Black Monolith of Kubrick's 2001: An Esoteric Mystery(9/11)

[justdrew]

A clockwork orange isn't really an orange anymore at all.

I was also wondering if anyone had an opinion on whether to watch the Cremaster Cycle in numerical or release order?

[8bitagent]

A clockwork orange isn't really an orange anymore at all.

I was also wondering if anyone had an opinion on whether to watch the Cremaster Cycle in numerical or release order?

I'd say watch it in the order I saw them(meaning best to worst)

Cremaster 3(2002)
Cremaster 2(1999)
Cremaster 1(1995)
Cremaster 5(1997)
Cremaster 4(1994)

Cremaster 3 and Cremaster 2 are absolute visionary films and experiences to say the least. Very challenging movies, unflinching, bizarre, meditative, ritualistic, and very richly woven and hypnotic that are at times both frightening yet whimsical.

[justdrew]

just saw the most amazing/frightening/profound movie, and a triggering warning on it for the gurney/operating room scenes...

1966s... Seconds, staring Rock Hudson.
the bacchanalian grape crushing party scene is really incredible.

Seconds is a 1966 American film starring Rock Hudson. Characterized sometimes as a science fiction thriller, but with elements of horror, neo-noir, psychedelia, and drama, the film was directed by John Frankenheimer with a screenplay by Lewis John Carlino. The script was based on a novel by David Ely. The film was released by Paramount Pictures.

Beach Boys co-founder Brian Wilson saw the movie during its initial release, between sessions for Smile. Under the influence of drugs, the early stages of schizophrenia, and pressure to complete Smile, Wilson found Seconds an especially intense experience, that affected him personally (beginning with his arriving late; the first dialogue he heard onscreen was "Come in, Mr. Wilson", taking him by surprise). His state of mind shifted over the next months, between fantasies of escaping his own life in a similar way, and thoughts that perhaps rival producer Phil Spector had somehow convinced Columbia Pictures (sic) to make the movie "to mess with my mind". Wilson later abandoned the Smile sessions, and did not see another movie in a theater until E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial in 1982. His experience was later recounted in The Beach Boys by Byron Preiss, Look! Listen! Vibrate! Smile! by Domenic Priore, and Wilson's own Wouldn't It Be Nice: My Own Story (written with Todd Gold).

the connection to 2001 is that the director of Seconds also did Grand Prix, which was the first of the super-panavision movies, and 2001 was probably the apex of that technology.

Frankenheimer was a close friend of Senator Robert Kennedy and in fact drove him to the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles the night he was assassinated in June 1968.

[JackRiddler]

.

Hey, c2w: Please see the "Eyes Wide Shut" thread in Culture Studies.

[MacCruiskeen]

One point from Kreider's essay:

As Ziegler angrily tells Bill in their final confrontation, "That whole play-acted 'take me' phony sacrifice had absolutely nothing to do with her real death!" No, her death had more to do with the cult of secrecy and power at the heart of wealth--in other words, just business.

Kubrick really makes a point of emphasising the sheer phoniness and vacuousness of that "esoteric mystery" carry-on in Somerton; firstly, through the deliberately wooden acting and speech of the woman who warns Harford that his life is in danger; and secondly (very strikingly) by that pseudo-dramatic fast zoom-in, when she issues her word of protest from the balcony. That's the only zoom - the only demonstrative camera movement! - in the entire film, and it made me laugh the first time I saw it. It's a jaded trick from the 1970s (totally overused in that decade, and first made possible by the invention of the Steadicam, I think). But Kubrick was far too careful & conscious an artist not to have known exactly what he was doing there. The ritual at Somerton is deliberately made unhorrifying and un-suspenseful, just as the "orgy" is deliberately made "cold" and asexual. And if Kubrick goes so far out of his way to bleed the drama and eroticism out of these scenes, it can only be because he wants to prevent us from immersing ourselves in the movie, with eyes wide shut.

Does anyone know whether Kubrick took an interest in Brecht?

ON EDIT: Kreider, not Kreidler.

[8bitagent]

One point from Kreidler's essay:

As Ziegler angrily tells Bill in their final confrontation, "That whole play-acted 'take me' phony sacrifice had absolutely nothing to do with her real death!" No, her death had more to do with the cult of secrecy and power at the heart of wealth--in other words, just business.

Kubrick really makes a point of emphasising the sheer phoniness and vacuousness of that "esoteric mystery" carry-on in Somerton; firstly, through the deliberately wooden acting and speech of the woman who warns Harford that his life is in danger; and secondly (very strikingly) by that pseudo-dramatic 70's-style zoom-in when she issues her word of protest from the balcony. That's the only zoom - the only demonstrative camera movement! - in the entire film, and it made me laugh the first time I saw it. Kubrick was far too careful an artist not to have known what he was doing there. The ritual at Somerton is as deliberately unhorrifying and undramatic as the "orgy" is deliberately unsexy.

It's kind of like how conspiracy researchers will focus on Bohemian Grove and Skull and Bones, "where the elite dress in robes and act out occult ceremonies"...but then of course issue the caveat that it's all "just a play".

While, David Icke and others say that the elite really are into crazy sacrifice death-sex magick rituals and torture, but that it's out in mansions or castles in Europe.

[MacCruiskeen]

Googling "Kubrick Brecht" gets quite a lot of hits. I'd be really interested to know if SK himself ever explicitly mentioned BB.

This is from a Guardian interview with Nicole Kidman, mainly about The Shining:

Two things immediately become apparent: as in many Kubrick films, the speech is strangely flat, not to the point of unnaturalness but just enough to give an odd feel. And the director clearly fussed about the framing of his shots. Everything appears posed and arranged. "Stanley is the master of that," Kidman says. "He was very precise about his framing, mostly because of the way he wanted to use the Steadicam in the movie."

The Steadicam is a portable camera that can be moved about freely without any shaking. It was a new toy back in the late 1970s, when Kubrick was making The Shining. He was among the first to use it. And he showed how it could become not merely another tool, but also a gateway into a new visual style.

In The Shining, Kubrick made these ostentatiously smooth camera movements - relatively new to audiences - into a motif for the film. The steadiness of the camera movements mixed with the grisly subject matter into a mood of unease, especially when juxtaposed with the odd, often emotionless speech. "Stanley would tell us he was not interested in naturalness," Kidman recalls. "He was not interested in a sort of documentary style performance. He liked it to be slightly odd, slightly off."

[...]

Kidman sees a connection between Brecht and Kubrick. "Brecht thought that by creating naturalism you were asking the audience to become emotionally attached to the characters. What Brecht felt, and what directors like Stanley or Lars von Trier are saying, is that it's not about becoming attached to the characters or imagining that it's really happening to you. That's what Stanley liked about a performance. It didn't have to be real - it just had to be slightly heightened." ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2002/ ... colekidman

[JackRiddler]

One point from Kreider's essay:

Kubrick really makes a point of emphasising the sheer phoniness and vacuousness of that "esoteric mystery" carry-on in Somerton; ... But Kubrick was far too careful & conscious an artist not to have known exactly what he was doing there. The ritual at Somerton is deliberately made unhorrifying and un-suspenseful, just as the "orgy" is deliberately made "cold" and asexual. And if Kubrick goes so far out of his way to bleed the drama and eroticism out of these scenes, it can only be because he wants to prevent us from immersing ourselves in the movie, with eyes wide shut.

Does anyone know whether Kubrick took an interest in Brecht?

ON EDIT: Kreider, not Kreidler.

Well taken, MacC. This hit me on a recent second or third viewing, that the proceeding had nothing to do with pleasure and was the antithesis of an orgy. Could it be otherwise, when one considers what the "ritual" really is, in simple materialistic-objective terms: a bunch of crude super-rich self-celebrating hollow old male fucks belonging to a shared network, who are probably all members in the same two or three country clubs, bring trophy wives if they have them and hire a troop of performers and high-priced call girls (and a few call boys, all probably provided by a single "discrete" prostitution ring formed to serve this particular type of function) so that they can "Cosplay for Satan" and watch each other try to impress the rest by displaying a power fuck. Harford had totally accepted the circle's mentality, having lived off it, and wanted entry to the circle, but fell into the trap for the simple reason that the "ritual" in part lives from exclusion and can never pass up the opportunity to make that explicit.

One thing I was looking for was hints that the people at the Ziegler party were also at Somerton's, but I didn't see too much made clear about that. I suppose that would have been too obvious. Which one at Somerton's was Ziegler?

As for Brecht, it's undeniable: Kubrick's entire work embodies the alienation technique on film, like no other. Is that how Kubrick thought of it, or did he naturally adopt it as the only way to go with the subjects he chose? Same either way.

.

[MacCruiskeen]

As for Brecht, it's undeniable: Kubrick's entire work embodies the alienation technique on film, like no other. Is that how Kubrick thought of it, or did he naturally adopt it as the only way to go with the subjects he chose? Same either way.

Agreed. But it's worth noting that his wife was German, that she was an actress who was growing up while Brecht was at the height of his fame, and that she came from a theatrical family. I'd guess that Kubrick knew BB's work well and talked about it too - not just the plays but the theoretical writings, especially the stuff about acting and the Verfremdungseffekt. ( "Glotzt nicht so romantisch!")

- YouTube: Christiane Harlan (later Kubrick) sings "The Faithful Hussar" in the last scene of Paths of Glory.

[JackRiddler]

.

OMG, THAT'S HIS WIFE?!

The happy dawg. (Why am I not back in Germany?)

.

[8bitagent]

One point from Kreider's essay:

Kubrick really makes a point of emphasising the sheer phoniness and vacuousness of that "esoteric mystery" carry-on in Somerton; ... But Kubrick was far too careful & conscious an artist not to have known exactly what he was doing there. The ritual at Somerton is deliberately made unhorrifying and un-suspenseful, just as the "orgy" is deliberately made "cold" and asexual. And if Kubrick goes so far out of his way to bleed the drama and eroticism out of these scenes, it can only be because he wants to prevent us from immersing ourselves in the movie, with eyes wide shut.

Does anyone know whether Kubrick took an interest in Brecht?

ON EDIT: Kreider, not Kreidler.

Well taken, MacC. This hit me on a recent second or third viewing, that the proceeding had nothing to do with pleasure and was the antithesis of an orgy. Could it be otherwise, when one considers what the "ritual" really is, in simple materialistic-objective terms: a bunch of crude super-rich self-celebrating hollow old male fucks belonging to a shared network, who are probably all members in the same two or three country clubs, bring trophy wives if they have them and hire a troop of performers and high-priced call girls (and a few call boys, all probably provided by a single "discrete" prostitution ring formed to serve this particular type of function) so that they can "Cosplay for Satan" and watch each other try to impress the rest by displaying a power fuck. Harford had totally accepted the circle's mentality, having lived off it, and wanted entry to the circle, but fell into the trap for the simple reason that the "ritual" in part lives from exclusion and can never pass up the opportunity to make that explicit.

Perhaps, perhaps. But I don't think in the world of Eyes Wide Shut,
they just all picked out robes and made up this elaborate masquerade for the hell of it.

I'm convinced it was Kubricks' attempt to expose some of the inner workings of the "black brotherhood"...get that all seeing eye wide open.

[IanEye]

'Seconds' is a great head film.

Have you seen 'The Swimmer' ?

[brekin]

Satoru Iwata, Nintendo Chief Executive, Dies at 55
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/13/busin ... .html?_r=0

Mr. Iwata got his start in video games as a contract programmer for HAL Laboratory, a game developer that works closely with Nintendo. The company, which Mr. Iwata later revealed was named because each letter is one ahead of IBM, gave him his first experiences creating games.

One wonders if Kubrick named HAL as a subtle cryptogram of IBM also?

[justdrew]

Satoru Iwata, Nintendo Chief Executive, Dies at 55
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/13/busin ... .html?_r=0

Mr. Iwata got his start in video games as a contract programmer for HAL Laboratory, a game developer that works closely with Nintendo. The company, which Mr. Iwata later revealed was named because each letter is one ahead of IBM, gave him his first experiences creating games.

One wonders if Kubrick named HAL as a subtle cryptogram of IBM also?

well, I always heard that he did, for sure. Iwata's lab was just borrowing the idea.

[brekin]

Satoru Iwata, Nintendo Chief Executive, Dies at 55
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/13/busin ... .html?_r=0

Mr. Iwata got his start in video games as a contract programmer for HAL Laboratory, a game developer that works closely with Nintendo. The company, which Mr. Iwata later revealed was named because each letter is one ahead of IBM, gave him his first experiences creating games.

One wonders if Kubrick named HAL as a subtle cryptogram of IBM also?

well, I always heard that he did, for sure. Iwata's lab was just borrowing the idea.

Word. Should have done the due diligence wiki.

Origin of name

Although it is often conjectured that the name HAL was based on a one-letter shift from the name IBM, this has been denied by both Clarke and 2001 director Stanley Kubrick.[1] In 2010: Odyssey Two, Clarke speaks through the character of Dr. Chandra (he originally spoke through Dr. Floyd until Chandra was awakened), who characterized this idea as: "[u]tter nonsense! [...] I thought that by now every intelligent person knew that H-A-L is derived from Heuristic ALgorithmic".[16][17]

Clarke more directly addressed this issue in his book The Lost Worlds of 2001:[6]

As is clearly stated in the novel (Chapter 16), HAL stands for Heuristically programmed ALgorithmic computer. However, about once a week some character spots the fact that HAL is one letter ahead of IBM, and promptly assumes that Stanley and I were taking a crack at the estimable institution ... As it happened, IBM had given us a good deal of help, so we were quite embarrassed by this, and would have changed the name had we spotted the coincidence.

Also, IBM is explicitly mentioned in the film 2001, as are many other real companies. IBM is given fictional credit as being the manufacturer of the Pan Am Clipper's computer, and the IBM logo can be seen in the center of the cockpit's instrument panel. In addition, the IBM logo is shown on the lower arm keypad on Poole's space suit in the scene where he space walks to replace the antenna unit, and may possibly be shown reflected on Bowman's face when he is inside the pod on his way to retrieve the body of Poole (there is speculation as to whether or not the reflection is that of the letters "IBM" or the letters "MGM", the film studio).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL_9000#Origin_of_name