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

Blade Runner, Part 1

Harrison Ford as Rick Deckard in 'Blade Runner'

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

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

Deckard and Rachael

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

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

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

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

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

Deckard on the edge

Roy does so because he wants Deckard to accompany him, as he is close to his death. At the final moments of his life, Roy delivers the extremely moving ‘Tears in Rain’ monologue:

  

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion; I watched c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.

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

'Move, get out of the way!' Deckard in hot pursuit.

Man’s Match?

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

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

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

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

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

Now it's his problem?

It’s not Deckard’s problem

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

(to be continued)

by Ed Law

4/10/2017

Film Analysis

Metropolis

This time, I would like to talk about a film that has fascinated me since my teenage years - Fritz Lang's ‘Metropolis’ (1927)!

Metropolis was a silent film from the German director Fritz Lang in 1927, and it is considered as one of the greatest sci-fi films in the history of cinema. The style encompassed German expressionism, which could also be seen as following a wider trend of Modernism in the early 20^th century.

The film is influential because it is extremely visual and visionary. Metropolis is an almost textbook example regarding German Expressionism. With cinematic artists like Lang. F. W. Murnau, G. W. Pabst, and Robert Wiene, German Expressionism would prove to be inspirations for the American and European crime films and Film Noirs of the 1940s. The artistic influences of expressionism were evident in the sound films, and Welles, Kubrick and Kurosawa were all influenced by this stylistic movement. Fritz Lang would eventually exile to America, and made a great Film Noir known as ‘The Big Heat’ in the 1950s.

The story ‘took place’ - is past tense even appropriate here? - in the ‘futuristic’ year 2026. It was about Freder, the son of an industrialist Fredersen, who owned a lot of industrial complexes in the future city Metropolis. Certainly, the workers were seen nothing more than slaves or cogs in the complex machines, and there were already discontented brewing among the workers. When a meeting with a worker known as Maria, followed by an untimely accident that has wounded a number of the workers as a result, Freder had an awakening of conscience and decided to help the workers to fight for the worker’s well-being. However, the situation was complicated by Rotwang, the inventor who also worked for Fredersen. Overcome by grief of the loss of his true love, Hel, who ironically married Fredersen and then died soon after, Rotwang decided to make a female robot as a replacement of Hel. Fredersen forced Rotwang to make the robot resemble that of Maria (henceforth the ‘false’ Maria), so that it could mislead the workers to think Maria as a spy for the industrial complex. Rotwang kidnapped the real Maria, and the false Maria started to stir up the emotions of the workers to revolt against Metropolis. The false Maria led the workers to destroy the machines, yet it led to a massive flooding in the worker's part of the city, and drowning some of the children that the adults have left behind. Would Freder and the real Maria save the day?

Fritz Lang has stated that he has got his inspirations from a visit to New York in the 1920s. While he was definitely in awe of the beauty of the tall buildings and modernized cityscapes, he seemed to also detect an undercurrent of danger behind these advanced architecture. What is also interesting to look is that the world of ‘Metropolis’ was not merely about new things – the futuristic setting was balanced or juxtaposed by Gothic architecture of the 19^th century, as a reminder that humanity could not detach from their past. This type of juxtaposition or retrograde culture can also be felt with any dystopian or cyberpunk films, such as Blade Runner and Akira.

Metropolis was a visionary film exploring the man-machine interaction, and this vision has clearly influenced many subsequent filmmakers. Stanley Kubrick was among one of these filmmakers, as he often explored the theme of man vs. machine in many of his greatest works. Both Lang and Kubrick were concerned with the inevitable mechanical dehumanization offered by these man-made systems and technologies. Indeed, the artistic movement of Modernism was about the drastic changes humanity had to face in the modern world: emergence of advanced technologies, mass production, and facile connection through transport systems. The modern world, while apparently promising better lives for its inhabitants, can lead to a sense of alienation unprecedented for the past and simpler lives. Kubrick, Antonioni and Malick are among some of the key filmmakers who have expressed similar concerns in their films.

The modernist cities could be frightening, but it was not because they had intimidating heights or advanced appearances. They were frightening because they were too ordered and rational. Just like in Kubrick's films, Lang’s future is perceived as planned, functional and performative. The issues of the future are planned out in detail through rational judgments, and everything, including the humans within the system, are seen as merely nuts and bolts and are assessed based on their instrumental applications. Lang and Kubrick wanted us to contemplate about such a possible future - one with a stunning, yet dangerous, mechanical beauty. While Lang, with his engagement in Expressionism, used high contrast lighting and unusual angles to bring out the tension between men and machines, Kubrick used every ordered composition, harsh lighting, sharp edges and lines, and cold colour tones to heighten the tension and the fundamental differences between humanity and his creations. 

The exploitation and dehumanization of workers; the treatment of other humans as instruments, were also themes that were explored in Metropolis. In Sergei M. Eisenstein’s silent classic ‘The Battleship Potemkin’, he adopted a different type artistic style - Russian montage – to address the same issue. The sailors on the battleship were treated by the lowest way possible. Both films culminated in revolts by the workers, and certainly had deep political meanings. That was why some detractors of Metropolis criticized the film as a celebration of communism, and I would not dwell into the political issues here.

Expressionism, much like surrealism, uses dream-like images to enhance the atmosphere. In Metropolis, Freder had a few hallucinations when encountering stressful situations, and that gave the whole film a dream-like feel, often a signature in many expressionistic films. In many silent films, a dream-like atmosphere often reinforced the visual power of the resulting work. From the expressionistic work like Wiene’s ‘Caligari’ and Murnau’s ‘Nosferatu’, even to Buster Keaton’s ‘Sherlock Jr.’, aspects of the dream element were often found. After all, it should not be too surprising that many pioneers of early cinema have stressed the dream-like nature of cinema at the beginning of the era.

It has been 90 years since the emergence of Lang’s nightmarish vision of ‘Metropolis’. Its imaginative impact still continues to shock and fascinate the later generations of film enthusiasts.

by Ed Law

8/9/2017

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

Eyes Wide Shut, Part 2

The most memorable sequence in Stanley Kubrick’s ‘Eyes Wide Shut’ was certainly the ritual orgy sequence. While it is sexually charged, and can be offensive for certain viewers, it is one of Kubrick’s most atmospheric and beautiful scenes in all his films. The only unfortunate flaw is that there some CGI-generated images were inserted into the scenes by the studio in fear of the award of a NC-17 rating. For this sequence, which I would call ‘1999: A Sex Odyssey’, it was seen through Bill’s subjective viewpoint. Through the use of a steadicam-style tracking shot and a wide-angle lens, the audience, just like Bill, was like observers when they were penetrating and exploring the dangerous world of sex.  During this sequence, all sort of sexual acts have been seen, yet what was rather ironic was these sexual ‘scenes’ were more like artifices – it would generate awe rather than any sensational emotions from the audience (and probably Bill too). The sexual acts were detached, and they were almost devoid of emotion. It would not be too ridiculous to say that these actions were almost mechanical, as if there were some ‘sex robots’ carrying out their assigned programs (see later). I can think of Lars von Trier’s recent film, ‘Nymphomaniac’, to this end. In the film, the female protagonist, Joe, had an unstoppable impulse for sex, yet she could not find any true love or relationships from any of her encounters with other men – which many of them were scumbags in the first place. Sex was always detached in Joe’s scenario. She would have to be subservient to the power of Eros, and the destructive power this impersonal energy would exert on her. Joe’s tragedy was that she could not transform Eros into a more positive element to her life, such as a fulfilling relationship.

While the orgy scene is atmospheric, it is also a very chilling scene, as the viewers are experiencing the entanglement of two powerful and impersonal forces – that of Eros and the mechanical dehumanization of institutions. In the lushly-colored rooms, filled with books and nicely designed furniture, powerful patrons and the ‘sex slaves’ – the poor naked ladies, all masked to ensure anonymity, were engaging in decadence and all forms of perverse sexual acts. The power of Eros, like Schopenhauer’s Will, was penetrating the room like a great and destructive force. Kubrick, being a brilliant satirist, made the sex acts so sterile and unattractive that the audience members were more than certain that that was nothing enjoyable from the ladies’ perspective. They have been dehumanized by the institutions, and they were nothing more than tools to fulfill the big brasses’ thirst for sexual perversions and exploitations. No matter how many books – the symbol for knowledge of human wisdom – and how clean and well-decorated the room was, with paintings and expensive furniture, very much like ‘Barry Lyndon’, this ‘high culture’ failed to conceal the monstrous and dark side of humanity.

The theme of mechanical dehumanization has been explored in almost every Kubrick film since ‘2001’, and like in ‘Barry Lyndon’, ‘Eyes Wide Shut’ employed a very similar strategy to explore this rather chilling reality. Kubrick has been heavily influenced by Freud’s ideas, not only in terms of dreams, the unconscious and the Oedipal theme, but also on civilization. Freud, in his famous work ‘Civilizations and its Discontents’, has stated that repression was required by civilization on its members so that all the members could serve a peaceful and non-chaotic co-existence. However, this control would certainly be against one’s instinctual urge and impulse, which was often irrational, dangerous, and could cause harm and destruction to others. Kubrick expanded on Freud’s ideas, yet he did not totally agree to Freud’s conclusions. While Kubrick appreciated the contribution of civilization to human intelligence, he felt that the instinctual urge demanded by humans would continue to threaten and destabilize civilization. He did not serve the optimism that civilization could win out the battle of barbarism at the end. The two forces will continue to battle and intimidate each other, and it is what Kubrick’s work is often about.

The development of institutions, which is an important element of a civilized world, will inevitably lead to mechanical dehumanization. Many people are not aware of the power of the social machine and the cultural machine, and they accept these values without questioning or thinking about them. In a number of Kubrick’s films, most notably ‘A Clockwork Orange’ and ‘Full Metal Jacket’, he showed that humans could be conditioned and programmed to serve instrumental purposes. Many viewers have noticed the weirdness of certain characters in EWS, as if they were some sort of programmed or brain-washed individuals. While it cannot be accurately verified, there has often been conspiracy theories (mostly in fiction, bad news if in reality) that has used brain-washing or programming techniques to condition human individuals, to control them, and they become tools for whatever selfish purposes, be it political, exploitative, and so on.

Now, while the idea of turning humans into automatons can be a bit outlandish, we cannot underestimate the impact caused by mechanical dehumanization, which individuals are employed as instruments rather than respectable human beings. The mask is an important motif in the film, most obviously during the ritual orgy scene. The mask is used to conceal the identity, on the rich patron’s side that is because they do not want to take any responsibilities in all these perverse sexual acts. Obviously, these rich guys have no reservations about helping themselves to exploit those lower on the social ladder than themselves, who are the masked and naked ladies for the sacrifice. For these sex slaves, they are masked because the authority wanted to eliminate any forms of identity or subjectivity from them, and they became instruments to provide sexual pleasures to the patrons, and to comply with the ritualized movement they have to do during the ceremony. In a sense, they are very much like the soldiers in ‘Barry Lyndon’ and ‘Full Metal Jacket’, which all of them are branded together like a machine or instrument to do the job, only this time we have a sex machine in this decadent mansion. The use of masks not only alienate the poor ladies, it also served a constitutive power to brand them up, so that all of them became selfless and participated in this hideous acts.

When we speak of mask, we can also associate to the idea of performance. When I start to think more about Kubrick’s cinema in general, I start to appreciate the flip side of the coin – if his films are not merely about mechanical dehumanization, then it is also about performance, and the two concepts do go hand in hand.   

Aren’t we all wearing mask, after all? In a sense, we take on different personas to perform well in a certain role. These are all demanded by the cultural and social machines that govern our lives. Being a doctor, Bill believed that he could quench all sorts of sexual desire even when he was inspecting a naked woman during practice, because he felt all these things were very impersonal and objective. Victor, the billionaire who invited Bill and Alice to the party, believed well in a polite society by praising whatever women he has encountered, even if the statement had absolutely no significance to him. Through the family institution, Alice did every duties a normal housewife had to perform, even if her psyche was rift with discontents. Even in the orgy, all these powerful patrons, the ‘best people out there’ in the society if we recalled ‘The Shining’, was of a lower rank to the master of the ceremony, and they all stood there silently, all wearing masks to ensure an impersonal presence. The characters led the appropriate performance because they wanted to fit into the picture, just like the various aristocrats trying to fit into the painterly 18^th century Europe in ‘Barry Lyndon’. If you were not a good enough actor to fit into the narrative, you were doomed to be marginalized by the others. Yet, Kubrick questioned, did all these performances really fit nicely into the perfect system humans claimed to have created, and could things go wrong?

If we have a civilized world, if we can develop instruments to lead to a better control of our lives, and if we can pull performance to fit into the setting, then why do the battle between barbarism and civility never seize? Kubrick’s films often remind us the reason. It is the sad fact that our higher cognitive abilities - which have led us to our ego and hubris, has also caused us to be oblivious of our limitations - our animalistic and mechanistic nature. Though we might be more intelligent than most of the organisms, we can never escape from our animal instincts, and the mechanistic designs that define homo sapiens. Instinctive urge is uncontrollable and potentially destructive, because it cannot be explained in a rational manner. It is a part of us, which is intuitive and is ingrained into our genetic design. Such is the case for the need of sex, violence and the carving for power and control. In Kubrick’s cinema, many scenes remind us of our true nature. The presence of bathrooms, in one occasion a hideous act or exploitation has almost led to the death of a woman in EWS; all the eating scenes, reflecting our biological needs, and also the constant threat to corporeality. Disturbingly, it is often the bodily aspect of humanity that has led to our limits, and through a perverse sense of creativity, that has also led to many approach to control others - as we can especially see in ‘A Clockwork Orange’. The bodies in ‘Eyes Wide Shut’ have been exploited - prostitution and sexual beta kittens in the orgy, and even the costumer’s daughter, whom he was willing to pimp her out to an unwilling Bill. Humanity is nothing more than the mannequins that are neatly organized in the costumer’s shop. The powerful ones wanted these people to have their eyes wide shut. They did not want them to question the motivations behind these acts. They wanted them to be docile to do what they were conditioned to (think of the Stepford Wives). They also wanted the observers to have their eyes wide shut, too, so that no one would challenge their actions and they would continue be benefitted from their advantaged position. Culture, customs and other rituals are merely tools to divert our visions to something else – so that these horrendous legacies of our dark sides will not be confronted by our glaring visions.

When a mask is fallen off, a dress down is inevitable. Throughout the film, Bill has been dressed down in a number of occasions. To put it anther way, masculinity, embodied by Bill in this film, has been challenged by various parties just like many of the male characters in Kubrick’s film. Not only he was forced to take his mask off and exposed his true identity to every one during the orgy, he was also forced to take his clothes to serve as a humiliation. He was harassed by a bunch of college boys, who accused him of being homosexual. Throughout his night of Odyssey and the morning after, he was challenged by people from the different parts of the sex spectrum, to see whether he was brave to take them on. For a number of times, he had to resort to his professional social status to get what he wanted and continued his journey. Even Alice taunted him an challenged his claim that he had no desire on the various women he saw during work. But for our Dr. Bill, rational as he was, was just a human. He showed all the human attributes of jealousy, desire, and emotion as anyone was. After Alice’s confession, Bill has imagined again and again, also like replaying a scene in a film, the scenario between Alice and the naval officer, as if a sort of self-punishment. Even in his imagination, the naval officer looked strong and handsome – a celebration of masculinity.

When Bill was asked to take off his mask, another individual was also willing to do this metaphorically. At the point Bill was about to take off his clothes and subject to some forms of punishment, one of the masked woman stood on the balcony and declared that she was willing to accept the punishment incited on Bill. This woman has already warned Bill some time ago that he should leave the place as soon as possible, and although her identity was ambiguous, many audience members believed her to be Mandy, the prostitute saved by Bill from an overdose in Victor’s bathroom at the start of the film.  When Mandy expressed her will to sacrifice for Bill, this action served as a tremendous challenge to the system where these powerful people they have firmly established. Her action was devastating because by singling herself out   Kubrick made this visually by having her standing alone at the center of the balcony, she asserted her individuality. The other members, by contrast, were forming a circle to signal a sort of unity for the private club, with no intention to assert any form of singular identity. The subjectivity that the institution has tried to undermine has been retrieved and brought up by her. It was clear that Mandy has been the protector of Bill at the point he entered the Somerton mansion, first asking him to run away. Yet, controlled by his desire and curiosity, Bill decided to penetrate further into this dangerous horizon until he was being caught. Remembering that Bill has served her life once, she did all this out of compassion. Through the selfless sacrifice, Mandy transformed herself from a pre-assigned function of erotic flesh to a compassionate love. To me, Mandy is probably one of the most courageous characters in the film, and probably in the whole Kubrick cinema. We had no idea about how harsh the punishment would turn out to be, we only knew that eventually Mandy died from an alleged overdose. While the middle man, Victor, tried his very best to deny the secret organization responsibility and said Mandy died circumstantially from another overdose, and said all that happened in the orgy was merely a charade to scare the hell out of him . he audience and Bill had no final answer offered to them. Apparently to blackmail Bill further, the mask that Bill has somehow misplaced was mysteriously appeared on his bed, and Bill broke down and decided to tell Alice everything. Or, it could be a signification of the end of the dream...

I have said in the previous passages the barbarism and civility were forever locked in a struggle at war with each other.  There is another dueling pair, also attributed to Freud s ideas. It is the battle between the 2 forces that define human existence .Eros and Thanatos. Eros and Thanatos are situated closer than one may ever imagine – they are entangled like an organic unity, locked in a Viennese waltz. In Eyes Wide Shut, sexual desire (Eros) and the death instinct (Thanatos) was intertwined, and the threat of death was always lurking from behind. The satiric aspect of the film was that Bill s erotic encounter to the female characters, imaginary t not, would eventually lead to their destruction. Bill has encountered 3 times, and curiously, she was naked all 3 times. As Alice has questioned Bill in their bedroom, a force of desire should have most likely to be arisen from Bill’s psyche. What was rather tragic was that all 3 incidents were tied to death  the first time Mandy was at a near death from overdose, the second time would like to lead to her punishment and eventual sacrifice, the third time Bill was watching her corpse in the morgue. When Bill rejected the call girl Domino s sexual advance due to Alice s interrupting phone call, he knew the next day that Domino was diagnosed HIV positive. Has the sexual intercourse been taking place, it would certainly lead to Bill’s destruction. Bill, with the audience, would be thrilled to learn that that death has always been lurking behind the sex drive and pleasure fulfillment. 

It may seem absurd to imagine that, if our instincts demand us to survive and preserve the life drive, why would we be obsessed with its arch-nemesis, the death instinct? Upon much thinking and experiencing of the unprecedented First World War, which was unprecedented in history  in terms of scale, fire power and casualties, this tragedy of  human history motivated Freud (he even did a correspondence with Einstein) to make sense of all these human aberrations. Freud thus proposed the existence of the death instinct, which was a manifestation of our violent side, reflecting the dark side of us. Since no one wants to harm himself, the death instinct is exerted by harming others. Freud believed that the battle between Eros and Thanatos, and more sophisticated ways and technologies to execute things in the modern world, Thanatos stood a higher chance to win out. He believed that many people had a sense of despair or felt unhappy in modern life, because in their minds they were starting to be aware of thus awful truth. Kubrick, by showing these truths in a visual term, asked us not to be discouraged. He did not offer us a simple and happy ending to cheer us up, he motivated us to think about these questions, which would generate self knowledge, which are insights that will enrich us, and may eventually lead us to have a fundamental change.

What can we learn from ‘Eyes Wide Shut’? For Kubrick, Eros and desire are not something wrong per se. He disagreed to the fact that ‘true love’ – or those banal phrases like ‘I love everyone’ - was normal, and as some humanists would have said, Eros and desire were dirty, obscene or aberrant. If someone claims that he/she does not have desire, then he/she is either defective or hypocritical. Yet, Kubrick asked us to contemplate the fact that, even if Eros is part of human nature, it is an impersonal force and can be destructive. It is very much like his view on violence, if we cannot get away from our true nature, we can at least divert it to cause less destruction to ourselves and others. What we need to do with Eros is to channel and transform this energy to a more positive direction, that of romantic love or relationship based on compassion and mutual respect. Then, no matter how banal or mundane our existences are, it will lead to a road of happiness and fulfillment.  

by Ed Law

27/8/2017

Film Analysis

Eyes Wide Shut, Part 1

Is life merely a dream? Can our dreams and imaginations be transformed to shape the reality of our existences, and to define what we are or what we can be? Can the impersonal power of desire lead us to self-knowledge, and have a constructive contribution to our happiness? Above all, are dream and reality, or their metamorphic cousins, Eros and Thanatos, so entangled that there is no point to distinguish between them? All these questions have been explored in Stanley Kubrick’s final achievement – ‘Eyes Wide Shut’ (1999)!

‘Eyes Wide Shut’ (henceforth EWS) proved to be the final words from the visionary director, when Kubrick died a few days after he has submitted the final version of the film to the distributors. Just like almost any other of his films, EWS was initially received poorly among the public, only to be re-evaluated and risen in status throughout the past 15 years or so. Personally, I first regarded EWS as a lesser work of Kubrick, when we compared it to films like ‘2001’, ‘A Clockwork Orange’ and ‘Barry Lyndon’. Yet, I soon realized I was wrong. Just like most of Kubrick’s later efforts, EWS is so visual that you will discover more and more when you repeatedly watch the film, and you start to generate more and more insights throughout the process. After all these, I would say EWS is no less in terms of achievement to his greatest films, and it can be compared to ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’ – rather it is a sexual odyssey for EWS. Thus, ‘2001’, ‘Barry Lyndon’, and ‘Eyes Wide Shut’ can be considered an ‘Odyssey’ trilogy, encompassing the past, present and future, from psychological to cosmological.

Why was EWS so poorly received when it was first released in 1999? I guess it can be summarized by 3 reasons: wrong expectations from the audience, ambiguous genre categorizations, and its deliberate pacing. Many members of audience were expecting to watch a film with the then-married Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman to engage in some naughty, hard-core sex, and other forms of sexual perversions. If that was the case, then these viewers were doomed to be disappointed. ‘Obscene’ is the last word I would use to describe EWS – while there are full-frontal nudities and the film is primarily concerned with sexual issues, the film is very un-erotic and un-sensational when it comes to the treatment of sex. We can say the film is more psychological – or psychosexual in a Freudian sense. EWS is not merely a film about sex. The reason why many people have started to appreciate the film is because it encapsulates the consistent philosophical vision Kubrick has been delivered in his films since ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’. EWS, like the other Kubrickian films, is multi-layered and it should be understood in many different perspectives, be it psychologically, culturally and sociologically.

EWS is one of Kubrick’s most ambitious film, because he always felt that the most difficult challenge in cinema is to make a film that represented his own era. Of course, it sounds like a weird idea at first sight because who is not often making films about their own times, except one is making a sci-fi, fantasy or period film? What Kubrick meant was that if you were making a film about your own times, then it was too easy for one to be subjective and sentimental, and all you would get was a view-point which was narrow in scope. Kubrick, ambitious as he was, wanted to inspire his audience and viewed his era in a more clinical and anthropological viewpoint when he was making his films, because that would certainly benefit the audience in long term. He loved the project – when he has secured the right to the novel ‘Dream Story’ by Schnitzler in the late 1960s, he originally planned to make the film in the 1970s, after ‘2001’ and ‘A Clockwork Orange’. Has Kubrick made EWS during the 1970s, I am sure his approach would be far more daring and the result would certainly be a modern masterpiece.

What sort of genre can EWS be categorized into? One of the issues many audience and critics were confused initially was that they found it challenging to categorize EWS into any conventional genres. Kubrick’s films often defied genre expectations, and revealed the malleability of a traditional genre. While EWS can be rightfully considered as an erotic thriller or psychological thriller, the very formalized and ritualized style can make it a chamber play; the fact that the male protagonist, Bill Harford (Tom Cruise), was exploring around the darkest labyrinth of New York City can make it an adventure film; and, I would even say it is a war film – as it is about the struggle and ‘rebellion’ between Bill Harford and the world around him. On the other hand, many critics were not only unhappy with the lack of sex scenes, but also the slow pace of the film. Upon repeated viewing, I feel that the film is justified to have a running time of 2.5 hours, as Kubrick would likely want the intricately connected episodes to unfold slowly, and the result was a nice internal rhythm, almost like ‘Barry Lyndon’.

An aspect that is worth mentioning regarding Eyes Wide Shut is that the female characters seem to take a more significant narrative importance as compared to his previous films. Kubrick has often been criticized as a sexist filmmaker, because many of his films seemed to be concerned with men or viewed from a male perspective, and the female characters tended to be undermined and not narrative important. In Eyes Wide Shut, though many of the female characters were exploited and subject to mechanical dehumanization, a few of them were highly imaginative and courageous, and were far more charismatic and likeable than the other male characters in the film. Though we are still valid to say that EWS is a male-oriented film, because we are looking from Bill’s point of view and inaccessible to the female characters’ perspectives, the female characters are not like Lady Lyndon or Wendy Torrance – they are seen with more significance to the story.

  

A brief sketch on the story. Dr. Bill Harford (Tom Cruise) and Alice Harford (Nicole Kidman), with a daughter, were living in an upper-class area in New York. One evening, after attending a party the other day, the couple got into an argument regarding their sexual desires, and Alice admitted that, at some point during a trip the year before, she saw a handsome naval officer and contemplated cheating on Bill, and she was willing to sacrifice her whole future and relationship to sleep with the naval officer for only one night. While we had no way to verify whether it was the truth or only Alice’s imagination, the story devastated Bill, and after visiting a dying patient, he embarked on a nocturnal Odyssey in the streets of the New York City, meeting various people, including a number of women which his actions would have led to (mostly negative) outcomes for themselves. His adventure climaxed in his party-crashing a private masked ball in Somerton, where a number of secret ritual orgies and sacrifice ceremony were taking place. After being spotted out as an intruder, Bill’s life was being endangered by veiled threats and more uncanny incidents taking place around him. Will he get out alive, and can he be able to mend fences with Alice at the end?

  

In ‘Eyes Wide Shut’, the boundary between dream and reality was a thin one. Certain critics and viewers even pointed out that, there was absolutely no point to distinguish which part of the film was a dream or fantasy or which part was really happening, like the endless debates in films like ‘Inception’. Because, Kubrick, like in Schnitzler’s treatment, has placed an elliptical narrative and made the story so ambiguous that it would make the film more appropriately as ‘dream-like’ rather than asking for a ‘dream/reality dichotomy’. Indeed, the style of the film can be considered Modernist, as Schnitzler and Freud, who has influenced Kubrick and his ideas are explored in the film, are also part of the Modernist movements in the early 20^th century. Indeed, one may identify EWS with James Joyce’s ‘Ulysses’, a Modernist masterpiece and a similar scenario regarding some sort of an Odyssey was illustrated in the book. The Modernist movement has also influenced early cinema, especially the silent cinema. It is evident that Kubrick has adopted Imagist or silent movie approaches in many of his films, as these approaches tend to rely on a visual mean to convey the message. The visualization of thoughts has been employed in EWS, most notably in Bill Harford’s imagination of his wife Alice making love with the naval officer, even shown in black-and-white. Of course, recently Christopher Nolan has also used silent film approaches to generate suspense and atmosphere in his latest film ‘Dunkirk’, as he was attempting to use a visual mean to tell the story.

What is rather ironic, however, is that Kubrick has committed a sort of anti-realism in Eyes Wide Shut. Thus, there is a form of artifice in the film, where the apparently ‘real’ New York did not resemble the real New York; the dialogues were banal and stylized; and the story followed a formalized structure which some people would criticize as a bad example of narrative cinema. The philosopher Zizek has pointed out that these apparent inaccuracies might be deliberate – to show that Bill was dreaming and therefore having these wish-fulfilling scenarios and co-incidences taking place. Certain attentive viewers have also discovered spatial inconsistencies or uncanny observations throughout the film, as in the case for ‘The Shining’, suggesting that certain parts of the films likely took place in the dream or imaginary space.

  

Eyes Wide Shut has a dream-like quality, and it seemed to be playing with a number of psychological ideas, most notably from those of Freud’s. The idea of the unconscious part of the mind has been demonstrated through the imagination of Alice’s fantasy with the naval officer. When she was delivering the story, it was as if she was doing a free association exercise from a psychoanalytic session. And, I believe there is a reason why her narrative concerned a naval officer, because it symbolized exploration, which was wish-fulfilling because she might want to escape from the grip of the domestic environment and identity she situated in. I can think of a further wordplay here with the naval officer. It would be an ‘oceanic’ feeling for her if her dream has really come true.

There are numerous wordplays in the film. Not only many of the character’s names may have symbolic meanings, the dialogues are also stylized. Some of the dialogues were deliberately made to be banal, and also it was evident that characters often repeated one another’s quote or had a similar structure when they were talking. The formalized style here was fascinating, because it was very non-naturalistic when we looked at films that were concerned to enhance the realism. Some critics believed that these dialogues contributed to the dream-like quality of the film, it was like the characters (possibly Bill) were thinking out the dialogues himself to generate a wish-fulfilling result. The dream-like quality was enhanced by the presence of co-incidences, which incidents seemed to parallel each other at various parts of the films.

  

Certain critics have also pointed out that, Kubrick has deliberated used some rather strange editing techniques to generate an uncanny feeling in the audience and made them question themselves about what they have really seen. For example, traditional films seem to use a classical continuity editing approach, so that the spatial relations between 2 characters can become clearly defined and enhance the narrative consistently. In EWS, while Kubrick has painstaking ensured a rhythm of fluid style – almost like an Ophuls film – through the use of steadicam long takes and tracking shots, the general approach seemed to be violated in a number of times, when that involved 2 interacting characters, an 180 degree cut that crossed the axis were used instead. This seems awkward because the sudden ‘bumps’ in terms of style will attract audience attention. Yet some critics feel that these are more than visual gimmicks, because Kubrick might be providing clues that the images were only imaginary projections from Bill’s point or view. Thus, that was Bill’s dream-space we were situating in. After all, as the Chinese philosopher Zhuang Tzu has questioned in the Butterfly Dream scenario: can we really distinguish between dreaming and the waking life, and are subjectivity and objectivity really that clearly defined?   

(1/2)

by Ed Law

26/8/2017

Film Analysis

侍

我在之前介紹過岡本喜八的’大菩薩嶺’ 。 最近, 香港重映了’大菩薩嶺’和另一部岡本的作品 – ‘侍’ (1965, 又名’大刺客’) 。 今次我就談談’侍’這部值得一看的作品!

‘侍’可以說是反武士式(Anti-Samurai)的電影。 岡本在片中控訴武士道規條的虛無, 和封建社會對個人的殘害。電影的視角甚為悲觀, 而且為強烈的宿命論所主宰。故事模仿充滿佛洛依德意味的神話, 加上頗為強烈的暴力場面, 交織出一個被虛無主義主宰的荒誕世界!

三船敏郎飾演的主角鶴千代, 是一位充滿雄心而又武藝精湛的浪人。 他加入一個暗殺組織, 可惜在一次行動中有叛徒通風報信, 首領誓要揪出叛徒!  由於眾成員對鶴千代認識不深, 所以他與其朋友便被懷疑為叛徒。 導演倒有讓觀眾了解鶴千代的背景:  原來他是一個幕府的大將與其妾侍所生的, 機緣巧合下, 他在小時與父分開, 所以從來都不知道其生父是誰。鶴千代奮力希望立下大功,  以爭取武士席位, 終在一次慘烈的暗殺行動中, 拔刀斬殺’井伊’ 。 不過井伊與他的關係, 相信必然會令他抱撼終生!

電影風格方面, 岡本採納了客觀抽離的角度去敍述故事。 片中採用了不少深焦的鏡頭,  仿如古典美國電影的風格, 像約翰福特(John Ford), 奥森威爾斯(Orson Welles)的影片一樣。 深焦的攝影手法, 令所有角色都處於對等的地位, 突顯了他們作出互動時的張力。同時間片中加插了不少回憶和跳接, 令觀眾時有時空錯亂的感受, 這亦切合 六七十年代 流行的電影風格!

時代の悲歌

鶴千代可說是一位徹頭徹尾的悲劇英雄。 其一, 是鶴千代的際遇, 完全受宿命所主宰。當鶴千代決心要成為一位武士時, 他看到海上有幾艘外國的商船正向岸邊駛來。 鶴千代根本就是處於一個錯誤的年代: 他不知道武士的階級其實已經是夕陽工業。 不過, 鶴千代加入暗殺組織, 並不是為了任何政治信念, 而只是視為其生命棋局中的一步棋。 這就像在’大菩薩嶺’中, 龍之助加入新選組的目的, 只是為了滿足其渴望殺 人的意欲。 不過, 鶴千代在組織的眼中, 何嘗又不是 一件微不足道的殺人工具?! 就如幕府的武士受到儀式化的武 士道規條所約束着, 組織對其成員一 樣加以控制, 視這些人命為工具。 更荒謬的是, 當成員被錯手殺死時, 組織為了掩飾真相, 會把死者在名册上除名, 假裝這些人沒有存在過!  這就像小林正樹的’切腹’裏,  井伊家在主角半四郎死後, 企圖篡寫覺書裏的紀錄一樣。 巧合的是, 兩部片子的編劇都是橋本忍先生, 或者這是他對所謂的’客觀歷史’的質疑, 是歷史相對主義的視角!

'被'消失の殺人工具

說到底, 鶴千代只是殺手組織的一顆棋子。 組織根本沒有興趣去理會鶴千代的志氣, 因為組織認為鶴千代難以控制 (就如’大菩薩嶺’的情節一樣), 不但企圖暗殺他, 更決定將鶴千代在組織名册上除名, 等於將鶴千代’被消失’!  組織更捏造事實, 在紀錄上指是井伊被首領的兒子所殺掉。這意味着鶴千代不但殺死了自己的父親, 即使他永遠都不知道這個殘酷的事實, 他在不能因為暗殺立功而輔助自己成為武士階級。 除名, 就會使鶴千代在歷史上永遠消失! 這可謂多重諷刺, 是一個極為晦暗的結局。

宿命の死鬥

其實鶴千代是否完全沒有選擇, 要為宿命所馴服? 即使鶴千代無法戰勝宿命, 他仍然有 不少選擇, 令自己的一生過得更有意義。 例如, 喜愛他的女人甘於和他一起過平凡的生活,  不希望他去強求武士的席位。 縱使岡本喜八看通了人性的黑暗, 他亦相信這個世界真的是有好人的存在。 而鶴千代在組織中亦有一位真正關心自己的朋友。可惜, 鶴千代只顧自己的目的,  漠視和唾棄了這些人。 而且當組織懷疑他和其朋友是叛徒時, 鶴千代不但嫁禍其朋友, 更將其殺掉!  鶴千代此舉不但不是基於事實, 更不算是對其組織的愚忠。鶴千代這樣做,  只是因為他單純地相信組織會視此為功勞, 增加他成為武士的籌碼。當然, 最後組織發覺原來叛徒是另有其人, 是何其諷刺!

三月, 真是很少會下雪

最後, 盲目的鶴千代以為自己立下了大功, 卻不知道原來自己犯了倫理的死罪。 不過, 那又如何?  鶴千代已經陷入完全瘋狂的狀態。說好了的武士席位呢? 沒有了。正如旁述所言:  陪伴着鶴千代的, 可能只有無盡的瘋狂, 和那突兀的三月飛霜。

by Ed Law

20/8/2017

Film Analysis