing of Pepe the frog. The earliest archived 4chan thread[1] was posted on January 22nd, 2009, in which an altered version of Furie’s original image with the mouth flipped, saying “Feels Bad Man." On August 17th, 2009, a user on the Body Building Forums posted the Sad Frog image with the caption “not good man.”


Image

Pairing the frog with the phrase “You Will Never X” also began some time in 2009. Though the original thread was not archived, it was reuploaded to Polish image hosting service Kyon[3] on June 11th, 2009, noting 4chan’s anime board, /a/, as its original source.


Image

Throughout 2010, “feelsbadman.jpg” became a popular way of conveying feelings in Greentext style stories throughout 4chan boards, including /mu/[5] (music), /r9k/[6] (Robot9000) and /sp/[7] (sports). The first Sad Frog image compilation was posted to FunnyJunk[8] on June 1st, 2010. The phrase “feels bad, man” was first defined on Urban Dictionary[4] on November 30th, 2010.


And:

Angry Pepe
Angry Pepe, also known as Angry Frog, is a reaction image featuring a hostile-looking variation of Pepe the Frog. The image is often accompanied by expressions of rage and intense frustration.

The oldest retrievable use of the image on 4chan can be traced back to April 28th, 2014, when it was posted on the /r9k/[10] (ROBOT9001) board, referring to normal people as ‘normalfags’.

The second instance can be traced back to May 9th, 2014, when it was resubmitted in a reply on the /pol/[2] board to complain about recreational alcohol consumption (shown below).


Image

Later that same day, picture was reused on the /r9k/ (robot9001) board.[3] On December 30th, Redditor AliThePanda submitted the reaction image to the /r/pepethefrog[8] subreddit. On January 19th, 2015, an anonymous 4chan user posted the image in a thread to express frustration with reading too slowly on /pol/.[9] On January 31st, BodyBuilding Forums[6] user goondip posted the Angry Pepe reaction image in a thread about the Asian Cup 2015 final soccer game. On February 9th, Tumblr[5] user enemy-stand posted several variations of the Angry Pepe image, garnering upwards of 12,500 notes over the next week (shown below). On February 12th, an anonymous 4chan user submitted the Angry Pepe reaction image with a rant about gaining employment in the information technology sector to the /g/ (technology) board.[7]


Image

Interview with Anonymous creator

Anonymous : I’m the creator of this image and first used it here: https://archive.moe/r9k/thread/11493563/.

Miluk : As a fact, t’s its first appearance, so I have no reason to disapprove. Can you go for a short interview with Know Your Meme user Miluk as a creator? First question: Where’s the normalfags, ‘normies’ thing coming from? Did you come with this up all by yourself?

Anonymous : The actual origin of the term is from long ago, probably 2008 or 2009 on /b/. It has since become an integral part of /r9k/ culture. There has been much debate as to what constitutes a normalfag; some argue that people with friends are normalfags, some argue that non-virgins are normalfags, and some argue that anyone with even a remotely fulfilling life is a normalfag. Here’s an example of normalfag bingo. The specifications of a normalfag have changed a lot over the years, however. Normalfags initially referred to those people who treated online interactions as they would real interactions (following the same “rules” or customs that they would in real life), incessantly obsessed over the slightest deviation from some arbitrary ideal or norm (i.e. “I’m such a nerd! xD”), or constantly talked about mundane, everyday topics that didn’t provide for a lot of meaningful discussion.
And a couple more: http://knowyourmeme.com/photos/913580-angry-pepe


Image



And so on.
It is a lot easier to fool people than show them how they have been fooled.
User avatar
guruilla
 
Posts: 1383
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:13 am
Location: Canada
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Kubrickon

Postby semper occultus » Thu Nov 17, 2016 6:19 am

'I'm very sick, I need help!' The Shining star Shelley Duvall's struggle with mental illness is revealed as she claims Robin Williams 'is a shapeshifter and not dead'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3944372/I-m-sick-need-help-Shining-star-Shelley-Duvall-s-struggle-mental-illness-revealed-claims-Robin-Williams-shapeshifter-not-dead.html

While the trailer for Friday's show does not say what mental illness the star is suffering from it is clear she needs help, with the actress telling the TV host she does not believe her late co-star is really dead.

'I loved Robin Williams. I don't think he is dead,' the actress says in the trailer. When asked by Dr. Phil where she thinks Robin is, the Time Bandits star replies, 'Shape shifting'. Shelley - who claims to have seen Robin since his death - also feels she is under threat.

'The man who is threatening me is the Sheriff of Nottingham.' Pointing to her leg, the former Hollywood starlet also claims 'there's a worrying disc inside of me.'

In a moment of clarity Shelley looks at Dr. Phil and begs for help: 'I'm very sick, I need help.' Dr. Phil replies: 'That's why I am here.'

Shelley has previously hinted at her struggle with mental illness during the filming of The Shining which was released in 1980 but took 500 days to film.
Director Stanley Kubrick allegedly pushed Shelley harder than he did her co-star Jack Nicholson.

The iconic filmmaker reportedly made the cast and crew isolate her, forcing her to re-do scenes hundreds of times and not telling her what he and Jack were improvising so to scare her more.

Shelley said in The Complete Kubrick: 'From May until October I was really in and out of ill health because the stress of the role was so great.
'Stanley pushed me and prodded me further than I’ve ever been pushed before. It’s the most difficult role I’ve ever had to play.'


Image
User avatar
semper occultus
 
Posts: 2853
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 2:01 pm
Location: London,England
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Kubrickon

Postby semper occultus » Mon Jan 09, 2017 2:14 pm

"Close to tears, he left at the intermission": how Stanley Kubrick upset Arthur C Clarke

The clash of wills behind 2001: a Space Odyssey reminds me that scientific education, not mystery, was always closest to my friend's heart.

BY MICHAEL MOORCOCK

http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/books/2017/01/close-tears-he-left-intermission-how-stanley-kubrick-upset-arthur-c-clarke

There are several published accounts of how the 1968 film 2001: a Space ­Odyssey came into being. I understood from Arthur that he was somewhat frustrated by the erratic schedule of its director, Stanley Kubrick. Consequently, the novel, which they were supposed to write before the film appeared, came out after the initial release date. But in the main he seemed happy with the collaboration, even up to the time that rough cuts were being shown. He was, I know, afraid that what with Kubrick’s inability to settle down and collaborate on the novel, with the result that the book was due to come out after the cinematic release, it might look like a novelisation of the film rather than an ­original work.

Based primarily on his short story “The Sentinel”, together with other published fact and fiction, the film was very much a joint effort, although Arthur was overly modest about his contribution. For his part, Kubrick seemed unable to come up with an ending that suited him. When I visited the set, the film was already about two years behind schedule and well over budget. I saw several alternative finale scenes constructed that were later abandoned. In one version, the monolith turned out to be some kind of alien spaceship. I also knew something that I don’t think Arthur ever did: Kubrick was at some point dissatisfied with the collaboration, approaching other writers (including J G Ballard and myself) to work on the film. He knew neither Ballard nor me personally. We refused for several reasons. I felt it would be disloyal to accept.

I guessed the problem was a difference in personality. Arthur was a scientific educator. Explanations were his forte. He was uncomfortable with most forms of ambiguity. Kubrick, on the other hand, was an intuitive director, inclined to leave interpretation to the audience. These differences were barely acknowledged. Neither did Kubrick tell Arthur of his concerns regarding the final version. Where, thanks to Arthur, the film was heavy with voice-over explication and clarifications of scenes, Kubrick wanted the story to be told almost entirely visually.

Without consulting or confronting his co-creator, Kubrick cut a huge amount of Arthur’s voice-over explanation during the final edit. This decision probably contributed significantly to the film’s success but Arthur was unprepared for it. When he addressed MGM executives at a dinner in his honour before the premiere, he spoke warmly of Kubrick, declaring that there had been no serious disagreements between them in all the years they had worked together, but he had yet to see the final cut.

My own guess at the time was that Kubrick wasn’t at ease with any proposed resolution but had nothing better to offer in place of his co-writer’s “Star Child” ending. We know now that the long final sequence, offered without explanation, was probably what helped turn the film into the success it became, but the rather unresponsive expressions on the faces of the MGM executives whom Arthur had addressed in his speech showed that they were by no means convinced they had a winner.


What had impressed me on my visit to the set was the dedicated enthusiasm of the Nasa advisers, who had offices at the studios. You could walk into a room and find a fully equipped spacesuit hanging behind the door. There were star-charts and diagrams on the walls; exploded drawings, models, mock-ups and pictures of spaceships and equipment. I saw Roy Carnon’s paintings of Jupiter and large sketches of scenes that would soon become every filmgoer’s idea of what the future in space would look like. The main set was dominated by a huge, fully working centrifuge, built at vast cost by Vickers-Armstrongs, the British engineering firm. Every technician I met talked about the project with such commitment that I was soon infected by the conviction that we really were preparing an expedition to Jupiter. Computer-generated imagery did not yet exist, and so a great deal had to be built or painted close to full size.

With almost no interest in space exploration, I nonetheless found myself excited by the atmosphere. Yet I did wonder if all the “authenticity” I saw around me might not be overwhelming. Could Kubrick’s singular imagination flourish in this atmosphere? Was that why it was taking so long to complete 2001 and the film was so heavily over budget? I had a slightly uncomfortable feeling that the considerable investment in establishing the reality of interplanetary space travel might produce a film more documentary than fiction.

As it turned out, Arthur did not get to see the completed film until the US private premiere. He was shocked by the transformation. Almost every element of explanation had been removed. Reams of voice-over narration had been cut. Far from being a pseudo-documentary, the film was now elusive, ambiguous and thoroughly unclear.

Close to tears, he left at the intermission, having watched an 11-minute sequence in which an astronaut did nothing but jog around the centrifuge in a scene intended to show the boredom of space travel. This scene was considerably cut in the version put out on general release.



***



If Arthur was disappointed by Kubrick’s decision to cut his dialogue and narrative to the bone, he was eventually reconciled by being able to put everything left out of the film into the novel, meaning that each man was able to produce his own preferred version. The success of the film ensured that the book became a bestseller, as audiences sought answers to questions raised by Kubrick’s version, and Arthur soon got over his disappointment, going on to write three bestselling sequels to his novel, only one of which has been filmed so far.


Inspiring governments to invest in space exploration and schoolboys to become astronauts, 2001 convinced the general public that science fiction could be taken seriously. Until Star Wars sent the genre back to an ­essentially juvenile form, the movie led to a greater understanding of the valuable creative possibilities of all kinds of science fiction. There would not be a more influential film until Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner, with its sober moral resonances. It also proved to Hollywood that good, big-budget SF movies could be money-spinners and garner critical respect at the same time. Without 2001 it is unlikely the genre would have progressed to its current state.

I have one other memory of that visit to the 2001 set. After being given a tour of the studio by the MGM publicist, I was led towards Kubrick’s office just as the director entered the main building. I prepared to meet the man who had contacted me a year or so earlier. I had many questions. Perhaps he would confirm some of my guesses.

Kubrick’s eyes went straight to me and did not leave me as he spoke brusquely to the publicist.

“Get these people off the set,” he said.

We were never face to face again.
User avatar
semper occultus
 
Posts: 2853
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 2:01 pm
Location: London,England
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Kubrickon

Postby Agent Orange Cooper » Mon Jan 09, 2017 3:41 pm

How horrid would all that voice-over narration have been? I think Kubrick had the right idea on that one.
User avatar
Agent Orange Cooper
 
Posts: 493
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 2:44 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Previous

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 28 guests