 |
| Stanley Kubrick directing 'Barry Lyndon'. |
'You great star! What would your happiness be had you not those
for whom you shine?'
'Either you care, or you don't. There's no in-between.'
-Stanley Kubrick
Stanley Kubrick Series
Introduction (Part 2)
In my first article of the year, ‘Spinoza / Kubrick’, I have
already briefly mentioned Kubrick’s approach to filmmaking. While I will
discuss in detail throughout the entire series, I would like to introduce his
general style and beliefs in a more subtle way. I will focus on 2
misconceptions many viewers have regarding Kubrick’s work, and the
clarifications of these issues will shed light on his approach in crafting his
own masterpieces.
Kubrick and technology
The first misconception is to label Kubrick as a
‘science-fiction director’. This opinion is obvious because, not only ‘2001: A
Space Odyssey’ is his most famous work, this 1968 masterpiece has also reached
such an iconic status that one can almost immediately associate Kubrick with
‘2001’ – the film literally influences every single sci-fi movies that comes
afterwards. Kubrick did not only work in the science fiction genre – you can
consider ‘2001’, ‘A Clockwork Orange’, and ‘A. I.’ (directed by Spielberg when
Kubrick has tragically passed away) as hard-core sci-fi films. Kubrick worked
on other genres as well – War (Dr. Strangelove, Full Metal. Jacket, Paths of
Glory), Horror (The Shining), Crime / Film Noir (The Killing), Erotic Drama (Lolita,
Eyes Wide Shut), and Epic (Spartacus).
Yet, it is reasonable to state that, Kubrick has advanced
the technology of filmmaking throughout his long-spanning career in the 2nd
half of the 20th century. Especially after ‘Dr. Strangelove’, every
Kubrick film showed a great lap in cinematic innovation, and many of these undertakings
have become legendary. In ‘Dr. Strangelove’ and ‘A Clockwork Orange’, Kubrick
has built realistic models of military aircrafts and set designs to convince
audience of a doomed and dystopian age. In ‘2001’, he has developed
ground-breaking special effects and photographic techniques that not only
enhanced the scientific realism of the film, but also captivated the audience’s
imagination. Viewing from the ‘CGI-age’, ‘2001’ is still able to excite the
audience with awe. What is even more fascinating, and to a certain extent
ironic, is the legendary story about the 18th century period drama
‘Barry Lyndon’. In order to film in natural lighting and even candlelight,
Kubrick actually used ultrafast lenses, originally developed for NASA, for
which the original application was for satellite photography on the ‘dark side’
of the moon! The result was an unprecedented naturalism for a period film, and
since then many directors have been willing to undertake challenges of filming
in natural light. In ‘The Shining’, no
one would ever forget the long tracking shot sequences around the Overlook
Hotel and the maze. Kubrick was one of the first major filmmakers to make use
of a Steadicam to afford such fluid and dynamic tracking shots, on sluggish and
difficult surfaces and impossibly low camera height. Each new Kubrick film
would open a door to a new frontier in cinema, and benefit those who are
willing to look a bit closer.
Kubrick's coldness
 |
| Stanley Kubrick directing 'Dr. Strangelove'. |
Kubrick's coldness
The second misconception is more critical, and indeed for
some detractors, a major weakness of Kubrick’s work – his films are cold and
detached. Let me be honest here – while I recommend Kubrick’s work, do not be
misled by thinking that they are ‘entertaining’ films, and then walk out saying
these films are boring. I love Kubrick because his films are inspiring – I love
his style, his worldview and his ideas. If I want to watch a Kubrick film more
than once – which I have for most of them – it is not because they have given me
intense sensations or entertainment. It is because I want to look deeper into
his films, I want to understand more. The reason why I have pleasure and
gratifications when watching a Kubrick film is because I can connect with such
an intelligent and inspiring man.
I believe the reasons many critics find Kubrick’s films cold
- and even project this sentiment unfairly to Kubrick’s personality - is
because his style is unsentimental, which is a more appropriate word to
describe his style. It is evident that films have become more sentimental over
the years, and somehow filmmakers have to make characters sound very emotional
in order to gain ‘empathy’ or ‘identification’ from the audience. That is why
when the audience are viewing a Kubrick film, they find the characters ‘wooden’
or ‘mechanical’. Here, I hope I can convince you that, while Kubrick’s work may
seem unsentimental, we can still find an emotional connection with his work,
and the motivation for him to adopt this clinical style signifies his strong
commitment to his beliefs regarding the human condition.
Kubrick believed in, and has always been willing to, commit
to a strong sense of realism in his films, no matter what topic he was working
on. To be a realist is to view things in an objective manner. Thus, all the
techniques he has consistently applied can ensure an objective viewpoint for
the audience, and these encourage the viewers to observe at a distance. Kubrick
made extensive use of long shots in many of his films, making characters, props
and background standing equally in the same frame. He preferred long takes to
shorter cuts, as that can provide a more realistic portrayal of a
spatial-temporal sequence. Of course, these 2 techniques can potentially undermine
the participation of human characters in a given shot. The long shot
undermines the characters, reducing the human participants to almost like a prop;
and since the long take is often a tracking shot, it can be harder to portray,
for example, a humanistic interaction like a conversation, in which a reverse
shot sequence will benefit by focusing the audience’s attention on the speaker
at a given shot.
Yet, I believe these techniques fit very well to Kubrick’s realist
worldview. As I have mentioned before, Kubrick likely shared a similar belief
to that of Spinoza – that we are all part of Nature, and it is our ego that makes
us feel we are above all the other living things. Thus, he represented this
naturalistic worldview in a subtle manner, by using the long shot that put as
much regard as the environment as the human characters. The coldness, thus, is a manifestation of man's position in an indifferent Nature. Kubrick firmly believed
that, by engaging the viewers to understand the true nature of our existence in
an authentic manner, we would then be able to improve our ultimate well-being.
Thus, the Kubrickian characters have to look cold and wooden
for two purposes. First, a character in a Kubrick movie is merely an instrument
for him to convey a broader message to his audience. So, you can analogize the
character as a pawn on a chess board, and the character is a component that
drives the overall mechanic of a Kubrick film. Second, this can indeed generate
sympathy from the audience. As many of the Kubrickian characters are subject to
some form of control, that will allow the audience to identify with the plight
of these characters. Only by doing this, we can connect with these tragic
figures and are able to ask whether we can change the real world we are
situated in.
It is worthwhile to ask why an apparently cold Kubrick film
can make me emotional? Certainly, it is not because the story or the characters
are sentimental in any way. When you look at ‘2001’, the space ships obviously
will not make you feel loved. Yet when you look beyond that to see Kubrick, who
has devoted so much effort and time to plan every single perfect shot and give
the maximal quality to the ultimate masterpiece, we can easily be touched by
his passion in the Film Art. It is the fact that he is original and he always stands
firm on his belief that I find extremely inspiring.
I can think of an analogy to sum these all up. A great
filmmaker is someone who does a long shot, and you are attracted to that
because the content fascinates and captivates you. A bad filmmaker is someone
who does a close up, and employs sentiment and pretension to pull you over. I
firmly believe Mr. Kubrick belongs to the former category.
Concluding Remarks
 |
Moonwatcher - willing to share his discovery with his friends, even before the Facebook age. From '2001: A Space Odyssey'. |
I watched my first Kubrick film, ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’,
when I was around 13. Not only bewildered by the bunch of apes, the monolith, the
ultimate match-cut, the Ferris Wheel, the HAL melee, the LSD-like Star Gate
sequence, and the Star Child – I have also found someone I truly admire. I have
since then developed an intense fascination with Stanley Kubrick, watching
almost all his available films, reading many books and interviews about this
genius. In his legendary Playboy interview around 1968, Stanley showed us his true side. He truly
believed in the potential of human beings, and he felt that it had nothing to
do with how absurd or meaningless the universe might turn out to be. The whole
interview is worthwhile to read, yet this is the ultimate punchline:
However vast the darkness, we must supply our own light.
– Stanley Kubrick
This is the line that has inspired me, and given me hope. Only
by committing to this will provide us with dignity, and will lead us all to
contribute ourselves to humanity. No matter how bleak Kubrick’s films may seem,
he believes we all have the power to change and improve our current condition.
My favorite character in the Kubrick universe is the ape
‘Moonwatcher’ in ‘2001’. Because he signifies all the traits Kubrick wants us
all to be – intelligent, compassionate for others, sympathetic, keen to solve
problems and explore new things, and above all, inspiring. We should all contribute
with an end to inspire others to do the same. Kubrick has contributed and
pushed human intelligence forward. If the bunch of apes represents the microcosm
of humanity, then, the Moonwatcher must be called ‘Stanley Kubrick’.
 |
| Stanley Kubrick directing 'A Clockwork Orange'. |
(2/2)
by Ed Law
26/2/2016
Film Analysis - 63
