我今天去了百老匯電影中心看一個關於法國新浪潮的展覽
。照片雖然是珍貴的歷史印記, 不過展覽規模就真是比較小! 不過, 在電影中心下層有幾間值得看看的店舖, 包括Kubrick書店和餐廳, 喜歡看文史哲書籍的朋友都應該會感興趣。 我之前只去過電影中心一次-是在多年前看’閃靈’的重映!
by Ed Law
26/11/2017
Film Analysis
Sunday, 26 November 2017
Sunday, 19 November 2017
儀式
最近, 香港重映了日本導演大島渚的作品’儀式’ (1971)。此片是大島對自己的世代作最深的批判的作品, 電影風格十分像小林正樹的’切腹’和寇比力克的’亂世兒女’(Barry Lyndon), 可見英雄所見略同! 電影借主角憶述其家族在三十多年間舉行的幾個儀式,
揭露人性背後的腐朽, 印證’金玉其外,敗絮其中’的殘酷現實, 和年輕世代對於改變現狀的無力感。像’亂世兒女’一樣, 大島在’儀式’中採用了極強的形式主義, 和強調對稱性構圖,
是以表現制度和儀式的機械性和死板, 以及它們對人們自由和創見的束縛。
大島渚在電影中探索的問題是:
為何我們的世界需要儀式的存在? 是促進文明理性, 見證人們是萬物之靈? 是為了飲水思源,
以維繫優良的傳統? 還是如凡夫俗子所道 – ‘一年點都要坐低食餐飯啦!’? 大島認為,
儀式並非如擁有權勢者所給予的所謂’理由’ 。 人們創造儀式這種工具, 是要用來掩飾他們無法理順的情形和難題,
那當然包括了人性中與生俱來的黑暗面。尤其對於有權有勢之人, 當他們沒法合理化自己掌握的權力時, 為了鞏固自己所得的甜頭, 就必須創立一大堆的規條, 以及儀式化他們掌握的人與物。 當權者會拋出一大堆濫情的口號,
甚至會斷章取義, 去邊緣化那些對他們有所質疑的人。沒有了儀式, 便會出現很多不穩定的因素, 對他們的權力引發動盪。 當權者需要有既定的劇本, 才能演活他們的那場大龍鳳!
在片中的大家族, 已經到達風燭殘年的境地。 長老為了鞏固自己僅有的權力和虛名, 才會堅持那些古舊的儀式繼續存在。儀式看似莊重, 但其實只是為了掩飾家族成員背後的心理陰暗: 表面看似重視格律, 內裏卻是滿腹的淫亂; 對外看似宣揚’我哋仲未死得’, 內心卻飽受死亡毁滅的煎熬。 執行了儀式, 就好像’做咗啲嘢’,
登時自我感覺良好 (在網絡年代又可在 Facebook呃吓like) 。這個論點, 與’切腹’和’亂世兒女’背後的意義確實是異曲同工的。
沒有新娘的婚禮
片中最為著名的一幕, 就是主角進行婚禮時, 其祖父為了顧全家族的面子, 縱使新娘不在,
竟然堅持婚禮儀式繼續進行, 使得可憐的主角得到一個没有新娘的婚禮。 為了挽回家族那苟延殘存的虛榮, 大家對主角的內心感受也是不屑一顧。 這一幕就像大島前作’絞死刑’的最後一幕, 出現了一個沒有死囚的絞刑架一樣。 大島除了受到戲劇大師Brecht影響外, 亦往往會用荒謬主義風格去表述故事, 諷刺人類行為的無理。當觀眾體會到制度背後的問題時, 亦不禁會發出一陣冷笑,
詰問: ‘咁都得?!’ 長老偏執地堅持儀式繼續機械地進行下去,
倒讓新娘的親戚廣傳他那既迂腐又鎖國的宣言: ‘我們的新娘沒有受到外來文化的荼毒, 那就是最純正最好的!’ 或許, 他們就是差了做亢奮的跳高三次那一個動作!
犬儒的聽風者
在’儀式’中, 大島賦予他的主角發聲的權力,
讓主角這位年輕一輩的代言人憶述家族諸多儀式對他一生的影響。他發現了自己那所謂的名門望族的陰暗一面,
以及這些事對他的負面影響。 觀眾應該會感受到主角的世代對改變現狀的無力感。事實上, 主角一生中不少的經歷, 是因為家族為了捍衛其守舊的傳統而間接造成的。 縱然有人有膽量在絕境叱喝, 亦會為安於現狀的力量所淹沒。 尼采早就預視到, 即使真正的強者出現, 也會為大量抱有犬儒心態的弱者所擊敗。 因為如果人不肯作出根本的改變,
而甘於受控的話, 任何曙光亦會為之幻滅。當人們無力或者無膽量去求變, 為了在既有的制度下尋到一線存活的縫隙, 就會變得犬儒, 變成自身時代的玩偶。
你, 又有膽量去構想在儀式框架外的天空嗎?
by Ed Law
19/11/2017
以戲服人 Film
Analysis
Monday, 6 November 2017
Harakiri, Part 1
It is easy to boast what you believe in, yet at what cost
are you willing to commit to that? If the consequence of doing this will lead
to your own destruction, will you still stick to any of these beliefs? With a
solitary existence, do you have the courage to stand up to the waves of
corruption, and the army of hypocrisy that are so inherent in the world you
exist in? These are the questions that are addressed in ‘Seppuku’ (also known
as ‘Harakiri’, 1962), the absolutely wonderful film by the Japanese director
Masaki Kobayashi!
‘Harakiri’ is a timeless classic, and I can say its power
can be considered on equal terms with any of the greatest Kurosawa classics.
The film won the Special Jury Prize in the Cannes festival, and it has inspired a number
of subsequent directors. Famed for its extreme dramatic intensity, ‘Harakiri’
concerns the final day of the elder ronin Hanshiro Tsugumo’s life, and his
attempt to regain the honor of his family at a corrupt clan known as the House
of Iyi. The melancholy in the story is almost comparable to any Shakespearean
or Greek tragedies, and its universal relevance to our existence makes it one
of the most wonderful human dramas in world cinema. Through a memorable
performance by the smashing actor Tatsuya Nakadai as Hanshiro, the film has
inspired us to have the courage to fight against injustice and to stand firm on
what we believe in, no matter what the cost may be, or how insignificant the
power of a individual is. Since I first watched ‘Harakiri’ in my teenage years,
it has always been a moving film to me, and it has the honor to be my favourite
non-Kurosawa (!!) Asian film of all time. I have always reminded myself that,
if I will be writing about cinema one day, I will definitely write about
‘Harakiri’. I suppose this is a ‘matter of honor’ issue here!
Before we look into the film, I suppose I need to say a few
words about the 2 traditional concepts – ‘Bushido’ and ‘Seppuku / Harakiri’.
While many of the films in the 1960s tend to be critical about the traditional
Bushido code (‘The Way of the Warrior’), I personally do not find to be harsh
towards Bushido. Indeed, I feel that many of the codes in Bushido are still
highly applicable ( I have often wondered if a bushido for writing is
possible?!), and they can really help us to improve ourselves, and become a
greater guy. Yet, just like any rules, we have to understand the context these
codes are based on, and the reason why these codes exist in first place. I
suppose Kobayashi-san’s intention in ‘Harakiri’ is to show the dark side of
bushido, the other side of the story. Even if you find yourselves more inclined
to this revisionist stance, it does not mean that one has to discredit, for
example, Kurosawa’s ‘Seven Samurai’. Only by understanding both the good and
the bad sides of the code, one will really be able to have a holistic view of
the whole issue.
Seppuku (or Harakiri), on the other hand, is something more
hard to appreciate. Harakiri literally means stomach disembowelment, and this
practice is seen as a honorable suicide by the samurai class, a way to redeem
one’s honor. The act is often done in a ceremonial manner, and it starts by the
samurai doing the hara-kiri, and then it is followed by the decapitation
administered by a second member, which is known as . This is done as to give
the a quick kill. Now, viewing it from a modern perspective, this act seems a
bit unthinkable (or even silly). As a fan of B-movies, I can quote a few
examples that can put things into context. Take Rocky III – if Mr. T has
defeated Rocky at the first match, does that mean Rocky has to stroll back to
little Italy
and kill himself? No, as David Sloane from Kickboxer 4 told his nasty nemesis
Tong Po, ‘you just have to beat me in a match and regain your honor’, to avoid
further shame. It is the ‘I’ll be back’ logic that governs all these macho b-s,
or sugar-coated in a way, the ‘matter of honor’ thing. To regain honor, you
need to do is to defeat your opponent in a rematch, as simple as that. Why
would the samurai prefer death rather than dishonor? I feel it is rather tough
to access to this ancient mind-set, though we can have some insights when we
try to link up all these ideas in the next article. Anyway, the easy way out is
to appreciate that, in Kobayashi’s film, the very act of Harakiri is an acid
test to see one is honorable or not.
Through their differing attitudes towards the act of Harakiri, we can
easily see the ones who can truly commit to their own beliefs, in a situation
where almost everyone apparently states that these codes and beliefs are
‘important’ to their own samurai existences.
Hanshiro Tsugumo (Tatsuya Nakadai), an elder ronin, arrived
at the House of Iyi, a samurai clan, in a particular afternoon in 1630. There,
he requested for a place to commit a honorable suicide. The elder clansman,
Saito, invited him for a brief chat. Saito asked whether Hanshiro knew a
younger ronin, known as Motome Chijiwa, as they both seemed to serve at the
same clan years ago. Hanshiro seemed to have no idea who this Chijiwa was.
Saito, stating this was of minor importance, continued with a story about this
young ronin.
Chijiwa, like Hanshiro, actually came to Iyi some time ago,
and also begged fior a place to commit hara-kiri. The clansmen in Iyi discussed
the issue, and some of them believed that Chijiwa’s true intention was to bluff
them, and asked for money in return, or even a position in the samurai clan.
Hikokuro Omodaka (Tetsuro Tamba), a senior retainer, suggested that they should
force Chijiwa to commit Harakiri, so as to serve as an example to those who
might have these intentions in the future. Chijiwa, with no clear idea what his
action might lead himself to, was absolutely surprised when they allowed and
insisted him to commit hara-kiri on spot, and it was all too late for him to
step off. Before the hara-kiri ceremony, the clansmen in Iyi were thrilled to
discover Chijiwa did not even have a real samurai sword – all he had was a
sword made from bamboo. The members of Iyi asked Chijiwa to commit hara-kiri
anyway, by using his bamboo sword. Since the bamboo sword was pretty blunt, it
made the whole experience far more slow and painful, and Chijiwa died with
ultimate dis-honor.
After telling the story, Saito asked Hanshiro if he had any
second thoughts. Hanshiro insisted he would do it, and urged the members in the
house to prepare for the ceremony. He even stated that he would not change into
the light-colored hara-kiri clothing, stating that his dark attire suited the
situation appropriately. Before the ceremony started, Hanshiro had to nominate
for a second who would do the for him. Hanshiro suggested 3 names, yet
interestingly, they were all absent. Hanshiro insisted he would like to have
either one of these members to do , so men were asked to fetch them. In order
to pass time, Hanshiro decided to tell the House of Iyi his life story,
because, ‘What befalls others today, may be your own fate tomorrow.’.
To everyone’s surprise, Hanshiro did have slight acquirancce
with Motome Chijiwa. Motome was actually Hanshiro’s son in law, and he was the
son of Hanshiro’s close friend. Motome married Hanshiro’s daughter, Miho, and
they had a child together. However, after the dissolution of their clan,
Hanshiro and Motome could not find any jobs in the harsh world. It was a time
of peace, and many samurai clans were abolished and the samurais could not find
many opportunities. Hanshiro and Motome could earn for a meager living, yet
when Miho and the child were sick, things went like a downward spiral. With no
money to buy medicine, Motome had to go as far to pawn his real samurai sword
in exchange for money. It was then he went to the House of Iyi to look for
opportunities, but this sowed the seeds for his demise. When the corpse of
Motome was delivered back to Hanshiro and Miho, he was more than horrified to
see the bamboo sword, and felt truly dis-honored by such an act. Soon after,
Miho and succumbed to their illness and passed away. How, Hanshiro was alone,
and he realized the Bushido code would never be able to provide any justice to
the vulnerable one...
Hanshiro blamed Saito and the clansmen for the decision to
kill Motome in such a manner, yet Saito insisted that they have done nothing
wrong and denied any responsibilities. Knowing that he would not be able to
change their opinions, Hanshiro announced that he was ready to join his family
in another world. Before that, he decided to show them ‘one last thing’. They
were the headknots of the 3 absent samurais!
Now, Hanshiro told the clansmen that, he has already taken
action. He stalked down the first two samurais and challenged them to duel. Of
course, Hanshiro defeated both of them easily.
Hikokuro, knowing about Hanshiro’s ordeal, came to his house
and challenged him to a duel. Though Hikokuro was a skillful swordmen, he had
no real war experience like Hanshiro. As Hanshiro commented, ‘Swordsmanship
untested in battle is like the art of swimming mastered on land.’ Eventually,
Hanshiro defeated Hikokuro.
Hanshiro insinuated that, while the House of Iyi claimed
that they followed Bushido, their 3 skillful retainers were so coward to even
come back when they have lost the duel. Consumed with shame, Saito could only
wipe out Hanshiro for good. He ordered the clansmen to kill Hanshiro, and a
wonderful showdown started, which could only been described in images.
After turning Iyi upside down, Hanshiro committed an
anti-establishment act (that’s movie in the 60s) – he threw the samurai statue on
the floor. And, as he has promised, Hanshiro committed hara-kiri.
However, to avoid further shame, gunmen were sent in and Hanshiro was gunned
down as a result. After a messy afternoon, the House of Iyi has taken action
to set things right. They ordered the 3 clansmen to commit hara-kiri, and then
they cleaned up the house, and re-erected the samurai statue. For the record,
they fabricated the whole story as an honorable suicide, and of course skipped
out the shameful part. After that, it seemed nothing has happened at all, and
the House of Iyi was still standing. The clansmen might try hard to forget
Hanshiro, yet, for the audience, we will always remember how a courageous and
wonderful man he was.
(1/2)
by Ed Law
6/11/2017
Film Analysis
Sunday, 29 October 2017
小林正樹 - 空虛的武士像
每個人固然都有自己的主見,
但能夠不惜一切地去堅持的, 又能有幾人? 尤其在亂世中,
看風駛艃的態度, 似乎更合生存之道! 在五十年代,
日本出現了一位導演, 他幾部世界知名的作品, 啟發了我們要懂得相信自己,
從而改變世界。在灌木繁茂的叢林裏, 只有堅挺不動的大樹才能紇立不倒。他就是我十分崇拜的導演 - 小林正樹!
說到小林正樹最著名的作品,
當然就是’切腹’ (1962) 。小林正樹不但在此片達致極高的藝術境界,
而且故事極具悲劇性, 動人而具感染力的情節亦令人一看難忘。’切腹’可算是一部接近完美的經典電影, 它影響了杜琪峰,
吳宇森, 馬田史高西斯 (尤其是電影’的士司機’),
張藝謀等多位知名導演, 亦曾在康城影展裏勇奪評審大獎 ! 飾演主角的仲代達矢是我最喜歡的日本演員, 而他所飾演的老武士津雲半四郎亦都是我最喜歡的電影角色之一。
‘切腹’借主角半四郎誓死捍衛自己家族名譽的故事, 告訴觀眾堅持自己信念的重要性。 在這世界, 以’講就凶狠, 做就碌X’作為人生格言的人, 可謂比比皆是。 他們盲目信奉一些所謂的規條, 以為把規條掛在嘴邊,
便可隱站道德高地, 從而’自我感覺良好’
。 但, 當真正要為自己所信的信念付諸行動時, 卻又肆意推搪,
既濟未濟。 因為, 這些人根本沒有真心相信過他們所謂’堅持’的東西! 小林正樹早就洞察到這種人性的弊端, 於是,
他在電影裏追問觀眾: 面對制度的偽善, 和禮節的腐朽,
你還有能耐去容忍嗎? 遇到不公義的事時, 你會選擇畏縮一角,
還是直抒胸臆? 在’切腹’裏, 我們看到幕府井伊家裏放置了一個武士像。 空虛的武士像, 象徵武士道諸多規條的虛無。 當偽善的人們無法切實地履行他們的信誓時, 這些規條又有什麼存在價值? 當苟且偷生, ‘返工等放工’成為了生存的不二法門時, 又有幾人會不惜沉重代價, 去做自己真正相信的事?
其實, 要成為一個真正有尊嚴的人, 就是要有勇氣去堅持自己的信念。 故事中, 半四郎遇到不公義的事。他深知道不平則鳴的後果, 就是會導致自己的滅亡。 他也明白自己儼如一顆輕沙, 即使拼勁行動,
亦無法改變禮崩樂壞的現狀。不過, 他的行為反映了他真正地相信武士道。 當他揭露了井伊家的虛偽, 及擊敗了裏面諸多武士後, 他真的履行承諾, 自行切腹。 他的切實行動, 赢得了觀眾的尊重。半四郎或許渺小, 但他這顆小石子, 早已為腐敗的井伊家擊起千重巨浪! ‘切腹’可以受到世界眾多觀眾所認同, 或許就是因為它為我們表述了心中所想!
鮮血, 可以抹掉; 歷史, 可被篡寫; 真相, 終會浮現!
by Ed Law
29/10/2017
Film Analysis
Saturday, 28 October 2017
October
 |
| Sergei Eisenstein editing his film. |
For this month in Hong Kong ,
a classic Russian silent film has been released in the cinema. Curiously, the
name of the film was called ‘October’, and was directed by Sergei M.
Eisenstein.
Well, it is not just a funny coincidence. ‘October’ referred
to the October Revolution that took place in 1917, and the film was a
dramatization which was approved by the Soviet government. Eisenstein was
famous in the history of cinema, because he was one of the pioneers of the
Soviet montage. The definition of montage, is ‘a technique in film editing in
which a series of short shots are edited into a sequence to condense space,
time and information’. With films like ‘Strike’, ‘Battleship Potemkin’, and
‘October’, Eisenstein demonstrated in full power and potential of the montage
style.
The influence of Eisenstein in modern cinema can be seen
from the inspirations he has provided for some of the greatest directors in
cinema, including Kurosawa, Welles, Kubrick, Peckinpah, Penn and many
more. Numerous films have paid homage to the memorable Odessa sequence from Battleship Potemkin.
Yet, Eisenstein was also controversial because of his apparent political
motives and the over formalist approaches to cinema. For the first criticism,
his films have been labelled by detractors as Marxist propaganda. While I do
not feel that he had the intention of making propaganda for self-interest or
other motives, the detractors’ criticisms are understandable because cultural
artifices and production are easily subject to distortions or misreading,
especially by those who are deliberate or have underlying motivations to do
that. The second criticism is more fascinating, because it is more an artistic
criticism rather than a pragmatic or social one. Eisenstein’s style was very
formalized and he made his films through carefully planning and staging of his
images. Therefore his style has been criticized as artificial or even
monotonous by those who preferred a more spontaneous style. Yet for cinematic
montage, if executed neatly, has an intense visual and sensual impact and can
leave very long lasting impression on the audience. Eisenstein’s mastery of the
montage technique made these films to be some of the most iconic films from the
silent era. Thus, it is not necessarily an issue to have a formalist style, it
is merely a preference.
It is important to note that Eisenstein was not the one who
invented the style of montage editing, nor the only one who has employed this
particular style of editing. At the earlier days of cinema, filmmakers around the
world have already provided innovations in many styles of editing in films. The
French philosopher Deleuze, with his epic investigation in the art of cinema,
has identified at least 4 different types of montage editing around the world
in the early 20th century – American, French Impressionist, German
Expressionist, and of course the Soviet montage. Deleuze has gone as far to point out that
even the Soviet montage was not a coherent style, as Eisenstein’s view on
montage was quite different from that of Pudovkin and Vertov, though all these
filmmakers were first influenced by Kuleshov. The focus is my discussion here
will concentrate on Eisenstein’s style.
Deleuze compared in particular the style of America
montage, represented by the films from D. W. Griffith, and that of the Soviet
montage, represented by Eisenstein’s films. For the American montage, Deleuze describe the style, in particular Griffith 's style, as
organic. The result of all the separate shots, when combined together,
represented a totality, reminiscent of an organic unity. Even if Griffith often
portrayed the two sides in a given issues, good and evil, rich and poor,
powerful and powerless, his motivation was merely to present the whole
picture of the issue, to employ an innovative approach to bring all the
components to a totality, and construct the filmic reality. Einstein, by
contrast, was approaching montage through what Deleuze coined as dialectic.
While I do not feel that we should always approach film art through a political
point of view, one should not undermine the fact that one of Eisenstein's
artistic motivations was a Marxist one, so even though Eisenstein wanted to
explore cinema in an artistic and innovative manner, he definitely intended his
films to serve a political or idealistic purpose. While Eisenstein praised Griffith for the innovation in the montage style in films
like The Birth of Nation, he criticized Griffith
for having a bourgeois attitude in these films, therefore he saw a difference
between the two styles of montage.
While Eisenstein’s montage style could also be seen as
organic, the style was also generative, and that was the reason why Deleuze
celebrated this style of montage style, because his own philosophical outlook
was also an active and generative one. For Eisenstein, the spirit behind Soviet
montage was its dialectical nature. Dialectic is about the confrontation – or
collision as Eisenstein would have put it – of two oppressing forces. Eisenstein
has written succinctly in his articles regarding film theories, ‘montage is
conflict’. The rapid juxtaposition of images will effectively generative an
impulse and conflicting impression on the audience, and thus they have to
actively engage with the filmic images and generate meaning from these, leading
to ‘a revolutionary explosion’ as stated by Eisenstein. In some cases, the
montage can be creative and also bear a symbolic significance, as in ‘October’,
the juxtaposition of various religious figures with the revolutionary leaders
and politician serves as a nice example. Eisenstein did this because he wanted
to set up these intellectual montages, so that the audience could engage with
the apparently unrelated images intellectually, and discover universal traits
among these disconnected images.
Eisenstein’s montage theory, like the other Soviet
theorists, was also based on a sound philosophical foundation. The collision of
two forces to generate a new state is reminiscent of the
‘thesis-antithesis-synthesis’ triad, from the Hegelian philosophy of the 19th
century. One should not be surprised, because Marx’s theory was inspired by
Hegel’s theory, only turning from an idealist to a materialist point of view.
Not only Eisenstein wanted to explore the potential with film form, he made his
films because he wanted his target audience to be aware of the unfairness that
took place in the real world, and hopefully figured out a way for change.
No matter how his films might be distorted or misread as propaganda
or political tools, Eisenstein’s artistic contributions to cinema was beyond
any doubt.
by Ed Law
28/10/2017
Film Analysis
Sunday, 22 October 2017
Blade Runner, Part 2
In the film ‘Blade Runner’, the Tyrell Corporation, which
was involved in the manufacture of the replicants, claimed that they could make
replicants ‘more human than human’. Is it merely a sentimental slogan or a
foreseeable phenomenon in the near future?
I believe that if we are to think whether ‘more human than
human’ is possible, we have to dissect the question in two perspectives – a
biotic (evolutionary) perspective and also an ethical perspective. For the
first point of view, if the force to rise above human is merely driven through
the impersonal force of evolution, then it is a natural phenomenon and there is
nothing wrong about that per se. Yet, if the motivation behind this motto is to
afford advantages that can improve humanity’s well being, we have to think what
sort of consequence that may lead to ourselves, and also our environment and
the machines – that is, the replicants in this case – around us.
The replicants in the film were interesting because they
could be considered as a combination of the two ends of the dialectic - the man
and the machine. Through the use of genetic engineering, the Tyrell Corporation
has been able to generate replicants with above-human abilities, in terms of
physical strength and intelligence. Thus, they should be compared to HAL in ‘2001
A Space Odyssey’ rather than the Terminator, as the replicants were a sort of
artificial intelligence which could mimic real human behaviors, or could even
become more like humans. Yet, the irony was that in order to use these
replicants as instruments, they had to be treated in a mechanical way. The
Tyrell Corporation's underlying motivation to use the replicants as tools and
slaves meant that they had to strip the replicants of their potential dignities,
treating them as sub-human. The replicants were engineered to behave as if they
were automatons, so that they could be effectively controlled. They were only
allowed a mechanical sort of lifespan - a battery life of 4 years, and this forcibly
limited the potential development of their existences. They were all assigned
specific duties, and they had to perform functions they were programmed to.
Moreover, they were even assigned to simulacra, where in
some cases they were misled to believe falsely that they were behaving as if
they were genuine human beings and they had life stories of their own. Take Rachael
as an example. One of the first twists in the film was that Rachael, who has
always believed she was a human being, but was actually a programmed replicant
like all the other products of the Tyrell Corporation. While Rachael argued
that she had all the memories and all the proofs of her ‘human’ existence,
Deckard told her the awful truth that all these memories of her were actually
implants, they were simulacra which were programmed into her brain to give her
a false consciousness of human existence. I suppose any members of the audience
can sympathize with this poor character. It is as if you have everything and
all of a sudden, they are gone.
Thus, for Eldon Tyrell, no matter how he rationalized in a
sentimental way that he was trying to make our lives better or led us to a
better future, it is contentious to state that his motivation is ethical. From
a Kantian perspective, the Tyrell Corporation treated the replicants – for whom
the Corporation claimed were more human than human – as means to an end. The
replicants were not granted any human dignity or individualism - they were
merely seen as instruments to further other humans’ end. If we are to use
Kant’s ethical theory to provide critique on the Tyrell Corporation’s action,
then they should be seen as unethical. For someone to be treated as a human
being, he/she should be treated as an end to himself/herself, so that autonomy
can be gained and they are not dehumanized because they have to perform some
pre-assigned functions to further others’ ends.
Coming back to Rachael’s scenario. Even if Tyrell appeared to be compassionate
and caring to Rachael, his motivation was hypocritical. He went as far to
implant happy memories to Rachael’s psyche, to offer her a complete fictional
narrative for her existence. None of the scenarios she has encountered
throughout her existence belonged to or were originated from her, because they
were stories that has already been written and programmed into her. When she started playing the piano in
Deckard’s apartment, she bitterly commented that it was just another skill
implanted to her. Tyrell’s dream clearly has not been fulfilled.
The above discussions regarding the nature of replicants are
closely related to the central enigma of Blade Runner, which has become iconic
over the years - is Deckard a replicant? Many words have been devoted to the
potential answers of this question, and everyone, including the director and
cast, has provided their own points of view. The newly released ‘Blade Runner
2049’ has thankfully preserved the importance of this mystery, thus preventing
the possibility of any simple and shallow answer. I believe this ambiguity is
deliberate from the director, though he probably understood that this decision
would alienate those members of audience who looked for simple story and fast
entertainment. The director put in both clues that argued for and against
Deckard’s true nature, and some of these clues would lead to subjective value
judgments from the viewers, thus leading to gaps in logic from any possible
interpretations. Everyone’s answer will have their own assumptions and have slightly
different interpretations, so that a final and definite answer for this mystery
will not exist.
It should not be surprising to see that the name ‘Rick
Deckard’ is very similar to Rene Descartes, one of the first modern
philosophers who questioned about the justification of being. How are I certain
of my own autonomous existence, not existing in a dream or being controlled by some
unknown, outside force? In the film, the replicant Pris, who were assigned the
role of pleasure model, also attempted to assert her autonomy by quoting the
motto ‘I think, therefore I am’. The question regarding Deckard’s ultimate
status is an epistemological question – very much like if someone challenges
you the justifications that you are in a waking state rather than in a dreaming
state. When Rachael first met Deckard at the Tyrell Corporation, she challenged
Deckard whether he has ever retired a human by mistake before. It was a totally
logical suspicion because with the exception of the Voight-Kampff test, there
were almost no possible ways to distinguish between a human and a replicant –
the replicants were made to look like humans from the very beginning.
Of course, the most straight forward answer is to have
Deckard himself taking the Voight Kampff test. Yet, I feel this simple answer
does not address the implication behind the question. The Voight-Kampff test,
which could be seen as a representation of science in the film's world, was
dependent on the context and order of knowledge in that particular world. Even
if it can provide a satisfactory answer at that point, one cannot guarantee
that the answer is the ultimate final answer, because the science and
technology in a given era may not be adequate as time goes on - the development
of Einsteinian physics from Newtonian physics serves as a great example. What
the question is concerned with are more timeless and metaphysical issues - how
Deckard was certain himself that he was a genuine human being but not a ‘skin
job’. Descartes, employing his method of doubt, came to conclude and asserted
his being because rationality should dictate his existence to be real. The
Cartesian doubt should eventually lead to self knowledge, and provides an
opportunity to philosophize one of the deepest questions of humanity.
One of the most important and suggestive evidence to support
the possibility of Deckard being a replicant was the unicorn origami that Gaff
apparently left in Deckard' s apartment, when Deckard planned to escape with
Rachael after all that happened. This was so because Deckard had a similar
dream about an unicorn some time before, and this uncanny coincidence might
suggest that the dreams were planted into Deckard’s consciousness, thereby
implying Deckard was just a replicant experiencing his own simulacra. The point
when Deckard picked up and inspected the unicorn origami, his facial expression
suggested he seemed to understand something. It was also possible that Gaff
might be aware of the fact that Deckard was a replicant, and so he provided a
subtle clue to Deckard and helped him to run away with Rachael indirectly.
Ridley Scott did not commit to provide a final answer in the 1982 film. With
the intention of making a hybrid between sci-fi and film noir, he wanted to
immortalize the Blade Runner mystery, and thus led to ongoing debate and
discussions regarding this modern classic.
So do I think Deckard is a replicant or not? Well, just like
everyone else, when I first watched ‘Blade Runner’ I have tried to pick up all
the clues in order to lead myself to a final answer. Yet, the more I revisit
this question, the more I understand why the creators of the film want this to
be a mystery. The question itself is a philosophical one, and the metaphysical
nature of it means that we are likely to be inaccessible to the final truth,
and can only employ whatever mode of thinking and arrive at some speculations. The
point is not just a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer, but what implications the
question brings us to. It is the most elemental question of what it means to be
human. If I can choose an answer for the film, I would prefer to have Deckard
being a replicant, because that will lead to a more ironic and powerful message
for the film. No matter what sort of systems we have used to understand
ourselves, there are many issues that we cannot understand at the end, because
we are often situated in a subjective point of view, no matter how impartial we
believe ourselves to be. The acquirement of self-knowledge is the holy grail of
our intellectual lives, because it is just so hard to achieve.
Perhaps, the final answer of what it means to be human is
not the mere use of reason, in a Cartesian sense, to give a ‘yes’ to the
question of our being. It is the very ability for us to doubt our existences,
to raise these hard questions, that makes us so human in the first place. A
machine or an animal with a lower cognitive ability will not have the ability
to ask this. Even we may never find an ultimate answer for the puzzle of our
existences, the courage we have channeled to think about these issues is affirmative
to our presences. As Gaff will have the final words here – ‘You’ve done a man’s
job, sir.’
Sunday, 15 October 2017
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 173rd birthday today (15th
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 20th century. What is
more noticeable is his intense influence on the art of the 20th
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 17th 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 18th 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.
-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.
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.
Film Analysis
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)