Friday, February 14, 2014

"… finds her door hacked with an axe …"

I stumbled across something interesting:
Who was Kubrick's co-writer [for The Shining]?

After rejecting King's own efforts at turning his novel into a screenplay Kubrick turned to Diane Johnson, an American novelist and critic who published a number of novels which Kubrick admired, including "The Shadow Knows" which he considered making into a film.
So what is this book about, that Kubrick considered making into a film?
The Shadow Knows by Diane Johnson

The anonymous heroine, N, is a young woman who has broken free of a constricting marriage and is struggling to raise four children alone in a housing project. Coming home one day N finds her door hacked with an axe and smeared with what appears to be a mixture of blood and crankcase oil. A few days later a strangled cat is left outside her apartment door. Everyday, she is plagued by mysterious, disturbing phone calls. Playing detective and attempting to figure out who her enemy may be, N's real fears merge with paranoid fantasy in this fascinating story which rivals the best of Henry James's dark, psychological gothic tales.
I would suspect that one will find more references to The Shadow Knows in Kubrick's The Shining besides the axed door…

Thursday, February 13, 2014

A Slight Misdirection

What is a misdirection anyway?
STANLEY KUBRICK

By the way, just to show you how interpretation can sometimes be bewildering: A cryptographer went to see the film, and he said, "Oh. I get it. Each letter of HAL's name is one letter ahead of IBM. The H is one letter in front of I, the A is one letter in front of B, and the L is one letter in front of M." Now this is a pure coincidence, because HAL's name is an acronym of heuristic and algorithmic, the two methods of computer programmingan almost inconceivable coincidence. It would have taken a cryptographer to have noticed that.
Please carefully notice what Kubrick says:
  • "Interpretations can sometimes be bewildering" [but "bewildering" interpretations are not necessarily wrong]
  • It is "an almost inconceivable coincidence" that HAL is one letter ahead of IBM [yes, it is almost not imaginable to be a coincidence, once someone pointed it out]
  • "It would have taken a cryptographer to have noticed that" [because nobody else did notice it before – is Kubrick mocking the rest of us here that we are a bit slow?]
With regards to misdirections: What is computer programming? Let's ask Wikipedia for help:
Computer programming is a process that leads from an original formulation of a computing problem to executable programs. It involves activities such as analysis, understanding, and generically solving such problems resulting in an algorithm, verification of requirements of the algorithm including its correctness and its resource consumption, implementation (or coding) of the algorithm in a target programming language, testing, debugging, and maintaining the source code, implementation of the build system and management of derived artefacts such as machine code of computer programs.
So computer programming is "a process that results in an algorithm" – at least today. However I suspect it was the same when 2001 was made. There might have been a theory back then that implementing AI might need heuristics – but heuristics is a field in its own right (ask your spam-filter), and one would need to implement the heuristics as algorithms.

So either Kubrick is imprecise with his statements, or he is giving us misdirections – both of which is conceivable, as I want to point out. Make up your own mind about Kubrick's films.

One more thing: Of all the words in the English language, would the word "bewildering" come to your mind for the HAL=IBM interpretation? Or is it not rather bewildering (at least from Kubrick's point of view) that it took an cryptographer to come up with such an interpretation rather simple observation?

Wednesday, February 12, 2014

Council of Astronautics

In our series of coincidental anagrams we bring you today:

Council of Astronautics


A Iconoclastic Fun Tours


A Fascist Colonic Outrun


A Laconic Futurist's Coon


Tuesday, February 11, 2014

2001: A Transoceanic Gutsy


One of the anagrams for Astronautics Agency is:

A Transoceanic Gutsy


In that summer of 1964, the "movie outline" document evolved to the size of a short story now called Across The Sea Of Stars. The "sea" metaphor was again used by Kennedy in the aforementioned 1962 speech, when he called space "this new ocean":
We set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained, and new rights to be won, and they must be won and used for the progress of all people. For space science, like nuclear science and all technology, has no conscience of its own. Whether it will become a force for good or ill depends on man, and only if the United States occupies a position of pre-eminence can we help decide whether this new ocean will be a sea of peace or a new terrifying theater of war.

Monday, February 10, 2014

Resources for Kubrick's 2001

In this post I collect some of the resources I found worthwhile – by no mean complete, I hope I will expand this a bit over time…

A Transcript of 2001

Sundry: 2001 Transcript

Leonard F. Wheat (Triple Allegory)

Excerpts available here, and here.
Additional material here, here, and here/here.

Todd Alcott (What Does the Protagonist Want?)

Viewers sometimes find 2001 to be opaque, baffling, boring, slow, tedious and pointless. I find it the opposite — it’s fascinating, suspenseful and, when one considers the wealth of narrative packed into its running time, quite fast-paced indeed, almost humorously so. What baffles people about 2001 is not in the nature or purpose of its collective scenes, but in the choices Kubrick made early on in the devising of the screenplay.

Depending on the way you approach narrative, Kubrick has done one of two extraordinary, innovative things in the narrative of 2001. One, my personal belief, is that he’s created a narrative in which the protagonist never appears. The other, a slightly more conventional way of looking at it, is that he’s created a narrative with three protagonists, three protagonists who never meet but are related thematically and whose motivations all revolve around the same item, the maguffin of the piece, the mysterious black monolith.

"Prequel", Part 1, part 2, and part 3. (He has also put other Kubrick films through his treatment.)

Hans Morgenstern (Independent Ethos)

How Stanley Kubrick broke the rules of Classical Hollywood cinema and made a better film with ’2001: A Space Odyssey’: My MA thesis redux

Part 1, part 2, part 3, and part 4.

From the Internet to followers in my hometown Miami, I have long been asked to share my MA thesis that capped off my studies in American Literature at Florida International University, something I titled “the Sublimation Of The Classical Hollywood Cinema Form In 2001: A Space Odyssey.” This was a 76-page paper based on the work of eminent film scholar David Bordwell’s theory of classical Hollywood cinema. I contrasted the seven rules of his theory with criticism both scholarly and popular on the film as well as published interviews with both the film’s director Stanley Kubrick and its co-writer Arthur C. Clarke. The point was to reveal how the director achieved a more profound film— philosophically, spiritually and artistically—  by breaking the rules of classical Hollywood cinema.

2001Italia (blog by Simone Odino)



Thursday, February 6, 2014

With The Stroke Of A Pen (ASO123-02)

Warning: Spoilers ahead! This post contains furthermore copyrighted material for the purpose of research, commentary and eduction as per fair use provisions.

We have arrived in the second act of 2001: A Space Odyssey – the TMA-1 sequence. It is the 1. setting of the act, the Orion III Spaceplane, with which Dr. Heywood R. Floyd travels to his first stop, the Space Station, while on his way to TMA-1, the second Monolith of the film.

What do we see on the very first cut to the interior of the Spaceplane? We become witness of an assassination – an purely symbolical assassination, of course.

First we see Dr. Heywood R. Floyd sleeping in his seat – some movie can be seen on the TV screen in front of him:


The movie we see shows us cars on what resembles an airfield:


His pen floats into view:


The movie zooms in on a car, which seems to be (what I presume) some futuristic version of the Corvette Sting Ray:


The pen's tip is visibly blood-red:



In the car we see a woman and a man. The woman sits on the left side, the man sits on the right, and they talk with each other:


As the pen floats in front of the TV screen, the man in the car is beheaded, he gets his head cut off – symbolically, of course – by the tip of the pen. This is the stroke that orders an assassination:





We see the pen drifting for a little more:





What's interesting to note is (again) the formula 2+1=3: The pen has 3 buttons: 2 white buttons, and 1 red button (ASO125-01):


We see the Stewardess enter …


… with the famous velcro-boots:


The woman on the TV screen, as we can see, looks vaguely like Jacqueline …


… while he looks vaguely like John Fitzgerald:


The stewardess comes by, grabs the pen and safely tucks it away into Dr. Floyd's pocket – how nice if the personnel shows initiative and acts on their own.



Finally she turns the TV off – all is well again.


The very first close-up shot of a modern human in the film, and what do we witness? An (allegorical) assassination – with the stroke of a pen. We have seen a murder before in the film, but the early humans had to use crude weapons to slay one-another, to club each other to death – now humans are civilized, and their murdering has become civilized as well.

The pen's tip is red, symbolically covered in blood – from the look of it we can presume that this wasn't the first assassination ordered with the pen. It is Dr. Floyd's pen – the pen is Dr. Floyd's murder weapon.

However, Dr. Floyd is sleeping, he knows nothing of what his pen does. In the surface narrative Floyd would have known better than to let his pen float freely around at zero-G. In the hidden allegorical narrative Floyd has not openly ordered an hit, it were Dr. Floyd's underlings that acted on their own – but Dr. Floyd need not be concerned. And after all, (to paraphrase) Dr. Floyd knows his men "do things the way Dr. Floyd wants them done", Dr. Floyd doesn't even have to give orders:
FLOYD
Thanks, Ralph. Oh, by the way, I wanted to say to both of you I think you've done a wonderful job. I appreciate the way you've handled this thing.

HALVORSEN
Well, the way we look at it it's our job to do this thing the way you want it done and we're only too happy to be able to oblige.

Dr. Heywood R. Floyd is in the surface narrative of 2001 the head of the "National Council of Aeronautics (NCA)", and for the purpose of the surface narrative he is a mix between Wernher von Braun and McGeorge Bundy. In the hidden allegorical narrative the agency he heads will carry out an "wet operation" without his overt knowledge – but he does not need to worry, as people will step in on their own initiative – without need for orders – and set things straight: the pen is put out of sight, and the TV is switched off. At the end Floyd will be able to plausibly deny any knowledge.

An personal intermission: Let me make it clear while I think that what Kubrick portrays here is not far from reality (the assassination of Ngo Dinh Diem and the behaviour by Lucien Conein* come to my mind), I however think Kubrick had another specific example in mind, and I think Kubrick might have gotten that specific example wrong.

Kubrick gives us quite striking images at the beginning of the TMA-1 sequence – here the replay:

Zapruder, eat your heart out.

We will see where this leads further in the film – or so I hope.

-- 
* By the way, Lucien Conein has served as Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr.'s liaison officer with the coup plotters. Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. in turn was the first to hold in 1960 a speech for a presidential rally at the University of Illinois – in Urbana, Illinois – before JFK spoke there as well during the same year. Amusing coincidence, but likely not relevant, as it is doubtful whether Kubrick could have known the extent of the role of Lucien Conein. 

Wednesday, February 5, 2014

Aspect Ratio – Monolith – Punch Card

2001: A Space Odyssey2.21:11.913 in × 0.866 in

Monolith2.25:19 × 4

Punch Card2.27:17.375 in × 3.25 in

What is interesting to note:
Clarke gives the dimensions for the Monoliths as 9 × 4 × 1. However the Monoliths depicted in the film is much thinner, I would guess the dimensions of the Monoliths in the film are closer to 9 × 4 × 0.25.

Furthermore:
Initially Clarke wanted to depict these "things" as pyramids, but Kubrick changed them to the Monoliths we see in the film.

And:
Kubrick initially wanted the Monolith to be completely transparent. He even went so far as ordering the production of (at that time) the supposedly largest piece of PMMA (aka "acrylic glass", aka "Plexiglas")*. Keep that in mind when you see Bowman removing HAL's memory modules.

--
* Alas, the test footage of the transparent Monolith didn't turn out the way Kubrick wanted (I guess he could not get rid of the reflections), so he changed the Monolith to the complete black ones we see in the film.

Kubrick: Speaking Through His Characters

So far, I have found two quotes in Kubrick's films that give the viewer an hint what they should do, if they want to decode some of his hidden messages:
HAL
Well it's rather difficult to define. Perhaps I'm just projecting my own concerns about it. I know I've never completely freed myself of the suspicion that there are some extremely odd things about this mission. I'm sure you'll agree there's some truth in what I say.

HAL
… I never gave these stories much credence. But particularly in view of some of the other things that have happened I find them difficult to put out of my mind. …
Put the individual "oddities" together. Are they random? Or does an picture emerge?
… Oh, about the things you saw at the hotel. He told me they've really gone over the place with a fine tooth comb and they didn't find the slightest evidence of anything at all out of the ordinary. …
Take a fine tooth comb, and look for anything out of the ordinary, and you (unlike the police in the deleted ending of The Shining) will surely find something.

I'm sure there are hints in his other films, alas, I am now stuck at 2001

Kubrick's 2001: A Triple Allegory – by Leonard F. Wheat

There is one very excellent resource for understanding the film 2001: A Space Odyssey:

Leonard F. Wheat's book "Kubrick's 2001: A Triple Allegory".
(You can read excerpts here, here, and more here, here, and here/here.)

In the book Wheat covers three themes (what Rob Ager calls "hidden narratives") of 2001:
  • The Odysseus Allegory
  • The Zarathustra Allegory
  • The Man-Machine Symbiosis (Allegory)
If you want to understand Kubrick's 2001, you have to read Wheat's book, there is no way around it. Alas, the book has some flaws (which however do not impede on the usefulness of Wheat's work):
  • He calls the "The Man-Machine Symbiosis" theme an allegory to Arthur C. Clarke's work, when it is more preciously one of the (not particularly hidden) themes of 2001.
  • He doesn't distinguish between rather certain hypotheses (like say, that there is a Odysseus Allegory), plausible but not quiet certain hypotheses (like say, his interpretation of TMA-1), and somewhat more far-fetched hypotheses (like say, his take on the name Heywood R. Floyd) – everything he has gathered is presented on equal footing.
One could probably find other flaws, but all in all it is an excellent work and for those of us who do not have intimate knowledge of Greek mythology (I know, I know, what on oversight…) or Nietsche's work, this book is immensely helpful.

And while I can not prove it (yet), I think Wheat has missed (at least) one more theme in Kubrick's 2001 – more of that later… Until then, don't take his three Allegories as an exhaustive list.