 |
| Two of my all time heroes - Baruch Spinoza and Stanley Kubrick |
'When you think of a visual style, when you think of the visual language of a film, there tends to be a natural separation of the visual style and the narrative elements. But with the greats, whether it's Stanley Kubrick or Terrence Malick or Hitchcock, what you're seeing is an inseparable, a vital relationship between the image and the story it's telling.' - Christopher Nolan
When it comes to art and creativity, there is always the
‘double-S’ issue – the question of ‘style’ versus ‘substance’. Many artists or
filmmakers are often accused of ‘style over substance’ – they have lavish and
eye-catching style, they place plenty of concern on techniques, yet the ideas they are trying
to convey are shallow or empty. Of course, you can do it the other way round –
your work may be rich in content, but it is so monotone that it serves better as
a sleeping pill than some genuine artwork.
In this article, I would like to offer my observation on it, From the inspirations I have acquired from two of my
heroes – Baruch Spinoza and Stanley Kubrick, I can see that the debate of style
versus substance is a rather futile one. Because in great work, form (style)
addresses the content (substance) the artist tries to express. For them, style and substance come hand in hand, and these two aspects often
intertwine so nicely that one cannot easily distinguish between the two.
 |
| 'Ethics' - Spinoza's Masterpiece |
 |
| An iconic imagee form Kubrick's '2001: A Space Odyssey' |
Biographical background
Baruch Spinoza was one of the most iconic philosophers from
the 17th century, because his ideas were so original that, indeed it
was considered blasphemous at the time. Although he started with a religious
upbringing, he was soon excommunicated by the religious institutions as his
conception on reality was so naturalistic and ahead of his time that it could
be possibly labeled as ‘atheism’ (although it was certainly not a fair label). In short, Spinoza's conception of 'God' was (a) he did not look like an XXXL-sized Jor-El or Marlon Brando, (b) he was not a Dumbledore-like magician and (c) he was certainly not a friendly dude. How heart-breaking this can be for those who had faith in God at that era! Alienated
by the religion he was supposed to have faith on, Spinoza finally found freedom
to pursue and develop his own philosophical ideas, which would eventually
inspire later generation of the lovers of wisdom. With a foundation in the
emerging Cartesian philosophy and mechanistic philosophy, Spinoza developed his
original conception of reality, and demonstrated to the readers how one should
live in such a universe. He died young, and his magnum opus, ‘ETHICS’, were
published posthumously. While this book has certainly been banned as it offers
‘second thoughts’ on the traditional and well-established religious teachings,
even more so it intimidates the future readers for its complex structure and
the rather cold conclusion of humanity’s place in the universe.
 |
| According to Spinoza, God is not a Jor-El type character, and he certainly will not send Superman to save our day. |
Stanley Kubrick, on the other hand, was an iconic and
well-known filmmaker. He was known for masterpieces like ‘2001 : A Space
Odyssey’, ‘A Clockwork Orange’, ‘Barry Lyndon’, ‘Dr. Strangelove’, ‘The
Shining’ and many others. He has influenced many subsequently filmmakers,
including Spielberg, Lucas, Fincher, Nolan, Anderson , Tarantino, Coen Brothers and many
more. However, there are also detractors to his films. Some critics call his
films ‘cold’, ‘detached’, 'boring', ‘emotionless’, ‘clinical’, and even accuse Stanley a
‘machine’.
While I plan to do a ‘Kubrick Series’ later this year, in
this article I want to focus in particular on Kubrick’s approach to the style
of his own work, and also discuss some aspects which seems to overlap with
Spinoza’s approach and worldview. As you will see, the form both Kubrick and Spinoza have
employed in their respective masterpieces is important as it helps to address
the worldview and ideas they are trying to express. To put it in another way,
the adoption of a different style will certainly diminish the impact the work
can exert on the audience or readers. Form and content do come hand in hand.
Spinoza's geometrical order
Looking from today, Spinoza’s ideas may seem rather dated. Yet,
one of the reasons why ‘Ethics’ has been able to fascinate readers throughout
the years is due to its rather strange structure. The book was not written in a
continuous prose form, rather, it was modeled from Euclid ’s ‘Elements’. In other words, ‘Ethics’
look really like a treatise on mathematics or logic. Spinoza was trying to
share with the readers his personal take on reality, human nature, and how to
be a great guy. Yet, his way to convince the readers was not through poetry, rhetoric,
or well-reasoned prose, like any of the past philosophers. Instead, he has
picked out the self-evident truths as the starting point of discussion, and
meticulously stated axioms, definitions, and postulates. He then set out one
propositions after another, and he offered proofs for whatever he has proposed.
So, sentence after sentence the readers encounter good old Ben’s propositions,
which is followed through by the now legendary 3-letter word – ‘Q.E.D.’. I can
speculate Spinoza probably knows what sort of effects this approach will have
led to for his audience. ‘Just when I thought I have given up Maths for good’,
the reader may say, ‘now I have to hear a story about humanity with all
these... demonstrations and proofs ?!’
The fascinating question to ask is, why
did Spinoza have to suffer all these to write in such a ‘geometrical’ form (it
is certainly NOT the easiest thing to write), rather than expressing his
insightful perspectives in a more straight-forward form?!
There are many views or speculations on why Spinoza had to write in such an intimidating style. Someone has pointed out that this approach of ‘geometric method’ was not uncommon in Spinoza’s era, i.e. like when we are trying to express an idea rigorously in mathematical terms or formal logic nowadays. Another view is that Spinoza was just trying to demonstrate his intellectual rigor in logical reasoning, so he deliberately wrote in such an esoteric style. Yet, I am most interested and agreed to a third view – Spinoza’s geometric form addressed the contents he was trying to express. The rigorous style serves as a testament to his peace of mind and intellectual integrity, as that means Spinoza truly believes in his own perspectives.
Spinoza was one of the key rationalists of the 17th century. Rationalism is the epistemological doctrine that all true knowledge can only be acquired by the exercise of reason, rather than through observations or experiences. Therefore, in ‘Ethics’ Spinoza was demonstrating a rationalist worldview on the universe. His philosophy of reality, human nature and ethics is a very complicated ‘web’, yet it is nicely ‘knitted’ together because everything in it follows logic and necessity. That is why through the foundation of a few self-evident truths, Spinoza’s complex system can be slowly unfolded and the diverse aspects of human nature can be developed throughout the various propositions and proofs. Thus, the whole world view of Spinoza is a highly systematic one, and everything exists in a certain place for a good reason. Spinoza believed in the notion that, with the sophistication of human reason, the readers could be able to work through the propositions and developed cognitively a whole picture of reality. Thus, the ethical propositions in Chapter 5 of the book was logically and necessarily derived from the established propositions in the first few chapters, rather than some subjective or speculative blank statements of the ‘we should be good’ type. One may not totally agree with great old Ben’s worldview, yet we have to admit that his system is a truly original and elegant one.
 |
| Moon Watcher in 2001: A Space Odyssey |
How is Kubrick’s form or style related to that of Spinoza’s?
A common aspect in both men’s ideas is that of ‘control’. In Spinoza’s case, he
tried to convince the readers to control their passions through an exercise of
reason. While Kubrick can in no way be considered a traditional rationalist (he
was more influenced by Nietzsche than Spinoza), he has been able to exert
artistic control on his work. Can you feel the euphoria when Moon Watcher, the
ape in '2001', has been able to use a bone as a tool? He is gratified because he
knows he will not be vulnerable anymore, and he knows he can start to have a better control of his destiny.
Chess is a nice analogy for Kubrick’s approach, and indeed
he has been known to be a master chess player. Under Kubrick’s control, every
aspect of his films is like a chess piece on the board, no matter that is a
character, a prop or a camera angle. Kubrick carefully designed and controlled every
aspect of his films, so that he can effectively express the idea through his
style. Like that of Spinoza, everything comes in the right place, and appears
for a good reason in Kubrick’s films.
Due to this approach, some people complain that Kubrick’s
films are emotionally cold and his characters are stoic and ‘wooden’. I feel it
may not be a fair comment as the portrayal is better to be seen as
‘unsentimental’ rather than outright cold. And, Kubrick’s detached approach on
the characters serve 2 purposes.
 |
| Man in the universe, the audience looking from a distance - from 'Barry Lyndon'. |
First, it is a commitment to realism. Kubrick believes in an
objective style, as he wants his audience to understand and observe at a
distance, rather than getting too close and emotionally involved (which is what
sentimentality is all about). His firm belief in this issue has led to a
ritualistic set of techniques, like the frequent use of medium / long shots, reverse
zooms (in particular ‘Barry Lyndon’), and preference for long takes. These
techniques encourage a more realistic experience for the audience and a more
objective viewpoint (like the deep focus photography in the case of Welles for
example).
So, for the human characters, they are insignificant in the sense that they are only
part of the universe, a firm belief that Kubrick has stated many times
throughout his life. This idea turns out to be quite similar to that of
Spinoza’s world view, the view that God is equivalent to Nature. Thus, human is originated from Nature. It is an illusion
that ‘God loves us all’ or this superman-godfather deity is kind-hearted, as
Spinoza’s God is impersonal, like Kubrick's view that the whole universe is indifferent. Spinoza believed the reality is
governed by the force of Nature, when things happen by necessity and are
chained by causes and effects in a deterministic manner. Kubrick, on the other
hand, has also shown a fatalistic worldview in many of his work, yet I think
his view is far more contradictory. He certainly has demonstrated in his films
that the universe is irrational and unpredictable, yet he also firmly believes
in the potential of humanity, and often takes an existentialist stance in many
of his work. Perhaps as an artist, Kubrick took more liberty to follow his own
intuition rather than a firm philosophical viewpoint.
 |
| An objective approach to violence in 'A Clockwork Orange' |
Second, the approach addresses a key theme in his work. Kubrick
believes in ultimate freedom, that humanity is not bound by any forms of
control or the corruption of power. What he feels to be positive about
control is not to exert control on others, rather, it is a self-control, an
intellectual control. It is the way for him to stand firm on his own artistic
visions and express his viewpoints to the audience.
In Kubrick’s films,
characters look cold and ‘wooden’, and it is a deliberate design from Kubrick.
These characters, in many cases, are conditioned by some other negative aspects
(power, paranoia, technology, behavioral modification, customs and rituals,
psychotic conditions, war, to name a few), and their rather mechanical or stoical
behaviors are the consequence of such control. The characters are Kubrick’s
tools, like the axioms, definitions and propositions of Spinoza, and they contribute to help Kubrick to express his ultimate message, the dark side of the corruption of power and control. The iconic images of
Kubrick films are the numerous slaps and wake-up calls for the audience, the urge to escape from these power clutches and ask for a change. Kubrick is not a ‘machine’, because he cares about the human condition.
Similar with Spinoza – his philosophy sounds cold and
abstract, but the ultimate aim of Spinoza is not to provide a sentimental
2-hour leisure read. He wanted to inspire the readers, to make us view the
Nature with awe, and to be proud of the fact that we are all part of – and thus
contribute to – the universe. This will lead to Spinoza’s statement of ‘the
intellectual love of God’, which is the gratification of feeling belonged to such a wonderful order. For
Spinoza, the ultimate way to happiness is to exercise rationality and understand
the 'real deal' of the universe, rather than blindly believe in some feel-good fairy tales. For Kubrick, it is to see through all the cunning
guises and understand what we can do to achieve ultimate freedom and happiness in our lives.
Final words
You may still call Spinoza and Kubrick cold-hearted or ‘Mr. Robot’, but you
cannot deny them as the geniuses of their generations. Because, to them, the
battle between style and substance, or form and content, is irrelevant. Like Spinoza's abandonment of the mind-body problem, style and substance may just be one and the same.
Spinoza and Kubrick are such iconic figures that one article
will not do them justice! At least, I hope this serves as a starting point, and
I will talk more about them in the future.
by Ed Law
8/1/2016
Film Analysis - 61
