以戲服人 Film Analysis: March 2017

Friday, 31 March 2017

思考'2001太空漫遊'

人類能夠在演化的競賽中大獲全勝, 是因為我們是萬物之靈, 還是因為我們獨創的暴力交響曲演得特别動聽? 寇比力克(Stanley Kubrick)在2001太空漫遊'The Dawn of Man'的最後部份, 運用了一個極具創意的跳接, 為觀眾獻上畢生難忘的一幕。他希望啟發觀眾思考一個重要的問題: 人, 真的能夠作出根本的改變嗎?

在四月我會繼續談'2001太空漫遊'!

by Ed Law

31/3/2017

Film Analysis

Thursday, 30 March 2017

Kubrick / Antonioni - The Glacial Epoch

If one is really into cinema, Stanley Kubrick’s approach in his later films is clearly similar to the general style of Michelangelo Antonioni, a key filmmaker of the European Art Cinema of 1960. In fact, Antonioni was one of the filmmakers who could appreciate ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’ at a point where most people did not understand what the film was driving at, and he has also made ‘Red Desert’ to address the problems of the modern era.

I would like to address an issue regarding both Antonioni’s and Kubrick’s film characters. Many critics believe Antonioni and Kubrick had deep contempt for their characters, therefore they made the characters uninteresting. Kubrick’s characters are often cold and emotionless, and Antonioni’s characters are often empty and purposeless. Kubrick and Antonioni shared a cold and clinical approach towards filmmaking. Some detractors even projected these movie characters to the directors, saying that Kubrick and Antonioni were cold and robotic themselves. The truth is, it is quite the opposite.

Why did Kubrick and Antonioni treat their characters this way? Well, because they had a common belief that it was more important to inspire the audience with important ideas rather than providing some feel-good characters, or characters that the audience could ‘identify’ with in a sentimental way. Kubrick aimed for universalizing concepts and Antonioni targeted the immanent landscape. Both directors saw their characters as an instrument to contribute to this aim. Kubrick’s characters were really ideas in a human form, and some were extreme, like Alex de Large and Jack Torrance. In Kubrick’s cinema, he wanted to illustrate how the various ideas might interact in cinematic terms. Antonioni’s characters were reflections of the failure of interaction of his characters and their surroundings. Both Kubrickian and Antonioni-esque characters were victims, the former ones suffered from frequent bouts of mechanical dehumanization, the latter suffered from alienation and an empty soul. The two filmmakers unleashed these terrible characters because they did not want us to become these characters in the real world.

In both cases, there were something to do with the systems we have created for progress and well-being throughout our existences. Kubrick’s characters were drained of emotion because they fitted in so well to the systems, and have become instruments rather than masters. Antonioni’s characters were so submitted to the established values that their lives were drained of meanings as they did not want to try and find out new ones.

If we can sympathize with these characters’ plights, then the filmmakers have succeeded in getting their messages across. Kubrick and Antonioni were certainly not the only two persons on this planet who were aware of these problems, but the way they presented these ideas and resulted in inspiring so many others were what made them genius.

by Ed Law

Film Analysis

Wednesday, 29 March 2017

Antonioni

Cultural Neurosis? Monica Vitti in 'Red Desert'

If there was a ‘Marmite’ filmmaker in the history of cinema, that must be the great Italian filmmaker Michelangelo Antonioni – like the sauce, you either love him or hate him to the high end – there is simply no middle ground.

To his admirers, Antonioni’s work has offered ‘a cinema of possibilities’. However, it is not ‘possible’ to make everyone love his films. To get the audience high, I will fire with both barrels. Many of his films have been labeled ‘boring’, ‘pretentious’, ‘empty’, ‘soulless’, ‘meaningless’, and many more negative adjectives one can think of. Those who hated him or could not identify with his style included Orson Welles, Ingmar Bergman, Francois Truffaut, Pauline Kael, and many other notable filmmakers or critics. That was an impressive list, wasn’t it?

If this director is considered so boring and second-rate, why do I bother to write about him? Well, that is because I am on the opposite side – I am among the many others who love his films. Indeed, there were directors who loved his films when he was hated and being booed at film festivals around the world. One of them was Alfred Hitchcock, who was highly impressed by this young director and has adopted Antonioni’s style in some of his later films. The other was Stanley Kubrick, who also saw Antonioni as one of his favorite filmmakers. Indeed, it is evident that most of the Kubrick films since ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’ are very similar to Antonioni’s style, being visual rather than narrative-driven, having a detached perspective, and the style is at odds with the contemporary mainstream cinema. Antonioni’s style has continued to influence other great directors, including Wim Wenders, Miklós Jancsó, Francis Ford Coppola, Wong Kar-Wai and many more.

In the 1960s, Antonioni, along with a number of other European filmmakers, made films that completely changed the way people would look at cinema ever since. With films like L’Avventura, La Notte, L’Eclipse, Red Desert, Blow Up, and The Passenger, Antonioni re-defined the potential of cinematic language. Influenced by great thinkers such as Nietzsche and Gaudi, Antonioni’s films explored themes such as existentialism, identity, ennui, dream-reality dichotomy, and passion. Rather infamously, he was probably the first filmmaker to portray boredom and existential ennui in such a cinematic manner.

What has Antonioni done to change the audience’s perception of cinema? The first thing he did, which was exemplified by the monumental L’Avventura, was his abandonment of the traditional assumptions of narrative in favor of visual story-telling. When a group of rich Italians joined a cruise trip and explored an island, a lady in the group suddenly disappeared. In most cases, this would likely be the plot-driven element, and most audience’s attention would likely be focusing on the fate of the lady. Not for Antonioni - as the film progressed , the story gradually diverted the focus on Monica Vitti’s character and her new-found love interest, and it was as if Antonioni has obliviously forgotten the lost lady. At the end, her fate remained ambiguous. No wonder the audience booed when the film was first shown in film festivals at the 1960s. Because the film totally shattered their expectations, and the audience did not know how to respond to it. Look, even if it was a dark ending and the lady died, it was still a final, conclusive answer, yet Antonioni did not even give us a straight answer to fulfill our wishes. Maybe Antonioni was mocking how self-important we were (which, ironically, was a founding assumption of traditional narrative cinema - who would like a film with no human or anthropomorphic characters inside?), and how small and insignificant we were in the face of fate and the universe. Indeed for Antonioni’s narrative, if there was any, was often elliptical and many issues in Antonioni’s films were often ambiguous or remained unexplained at the end of the film.

Antonioni was also a master in cinematic style. He was a master of long take, and has shot some of the greatest long take sequences in cinema, such as those in ‘L’Eclipse’ and ‘The Passenger’. However, not everyone could identify with this, an example being another master of the long take, Orson Welles. Antonioni’s long takes were often unsettling because they seemed to dwell on very long and mundane activities, and like many of Kubrick’s sequences, they were often protracted and slow. These long takes, which were unconventional in the traditional cinema – which strove for as many dramatic actions as possible - signified a realistic passage of time.

From the black-and-white to the color era, color became another of Antonioni’s signature weapon. His use of color was so bold and evocative that it has led to a heightened and hypnotic feeling on the audience, and it was fair to say that color was often one of the most memorable aspects of some of Antonioni’s films. For example, one will likely remember the red – really red – drums prevalent in the film ‘Red Desert’, rather than the characters or dialogues in the film.

Yet what is most fascinating or iconic about this Italian master’s work was his approach to his characters. Audience tended to develop a general impression that, in Antonioni’s films, the characters’ actions were random and purposeless. Antonioni’s characters were not psychologically motivated in the sense of mainstream cinema, and it was an issue often criticized by some critics alike. Like Stanley Kubrick’s and Terence Malick’s characters, Antonioni’s characters were enigmatic – they were ambiguous, and that required an active imagination from the audience to make sense of them. And this was exactly what Antonioni wanted. He wanted his audience to engage with his film in an intuitive way, and to generate their own meanings from the often ambiguous images.

Why did Antonioni do all these, especially in terms of his unconventional approach to character development? Well, the motivation behind these was that he wanted to ask his audience to explore new perspectives in a rigid and stereotyped world. In his acceptance speech of the Jury Prize in Cannes Festival for his film ‘L'Avventura’, Antonioni has stated that we have understood our world so thoroughly through reason, science, and objectivity that we have taken for granted the established values in our worlds. Yet, most of us are never willing to step out of our comfort zones to challenge new ideas, and we have the false impression to a ‘good’ and ‘fulfilling’ life through sensual pleasures, material wealth and some short-term gratifications. Unfortunately, our lives have not really been enriched by these ways – we are faced with an existential crisis of spiritual emptiness. Many people will fall victim to these issues – those who are able to cover their problems up with these shallow-minded pleasures will have to confront nihilism, and who we cannot fit into the alienating world will suffer only disillusionments.

Antonioni’s characters were really bored with their lives. That was because they could not find true purposes in a seemingly meaningless and absurd world. They might have the ability to fight against this, but they chose to retreat from it, and diverted their focuses to other short-term gratifications – so that they could hide their loneliness and alienation. They might be ‘happy’ and thought they had a fulfilling existence – but did they really understand themselves?

Was the environment surrounding Antonioni's characters boring for them? Yes and no. The reason why these characters were spiritually empty had to be coming from both sides, yet I have to say the characters could be more active to counteract the apparent meaninglessness of their existences. The universe, being unsentimental and indifferent, is just being as it is, showing the potential wonder to the inhabitants within its boundary. It was the interaction, or lack of interaction, of the characters to their environment that led to their personal problems. Antonioni’s characters were so submitted to the traditional systems and values that men have created, that they were not able to imagine new ideas and perspectives to look at their world. Their diversions to ephemeral pleasures as a short-term alleviation to their loneliness and alienation only further signified that they could not, or did not really know how to interact authentically with the world. They might think they were happy, but deep down they were so empty in a world they simply could not appreciate. These ideas are prevalent in all of Antonioni’s films, and I suppose the human-environment interaction issue is in particular important for ‘Red Desert’, which I will talk about in some future articles.

If you are really passionate about cinema, you have to confront Antonioni. Love him or loathe him, you have to give his films a real shot!

by Ed Law

29/3/2017

Film Analysis

Sunday, 26 March 2017

2001 : A Space Odyssey - The Dawn of Man, Part 3

Moon-Watcher's war to reclaim the water hole.

Part 1 : The Water Hole 2.0

Armed with a newly inspired technology - also known as a bone (!!) - Moon Watcher and his friends set out to reclaim the water hole that has been robbed from the rival tribe. The ape men in the rival tribe, adopting exactly the same tactic they have used in the first encounter, attempted to scare off Moon Watcher and his companions using some loud noise. Wielding a bone, Moon Watcher led his friends closer and closer towards the water hole, challenging their rivals the right to the ownership of this resource. The strongest ape man from the rival tribe again leapt into the middle of the water hole and threatened Moon Watcher with his aggression, having absolutely no idea what the bone had to do with the whole situation. Cleverly ducking an attack from the ape man, Moon Watcher stroke and bashed him with the bone, knocking him down immediately. With the rival on the floor (on the sand more appropriately), a few other of Moon Watcher’s friends joined in and gave the rival ape man a few dozens of bashing, evident that they have already practiced a lot using their new tools. In staging this very first violent episode of humanity, Kubrick has adopted his signature unsentimental style to portray the brutal bashing of the fallen ape man. He was portraying violence unto others in the purest form possible, and he had no intention to glorify the action. In a medium shot, rather than a close-up like when Moon Watcher was first inspired to use the bone as a tool, Kubrick wanted to show this in a clinical way. He wanted to keep the audience at a distance from this situation, and he required the audience to observe with thrill an episode that would have much meaning humanity’s elevation from the evolution battlefield. The other ape men from the rival tribe, who could not even comprehend what was going on, was so scared that they simply retreated away from the water hole. Now Moon Watcher and his friends were all gratified, as the audience could feel it the first time, because not only they have got back the water hole, it was the first time they knew they were in control.

While at first sight, the second confrontation did not look much different from the first encounter, Kubrick has used a number of techniques to illustrate some fundamental changes between the two conflicts. First, the audience’s perspective was clearly defined in the second confrontation. While the first time the two parties of ape men met, it was quite disorienting for the audience because we had no idea which party was the first taking the water hole. I believe this is deliberate by Kubrick. As all the ape men looked the same, and Kubrick has not yet established any identities to the ape men. This was to signify a time when the ape men have not yet had unique selves or identities, and all the audience could see was 2 conflicting parties fighting for their desires.

Upon touching the monolith, Moon-Watcher and his friends have evolved, and new concepts have been developed in their cognitive functions. In the second encounter, Moon Watcher and his friends were clearly fighting as a group. They moved in a more calculated, organized way, much like a primitive battle formation, in contrast to the more dispersed and instinctual pattern illustrated by the rival tribe. The group formation would also lead to the establishment of culture, where after fighting for the water hole as a group, the ape men would have something common - a founding incident - to establish themselves as a culture.

Why was this hairy violent episode important for humanity? Well, because it has illustrated a number of timeless truths about humanity. Though the successful mission to reclaim something that has been taken from his tribe, Moon-Watcher has invented the idea of war, and has committed the first act of institutionalized violence in the history of humanity. From the way Kubrick showed the second encounter, it was evident that Moon-Watcher was the leader of his tribe. Wielding his bone, he looked back at his friends and led them to wage wars against the rival tribe. The gestures, before any language or more sophisticated signals offered by technology, already suggested the transformation of some instinctual violence to a more organized violence like war. With the successful outcome, Moon-Watcher would be remembered and celebrated as a war hero by his later generations, as a savior of his clan. After the war, the packing order of the tribe will be firmly established - with Moon-Watcher as the leader and the other bone wielding ape-men as his generals. Moon-Watcher’s rampage might just be a very primitive war, yet it was the first time to show the political and war mechanism, which would be repeated only with an advancement of weapons and technology.

From Kubick’s anti-humanist perspective, it was ironic that it was violence and instinctual urge that inspired intelligence, rather than the other way round. Humanist thinkers tended to view violence and animalistic instincts as flaws of the ‘human goodness’, yet often it was not the case. Ironically, even when some people may believe the human legacy is about advanced intelligence, it may seem even more appropriate to state the timeless truth of humanity is our violent nature. Violence and institution are two ideas that are more related than we imagine, and, as I will discuss in the next article, it is the very ability for humanity to synthesize these two ideas that lead us to be far superior to the other organisms in the game of evolution. That will be the focus of my next article.

Part 2 : The Standing Ape

Some critics have often questioned why, of all the possible episodes of the primitive age, Kubrick had to pick this violent episode as a representative moment of humanity’s development. Why not pick a more positive and feel-good moment? The reason is because Kubrick intended to show us humanity’s story through an anti-humanist perspective. Indeed, one can easily find out that Kubrick’s film since the 1960s are consistently anti-humanist in tone, and I have already discussed this once in my article on ‘A Clockwork Orange’. Kubrick’s ideas were based on Robert Ardrey’s significant work, which has also influenced Sam Peckinpah’s films.

Ardrey’s most important idea was that of the territorial imperative. In a sense, what he was driving at was to understand what humans, or our precursors known as pre-humans, have done to come to the top of the food chain and won the evolution game with flying colors. First, it is obvious that we are lucky because our species had advancement in the development of our cognitive abilities which completely out-matched the other organisms or even related primates. It was our cognitive abilities that have led us to devise approaches to survive wisely and win out eventually. Pre-humans were able to devise the concepts of organization, and then adopted hunting techniques and tool-making skills that would make them more effective hunters. In the second encounter between Moon Watcher’s tribe and the rival tribe, it was clear that Moon Watcher’s tribe was more organized. Through their interactions with the monolith, they were inspired enough to devise the idea of a social or cultural organization, that branded them all together and worked in a more effective manner than many other species.

Yet, that was something even bleaker (especially for the humanists) that made us stand out from our primate counterparts. Ardrey has proposed a controversial idea known as the ‘killer ape theory’, which, to put it provocatively, reduced humans from compassionate beings to some violent, standing apes. Ardrey believed that violence is part of our nature, and ironically, one of the key contributing factors to humanity’s victory in the evolutionary war. He believed that aggression of all forms, especially territorial aggression, was part of our instincts, and it was something pre-humans possessed and primates did not fully have. To channel these aggressions, pre-humans also acquired the skills to develop weapons, and incepted the first stage of the mechanization of war and violence. In an evolutionary point of view, aggression was innate and inherited through all the generations of humanity. It is a shadow we can never step out, a badge we can never take off. Moon-Watcher has used his courage to defend his territory, yet in the process, he had to resort to murderous violence to achieve this aim. He was a war hero, a leader; yet he was also ironically a killer. Ardrey also stated that our instinctual need for territory would also lead us to acquire further land, and, throughout the development of technology in history, created instruments – transportations, communications, networks and so on – to explore and conquer new frontiers. After Moon-Watcher and company has defeated and chased away the rival tribe, they regained the water hole, and with an obvious gesture, they continued to walk forward, passing the water hole. This served as an implication that they now had the confidence to conquer more land and resources with their new-found instruments, and be certain that they were likely to succeed. They have made a step forward literally – to explore the unknown frontiers beyond them.

Sometimes, I feel it is great to step back and contemplate on why Homo sapiens will stand out among the other species as the dominant species of our planet. We seem to have a lot of limitations – our bodies are mechanistic in nature, and there are involuntary mechanisms in some parts of our organs, suggesting that we cannot fully control our bodies with our will. We are not as fierce as the beasts in the jungle, not as flexible or ‘shape-shifting’ as some other species, cannot stay forever in the water for long, and have to write a song known as ‘I believe I can fly’ to console ourselves. The only thing that makes us special - is our intelligence. It is this very cognitive ability that leads us to devise innovative ideas to overcome most of the limitations we have, and to acquire much more than we deserve. Our advanced cognitive abilities also give us emotion, and a will and desire which is epic for many other organisms. The reason why we win in the brutal game of evolution is not only because of our intelligence, but also for our strong will. We have the instinct to conquer, control, penetrate space, and are willing to fight in a meaner and more aggressive way. While one may picture two battling beasts, we battle in a more aggressive way through more intelligent and darker means. We are able to develop more powerful instruments and weapons, and use immoral means such as deceptions, back-stabbings, black-mailings, extortions and so on to get what we want. Ironically, the advancement of human’s intelligence also brings out humanity’s darkest shadows. Kubrick was aware of the fact that this was absurd and indeed tragic, yet he honestly expressed these contradictions in his many impressive films. Because, if we are willing to face humanity’s dark sides, rather than turning away from them, then maybe we have a chance to change.

Final Remarks

After contributing so much for his friends and those who felt compassion for, Moon-Watcher was finally alone. Kubrick did not show the audience what would happen to Moon-Watcher through the rest of his existence, yet the audience knew that Moon-Watcher has found his identity and the meaning of his existence, and has achieved a self-actualization. With a gratifying roar, Moon-Watcher threw his bone up to the sky. What would then happen for the many years to come would be far beyond Moon-Watcher’s widest imaginations...

(To be continued.)

by Ed Law

26/3/2017

Film Analysis

Saturday, 18 March 2017

2001: A Space Odyssey - The Dawn of Man, Part 2

Moon-Watcher and his friends encountering the mysterious monolith.

God’s Smart Phone?

After the water hole incident, Moon-Watcher and his companions retreated back to their hole, and entered another round of symbolic death. Only this time, it was going to the last time of this familiar ritual for them – because when the sun rose again, everything would be different...

The next morning, Moon-Watcher was the first to wake up. Out of the blue (it literally was), he saw something strange in front of his hole. It was a dark, rectangular, shiny, and smooth block-like monolith, appearing out of no reason amidst the sand-covered landscape. Its appearance almost bore an uncanny contrast to the dry and sun-lit environment. Moon-Watcher alerted his companions, and when the others woke up, everyone was in awe. Through a very beautiful middle / long shot, Kubrick documented the first interactions of the group with the monolith. Multiple emotions erupted from all the ape-men – there were screaming, chattering, and the expressions of fear and wonder. Some immediately ran away and retreated from this unprecedented experience. A few of them started touching the surface of the monolith, registering a sensation they have never had before. Some of them were looking up to the top of the monolith, and through this perspective, we had one of the most iconic scenes in ‘2001’ – in the very first low-angle shot of the film, the end of the monolith pointed towards the sky, and almost aligned with the moon. Not only as a foreshadowing of Man’s ultimate voyage to the moon, the low angle shot also signified the possibility of control. It would not be the monolith’s last appearance. As we would see, the monolith would appear again a few more times, whenever a significant milestone in the story of humanity has reached.

The monolith is possibly the most enigmatic and iconic thing in Kubrick’s cinema. There are numerous interpretations and analyses regarding the significance of this particular item. It is really interesting to read a lot of these explanations because they provide nice windows into other people’s perspectives on this ambiguous issue. I will provide my own view and observations, yet before that I want to give an opinion about a certain point of view regarding the issue. Soon after the release of ‘2001’, co-writer Arthur C. Clarke has written a novel which was based on the film, in which he provided some clarifications regarding the ambiguous narrative evident in the film. I do respect Mr. Clarke’s opinion, yet I feel that his view is only one of the possible explanations to interpret ‘2001’. Kubrick’s and Clarke’s original intentions to make the film ambiguous were because they wanted to leave the film open to interpretations, and not just wanted to provide a single, straight-forward answer. In Clarke’s treatment of the story in the novel, the monolith was implied to be sent by some highly intelligent aliens from the outer space, yet I feel we do not have to stick to this particular viewpoint when we think about ‘2001’. There is a similarity in ‘The Shining’, too. Obviously, we can simply understand Jack Torrance’s madness is caused by the spirits and ghosts in the Overlook Hotel, yet it is only one way of looking at such a great story. Kubrick has painstakingly put in so much more to his version of ‘The Shining’, because he wanted us to look beyond the obvious answer and to think about what all the mise-en-scenes really symbolized.

So what is the monolith? To me, I think it symbolizes inspiration. And, it often comes without warning, like a sudden spark from nowhere. The inspiration may sound weird at first, and there is no way you can use any established conceptual frameworks to make sense of it. Like in Moon-Watcher’s case, you need curiosity and observation to recognize it. Like the ape-men, some people are afraid of these new and weird ideas, and will immediately retreat or stay away from them. True, there is often a fear associated with these new inspirations. In a group, you have to have courage to challenge some rigid concepts and likely bear the stresses of being marginalized and isolated. Only a few individuals can succeed and lead everyone to a new world. There were a few members of Moon-Watcher’s tribe who were willing to touch the monolith and interacted with it out of curiosity. In this primitive setting, Moon-Watcher was one of those who had the quality to bring some important changes to his world. Kubrick used this stunning sequence to show the audience that, inspirations could come at any time, any place. It is you who have to have the initiative and the willingness to be inspired.

While the audience may see the monolith resembling nothing more than a black rectangular block, to Moon-Watcher and his companions, the monolith seemed really weird and out of place. The appearance of the monolith signified the arrival of a new paradigm, a new way of thinking. The design of monolith was so different from the surrounding environment, which was cluttered and disordered. The shiny, smooth monolith represented the arrival of order and control, a concept that soon the ape-men would be able to grasp. In history, when a new paradigm has arrived, many would be shocked and they had to re-assess their way of looking at the world or organizing their knowledges. When Copernicus and Galileo told others that our planet was not at the center of the universe, there certainly would cause an existential despair in many people. When Newton’s theories were challenged by quantum ideas in the early 20^th century, it appeared as if rationality has been thrown to the wolves which were known as uncertainties. Yet, we don’t have to despair. We have to engage and be open to the new ideas, and to prove – or disprove – the validities of these new ideas, thus achieving a better understanding. It really is a will to explore that is required to discover new things which will be beneficial to humanity as a whole.

When Kubrick shot the monolith scene, he used a low camera angle to approach it. In this way, the monolith looked like a jumping board, and it served a symbolic meaning. The arrival of the monolith signified a moment for the ape-men to jump out, and had a very significant change that would completely change the meaning of their existences. In Kierkegaard’s terms, it is sort of a leap of faith (though it may not be religious in this context), that will lead us to the uncharted seas. This jump would definitely lead to uncertainty, yet it was an inevitable action, if the ape-men all retreated from it, they would very soon be diminished. The low-angle shot of the monolith would appear again in the later part of the film, always signifying that humanity had to leap and to transform to another realm of existence.

Moon Watcher’s first high

Upon their encounter with the monolith, something has significantly changed for Moon-Watcher and his friends. When hanging around as normal near their hole one morning, Moon-Watcher was toying with some of the remains from the corpses of other animals. All of a sudden, he found himself thinking of something. It was a monumental moment for him, because he has never before had the possession, ability, or awareness of, using his cognitive abilities. Maybe he was the only one who had an appreciation of his existential dread long before his friends were aware of them, yet it was not out of a logical or rational consideration, but more of an instinctual concern. Clearly, the monolith has given him an ability he never had in his life so far. He picked up a bone, which he never had any appreciation about what this piece of junk could do, and started hammering it on some of the larger piece of bones on the sand. First, he just hit them quite randomly, yet at the same time, a concept was forming in his mind. At this point, Richard Strauss’ ‘Thus Spoke Zarathustra’ could be heard on the soundtrack, and the subsequent scenes basically immortalized this piece of brilliant music. This masterpiece in classical music was written when Strauss was inspired by Nietzsche’s existential classic ‘Thus Spoke Zarathustra’, just like Kubrick was inspired by the same source when he was writing ‘2001’. When it reached the most heightened part of Strauss’ musical score, we came to the most iconic moment of the ‘Dawn of Man’. In a very bold and magnified scene, we saw Moon-Watching bashing euphorically on a few pieces of large bones, completing controlling his actions and fulfilling his desires. For the first time, we saw excitement on Moon-Watcher’s face, and an intercutting fantasy of beating down a large herbivous animal, which was almost impossible before all these. Through this episode, Moon-Watcher has invented the concept of ‘tool’, and humanity’s victorious advances to their world took off from here.

Kubrick has employed a number of techniques to portray the significant moment of Moon-Watcher’s discovery, and the result is a heightened feeling for both the ape-man and the audience alike. First, the use of the classical music was ingenious because the themes for both the movie and the music just fitted some well with each other, they were also made for each other. For Strauss’ masterpiece, the ritualistic use of the three notes – C – G – C’, symbolized an inevitable ascension of humanity, and also allegorized Nietzsche’s ideas of the three metamorphoses. While the first verse symbolized a fear or awe due to inspirations or a self-understanding of one’s lack (like the falling down in tone by the two notes), the second verse of the music was more akin to a questioning of change and possibility (thus the rising up in tone by the two notes), and the final verse of course suggested an optimistic transformation and possible transcendence. When Kubrick used this music in the film, we could see that the verses of the music were fitting – almost synchronizing – very well with the plot at the given moment. That was why Strauss’ score could heighten up the emotion of the audience, because it addressed so neatly with what was being portrayed on the screen.

Through the use of a wide angle lens, Kubrick has provided significant distortions to the scene when Moon-Watcher was bashing happily on the bones. The scene appeared to be very magnified and distorted, and it was also the first few rare instances where the camera was held in close-up to an action, and later, even an extreme close-up when Moon -Watchers facial expression was shown. Coupled with a bold low angle shot from the extreme close-up, Kubrick portrayed neatly the idea of control. Indeed, directors like Orson Welles and Stanley Kubrick loved to use low angles as a significant motif in many of their films, when they wanted to convey a sense or control or pin-point the power dynamics in a given scene. Taken together, Kubrick’s design of the scene was shot in a such a way that an euphoric feeling could be felt by the audience.

Indeed, in the next scene we saw the ape-men had a newly found appetite. Their dietary practices have changed after the encounter with the monolith. Moon-Watcher and his friends were seen eating meat, after they have devised the technique of hunting by using their newly discovered tools. With the added nutrients of carbohydrates, proteins, and fat found in meat, our ancestors experienced a gradual change in their bodily constructions, and were no longer weak and vulnerable against their natural enemies. Though it has been suggested by some critics that the era Kubrick intended to portray were one when the ape-men were supposed to be vegetarians rather than meat-lovers, I suppose Kubrick should be allowed dramatic liberty in his screenplay. Anyway, the narrative was supposed to be ambiguous and Kubrick often created diagetic worlds that allowed some deviations from the ‘reality’, so this was not a big problem.

The bone episode proved to be extremely significant not only for Moon Watcher and his friends, but also for humanity in general. As some critics have put it in a poetic manner, this scene represented the metamorphosis of man into machine. It was the first time a pre-human could achieve an aim by using a machine, albeit an extremely simple tool. It was this first spark that would lighten up humanity’s imaginations to develop more advanced tools, such as technology. Our ancestors were first lifted up from a chaotic fate through the appreciation of order, and through an ability to control and organize things. In Kubrick’s terms, the word ‘machine’ did not just mean computers or any things that was made of iron or steel - he meant it in a far more general context. It is more appropriate to use the word ‘mechanism’ or its adjective ‘mechanistic’ to make sense Kubrick’s use of the word. Thus, there can be a cultural machine, a social machine, a war machine, and even a ritualized sequence of actions can be called a machine. In many of his films, Kubrick intended to show us how these man-made systems worked, and how their actions affected us eventually.

Through the use of the bone as a primitive tool, Moon-Watcher first experienced the notion of ‘power’. While Moon-Watcher and others were fighting for food and suffering their fears to in silence, it was out of a base instinct to persist. In Schopenhauer’s words, it was a will to live. Now, transforming from ape to pre-human through the rational use of a tool, Moon-Watcher has evolved and now he was aiming for a will to power, as Nietzsche would have put it. Nietzsche believed that this change was an inevitable step to be taken by humanity, and yet in either Nietzsche’s or Kubrick’s view, the transformation sequence was far from complete. I will address this issue again in my last article regarding ‘Dawn of Man’.

Another important aspect is that Moon-Watcher and his friends have now grasped the meaning of ‘control’. No matter one believes in fate or not, a meaningful life is often about the exertion of self-control and, to some extent, a control to the environment around us. The monolith has not directly illustrated the potential application of a bone to Moon-Watcher and his friends, what it has done was to inspire the ape-men with intellectual abilities to be able to conceive of ideas such as ‘tool’ and ‘control’. For the first time, Moon Watcher and his enlightened friends realized that they could control to some extent the environment around them, rather than passively being controlled and overwhelmed by it. This advancement also gave our ancestors a first found courage to face the world. They knew that in order to live in a fulfilling way, they had to be able to interact with their world in an active manner. It was through the use of understanding that has led our ancestors from their ape-y appearances to a status we could label as a precursor of humanity.

Full Bone Jacket

Moon-Watcher and his friends were no longer afraid of the night. Because they knew when they woke up the next day, they would be able to fight for themselves in a more active way. They were confident that not only they would not be hungry anymore, they also had a better standing in this universe. The inspirations from the monolith have also led them to grasp human-like characteristics such as memories, compassion, imaginations and community. Armed with their new found weapon, an insignificant bone by today’s standard, would Moon-Watcher and his friends be able to fight back for the water hole that has been taken from them?

(To be continued.)

by Ed Law

18/3/2017

Film Analysis

Sunday, 12 March 2017

2001 : A Space Odyssey - The Dawn of Man, Part 1

Moon-Watcher thinking outside the box in 'The Dawn of Man' sequence.

'...I'm just trying to find out where you're coming from.'

-Alice Harford (Nicole Kidman) in 'Eyes Wide Shut' (1999).

'Millions of years of evolution, right? Right?'

-Alice Harford (Nicole Kidman) in 'Eyes Wide Shut' (1999).

I feel that ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’ can be divided into 3 thematic sections, that of ‘Birth’, ‘Life’, and ‘Death or beyond’. ‘2001’ is epic because Stanley Kubrick has told the story of humanity from our earliest days towards the potential future far, far away. Often considered as the cinematic version of Friedrich Nietzsche’s ‘Thus Spoke Zarathustra’, ‘2001’ captures a similar idea of the transformation from ape to human, and then from human to the transcendent Star Child. In Nietzsche’s opinion, humans experience the ‘three metamorphoses’, which is symbolized by the camel, the lion and the child. While Kubrick has also been liberal to contribute his own ideas about human nature to ‘2001’, a lot of parallels can be observed between the two genius’ masterpieces.

The first 10 minutes of the ‘2001’, titled ‘The Dawn of Man’, is about the birth of humanity. ‘The Dawn of Man’ is an achievement in itself. Kubrick’s stunning abstractions have pinpointed the most important moments that have transformed our primitive ancestors into Homo sapiens. The section has also established some of the most timeless truths regarding human nature, and has effectively set the tone for the whole film. As early as ‘The Dawn of Man’, Kubrick has already foretold his audience that their assumptions will be challenged, and there will be numerous surprises or revelations awaiting them...

Living on the edge

While the title of the film suggests that the story takes place at the Space Age, the story of ‘2001’ started actually at the very ancient age, an age even before Homo sapiens started walking the Earth. At an arid and desolate desert landscape, we found a group of ape-men, who were implied to be human’s ancestors. These ape-men were living on the edge - they were always prone to intense starvation and violent death, and they were on the brink of extinction. The ape-men, being herbivores, were always fighting for food with some antelope-like creatures in their habitat, and were often devoid of an enough serving. Our ancestors’ physique simply did not offer any advantages against the other animals in an uncompromising universe. Worse still, a stalking leopard often leapt out suddenly from a high and secluded spot, devouring any random member of our miserable ancestors.

From the very first scenes of the film, Kubrick has already employed visual techniques to convey the helplessness of our ancestors in an indifferent universe. Through a series of medium or long shots, our ancestors’ sizes were relatively small and engulfed by the natural environment they were situated in. They became passive in their surroundings, because they have not yet possessed any power to control or to invite advantages towards themselves. The mise-en-scene was sparse, suggesting that they were fighting in a world that almost amounted to nothing. Or, maybe they did not have any imaginations to change their environment at this primitive stage. Through the stalking leopard scene, Kubrick has also immortalized his unique approach to cinematic violence. It is indeed surprising that one of the most prevalent themes in Kubrick’s cinema since ‘Dr. Strangelove’ is his exploration of all forms of violence – primitive and institutional, verbal and physical, domestic and global. His unsentimental portrayal of violence serves as a nice contrast to the suspenseful approaches by directors like Alfred Hitchcock or Sergio Leone, or the dynamic and sentimentalized approach by Sam Peckinpah. Kubrick’s unsentimental approach has certainly influenced directors like Paul Thomas Anderson, as certain scenes in ‘There Will Be Blood’ are nice tributes to this unique style.

More than living in a sustained wave of terror, the most marked limitation of these primitive ape-men was their lack of sophisticated cognitive abilities for which Homo sapiens is associated with. Our earliest ancestors were just motivated and driven by urges and instincts, and a timeless desire to live. They did not possess a rational structure that would aid them to solve problems or to feel compassionate. As a result, they did not have any past memories (suggesting they did not have a sense of time), and they did not have a wonder or curiosity to explore the world around them.

Cyclical hell

Their existences were a tragic one. In a sense, they lived their lives one day at a time, as their shallow mental capabilities did not allow them to have any memories or concepts built into their cognitive structures. The temporality of these primitive creatures was more akin to a cyclic one. The start of a day was analogous to their births, the night signified their deaths. The ultimate meaning of their existences was to survive through the longest day, and when they went to sleep, they experienced a symbolic and ritualistic death, only to be born again as a new existence the next morning.

To this end, Kubrick has complemented by telling these stories in an episodic structure. Through the use of a series of clear fade-in / fade-out pairing, he described the plot one incident at a time. This gave the impression that all the incidents relating to our ancestors were detached, because the cognitive abilities of our primitive ancestors were not able to connect the dots for their experiences. Our ancestors had to live through, as Nietzsche would have put it, a painful eternal recurrence of existence, and they had no ability to find out if there was any meaning to exist at all.

Our ancestors had no identities, because they did not have a personal story to tell. They could not show emotions, because they were not capable to feel. When the leopard murdered one of the ape-men, all they could do was to leash out some primal screams and instinctually dashed away, and would soon forget about the whole incident and the loss of a companion. When the night came, they retreated back to their hole, closed their eyes and ended their merger existences.

The ape who watched the moon

Of all the ape-men in the tribe, one male member seemed to stand out. His name was Moon-Watcher, the protagonist of the ‘Dawn of Man’ sequence. Unlike the other ape-men, he possessed a stronger cognitive ability and he was the only one who has expressed wonder to the world around him. Moon-Watcher was our ultimate ancestor - he was the precursor to what would then be known as ‘humanity’. When everyone was asleep at night, Moon-Watcher was the only one who showed worry and sadness on his face. His higher cognitive ability has led him to think about the meaning of his existence. Because his memory was slowly developing throughout the section, he started to be afraid of the night, not because of the darkness, but because it signified the arrival of ‘tomorrow’. Moon-Watcher understood that every new day would be full of uncertainties for both himself and his companions. For the very first time, an existential dread appeared on Moon-Watcher’s facial expression, and one could easily feel that the evolutionary pressure was already pushing on the ape-men. Interestingly, the name ‘Moon-Watcher’ also suggested something else. He was the only ape-man who often looked at the moon with awe and wonder. This not only foreshadowed what humanity would eventually do one day, it also served a symbolic meaning - the timeless truth that at a certain point, a giant leap in development has to be carried out for the species to enter a new paradigm, to cross a new frontier. Often in history, it would require one individual to be able to think outside the box. While having a similar appearance to most of his counterparts, Moon-Watcher seemed to be the one who possessed the qualities or potential to save his tribe from the hostilities of the primitive world. All that was need was an opportunity for him to prove just that.

The water hole

A crisis soon emerged for Moon-Watcher’s tribe. When the ape-men were drinking from a water resource, they encountered another clan of ape-men, who also wanted the water hole for themselves. From our earliest days, conflict already existed. It is not an aberration from the good nature of humanity, it is the ultimate expression of our urges and desires. The two parties started screaming and making loud noises at each other, attempting to scare the rival party to retreat. A brutish member from the rival clan was scary and loud enough to chase Moon-Watcher’s party away, and now our ancestors were left with disappointment once again.

I feel that Kubrick is really poetic when he is staging this incident, because he has used a circular water hole, rather than something else, as the source of conflict. Water often symbolizes vitality, and its fluidity symbolizes movement. Kubrick’s view illustrates that development or progress embodies a penetration of space, the ability for us to move further and to explore unknown frontiers. The water signifies a search for vitality, the simple desire to persist and survive. The circle often symbolizes the unity, and at the primitive stage the ape-men did not yet possess a unified mind or identity – which was something they would soon acquire.

An interesting impression from this sequence was to the group dynamics shown by the primitive ape-men. While the ape-men appeared to be arguing as two distinct sides – they were standing and posing on the opposite sides of the water hole, a concept of culture has not yet established in the minds of these primitive ape-men. All the ape-men shouted and screamed out of instinct, only to assert their presences and the right to the water-hole. In the next encounter of the two parties, the nature of the conflict would become very different.

You do not belong here...

The water hole incident was important in terms of theme of the story, because here Kubrick was expressing the idea of Robert Ardrey’s ‘territorial imperative’. Ardrey’s ideas have influenced Stanley Kubrick and Sam Peckinpah, both my favorite directors, and one can discover that their assumptions regarding the nature of humanity are very similar. For both directors, films like ‘2001’, ‘The Wild Bunch’, ‘A Clockwork Orange’, and ‘Straw Dogs’ are all based on or inspired by Ardrey’s insights. Indeed, looking closer at Kubrick’s films since ‘2001’, the territorial ideas by Audrey are almost already present in various forms, no matter it is a water-hole, a house, an aristocratic status, a haunted hotel, an enemy nation, or a private ritual.

In Ardrey’s view, he suggested that there was an evolutionally determined instinct for humans regarding territoriality from the earliest days of our existences. So, it is not greedy or mean when one defends aggressively for one’s properties – Ardrey’s theory states that the territorial aggression is an in-born instinct, it is really part of us. Ardrey further pointed out that, it was this instinct that distinguished pre-humans from other lower primates, and very much contributed to humanity’s tremendous success in the arena of evolution. Certainly, it is once again an anti-humanist stance, labeling humans as some greedy beasts rather than some rational and loving individuals. It seems to suggest that human nature is innately evil, and somehow aggression is rationalized to be acceptable. Yet as Ardery, Kubrick, and Peckinpah have clearly stated – if we do not even have the courage to face the often awful truth, how will we have the ability to contribute to the betterment of civilization?!

Ardrey’s brilliant ideas will be the focus of the next article, but in short, the water hole incident represented the first ever territorial conflict in Kubrick’s vision of humanity. The implication would be far more than a struggle for some fluids to soothe the dry throats of the ape-men. The crisis was a turning point for Moon-Watcher and his party. Something needed to happen for all of them to jump out – and that would be way beyond their imaginations.

(To be continued.)

by Ed Law

12/3/2017

Film Analysis

Saturday, 4 March 2017

2001 : A Space Odyssey

When we are chasing a departing bus or fighting for the last serving of the meal, how often do we leave behind the mundane and think about our origins, and where we are off to in the far future? While we may possess the consciousness and subjectivity to assert our self values throughout our existence, do we really appreciate Man's place in the universe? While the transformations of humanity throughout history are as diverse and wonderful as a cinematic experience, are there any timeless urges and needs that we have dragged along throughout the many pages of our own tales? What sort of inspirations do we need in order to facilitate us to think outside the box, and then lead us to a future beyond the borders of our imaginations? Some time during our lives, we will possess an inquisitive mind to ask, or explore, these questions which seldom lead to simple answers. If a single film can capture all these ideas and motivate or inspire the audience to face these difficult questions, then that film deserves an iconic status in the Hall of Fame of Film Art. Such an epic film does exist - it is the gift Stanley Kubrick has offered to humanity 49 years ago – ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’ (1968)!

‘2001: A Space Odyssey’ is THE Stanley Kubrick film – no matter one has any preferences for the other films by Kubrick, one has to admit that ‘2001’ is the unsurpassed monolith that stands proudly in the cinematic universe, and it is the film Kubrick will always be remembered for. Even by the standard of today, ‘2001’ is still extremely daring, visionary and revolutionary. The film challenges the very assumptions of traditional cinema – the need for a narrative to offer the audience a ‘meaningful’ story. Kubrick, in collaboration with the great writer Arthur C. Clarke, has subverted the expectations for audience familiar with American cinema. ‘2001’ employs ambiguous and memorial visual images, minimal dialogues, and a stunning use of classical music, to contrast the images shown on the screen. The result is a poiesis of visual images, sound, music, and most important, ideas that inspire generations of audience. ‘2001’ was made when Kubrick was at the height of his power. Films like ‘2001’, ‘A Clockwork Orange’, ‘Barry Lyndon’, and the unrealized ‘Napoleon’ all serve as testaments for his monumental will to turn the whole cinematic universe around. This ‘cinematic Napoleon’ made all these films with intense confidence, knowing that they will re-define film art and inspire awe from the later generations of movie lovers.

While many audience ad critics clearly were not ready for such an experimental approach back in 1968, the status of ‘2001’ has gradually increased throughout the years. Now, it is fair to consider ‘2001’ as one of the most iconic, if not the greatest, films in the history of cinema. The film did receive a number of Oscar nominations, and Kubrick was nominated with Best Director and Original Screenplay. He also won his only Oscar – for the Visual Effects. Ironically, the all-time-greatest science fiction film did not receive a nomination in the Best Picture category, while it has literally influenced every single science fiction film ever since.

Why is ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’ considered an important film? The film is a milestone in the history of Science Fiction cinema, because it completely changes the impression of audience towards science fiction. Before ‘2001’ came out, science fiction films tended to have a low budget, simple storyline, and the genre was not a respectable field when one compared it to the other serious genres. ‘2001’ is the first film that blasts the science fiction genre to its full potential. First, the scientific realism is extremely impressive even the film is nearly 50 years old – the preceding science fiction films before ‘2001’ have never provided such an authentic and realistic portrayal of future technology. In terms of content, ‘2001’ is a very ambitious film indeed . The film is not merely about space travel, it is about us – the story of humanity. Kubrick, who has synthesized the ideas from important thinks such as Friedrich Nietzsche, Charles Darwin, Albert Camus, Sigmund Freud, and Robert Ardrey, has created a visual poem which demands a subjective participation and contribution from the engaging audience, rather than asking for an impartial or final meaning common in Wikipedia plot sections. It is YOU, as a member of the audience, who have to engage with the images and have your own take on what the film means to you. Through ‘2001’, Kubrick has offered starting points for us to think about what humanity means, our origin and potential destination, and our position in the universe. It is far to say that '2001' is sort of a cinematic version of Nietzsche's ideas! Science fiction films before ‘2001’ have seldom dealt with such serious and philosophical questions, and since then science fiction films have become more thought-provoking and inspiring, without necessarily compromising the fascinating or entertaining factors that accompany the films. Star Wars, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Alien, Blade Runner, The Terminator, Wall-E, Gravity, Interstellar - and many other brilliant science fiction films, would not be possible if their creators were not inspired by ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’. ‘2001’ has also inspired non-Science Fiction films, too – Paul Thomas Anderson’s ‘There Will Be Blood’ and Terence Malick’s ‘The Tree of Life’ are nice examples. ‘2001’ is more than a mere science fiction film - it is a masterpiece for anyone who is inquisitive enough to find out what we really are.

'Why doesn't Pauline Kael like my movie?'

- Stanley Kubrick on 2001: A Space Odyssey's initial reception

Because I go into ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’ in the coming articles, I would like to de-mystify some misunderstandings regarding this one-of-a-kind film. While ‘2001’ is most certainly an iconic film, it is also a ‘Marmite’ sort of movie – you either love it or hate it to the high end. Many people are misled by some false information regarding ‘2001’, and this has led to unrealistic expectations and eventually ends with complete disappointment and ultimate sterility. Some audience label ‘2001’ as a ‘cold’, ‘boring’, and ‘pretentious’ film, and this is not at all unjustified. Let me be frank – if you want to watch an exciting and warm science fiction film, I would recommend something like Passengers (2016) rather than ‘2001’. It is weird why some people assume ‘2001’ as entertaining if it is a popular or iconic film – these individuals will most certainly be disappointed. Because Kubrick has never intended to make ‘2001’ an exciting or sentimental film. He wanted to provoke the audience to feel and contemplate about some elemental questions which are so important for all of us. ‘2001’ is a cinematic experience that requires an active participation from the audience, rather than a normally passive way of receiving a story from the movie screen. If the stunning imageries abundant in ‘2001’ have arisen your awe and have inspired you to give some thoughts about human nature, then the film has succeeded. Steven Spielberg has stated that succinctly before – you would not feel emotional because you were watching the spacecrafts in the film, yet you would feel emotional out of gratitude to Stanley Kubrick, who was willing to make this film for all of us. I completely agree to this sentiment.

‘2001’ is a cold film, yet I feel the coldness is not an emotional coldness – it is more appropriate to label it as a ‘philosophical coldness’. This coldness is like reading Spinoza’s philosophy, that of equating God with an impersonal nature. Kubrick is showing us a realistic depiction of the universe – an indifferent, desolate cosmo, and how humans interact with it and also with the various machines they have created.

The cold atmosphere is also enhanced by Kubrick’s anti-humanist stance and the his central theme of dehumanization, which are evident in ‘2001’, ‘A Clockwork Orange’, ‘Barry Lyndon’ and the script of the unrealized ‘Napoleon’. Throughout ‘2001’, Kubrick has suggested anti-humanist perspectives regarding many issues of humanity, and these viewpoints have challenged the very assumptions many traditional films are based on. It can be understood because Kubrick has been influenced by anti-humanist thinkers such as Nietzsche and Ardrey, and he has also expressed concerns about some of Rousseau’s ideas, through interviews around that time and in the script of ‘Napoleon’. For Kubrick, humanity is caught between the struggle of 3 forces – our instinctual drives, the systems that control us, and the indifferent universe. Therefore, ‘2001’ can be seen as a double to ‘Barry Lyndon’, or, even more satisfying, his unrealized ‘Napoleon’ – because all these films are addressing these conflicting forces that define human existence.

So, other than saying ‘2001’ is ambiguous – which is certainly true – I would say ‘2001’ is also an ambivalent film, because many scenes can lead to double, or even contradictory conclusions, and Kubrick has made no attempts to resolve any for the audience. Did the ‘bone-to-spacecraft’ an optimistic scene about how far humans have evolved, or the most pessimistic moment of dehumanization in human history? Did the shadow boxing scene represent liberation, or humanity’s helpless entrapment in the mechanical order we have created? Did the final transformation to the Star Child represent humanity’s ultimate triumph, or an expression of eternal loneliness in the universe? Kubrick did not provide any answers, because he trusted his audience – he was confident that his audience would have the courage and ability to make up their own mind. That is why I think ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’ is a timeless masterpiece, and humanity should be proud that a member of our species has been able to create such a wonderful achievement.

The next part: The Dawn of Man