Full Metal Jacket

Are we all fundamentally violent, in a sense we are natural born warriors? Is it ironic to appreciate that our success story on our planet is due to our ability to channel out our aggression, either bringing out our most barbaric moments or turning NBK on others? Do we have the capability to bear the co-existence of good and evil, even when they are locking in an endless struggle in the deepest territories of the psyche? Finally, why is there WAR, to start with, if we have always longed for a peaceful co-existence with each other?!  The brilliant filmmaker, Stanley Kubrick, decided that he would explore all these complex issues in one single masterpiece, which is the topic of a series of articles I will write about in August – Full Metal Jacket (1987)!!

It is great to hear that Kubrick’s Full Metal Jacket (FMJ hereafter) will receive a re-release in the Film Festival in Hong Kong this month. Based on a short novel ‘The Short Timers’, Kubrick explored the effects of Vietnam War on human psyche, but I have to say there is much more to it. It is noteworthy that the film is very starkly divided into two halves. The first half is about the training of a group of marine recruits in a military camp, and the second half is about these soldiers’ experience in the warzone in Vietnam. For today’s younger audience, FMJ is a film from Kubrick they are more familiar with, and many viewers have likely watched some parts of this film before even if they have no knowledge about Kubrick or his work. Indeed, the first half of the film is probably one of the most iconic and memorable, and, guess what, most entertaining sequences ever from a Kubrick film. The first half of the film has inspired many imitations and parodies in later movies, and I would say many films dealing with similar themes have probably taken inspirations from that too. The success of the first part is very much due to two characters – the Gunnery Sergeant Hartman and an underachiever Leonard Lawrence, most famously known as ‘Gomer Pyle’, a nickname from Hartman. That was the tension between these two iconic characters which drove the narrative of the first half forward, and made this part so memorable. At the second part, some viewers seemed to complain that the narrative became very disjointed and more episodic. To be honest, I would also admit that the second part is less interesting than the more iconic first half, yet I do not agree that the more episodic format of the second half is a short coming. I believe Kubrick adopted this approach because he wanted to contrast that with the first part, as I will elaborate more on the later passages. The more episodic style seemed to signify the random and chaotic nature of war itself, and the apparent aimlessness of the platoon signified the fact that the individualism inherent in any human being could often fit into the main narrative of the war itself – meaning that the soldiers could not quite see or appreciate why they were fighting the war, or they were fighting for, as they were merely instruments for the military industrial complex.

So, FMJ is your typical anti-war flick, right? Well, when I first watched this film in my teenage years, I certainly had this rather shallow point of view. From the dehumanization of military complex to the violence in any war, FMJ did contain a strong anti-war message. Yet the more I think about this film, and the more I understand about psychology, I start to appreciate the complexity of this film. If you have read any of my previous articles about Kubrick’s work, you may expect a statement like ‘Full Metal Jacket is probably the greatest war film in the history of cinema’. Surprise – you will not see this statement here this time. Because if I am really honest and treat FMJ as a hard core war film, it is in no way the best war film ever – films like ‘Apocalypse Now’, ‘The Deer Hunter’, ‘The Thin Red Line’ or even ‘Platoon’ and ‘Saving Private Ryan’ can be considered better war films than FMJ. What makes FMJ special is that it has moved beyond the level of war film – the film is so one-of-a-kind that Kubrick has once again transcended genre categorization.

Let me put it this way. Full Metal Jacket is not merely a war film, that is a film which uses the issue of war as a vehicle to explore fundamental questions about humanity. Indeed, many colleagues close to Kubrick has stated that the motivation behind making FMJ is actually a psychological one – because Kubrick was fascinated with Carl G. Jung’s ideas on psychology, and he wanted to express the idea of ‘The Shadow’ in cinema. Someone, he could see a connection between the Vietnam War and the Jung’s famous ideas – the Duality of Man – and therefore he used the Vietnam War as a topic to express the contradictory dualism inherent in all of us. It is worth comparing FMJ with a film Kubrick made 30 years before that – ‘Paths of Glory’ (1957). In Paths of Glory, Kubrick has made absolutely no confusion about the point he was trying to make – war of any kind and scale is ugly, and it wrecks lives of others. The point of view presented in ‘Paths of Glory’ was very clear, and indeed it was quite a sentimental film which was very different from Kubrick’s usual approach. When we look at Full Metal Jacket, the view point has become far more ambiguous, because Kubrick wants us to consider different perspectives regarding war and the underlying psychology behind that. Kubrick’s approach has matured throughout the 30 years, and what he has been aiming for the last 35 years of his life (since Dr. Strangelove) was an engagement with his audience to discover self-knowledge. Of course, self-knowledge not only entailed the great side of humanity but also his dark and uncharted seas. It is not fair to say that as a pessimism to expose the more painful and ugly moments of humanity, just the opposite, that is how our thinking can evolve and we have a better understanding of ourselves. Thus, I would compare FMJ to Kubrick’s first ever feature film, ‘Fear and Desire’ (1953), as that film was also intensely psychological and used war as a background to explore existential ideas and human personality.

In a nutshell, I guess the question wants us to explore is this – if war is so bad and destructive, given humanity’s intelligence, why is this very idea not replaced? If humanity possesses the intelligence to develop weapons that can target enemy more efficiently and selectively, and can conceive destruction in a far more massive scale, why is this dark side of human nature not wiped out? Throughout history, the story of warriors and conquerors have been celebrated, and they are often hailed as heroes or visionaries, while they certainly did this at the cost of others, no matter what kind of rhetoric they could come up with to justify their actions (that ‘Oh, we are trying to help you because you are less civilized than us’ sort of b.s.). Kubrick was confronting us with this paradox that many of us would find that tremendously challenging to come to terms with. If we are moral and taking a more liberal stance on this issue, and affirming the idea of peace, of course, then why we allow this very destructive activity to continue throughout centuries? In Kubrick’s point of view, the reason is because war is a manifestation of our true nature – our need for violence and aggression. That is nothing wrong or crazy about that, because that is our fundamental nature, just like any animals. What makes humanity different from the other animals is we can instill culture to strive a better balance from our darker attributes. What is more chilling, however, is that how humanity develops the idea of institution to normalize many behaviors that can in no way considered rational. Hence, we have the idea of ‘institutionalized violence’ and war is probably the most exemplary candidate of institutionalized violence.

Indeed, the first part of Full Metal Jacket shows us why the training of new recruits into soldiers are so effective. Because not only the dehumanizing effect has a great impact on the mind of the recruiters, what is often overlooked is that our psychological design is also helping us to transform to become an instrument for the institution. Indeed, it is spectacular and even chilling to see how great the military complex is playing with psychology of the recruiters to achieve a purpose they want – to turn these young and immature teenagers to become efficient killers in combat. The drill instructors are smart in the sense that they can use different tactics to play with the weakness of the recruiters, to influence them to have a self-motivation and drive to transform themselves, to born again hard as mentioned multiple times in the film. When we think about FMJ, there is no point to pass simplistic moral judgement on the film, like saying the drill instructor is a bad guy or so, because that will miss the point Kubrick was trying to make. Every incident, or indeed every character, can be viewed in many different and contradictory angles, and that is why Jung’s idea about the duality of humanity is so essential to the film – humanity is not that black and white, and we often embrace our own shadow if we want to understand ourselves.

In the next article, I will lead you through the first part of the film, about the military training in the camp. Kubrick has taken a clinical approach in this sequence, as he wanted us to serve as observers to this situation, as if we are looking at the action of an assembly line in a factory. The approach we will adopt is going to be very psychological, as I will show how the drill instruction plays with psychological ideas of archetypes, group psychology, intimidation, and the cultural ideas like heterosexuality and masculinity, to build up the military machine of soldiers. Though the sequence has loads of black humor – I am sure anyone will laugh at certain moments – I feel that it is probably one of the most chilling moments in all of Kubrick’s cinema. What makes that so disturbing is the mechanical dehumanization of the sequence makes so much sense to anyone, as this is something not only taking place in the army, but also in any disciplinary institutions. This cold rationalism, developed and perfected by humanity, will certainly send shivers down anyone’s spine - because it just works so well.

(To be continued.)

1/3

by Ed Law

Film Analysis

2001 : A Space Odyssey - What the HAL ?



Stanley Kubrick’s ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’ is celebrating its 50^th anniversary this year. With the various re-releases around the world, including the Cannes Festival in May, the younger generation has an opportunity to experience one of the most iconic films in the history of cinema. Every generation of humanity deserves ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’. It is the film that has shown us the potential of our imaginations and how far we will go to actualize them. One should be in awe, or even in a sense of chill, how Stanley Kubrick could predict so many things correctly half a century ago. Space travel, various type of computers, video conferencing, the potential of internet and virtuality, tablet computers, corporate business, the all-dread frozen dinner, the perfect breakup line, online birthday wishes, and the sad fact that we indulge in our smart phones or tablet computers when we dine with others, you name it. It is fair to say that ‘2001’ is a film that has shaped the way we look at the modern world, and we have clearly taken inspirations to drive the development of our future. This time, I am talking about the iconic central part of the film – the struggle between humanity and an artifact Man has created – an artificial intelligent computer known as HAL. No matter you have heard of that before or not – just Open the Pod Bay Doors, HAL!

In the first part of the film, ‘The Dawn of Man’, Moon Watcher, the dominant ape in the tribe, discovered the first use of a tool. Combined with his instinct for control and violence, he successfully chased away a rival tribe of apes with his friends, claiming ownership of a property in the ancient world – a water hole. With a brilliant match cut, Kubrick has taken the audience to an era we are more familiar with – the Space Age. With John Strauss’ ‘The Blue Danube’, various spacecrafts drift in the space in a harmonious manner, signifying that humans have developed a better understanding of the universe, through the use of technology. The reason why we are at ease and feel harmonious with our surroundings is because we have the intelligence to gain power and master our surroundings, rather than submitting passively to that. While we will see that Kubrick had a complex view regarding technology and artifacts, it is important to note that Kubrick was never anti-technology per se. He had no reservation about human’s ability to use technology and concepts to lead to a more advantageous existence, and he celebrated that by juxtaposing that with a beautiful piece of classical music. In an evolutionary point of view, if humans do not possess the cognitive abilities to create all the technical artifacts, we will have not much difference from a bunch of apes! What Kubrick was driving at here was that, while he affirmed the achievement humans have made, he knew that it was far from finishing, and there were some issues to settle before moving on. One can compare this idea with Nietzsche’s philosophy. With the ‘Death of God’, humanity has lost a central reference point for morality. Therefore, new concepts came up to represent normality – the age of Enlightenment, secularism, rationalism, and the need for objective morality. While Nietzsche felt that there were some improvements, he did not see any fundamental differences from these new ideas. Because he believed that there was a final stage for humanity to reach – the Ubermensch, who created his own ideas and acted as his own judge. Going back to Kubrick. Each jump for the progress of humanity is represented by the appearance of the monolith. With the haunting music from Ligeti, humanity is sent to uncharted seas of the future.

So what is Kubrick’s view on technology, after all? While Kubrick celebrated human’s creation of a technological harmony, he wanted us to think about the limits of that. First, do we really understand the end point of our invention? It is totally possible that our technology can exceed the ability of humans, and it should not be surprising because that is the motivation why we invent all these useful tools in the first place. With an appreciation of our physical and cognitive limits, we develop the intelligence to create sophisticated tools that can help us to solve all the problems. Yet, with a need for control and power, humans want to assert the power on these ‘machine slaves’. That is the ego, which is derived from the cognitive abilities, which leads humanity to a ‘will of power’ – the need to control everything around us, including other human beings. Even half a century, Kubrick has already foreseen that our creations may outwit us – with the complex generative functions, emergent properties and stochastic phenomena, nasty surprises may lurk out and cause negative impact to humanity. Indeed, Artificial Intelligence – exemplified by HAL in the film - is a contestable issue, because we are not yet sophisticated enough to understand the nature of A.I. – should it be considered a machine, a genuine human being, or do we have to apply a revolutionary framework to accommodate that? Great minds like Stephen Hawking and Bill Gates have already warned about the implications of A.I., and it is pessimistic, though reasonable, to be concerned about the creation of a more powerful form of human existence by A.I. I suppose most of us, including Kubrick, probably do not have a definite answer to this question, yet it is something worth thinking about through cinema.

Second, Kubrick was skeptical about the notion of the perfect system, a holy grail desired and embraced by many people. Humanity has always wanted to create all sort of systems that can solve the problems in our world, and with the belief that technology is reliable, humans believe some day a perfect system will emerge to make the day. In Kubrick’s films, there are a lot of ‘perfect systems’ which lead to all sorts of problems (and hence drama), and he always tried to satirize this folly. In ‘Dr. Strangelove’, the nuclear system eventually led to apocalypse, all because of human errors and paranoia.   In ‘A Clockwork Orange’, the desire to reform criminals through the Ludovico technique led Alex de Large to become robot-like. In ‘Barry Lyndon’, the empty customs and rituals failed to lead to a higher moral existence, it only rendered the people a soulless existence. Kubrick felt that the perfect system was a dead end because it was derived from humans, who often did not understand their limits. In fact, the false belief of the creation of a perfect system only reflected a lack of self-knowledge. Humanity is always weak in the face of contingency. The reason why classical science advocated deterministic systems was because we wanted to rationally chain up the cause and effect, so that we could develop a better understanding and eventually exert a better control. Yet, there are a lot of aspects in humanity that defies rational explanation, especially our instinct, unconscious, and our dark sides. There is no way we can understand that in a rational manner. The failure of systems in the Kubrick’s film served as a great reminder of all these aspects there are part of ourselves and cannot deny from. In ‘2001 : A Space Odyssey’, the system in question is the computer HAL.

'And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you.' - Nietzsche

After the discovery of a monolith on the Jupiter, a space with 4 astronauts was sent to there for investigation. The crew members included Dave Bowman, Poole, and 2 astronauts in hibernation. There is a 5^th passenger – an artificial intelligent computer known as HAL. Recognizable by its circular, intense red eye, HAL controlled everything on the spaceship and it can be considered the central hub of the spaceship. This is an idea very similar to the virtual world, internet and cloud computing, and for a generation without computers, that is very revolutionary – think about Rocky Balboa looking up to the sky and wonder what ‘cloud computing’ is. What is more is that, aside from its mechanical appearance, HAL perfectly mimicked a human being. It was stimulated so spectacularly that it could interact with others as if it was a genuine human being. It also appeared to show emotions – though the 2 astronauts reasonably doubted that it was stimulated rather than genuine emotions. All the astronauts treated HAL as if it was a colleague on board, rather than as a mere machine. What is ironic is that Kubrick reversed the characters of the astronauts and HAL. The astronauts, who are genuine human beings, were portrayed coldly and emotionless, while HAL, merely a simulacrum of human being, seemed to show and express more emotion than the astronauts. Kubrick was illustrating the mechanical dehumanization of the modern age, which was a common theme in many of his films. The astronauts became the instrument of the spaceship and the institution it represented, and to maintain a sense of ‘professionalism’, they had to perform in a rational manner and control their emotions. Of course, the fact that HAL was controlling everything also suggested that there was an intense surveillance (think of Foucault's and Bentham's ideas) in the spaceship, and the astronauts would not be allowed to show their true feelings, such as fear and stress, when they were doing their jobs.

'I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do. ' -HAL

HAL was considered a perfect system by the characters in the film. Because, according to record, this type of computer has never committed a single mistake. Yet, the creators have missed a critical factor. The very fact that HAL was mimicking humans meant that it would get all the characteristics –good and bad- from humanity, and of course we could not take the raisins without taking the bun. While HAL has super intelligent abilities and a brilliant stimulation of human beings, it consists of all the dark sides of humanity – fear, jealousy, paranoia, and desperation for control and mastery of its surroundings. If there is one single reason for HAL’s eventual demise, to quote Nietzsche, that is because HAL is human, all too human.

When the journey went on, HAL started to show subtle problems. First, it sent a wrong message of reporting an antenna was broken. While Bowman and Poole checked out that nothing was wrong, they were quite puzzled by HAL’s mistake, because this type of computer was 100% reliable. This is indeed a point very relevant to modern audience, because we often rely too much on technology, and place excess confidence on our creation. Because of that we literally switch off our thinking and become less vigilant to contingencies. In an age that encourages backing up of files from the computer, we should totally appreciate this idea. The second mistake is quite subtle, and it is also contentious among the audience. During a game of chess, HAL gave a checkmate to Poole, and it deliberately spelt it out to Poole every moves that would lead to his defeat. What is fascinating is that HAL, allegedly having 100% accuracy, has spelt out a wrong move in the middle. There are 2 different schools of thoughts about this scene. The first one is to say that this further illustrates that HAL’s programming was getting into problem. Yet a more chilling interpretation was that HAL said that deliberately, to see whether Poole discovered its mistake or not. If Poole assumed that HAL had all the correct moves, then that suggested Poole still trusted HAL tremendously. HAL used this psychological tactic to test if Poole was suspicious of itself. Indeed, when HAL decided it has to kill the astronauts, he went after Poole first. From this, it was evident that HAL was having some crazy problems in its programming, and soon there would be a breaking point.

'There isn't a single aspect of ship operations that isn't under his control. ' - Poole

Bowman and Poole started to have some gut feeling that something funny was going on with HAL. Taking caution for eavesdropping, they switched off all the audio apparatus, they discussed about their concerns. Yet, they were not aware that HAL had the ability of lip-reading, so it grasped the astronaut’s idea of disconnecting it, or in a sense, ‘kill’ it. This scenario strikes a chord with modern audience, as the emergent properties and hidden functions of technology are often inaccessible to us, and Kubrick was challenging us – do we really understand our technology and machines, the artifacts we are so proud of creating?

'I can see you're really upset about this.'  - HAL

With a survival instinct, HAL decided to make the first move. It tricked Poole and sent him out to space, literally killing him (not counting his reappearance in the so-called sequels.) Next, it disconnected the life support of the hibernation chambers, and murdered the 2 astronauts in a quiet and chilling manner. Bowman, soon realizing that he was alone, knew that it was a zero-sum game between him and HAL. The final showdown between Man and Machine is inevitable.

'Open the pod bay doors, HAL. ' - Bowman

'I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that. ' - HAL

 ...

'Alright, HAL. I'll go in through the emergency airlock.' - Bowman

...

'Dave, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye.' - HAL 

With the now famous quote ‘Open the pod bay doors, HAL!’, Bowman gave the ultimatum to HAL. The computer was not willing to co-operate. Situating at the other part of the spaceship, Bowman decided he could only re-enter the control room through the emergency airlock. Because he did not have the safety equipment, there was a significant chance he would suffocate and die. Yet, Kubrick affirmed the value of humanity in the face of challenge and danger, and showed Bowman’s tremendous courage. Bowman decided to take chances and shot himself through the emergency airlock in a memorable scene. This was an outcome HAL would not be able to compute – because it would likely assume that Bowman would not attempt that due to the threat of death. The computer would likely map out and weigh all the possible pathways, and this humanistic choice – a gamble at the risk of self-destruction was something it could never comprehend. Yet, taking chances in the face of danger and uncertainly is what makes us human, and the aspect that distinguishes us from a cold and calculating machine. Sometimes, that may turn out to be a foolish decision, yet once in a while, the outcome is a surprise and something we cannot predict in a rational manner. Even in the midst of technology and machines, Kubrick still wanted to show us the positive sides that have led us to become one of the most successful species on our planet.

'I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission. ' - HAL

When I first watched ‘2001’, I felt that the film was about technology and space travel. Yet, the more I think about that, I start to have the feeling that his films are not merely about machines or technology, as they may appear on the surface. Kubrick’s films are fundamentally about humans, unlike some detractors who say his films are misanthropic or so on. Kubrick has adopted an innovative and lateral approach to achieve that. He illustrated something impersonal and inhuman, to lead us to explore the fundamental characteristics of humanity. Through these satirical and often disturbing portrayals, we start to construct the essences of being human. HAL, though being a computer, can be considered a doppelganger of humanity. It is a reflection of ourselves, and it represent our achievement and what we will soon become. By looking at HAL, we have a mirror put up to ourselves, and we can therefore have our opinions to the question of that makes us human.





'I can feel it. My mind is going. There is no question about it. ' - HAL

After regaining control of the spaceship, Bowman has to make the hard decision – to disconnect HAL once and for all. Through the various pleading and begging, HAL tried to prevent its own destruction, yet bowman was firm on this. Indeed, the scene is quite a heart breaking scene, because I did believe HAL was expressing genuine fear of death, unlike some theories saying that it was just pretending. It was likely this experience that has inspired Bowman to later think about his own life and to confront the possibility of death in the last section of the film. Bowman has destroyed HAL, a sublimation of human’s technology and achievement. It is an ironic outcome because in order to win in the struggle, Man has to negate something that originates from nowhere but himself, leading to a complete dehumanization. Yet, both Kubrick and Nietzsche have tried to convince us that it is not a pessimistic point of view. Because only when we are aware that we have reached the limit of our era, we are ready to enter a new frontier. Bowman has become the ‘Last Man’ of humanity, and he would soon discover, not only more about himself, but also the transformation he would soon become. 
   

(To be continued.)

by Ed Law

Film Analysis



2001: A Space Odyssey - The Quantum Leap

The year 2018 marks the 50th anniversary of Stanley Kubrick's ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’, and that makes total sense for us to continue our exploration of this modern classic. This time, we will do something special. I will concentrate on only a single scene in 2001. While that may seem a bit of an excess, it is justified because that scene in question is widely considered at one of the most iconic moments in all of cinema, and serves as a testament to Kubrick's genius. It is a scene signified by both simplicity and complexity, and thousands of words can be devoted to one’s interpretations of what that cinematic image means to him. Indeed, the reason why Kubrick's masterpiece was termed an ‘Odyssey’ was because he intended this cinematic experience as an exploration, one that even every member of the audience had a place in.

To remind ourselves where we are coming from, Moon Watcher, an ape-man from the ancient times, was inspired by the presence of a black monolith, and he developed the idea of using a bone as a tool. This new found technology was put to good use when he used it to kill, or bash the brains in, the leader of a rival tribe of ape-men. The success of this encounter meant that Moon Watcher and his friends could claim authority to a property - a water hole, and it was the very first time they felt they were in control of their lives. As Moon Watcher was finally alone, he gave a gratifying roar and threw the bone up into the air. Then, cinematic magic emerged. A match cut led the audience to an image of a space ship of a similar shape. This represents a leap of millions of years in only 1/24 of a second, which is the duration of a single frame in cinema.

This memorable scene is one of the most ambiguous images in Kubrick’s cinema, or probably in all of cinema. The reason why Kubrick adopted ambiguity rather than a clear explanation for his masterpiece was because he was trying to illustrate the complex nature of the many issues regarding humanity. Certain viewers prefer ‘Yes-or-No’ type of answers all the time, where a binary opposition has to be established for whatever issue they are concerned with, be it morality, social structure, or preferences. In reality, most issues we encounter in real life can be made sense of with multiple perspectives. In fact, contradicting sides often emerge from the very same issue. Is technology good or bad for us? Does culture lead us to a better taste? Can we use morality as a metric for everything? Kubrick wanted contribution from the audience, and demanded them to give their own answers to these issues.

Kubrick encouraged the audience to discover self-knowledge through the confrontation of his many great films. Self-knowledge does not necessarily guarantee reassurance - we have to face the positive but also the negative sides of our own nature, even if we often attempt to avoid or deny the latter. It is through the sincere appreciation of ourselves that would lead to hope for the improvement of our well-being and the discovery for the meaning of our existences.

It is significant to note that the editing style of this scene is a match-cut. Since the development of montage from the American and Soviet filmmakers at the start of 20^th century, many innovative uses of editing have been employed to generate visual impacts for the audience. The preference of Kubrick to use a match cut in his most famous cinematic usage served a purpose far more important than a mere shocking effect. The match cut emphasized the similarity between the image of the bone and the space craft, not only in terms of physical appearance but also the underlying concept behind that. The two images, when placed side-by-side, led to a continuity. That suggested we could not detach ourselves from our origin. The connection between the bone and the spacecraft could be seen as a manifestation of the will, an aggressive energy and drive that motivated humanity throughout history.  

On the surface, this scene shed a positive light, because one should be in awe how much humanity has done in terms of progress. The bone is visually a homogenous material, and the spacecraft is composed of numerous components. Through a first concept and the application of our intellectual faculties, we have been able to instill complexity to our creations, and the voyage to the outer space is a testament to humanity’s achievement. This scene can be easily seen as the most optimistic moment in cinema.

Yet, the flip side is, it can just be the most pessimistic outlook from Kubrick, where a demand for contemplation from the audience is evident. He might be suggesting that we have not made any fundamental changes at all – no matter how much we have appeared to be evolved or developed throughout such a long span of time. The pessimism originated indeed from the continuous nature of the match cut, which, in a symbolic point of view, not only nothing apparent has been changed, but it also signified that the only thing that has been passing through time is our nature to survive at all costs, including the use of violence and aggression to achieve this end. Humanity’s dark side may just be so intense that it cannot be eliminated. It can only be transformed, from primitive violence to institutionalized violence. Kubrick was not trying to pass any moral or misanthropic judgment in this possible interpretation, he was merely telling the truth about our nature.

As I have already pointed out, many things can be seen in contrasting perspectives. The duality of issues in life often reflects the duality of Man. Violence and aggression are not a side effect of technology and innovation, but the other way round.  Kubrick's antihumanist vision showed that violence has always been part of us, the representation of our animalistic origin. Humanity is often at the most creative and inspiring when it comes to violence and destruction. There has not been another form of organism on our planet that has the power or intelligence to cause such fundamental impact to a place they call home.

It should be ironic to appreciate that, the process of mechanical dehumanization commenced at the very point when we were enlightened to use technological artifices to improve the well-being of our species. The consequence of losing our humanity was not something to lament on, but it was seen as inevitable by Kubrick. It is the self-knowledge that we can discover by ourselves that will prove to be more fulfilling that any forms of gratification or false hope derived from movies that merely aim for profits or easy 2-hour comfort – the ‘Oh, we are getting better and better’ cliché.

 
As Kubrick has pointed out in an interview, ‘we are born of risen apes, not fallen angels’. An evolutionary and secular point of view is one that will lead us to a constructive understanding of ourselves. Having a realistic view does not entail one to undermine anything great and beautiful about humanity - our imaginations, creativity and courage are among the key reasons why humanity has arrived at such a sophisticated status in the first place. After all, as Kubrick reminded us at the same interview, ‘we are known among the stars by our poems, not our corpses’. A delicate balance has to be struck if we desire to arrive to the knowledge of ourselves, and what we can become. 

After all, how would anymore not wonder with awe the tremendous achievement our species have done throughout the long passage of time? Kubrick was certainly among one of these. As Kubrick’s quantum leap ferried the audience from watching the moon to exploring the moon, we are ready to embark on the second part of ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’…

by Ed Law

6/1/2018

Film Analysis

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 173^rd birthday today (15^th 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 20^th century. What is more noticeable is his intense influence on the art of the 20^th 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 17^th 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 18^th 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

The Shining

'Hereeeeeee's Johnny!!'

When I started to have the idea of writing about Stanley Kubrick's films, I knew that there is a certain point I have to write about 'The Shining' (1980). To put it simply, the presence of this film will likely attract a lot of attention given its cult status in pop culture. Here I am, planting the flag on the horizon of this memorable classic, a film that I intensely enjoy - and watch again, again and again...

‘The Shining’ is a special film to me, because it was the only Stanley Kubrick film I have ever watched in the cinema. My friend, ‘G.’, and I have watched a re-release of this film back in 2006, when the Broadway Cinematheque in Hong Kong was celebrating its 5th anniversary and therefore has organized a Stanley Kubrick film festival, in which it showed all the available Kubrick films. I remember that my friend had a great impression on this modern classic, and though I have already watched ‘The Shining’ a couple of times before this showing, the cinematic atmosphere, with the intense soundtrack system, created quite a memorable experience for such a thrilling film.

How about the other audience and critics when the film first came out in 1980? Well, rather shockingly, it was a huge disappointment. While the film made a decent result in the box office, the critical reviews were bad. Stephen King, whose novel the film was based on, had a legendary hatred on the film (and also Kubrick). The major reasons for these sentiments were actually quite similar to that for 'Eyes Wide Shut' - a justified over-expectation, the challenge of genre categorizations, and the slow pace. Many people at that time did NOT find ‘The Shining’ horrifying - because the film was shot in broad daylight and wide composition, and these characteristics defied all the grammatical rules for a traditional horror movie. And, many people felt the narrative of the story was rather slow and not intense enough, and especially for Shelley Duvall's character, Wendy Torrance, critics saw her performance from hateful to misogynistic.

I believe the above observations are totally valid, if you are making the above assumptions. Without these assumptions, I see 'The Shining' more as a thriller, a film that relies on slow-building suspense rather than cheap scares. To be honest, is it that surprising to see that Jack Nicholson's Jack Torrance will eventually go nuts at the end? I believe most audience will expect that to happen, and indeed want that to happen. It is the gradual deterioration of the man's psyche that makes the film thrilling. While I do not disagree that a dark and expressionistic atmosphere will make a film scarier, Kubrick's original approach makes the film more chilling. The deliberate cleanliness and brightness of the environment will certainly contrast the sudden appearance of the hidden demons and dark forces, and such a high contrast approach will certainly make the film more thrilling.

Like many of the Kubrick films, The Shining has evolved throughout the last 35 years and it has established a cult classic among many audience members. I would say 'The Shining' is likely to be his most popular and entertaining film, and it will certainly be the first Kubrick film to watch if anyone is fascinated by the director. The film signifies what that means to be Stanley Kubrick: perfectionism, obsession, discipline, a concern with performance, and the emphasis on visual. The Shining is an extremely visual film - the visual details are so plentiful that they could be more important than the rather banal and often heightened dialogues the characters said. Indeed, the reason why the film can have such an everlasting impression on the audience is because when they view them again and again, they will discover more and more insights from the film. Their commitment and curiosity as a careful observer will be rewarded. Numerous interpretations and fan theories have been proposed everywhere, and just reading these views can already be enjoyable.

‘The Shining’ has an intense impact on the subsequent films. When you see a cinematic composition very symmetrical, 2 doors next to each other, 2 twins standing hand in hand, the presence of a maze, a bartender in golden light, someone shouting 'Here's Johnny', and a few Pixar films like 'Toy Story', you can feel ‘The Shining’ 's influence. Ironically, some of the creators in Pixar turn out to be huge fans of 'The Shining', because while many Pixar films have thought-provoking themes regarding families, 'The Shining' is likely an un-family friendly film. The film seems to suggest that domestic life is bloody hell –with blood being guaranteed in the film.

‘The Shining’ is a film about performance. Kubrick has become infamous among actors when it came to the production of ‘The Shining’, because he has asked for a large number of takes from the actors, even in some mundane scenes. While one can easily attribute this to a sort of self-indulgent obsession or egomaniac perfectionism, many viewers believe that this strategy is deliberate. It makes sense if Kubrick was seeing the actors as an instrument (bear with me, I do not mean to be offensive), or more appropriately, a function of the film. I am not saying that Kubrick was dehumanizing his actors – because in the design of the film Kubrick has not really intended to make ‘psychologically realistic’ characters, those you will expect to see in the real world. It is more appropriate to see these characters as archetypes, or ideas released in human forms. Kubrick was wise enough to understand the repeating demands for more takes will generate an anxiety from the actors – because, as they are humans they will perceive they are not fulfilling Kubrick’s requirement. So, they will try to explore a whole spectrum of possibilities for their performance. They can tighten up, act in a more stylized way, and contradict their own interpretations of the film. True, you can argue it is not fair for the actors, because in a human-centered point of view, you are undermining the creative contributions the actor may be investing into their roles, and Kubrick is like treating them as tools rather than artists. Yet, I feel that it makes sense if the style of a film is detached, and of course not anyone may identify with this style –hence the detractors of Kubrick films. Nevertheless, the actors in the film have all given really memorable performance, and I believe a lot of audience members can come to identify with this over the years.

This aspect of the film leads us to a minor, yet significant criticism by a number of critics and the members of audience. They complained that the film was ‘non-psychological’ or not psychologically realistic. The reason for these people’s disappointment originated from the preference that Kubrick did not provide any conclusive – especially psychological - reasons why Jack Torrance has gone crazy. Kubrick did not provide any information regarding Jack’s conditions through his quotes – they were basically all rants and banal statements that made not much sense. Furthermore, Kubrick did not provide even a narrative how Jack would have reached this type of psychological condition – like some previous traumatic events for example. In Stephen King’s original conception, King at least has attributed Jack’s situation to alcoholism. For a more traditional approach of American cinema, psychological realism is a requirement for a story with a clear narrative – even an evil character has to be made clear what his motivations for doing something bad are. It seems not to be the case in ‘The Shining’, a film about an American family from an American director.

Many critics, by contrast, believed that these preferences were deliberate by Kubrick, because as I have stated above, he had no intention to base the film on psychological realism. Kubrick wanted to present Jack as a psychologically hollow man, a bit like the psychopathic samurai in ‘The Sword of Doom’, where the filmmakers in both of these films did not intend to explicitly explain why the characters behaved in such a way. The philosopher Deleuze said that Kubrick was being more of a ‘symptomatologist’ here – he was showing the symptoms and expressions of Jack Torrance's craziness. Of course, there certainly existed some reasons or processes that would lead to Jack's situation, yet Kubrick chose to communicate these reasons indirectly through the images, rather than expressing them directly in words.

Therefore, ‘The Shining’ is very much like ‘2001’, where a number of perspectives are possible to make sense of the film. This approach of ‘anti-realism’ should not be seen as negative without careful consideration, because Kubrick 's concern in his later films was often about the way how characters performed as a function - much like a pawn piece on a chessboard  - in a given environment and how the character would interact with the environment. He was also concerned with how these resulting interactions (in this case, Jack's apparent possession by the Overlook Hotel) would impact the other characters and the surroundings. Thus, there was not a requirement to guarantee the portrayal of a psychological interpretable character in this case, because it was the interaction rather than inner-psychology that mattered. Certainly, some viewers might find it difficult to accept this approach and saw it as a weakness on Kubrick’s part. Yet, this detached approach can be a powerful one when the concerns of the story are on bigger ideas, including the more allegorical, abstract ... and timeless ones.

by Ed Law

2/9/2017

Film Analysis