Sunday 29 October 2017

小林正樹 - 空虛的武士像


每個人固然都有自己的主見, 但能夠不惜一切地去堅持的, 又能有幾人? 尤其在亂世中, 看風駛艃的態度, 似乎更合生存之道! 在五十年代, 日本出現了一位導演, 他幾部世界知名的作品, 啟發了我們要懂得相信自己, 從而改變世界。在灌木繁茂的叢林裏, 只有堅挺不動的大樹才能紇立不倒。他就是我十分崇拜的導演 - 小林正樹!

說到小林正樹最著名的作品, 當然就是切腹’ (1962) 。小林正樹不但在此片達致極高的藝術境界, 而且故事極具悲劇性, 動人而具感染力的情節亦令人一看難忘。切腹可算是一部接近完美的經典電影,  它影響了杜琪峰, 吳宇森, 馬田史高西斯 (尤其是電影的士司機’), 張藝謀等多位知名導演, 亦曾在康城影展裏勇奪評審大獎 ! 飾演主角的仲代達矢是我最喜歡的日本演員, 而他所飾演的老武士津雲半四郎亦都是我最喜歡的電影角色之一。

切腹借主角半四郎誓死捍衛自己家族名譽的故事, 告訴觀眾堅持自己信念的重要性。 在這世界, 講就凶狠, 做就碌X作為人生格言的人, 可謂比比皆是。 他們盲目信奉一些所謂的規條, 以為把規條掛在嘴邊, 便可隱站道德高地, 從而自我感覺良好 , 當真正要為自己所信的信念付諸行動時, 卻又肆意推搪, 既濟未濟。 因為, 這些人根本沒有真心相信過他們所謂堅持的東西! 小林正樹早就洞察到這種人性的弊端, 於是, 他在電影裏追問觀眾: 面對制度的偽善, 和禮節的腐朽, 你還有能耐去容忍嗎? 遇到不公義的事時, 你會選擇畏縮一角, 還是直抒胸臆? 切腹, 我們看到幕府井伊家裏放置了一個武士像。 空虛的武士像, 象徵武士道諸多規條的虛無。 當偽善的人們無法切實地履行他們的信誓時, 這些規條又有什麼存在價值? 當苟且偷生, ‘返工等放工成為了生存的不二法門時, 又有幾人會不惜沉重代價, 去做自己真正相信的事?

其實, 要成為一個真正有尊嚴的人, 就是要有勇氣去堅持自己的信念。 故事中, 半四郎遇到不公義的事。他深知道不平則鳴的後果, 就是會導致自己的滅亡。 他也明白自己儼如一顆輕沙, 即使拼勁行動, 亦無法改變禮崩樂壞的現狀。不過, 他的行為反映了他真正地相信武士道。 當他揭露了井伊家的虛偽, 及擊敗了裏面諸多武士後, 他真的履行承諾, 自行切腹。 他的切實行動, 赢得了觀眾的尊重。半四郎或許渺小, 但他這顆小石子, 早已為腐敗的井伊家擊起千重巨浪! ‘切腹可以受到世界眾多觀眾所認同, 或許就是因為它為我們表述了心中所想!

鮮血, 可以抹掉; 歷史, 可被篡寫; 真相, 終會浮現!

by Ed Law
29/10/2017

Film Analysis


Saturday 28 October 2017

October

Sergei Eisenstein editing his film.
For this month in Hong Kong, a classic Russian silent film has been released in the cinema. Curiously, the name of the film was called ‘October’, and was directed by Sergei M. Eisenstein.

Well, it is not just a funny coincidence. ‘October’ referred to the October Revolution that took place in 1917, and the film was a dramatization which was approved by the Soviet government. Eisenstein was famous in the history of cinema, because he was one of the pioneers of the Soviet montage. The definition of montage, is ‘a technique in film editing in which a series of short shots are edited into a sequence to condense space, time and information’. With films like ‘Strike’, ‘Battleship Potemkin’, and ‘October’, Eisenstein demonstrated in full power and potential of the montage style.

The influence of Eisenstein in modern cinema can be seen from the inspirations he has provided for some of the greatest directors in cinema, including Kurosawa, Welles, Kubrick, Peckinpah, Penn and many more. Numerous films have paid homage to the memorable Odessa sequence from Battleship Potemkin. Yet, Eisenstein was also controversial because of his apparent political motives and the over formalist approaches to cinema. For the first criticism, his films have been labelled by detractors as Marxist propaganda. While I do not feel that he had the intention of making propaganda for self-interest or other motives, the detractors’ criticisms are understandable because cultural artifices and production are easily subject to distortions or misreading, especially by those who are deliberate or have underlying motivations to do that. The second criticism is more fascinating, because it is more an artistic criticism rather than a pragmatic or social one. Eisenstein’s style was very formalized and he made his films through carefully planning and staging of his images. Therefore his style has been criticized as artificial or even monotonous by those who preferred a more spontaneous style. Yet for cinematic montage, if executed neatly, has an intense visual and sensual impact and can leave very long lasting impression on the audience. Eisenstein’s mastery of the montage technique made these films to be some of the most iconic films from the silent era. Thus, it is not necessarily an issue to have a formalist style, it is merely a preference.

It is important to note that Eisenstein was not the one who invented the style of montage editing, nor the only one who has employed this particular style of editing. At the earlier days of cinema, filmmakers around the world have already provided innovations in many styles of editing in films. The French philosopher Deleuze, with his epic investigation in the art of cinema, has identified at least 4 different types of montage editing around the world in the early 20th century – American, French Impressionist, German Expressionist, and of course the Soviet montage.  Deleuze has gone as far to point out that even the Soviet montage was not a coherent style, as Eisenstein’s view on montage was quite different from that of Pudovkin and Vertov, though all these filmmakers were first influenced by Kuleshov. The focus is my discussion here will concentrate on Eisenstein’s style.

Deleuze compared in particular the style of America montage, represented by the films from D. W. Griffith, and that of the Soviet montage, represented by Eisenstein’s films. For the American montage, Deleuze describe the style, in particular Griffith's style, as organic. The result of all the separate shots, when combined together, represented a totality, reminiscent of an organic unity. Even if Griffith often portrayed the two sides in a given issues, good and evil, rich and poor, powerful  and powerless, his motivation was merely to present the whole picture of the issue, to employ an innovative approach to bring all the components to a totality, and construct the filmic reality. Einstein, by contrast, was approaching montage through what Deleuze coined as dialectic. While I do not feel that we should always approach film art through a political point of view, one should not undermine the fact that one of Eisenstein's artistic motivations was a Marxist one, so even though Eisenstein wanted to explore cinema in an artistic and innovative manner, he definitely intended his films to serve a political or idealistic purpose. While Eisenstein praised Griffith for the innovation in the montage style in films like The Birth of Nation, he criticized Griffith for having a bourgeois attitude in these films, therefore he saw a difference between the two styles of montage.

While Eisenstein’s montage style could also be seen as organic, the style was also generative, and that was the reason why Deleuze celebrated this style of montage style, because his own philosophical outlook was also an active and generative one. For Eisenstein, the spirit behind Soviet montage was its dialectical nature. Dialectic is about the confrontation – or collision as Eisenstein would have put it – of two oppressing forces. Eisenstein has written succinctly in his articles regarding film theories, ‘montage is conflict’. The rapid juxtaposition of images will effectively generative an impulse and conflicting impression on the audience, and thus they have to actively engage with the filmic images and generate meaning from these, leading to ‘a revolutionary explosion’ as stated by Eisenstein. In some cases, the montage can be creative and also bear a symbolic significance, as in ‘October’, the juxtaposition of various religious figures with the revolutionary leaders and politician serves as a nice example. Eisenstein did this because he wanted to set up these intellectual montages, so that the audience could engage with the apparently unrelated images intellectually, and discover universal traits among these disconnected images.

Eisenstein’s montage theory, like the other Soviet theorists, was also based on a sound philosophical foundation. The collision of two forces to generate a new state is reminiscent of the ‘thesis-antithesis-synthesis’ triad, from the Hegelian philosophy of the 19th century. One should not be surprised, because Marx’s theory was inspired by Hegel’s theory, only turning from an idealist to a materialist point of view. Not only Eisenstein wanted to explore the potential with film form, he made his films because he wanted his target audience to be aware of the unfairness that took place in the real world, and hopefully figured out a way for change.


No matter how his films might be distorted or misread as propaganda or political tools, Eisenstein’s artistic contributions to cinema was beyond any doubt.

by Ed Law
28/10/2017

Film Analysis


Sunday 22 October 2017

Blade Runner, Part 2


In the film ‘Blade Runner’, the Tyrell Corporation, which was involved in the manufacture of the replicants, claimed that they could make replicants ‘more human than human’. Is it merely a sentimental slogan or a foreseeable phenomenon in the near future?

I believe that if we are to think whether ‘more human than human’ is possible, we have to dissect the question in two perspectives – a biotic (evolutionary) perspective and also an ethical perspective. For the first point of view, if the force to rise above human is merely driven through the impersonal force of evolution, then it is a natural phenomenon and there is nothing wrong about that per se. Yet, if the motivation behind this motto is to afford advantages that can improve humanity’s well being, we have to think what sort of consequence that may lead to ourselves, and also our environment and the machines – that is, the replicants in this case – around us.

The replicants in the film were interesting because they could be considered as a combination of the two ends of the dialectic - the man and the machine. Through the use of genetic engineering, the Tyrell Corporation has been able to generate replicants with above-human abilities, in terms of physical strength and intelligence. Thus, they should be compared to HAL in ‘2001 A Space Odyssey’ rather than the Terminator, as the replicants were a sort of artificial intelligence which could mimic real human behaviors, or could even become more like humans. Yet, the irony was that in order to use these replicants as instruments, they had to be treated in a mechanical way. The Tyrell Corporation's underlying motivation to use the replicants as tools and slaves meant that they had to strip the replicants of their potential dignities, treating them as sub-human. The replicants were engineered to behave as if they were automatons, so that they could be effectively controlled. They were only allowed a mechanical sort of lifespan - a battery life of 4 years, and this forcibly limited the potential development of their existences. They were all assigned specific duties, and they had to perform functions they were programmed to.

Moreover, they were even assigned to simulacra, where in some cases they were misled to believe falsely that they were behaving as if they were genuine human beings and they had life stories of their own. Take Rachael as an example. One of the first twists in the film was that Rachael, who has always believed she was a human being, but was actually a programmed replicant like all the other products of the Tyrell Corporation. While Rachael argued that she had all the memories and all the proofs of her ‘human’ existence, Deckard told her the awful truth that all these memories of her were actually implants, they were simulacra which were programmed into her brain to give her a false consciousness of human existence. I suppose any members of the audience can sympathize with this poor character. It is as if you have everything and all of a sudden, they are gone.

Thus, for Eldon Tyrell, no matter how he rationalized in a sentimental way that he was trying to make our lives better or led us to a better future, it is contentious to state that his motivation is ethical. From a Kantian perspective, the Tyrell Corporation treated the replicants – for whom the Corporation claimed were more human than human – as means to an end. The replicants were not granted any human dignity or individualism - they were merely seen as instruments to further other humans’ end. If we are to use Kant’s ethical theory to provide critique on the Tyrell Corporation’s action, then they should be seen as unethical. For someone to be treated as a human being, he/she should be treated as an end to himself/herself, so that autonomy can be gained and they are not dehumanized because they have to perform some pre-assigned functions to further others’ ends.


Coming back to Rachael’s scenario.  Even if Tyrell appeared to be compassionate and caring to Rachael, his motivation was hypocritical. He went as far to implant happy memories to Rachael’s psyche, to offer her a complete fictional narrative for her existence. None of the scenarios she has encountered throughout her existence belonged to or were originated from her, because they were stories that has already been written and programmed into her.  When she started playing the piano in Deckard’s apartment, she bitterly commented that it was just another skill implanted to her. Tyrell’s dream clearly has not been fulfilled.


The above discussions regarding the nature of replicants are closely related to the central enigma of Blade Runner, which has become iconic over the years - is Deckard a replicant? Many words have been devoted to the potential answers of this question, and everyone, including the director and cast, has provided their own points of view. The newly released ‘Blade Runner 2049’ has thankfully preserved the importance of this mystery, thus preventing the possibility of any simple and shallow answer. I believe this ambiguity is deliberate from the director, though he probably understood that this decision would alienate those members of audience who looked for simple story and fast entertainment. The director put in both clues that argued for and against Deckard’s true nature, and some of these clues would lead to subjective value judgments from the viewers, thus leading to gaps in logic from any possible interpretations. Everyone’s answer will have their own assumptions and have slightly different interpretations, so that a final and definite answer for this mystery will not exist.

It should not be surprising to see that the name ‘Rick Deckard’ is very similar to Rene Descartes, one of the first modern philosophers who questioned about the justification of being. How are I certain of my own autonomous existence, not existing in a dream or being controlled by some unknown, outside force? In the film, the replicant Pris, who were assigned the role of pleasure model, also attempted to assert her autonomy by quoting the motto ‘I think, therefore I am’. The question regarding Deckard’s ultimate status is an epistemological question – very much like if someone challenges you the justifications that you are in a waking state rather than in a dreaming state. When Rachael first met Deckard at the Tyrell Corporation, she challenged Deckard whether he has ever retired a human by mistake before. It was a totally logical suspicion because with the exception of the Voight-Kampff test, there were almost no possible ways to distinguish between a human and a replicant – the replicants were made to look like humans from the very beginning.

Of course, the most straight forward answer is to have Deckard himself taking the Voight Kampff test. Yet, I feel this simple answer does not address the implication behind the question. The Voight-Kampff test, which could be seen as a representation of science in the film's world, was dependent on the context and order of knowledge in that particular world. Even if it can provide a satisfactory answer at that point, one cannot guarantee that the answer is the ultimate final answer, because the science and technology in a given era may not be adequate as time goes on - the development of Einsteinian physics from Newtonian physics serves as a great example. What the question is concerned with are more timeless and metaphysical issues - how Deckard was certain himself that he was a genuine human being but not a ‘skin job’. Descartes, employing his method of doubt, came to conclude and asserted his being because rationality should dictate his existence to be real. The Cartesian doubt should eventually lead to self knowledge, and provides an opportunity to philosophize one of the deepest questions of humanity.

One of the most important and suggestive evidence to support the possibility of Deckard being a replicant was the unicorn origami that Gaff apparently left in Deckard' s apartment, when Deckard planned to escape with Rachael after all that happened. This was so because Deckard had a similar dream about an unicorn some time before, and this uncanny coincidence might suggest that the dreams were planted into Deckard’s consciousness, thereby implying Deckard was just a replicant experiencing his own simulacra. The point when Deckard picked up and inspected the unicorn origami, his facial expression suggested he seemed to understand something. It was also possible that Gaff might be aware of the fact that Deckard was a replicant, and so he provided a subtle clue to Deckard and helped him to run away with Rachael indirectly. Ridley Scott did not commit to provide a final answer in the 1982 film. With the intention of making a hybrid between sci-fi and film noir, he wanted to immortalize the Blade Runner mystery, and thus led to ongoing debate and discussions regarding this modern classic.


So do I think Deckard is a replicant or not? Well, just like everyone else, when I first watched ‘Blade Runner’ I have tried to pick up all the clues in order to lead myself to a final answer. Yet, the more I revisit this question, the more I understand why the creators of the film want this to be a mystery. The question itself is a philosophical one, and the metaphysical nature of it means that we are likely to be inaccessible to the final truth, and can only employ whatever mode of thinking and arrive at some speculations. The point is not just a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer, but what implications the question brings us to. It is the most elemental question of what it means to be human. If I can choose an answer for the film, I would prefer to have Deckard being a replicant, because that will lead to a more ironic and powerful message for the film. No matter what sort of systems we have used to understand ourselves, there are many issues that we cannot understand at the end, because we are often situated in a subjective point of view, no matter how impartial we believe ourselves to be. The acquirement of self-knowledge is the holy grail of our intellectual lives, because it is just so hard to achieve.

Perhaps, the final answer of what it means to be human is not the mere use of reason, in a Cartesian sense, to give a ‘yes’ to the question of our being. It is the very ability for us to doubt our existences, to raise these hard questions, that makes us so human in the first place. A machine or an animal with a lower cognitive ability will not have the ability to ask this. Even we may never find an ultimate answer for the puzzle of our existences, the courage we have channeled to think about these issues is affirmative to our presences. As Gaff will have the final words here – ‘You’ve done a man’s job, sir.’

-End- 

(2/2)

by Ed Law
22/10/2017

Film Analysis


Sunday 15 October 2017

Nietzsche / Kubrick


Of all the great historical figures throughout humanity, I have the greatest admiration for the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), who is having his 173rd birthday today (15th October). Nietzsche was certainly one of the most iconic and controversial thinkers that has ever emerged in human history. With a daring attitude, an original perspective, and an intense caliber for words, Nietzsche’s philosophy challenged everything that was already well-established before his era, and inspired both awe and contention after his death. He has been labeled with a whole spectrum of words, from ‘genius’, ‘visionary’, ‘prophet’ to ‘megalomaniac’, ‘sexist’, ‘racist’, or even ‘fascist’. This is understandable – his ideas were so original that it would provide starting points for those who wanted to engage with the puzzles of life, yet the ambiguities in his writings often presented opportunities for those who wanted to distort his meanings deliberately for nefarious purposes. Nietzsche was clearly a complicated man!  


Nietzsche has inspired so many thinkers and philosophers since his departure from humanity in the early 20th century. What is more noticeable is his intense influence on the art of the 20th century – cinema. Nietzsche’s ideas have been explored in some of the greatest films in the history of cinema, and his influence can be seen in the work of  many great filmmakers, including Kurosawa, Welles, Peckinpah, Melville, Lang, Murnau, Bergman, Antonioni, Herzog, Nolan, and of course the other protagonist of this article, Stanley Kubrick. Heavily influenced by the great German philosopher’s work, many of Kubrick’s films can be seen as the cinematic versions of Nietzsche’s ideas, like ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’, ‘A Clockwork Orange’, ‘Full Metal Jacket’ and so on. For ‘2001’, this connection was even more evident when Kubrick used Richard Strauss’ ‘Also Sprach Zarathustra’, the musical composition inspired by Nietzsche’s magnum opus, to match the fantastic images of his film. Since Kubrick often explored existentialist ideas in his films, it therefore should not be surprising that they also overlapped with Nietzsche’s academic interests. After all, you may not know much about Nietzsche’s story and ideas. Not to worry – you have very likely quoted what Nietzsche has said long before this!

There are no facts, only interpretations.
-Friedrich Nietzsche

1.
What is the starting point for Nietzsche’s ideas? The first major work of Nietzsche was ‘The Birth of Tragedy’, in which he provided some original perspectives regarding ancient Greek culture. He identified two important gods of the ancient times: Apollo and Dionysus. Apollo, the god of sun, represented order, clarity, proportion, form and harmony. By contrast, Dionysus, the god of wine, represented passion, intoxication, and art. Dionysus was fascinating because he was in a constant state of chaos, and he often threatened the established and formalized structure he encountered. He also celebrated unconscious desires, sexuality, and the amorality of natural forces.

For Nietzsche, to be a great human being, it is not merely a choice between the attitude of Apollo or Dionysus. It is a combination or entanglement of the two contrasting spirits, and the interaction and development should be continuous throughout life. Thus, it is invalid for some critics to call Nietzsche ‘irrational’ or ‘over-emotional’, because from his very first work he has already stressed the importance of both reason and passion.  What concerned Nietzsche was that there were since then a severe imbalance in terms of the two forces in Western culture. Philosophy since the ancient Greece seemed to treasure the spirit of Apollo, yet undermined or even negated the Dionysian spirit as irrational or unconstructive. While the force of Dionysus may seem destructive due to his passion and irrationality, it is also where the traits of artistic talent and creativity originate. Thus, Nietzsche believed that no matter how problematic our existence may be, we still have a chance for redemption. That will only happen if we are willing to adopt the Dionysian spirit and find solace in art.

One must still have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star.
- Friedrich Nietzsche 

2.
If the duality of Apollo and Dionysus was important for the well-being of humanity, then Kubrick was certainly an exemplary candidate in this notion. With his original vision, Kubrick’s style represented an amalgam of discipline and passion. He was rational in the sense that he meticulously researched and prepared for his filmmaking projects, yet he welcomed surprises and diversities at the many stages of filmmaking.  When one looks at Kubrick’s formal and visual strategy, one can easily see a parallel between his and Nietzsche’s beliefs. The composition of Kubrick’s films consistently rely on a symmetric, highly ordered one-point perspective, signifying the apparent ‘Enlightenment’ and rationalism of Man’s endeavor and their actions to transform the world around them. However, these balanced structures are often perturbed by the irrational and instinctual urges of humanity, and this cycle of power struggle will just continue indefinitely.

Inspired by Arthur Schopenhauer, both Nietzsche and Kubrick believed the ecstatic energy of Dionysus and the impersonal Eros were very similar to the concept of Will. Schopenhauer believed the world consisted of a force known as ‘Will’. This intense life force is impersonal, purposeless, and almost uncontrollable, yet it serves as the motivation for humanity’s very existence. Schopenhauer also felt that the Will has expressed itself in many forms of art, especially in music. To quote Schopenhauer – ‘In melody [we] recognize the highest stage of the objectivation of the Will, that is, the circumspect life and aspirations of man’. Nietzsche did find the Dionysiac character in music, as it expressed the primal force of existence through the sound and rhythm. Kubrick, taking inspirations from both Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, compared, contrasted, and commented on his filmic images with the unconventional use of pre-established music, and generated numerous cinematic explosions in his films, completing altering the meanings of these cultural artifacts thereafter.

Another similarity in terms of approach related to Nietzsche’s view on the origin of Greek tragedy. Nietzsche maintained that the theme behind Greek tragedy was an encounter between the material forces from the Greek culture and the instinctual force from the Dionysiac spirit, rather than serving as support or representation for some higher metaphysical truths in Greek philosophy. The dramatic aspect of many Kubrick films were quite the same – it was about how the instinctual urges inherent in humans could interact, or even lead to conflict, with the artificial systems we have created for ourselves.

Without music, life would be a mistake.
-Friedrich Nietzsche

3. 
If things appeared to be the on track, then why did Nietzsche see so many problems in the Western culture? What sort of status has humanity reached for Nietzsche? Well, he felt that if we were motivated to give some thoughts about these questions, we first had to be really honest and face the music, even if it would turn out to be dark and negative. For Nietzsche, the phenomenon of ‘modernity’ signified a displacement of power in the Western civilization. Since the religious institutions of the West, especially of Christianity, have lost the central power of governing the State, new powers have be sought to govern and define the normality of the Western world since the 17th century. This addressed Nietzsche’s famous statement, ‘God is dead’. Nietzsche made painstaking efforts to show to his audience, given the absurd situation of the Death of God, what have humans done and why the consequence would just lead to an inevitable state of valueless existence - a sense of nihilism.

After God is displaced, what sorts of power have arrived to claim their places? These powers are rationality, science, humanism, and teleological ideas. For many, the arrival of these ideas represented a departure from dogmatism, and humans were therefore enlightened to become ‘modern men’. With his biting critique, Nietzsche disagreed to this observation. For Nietzsche, nothing fundamental has changed. While the use of reason or a ‘better’ outlook at humanity might sound like an improvement from a more primitive form of existence, these approaches still could not address promptly to the complexity of the human condition. By assuming that humans acted according to reason, and that humans were innately capable of goodness, these ideas actually undermined, or even deliberately denied, the truth of human nature - the possession of irrational and dark sides of humanity. If we do not question the assumptions of these rules and systems, and blindly believe and fit into them, we soon will discover the limitations of these ‘golden rules’. Nietzsche cautioned the people of his times, and those thereafter, that they were situated in an age of decadence. If a new way of thinking and living could not be devised, modern man would inevitably fall into a state of nihilism, the abyss below the rope that signified human existence.

In heaven, all the interesting people are missing.
-Friedrich Nietzsche

4. 
Kubrick also sensed a prevalence of decadence and nihilism in the modern world, and he expressed this visually in his many masterpieces. In ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’, human interactions and the living environment have become so sterile and banal that one may wonder whether these characters can have genuine human emotions in such a technological world. Similar ideas can also be seen in Antonioni’s 1960s films, and in John Boorman’s ‘Point Blank’ (1967), also in the same era and influenced by Antonioni. In ‘A Clockwork Orange’, even with the prevalence of cultural artifacts, it cannot make the characters more moral, or at least have better taste. The authoritarian control cannot successfully undermine the barbarism inherent in all the characters, good and bad. In ‘Barry Lyndon’, even if everything was ceremonial and appeared to be of a high class, the characters were still dark from the inside, and every character’s motivation was merely to fit into the painterly composition of 18th century high culture. Finally in ‘Eyes Wide Shut’, the characters were hypocritical in the polite society, the banal praises demanded by the cultural machine made these statements meaningless, yet the greed and will to exploit others were still present, albeit in a more systematic way in the modern world. Kubrick and Nietzsche, while one century apart, were expressing similar concerns that have stranded humanity through the Modern Age.

Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. 
-Friedrich Nietzsche

5. 
Where did all the problem regarding nihilism originate from? Nietzsche’s major issue with all the established philosophy before him was that they were metaphysical in stance. The philosophers believed that there was an ultimate and transcendent truth, even if it would be totally inaccessible and would only open to speculation. It was the apparent presence of this ‘answer from the marking scheme’ that has led to unhappiness, or even nihilism in our existence.  

In order to organize better, humans have devised institutions throughout the development or civilizations. Nietzsche has pointed out that, no matter how logical, rational or civilized an institution or system were established, it was often based on a hierarchical structure. Unfortunately, this hierarchal arrangement had nothing to do with any objective standard of good or bad – it was merely an aggressive assertion of power on the strong ones onto those they despised or wanted to marginalize. Thus, one can argue that there are no sound and foundational reasons for many of these institutions to exist in the first place. They cannot claim that they exist in the name of reason, for example - it is just they somehow win out in a particular power struggle in the given context.

Nietzsche went as far to contend that, the very foundation of rational thinking, the ability to categorize things and to establish binary oppositions (the ‘yes/no’ dichotomy), was actually originated from a self-interested motivation of marginalizing certain people or things in a particular group or community. The irony is that this stereotyping exercise eventually would become the modus operandi of subsequent philosophical thought. Therefore, one cannot claim one theory is better than another theory because the former is more rational or so – the former viewpoint just circumstantially wins out in the power struggle. 

And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you. 
-Friedrich Nietzsche

6. 
Nietzsche also believed that a misunderstanding of ‘Nature’ was another reason why many thinkers have followed the wrong path. Nature, as Nietzsche observed, was an amoral force of creation and destruction. It was indifferent to justice, pity, or any ‘feel-good’ and sentimental moral ideas humanity has ever created to give meaning to their lives. Because we have made the wrong assumptions, we are led to believe that humanism, rationality, science and organized religion can help us to understand ourselves and lead to a happier existence. Yet, without a flexible mind for change, the most likely consequence will just be the abyss staring back at you.

Thus, one can see that Nietzsche and Kubrick served an anti-humanist viewpoint regarding the human condition. They reminded us not to forget where we came from and our limitations. As Kubrick has stated in one interview, ‘we are not born of fallen angels, but risen apes.’ Only with the correct assumptions can lead to a better understanding of ourselves, and lead to surprising revelations.

 Morality in Europe today is herd animal morality.
-Friedrich Nietzsche

7. 
Nietzsche was a famous Anti-Christ, and his contempt for organized religion, especially Christianity, was legendary. Why did Nietzsche have problems with Christianity? Well, personally I do not feel that he had any prejudices against Christianity per se, as his ideas regarding Christianity could be totally relevant to any organized religion. I have totally respect for Christians and their faith, so I would say I cannot totally agree to Nietzsche’s view in this respect.

The real reason why the self-proclaimed ‘Anti-Christ’ picked on Christianity was due to the religion’s view on morality and the implications it has exerted onto the Western culture. Nietzsche criticized Christianity of advocating a sort of slave morality, which matched very well with the herd instinct he found in his times in European culture. For him, one could be categorized into either a master or a slave. A master is someone who is assertive, confident and bold about what they believe in. A master is noble, because he has his firm beliefs and does not need any approvals from others. A slave is his very opposite – someone who is meek, weak, and have to follow rules to show his obedience. The slave’s action is often motivated by guilt or a fear for punishment. The slave’s antic matches well with the herd morality, because someone who shows an intense level of individualism in a herd will tend to be considered as a maverick and not following the order, and his action will be scorn at rather than celebrate. Nietzsche delivered a knock out to deconstruct Christianity – if someone is pure of heart, and commit to what they believe in (even if that will lead to a negative consequence), why will he weigh on whether to take action or not, based on whether the action will be rewarded (e.g. a ticket to the heaven), or whether he will be punished as a result? Is it, after all, a hypocritical motivation  to start with?

An important attribute for the slave morality was re-sentiment. For Nietzsche, re-sentiment was a passive attitude motivated by hate. It was the inability to admire and respect. The re-sentiment mindset demanded one to hate and have the feeling of being pushed by others, and to distribute personal responsibilities towards the others. It was an important pillar of slave morality, in which one would not even bother to question whether he/she could master his life and address the pitfalls in an affirmative manner.

There is more wisdom in your body than in your deepest philosophy.
-Friedrich Nietzsche

8. 
Kubrick was critical of institutions as much as Nietzsche. In many of his films, Kubrick questioned whether culture, rituals, disciplinary systems and organized religion could lead to an increased sense of morality of people. Through a satirical lens, Kubrick showed the miserable outcome – the characters became flat and dehumanized when they had to obey the systems, and the systems could still not address to contingencies on many cases.

9. 
You still believe your Socratic rationalization can de-mystify the chaotic universe around you? What are you, a blockhead?

10. 
Objective morality, a self-satisfying Enlightenment, a fusion with the Absolute – they appear to be the pillars of human intelligence and rationality – not to Nietzsche.

11. 
Humanity seems to be in need of some sort of a deity to make sense of everything. Is it merely a psychological need or a lack of self-confidence and assertion?

12. 
You, warrior of life, do not merely ask for a fair game, but strive hard for victory.

What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not a goal. 
-Friedrich Nietzsche
 
13. 
Of all of Nietzsche’s work, 'Also Sprach Zarathustra' ('Thus Spoke Zarathustra') clearly stands out. This book was Nietzsche’s gift to humanity, and it demonstrated Nietzsche’s masterful use of language to convey above-human ideas. The book is special because while it is told in a fictional and more abstract manner than his later work, ‘Zarathustra’ encompassed almost all of Nietzsche’s most important ideas. Not only it is intensely inspiring, I also find it a highly enjoyable book, and whenever I am depressed, this book will give me the courage and confidence to continue and strive. ‘Zarathustra’ has led to two further pieces of fine art for humanity – Richard Strauss’ ‘Also Sprach Zarathustra’ and of course, Stanley Kubrick’s ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’.

In the book, Zarathustra was a fictional character from Nietzsche, who was very much speaking on behalf of Nietzsche. Zarathustra had a lot of ideas and insights, but he was lonely, because no one understood what the heck he was talking about, and the people did not bother to listen to Zarathustra. As Zarathustra has mocked himself, he was the wrong mouth for their ears. ‘Thus Spoke Zarathustra’ explored a number of key themes – the evolution of Man, the meaning of life without God, the possibility of ‘over-man’, and eternal recurrence.

I will teach men the meaning of their existence – the overman, the lightning out of the  dark cloud of man. 
-Friedrich Nietzsche

14. 
Nietzsche speculated the potential evolution of man. He felt that man was currently ‘a rope tied between beast and superman – a rope over the abyss’. Humanity is on the way to become what Nietzsche has always dreamed of – the Übermensch (over-man). We have to strive in this direction, to eventually become a nobler sort of person. He had also another analogy – ‘The Three Metamorphoses’ – in the book. It was the transformation from the camel to the lion, than to the final stage of a child. The transformation signified the change of an agency from ‘Thou Shalt’ – order given by others – to ‘I Will’ – assertion that comes out from oneself.

Kubrick was evidently inspired by these when he made ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’. From Moonwatcher, Dave Bowman, to the Start Child, it appeared as if version of ‘The Three Metamorphoses’, especially having Dave walking on a tight rope – where he was in the outer space. 

What does not kill me makes me stronger.
-Friedrich Nietzsche

15. 
What are the attributes of the Übermensch? Well, the Übermensch represents an affirmative vision of life, as he/she has already looked beyond the negative aspects of nihilism, re-sentiment and the slave morality. He is someone, quite literally, beyond good and evil. He embraces, and committees to the will of power, which is to look for meanings and responsible for his own existence, rather than looking beyond life for some transcendental reason or universal morality.

The Übermensch is constantly overcoming himself – his own fears, an appreciation of his own values and meaning, and his ability to create values for himself. Because these are tough challenges, the Übermensch requires a tremendous courage and self-confidence. Here is the motto from the Übermensch - 'Become who you are'!

You must become who it is that you are. 
-Friedrich Nietzsche

16. 
The concept of Übermensch has been distorted and misused, as many sees its meaning as ‘overcoming others’, which is to say harming or even eliminating others. While Nietzsche’s original formulation of the idea might be ambiguous, it should be clear from close reading Nietzsche did not include the destruction of another individual as an attribute of the Übermensch. What we have to be cautious, through, is that Nietzsche seems to imply that the Übermensch is amoral, or has his own code of morals. Thus, objectively we cannot rule out the action from an Übermensch - or ‘Nietzschean strongs’, as contrasting with ‘Nietzschean weaks’, who are those governed by a slave morality – can lead to negative impacts for the others.

Kubrick has expressed this duality in many of his films. One can see characters like the Moonwatcher, Dave Bowman, Alex Delarge, Redmond Barry, and Napoleon (if Kubrick has made the film) can be considered Nietzschean strongs, as they are daring and original for their times and surroundings, yet during the process they have also committed acts that have impacted the others’ well-being, including destruction and even murder. This is the paradox of the ‘evil genius’, and I suppose why the Übermensch is a far-reaching aim.

The noble human being honours himself as one who is powerful, also as one who has power over himself, who knows how to speak and be silent.
-Friedrich Nietzsche

17. 
How should we philosophize about our existence? Nietzsche urged us to think about the meaning of life, rather than speculating issues that took place in another Platonic realm that we would never access. And, due to the view of perspectivism, it may not only have one final answer to all the questions regarding life. There can be many interpretations regarding the very same issue, and no one answer can claim authority on others.  Nietzsche has often encouraged us to think about questions in a concrete, rather than abstract point of view, as it is far more relevant for our existence. Very much like a Modernist, Nietzsche demanded us to be critical about any knowledge that has fed to us or we have long taken for grant. He especially urged us to embrace those things we have been led to believe as bad or evil. While this may be a bit of a stretch, I feel Nietzsche’s motive is to ask us to have a healthy skeptical attitude and to really look beyond the obvious, and philosophize the underlying reason why something is presented to us in a certain way.

he who knows  fears but conquers fear , who sees the abyss, but with pride.
-Friedrich Nietzsche

18. 
While Kubrick’s outlook was very similar to Nietzsche in many aspects, he seemed to reverse the direction of Nietzsche’s abstract / concrete dichotomy. Both thinkers have emphasized the importance of corporeality to human existence, and yet Kubrick liked to start from the concrete side. By addressing the corporeality side of human nature, we are made aware of our animalistic limitations, and can thus look beyond the hubris and pretensions we have made ourselves happier. As many critics have pointed out, the final aim is to point back to the abstract and universal truths. Kubrick believed there were some timeless truths of human nature, independent of the context or the era the story took place in. The audience had to be able to detach these aspects from the context of the story to gain insights that might lead to a better appreciation of themselves.  

Send your ships into uncharted seas! 
-Friedrich Nietzsche

19. 
In order to inspire his readers to see things in new light, Nietzsche devised a number of absurd situations in his philosophy. First, he advocated the attitude of 'Amor Fati' - the love of fate. Nietzsche questioned the need for the 'Free will / determinism' debate to exist at all. He felt that even if fate existed, the question was not how we could change it, or run away from it. The most important issue is how we can face it with a positive and affirmative attitude, no matter how effed up or absurd it would turn out to be.  Even the negative things may have a new meaning, if we are willing to view it from a different perspective.

Second, Nietzsche proposed the absurd condition of the ‘eternal recurrence’. Imagine if we have to live our own lives again and again, until eternity. There is no way you can change the narrative of your life story, you will have to experience exactly all the highs and lows in your life again. Will you accept all these, and will you make the most of your life so that you will not regret? Nietzsche believed that if we were willing to understand this, we will commit to live our lives to the fullest, and be affirmative about all the pitfalls throughout our very existence.

Finally, Nietzsche proposed the idea of the ‘Last Man’. It is the final stage before the transformation to the over-man. When one is individualized and acts according to his beliefs, a tremendous sense of loneliness and alienation will follow, because now he does not have the comfort of being part of the herd, and thus cannot just receive passively about what to do. Standing on a cliff, the ‘Last Man’ becomes the master of his own life, looking down at the herd, very much like Zarathustra’s case.

The secret of realizing the greatest fruitfulness and the greatest enjoyment of existence is: to live dangerously!
-Friedrich Nietzsche

20. 
What advice did Nietzsche provide us to face life in an affirmative manner? To start with, Nietzsche wanted one to love his own life, right now and right here. There was no point to ask for a better next life, or a passport to heaven. You should discover gratifications from the experience of your own existence. Even if there are adversities throughout life, Nietzsche advised us to accept and embrace our mistakes and learn from it, not to turn away from it or pass the responsibilities to some irrelevant parties. Finally, Nietzsche wanted us to laugh - and had a good sense of humor. Because he believed if we were willing to accept life in an affirmative attitude, and appreciated life as a means to self-knowledge, one could not only live boldly but also gaily, and the gratifications would surely emerge.

Concluding Remarks 

Both Nietzsche and Kubrick stressed the importance of self-knowledge – knowledge and insights that you discover only from yourself. A better understanding of yourself can direct your concentration to the relevant aspects, and you will have the courage to live a fulfilling life. Even if this article can lead you to an intense fascination with Nietzsche and Kubrick, that is not enough. Because only you can lead the motivation to  change yourself, and to become the master of your life. It is all in your hands.

by Ed Law
15/10/2017

Film Analysis



Wednesday 4 October 2017

Blade Runner, Part 1

Harrison Ford as Rick Deckard in 'Blade Runner'

Science fiction does not have to be fantastical. Too often, if a sci-fi film can inspire us to a better understanding of our current condition, fiction can give way to fact. To this end, Ridley Scott’s masterpiece, ‘Blade Runner’ (1982), serves as a prime example.

The life story of the ‘Blade Runner’ film is an inspiring one. The first film ever to be adapted from a novel by Philip K. Dick - namely ‘Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?’, ‘Blade Runner’ was released in the summer of 1982. This initial reactions to the film were mixed, because many audience found the story too slow (some jokingly referenced it as ‘Blade Crawler’), and um – boring. It shouldn’t be too surprising – the star, Harrison Ford, the one who has starred as Han Solo and Indiana Jones, and given the fact that he is melancholically holding a revolver in the poster, one will likely to expect a John Woo-style heroic bloodshed. Yet, a small number of critics and film buffs could be able to look beyond the obvious, and started to appreciate the artistic aspects and implications of this ‘boring film’. Indeed, ‘Blade Runner’ is a film that rewards repeated viewings, as there are so many insights and details that you cannot get it all in one screening. By the 1990s, Blade Runner has already been re-evaluated and it is now hailed as the one of the greatest sci-fi films in the history of cinema. The film features in many of the Top Sci-Fi movie lists, and it is acclaimed as one of the most realistic science fiction films ever, rather than like the sort of Mary Poppins fantasy that no one can easily believe in.

Deckard and Rachael
How to retire skin-jobs? (Spoilers head, but that’s worth it.)

The story of Blade Runner takes place in 2019. By that time, humans have already developed genetic engineering techniques to create ‘replicants’, a sort of ‘super-human’ that has strong power and intelligence, yet with a limited life span of 4 years. Known as ‘skin jobs’ in a colloquial way, these replicants are used by humans as slaves, to work in hardship at the off-world colonies that humans have already abandoned. Since the replicants are not allowed to interact or intrude the human world, special cops, known as ‘Blade Runners’, are employed to track down and kill any intruding replicants on Earth – they prefer the word ‘retire’ to ‘kill’. Since replicants look like humans, the police force has developed an empathy test – known as a Voight-Kampff test, to distinguish these ‘super-men’.

Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) is a blade runner who is assigned to ‘retire’ 4 replicants. The quartet has escaped from the off-world and now they are drifting on Earth. The leader is Roy Batty, and the other members are Leon, Pris and Zhora. As Deckard comes to investigate, he goes to the compound of Dr. Eldon Tyrell, the head of a corporation who develops the replicant technology. There he meets a young lady called Rachael (Sean Young), an assistant of Tyrell. Tyrell challenges Deckard whether one can distinguish a replicant from a human by the Voight-Kampff Test, and thus they decide to test on Rachael. As the result surprisingly turns out, Rachael is a replicant, yet Tyrell assures Deckard that she is not aware of this truth. When Deckard goes home later, he is stalked by Rachael, who is now depressed and not willing to believe all her memories are merely ‘implants’. Deckard offers solace to her and they begin a relationship. On the other hand, the replicants Roy and Leon are looking for clues to track down their creator, as they just want nothing more than an extension of  their limited lifespan. The pleasure model, Pris, comes across an automaton-loving man, J.F. Sebastein, and they become friends. J.F. turns out to be a key designer for Tyrell, so when he meets Roy, he tells the replicants about Tyrell’s compound.

Deckard starts to gather evidence that Zhora is working as a dancer in the night club area, so he goes there and attempts to trap her into custody. Zhora is intelligent enough to sense that, after a brief struggle, they start chasing through the streets. Zhora is eventually gunned down by Deckard. He is then ambushed by Leon, and as Leon is ready to ‘wake him up’ and kill him, Rachael suddenly appears and guns down Leon instead! Rachael and Deckard retreat to his flat, and Deckard assures her that he will not retire her, though he is assigned to sooner or later. Further romance ensues. Meanwhile, Roy goes to confront Tyrell, and when Roy insists ‘I want more life, father / fxxker!’, Tyrell points out that, Roy is like a candle, for which it burns twice as bright, the flame goes out half the time shorter. Roy doesn’t care, and simply crushes Tyrell’s head.

Deckard is out for action again, and he eventually goes to J.F.’s house. Pris, who is posing as a doll among the automatons, launches a spectacular acrobatic attack on Deckard. In the nick of second, Deckard puts 2 bullets into her body, killing her instantly. Roy arrives and the he starts a final showdown with Deckard. Yet the brawl is certainly one-sided – Roy, a replicant with magnificent caliber, is able to wound and chase Deckard through the mansion, with Deckard too thrilled to fight back. Eventually, Deckard is hanging on the edge of the building, soon to fall down to his demise. It is at this point that Roy offers him a hand and saves him.


Deckard on the edge
Roy does so because he wants Deckard to accompany him, as he is close to his death. At the final moments of his life, Roy delivers the extremely moving ‘Tears in Rain’ monologue:
  
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion; I watched c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.

When Roy is finished with it, he dies. Deckard comes back to the apartment to unite with Rachael. Rachael turns out to be a special replicant model that has a far longer lifespan. But before they leave, Deckard discovers a unicorn origami, likely to be left by his colleague, Gaff. The unicorn is something that appears in Deckard’s earlier daydream. That may suggest his dreams are ‘engineered’ and thus Deckard, himself, is also a replicant. Alarmed, he takes Rachael to the elevator, and the doors close...

'Move, get out of the way!' Deckard in hot pursuit.
Man’s Match?

What are the ‘skin jobs’ that Deckard has to take down? How can these strong fellas shed light on our understanding of humanity? To me, replicants are truly fascinating, as they are transcending the possible experiences of the human beings, and certainty can be seen as an example of post-humanism. Yet, the replicants are not quite the same as our friends, the Terminators!

First, it is evident that the replicants do have a consciousness. They certainly possess cognitive abilities. As Pris succinctly stated to J.F. Sebastein, ‘I think, Sebastein, therefore I am.’ This is the ultimate Cartesian stance, and Pris uses this argument to defend her ‘being’, to assert her wholesome existence. Pris is assertive enough for this epistemological certainty, yet in other cases, such as that of Deckard’s situation (see later), can he be that confident? How do Pris know that she is not dreaming, not living in a tin-can, or not controlled like a Duracell as in ‘The Matrix’? The epistemological implications here can be profound, and Pris can only safely assume that she is a thinking replicant, quite capable of doing impressive leg-locks.  In a sense, they are also designed to possess higher intellectual abilities, to serve the proposes for uses by humans.

What is quite fascinating is that replicants show compassion, and genuinely care about, at least, their other replicant friends. Roy cares about Pris, and even the rather dumb Leon treasures Zhora’s compassion. They band as a group and see each other as friends. This is an attribute very different from other cyborgs, and I guess the implication here is quite ironic as it serves as a reaction against the cold, insensitive human beings, which is what Deckard’s divorced wife would have coined, ‘sushi’, or ‘cold fish’. It is the emotional capabilities exhibited by these ‘low-level human-like androids’ that makes the dehumanized and uncompassionate humans rather disturbing to watch. Also, I feel that it is an ironic answer to the atmosphere set by the crime and film-noir films in the past, in which the edgy, underdog protagonists often can not place any trust on people around them.

I suppose the ultimate difference between humans and replicants is not a scientific one, but a social one. It is the motivation behind the creation of replicants. The intention, is single-minded, to create workhorses to serve human’s purposes. It is a master-slave dialectic here, no wonder the emotional replicants show hatred and contempt for their masters. They have to be subservient to their human bosses, but their bosses simply do not provide human dignity to them. They are seen as slaves, and that is the reason I think Roy and his friends should not really be seen as villains – they just have a desire to ask for a longer life, to at least live more like a human...

Even if the humans fabricate to make the replicants sound inferior, it is their courage that makes them stand out. A scene that is extremely moving to me is of course the ‘Tears In Rain’ scene, when Roy is about to die. Roy somehow is capable of being compassionate, and he deeply understands the plight of human nature. Roy, with his experiences in the on-world and off-world, has lived his replicant life to the fullest, though with a span of no more than 4 years. He has seen far more than his so-called master, the humans.  He is even melancholic about the fact that these memories will be lost, and laments the sadness with tears. He is a replicant who is able to experience, and to feel and explore. If there is a super-human ability in replicants, that is it. As Newton has once said,  ‘If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants.’ If this is really how things work, then Deckard should be inspired by Roy Batty. 


Now it's his problem?


It’s not Deckard’s problem

All in all, replicants are some sort of ‘super-man’, or in Nietzsche’s characterization, an ‘Übermensch’. Man has certainly made his match – the replicant, but it is in no way Rick Deckard’s problem. It is you, whether you are ready to take action and go one step further!

(to be continued)

by Ed Law
4/10/2017

Film Analysis