NP: Kubrick Bio Rec

[Steven Koteff]

You're right to disagree with me, David, when you say, 'There is no
incorrect response to the monolith's message.  Its message is inescapable,
like all Revalation.'

I guess I am considering the movie as being, at least in part, essentially
about the contrast/convergence/collapse of such binaries or dualisms as
chaos and perfection, objectivity/subjectivity, grandeur/meaninglessness,
life/death but also life (as a necessarily temporary thing which includes
death) and eternity (which sees an end to all life). And also the standard
Manichean good and evil. All admittedly poorly understood by me, I'm sure.

When I say it's *about *that, I mean that, in its visual schema, and in the
way I assemble meaning from the narrative, and in the energy I get from
viewing it, it contains those things.

In the Manichean sense, I think that, when given a glimpse of something
Revelatory, one understands that there as a sort of codependent
relationship between light/good/spiritual and dark/evil/material. In that
the two are locked in an apparently eternal struggle. And part of the
Revelation might involve the fact that actually these competing forces are
both necessary, or at least intertwined, and that one is not necessarily
essentially *better *or *righter *than another, but that they are each
equally true. And so maybe one decides (if you want to call it that) to try
to serve one force.

The apes do not comprehend this enough to respond in service of the
spiritual world (in fact, the knowledge they have received from their
glimpse has sort of awoken them more than ever into the material world, in
some sense). The later humans who see/touch the monolith are more capable,
but still not ready, maybe, to respond in service of the spiritual, to
really understand what this means. And I would probably suggest that Bowman
is ready. Or is very close. He is granted access to the monolith and finds
that the impossible black is composed of infinite space/light/color. It
does not seem to obey the laws of the material world as he understands
them/it.

So maybe he doesn't respond more *correctly *as I said. But instead he has
the ability/inclination to respond more consciously in service of
light/spirit and away from dark/material. (Maybe the ability to respond in
this way and the inclination to do so are actually the same.) But why does
he have the ability to respond this way, or to access the monolith in this
way? I would guess it is because he is the only one who has seen the
terminus of HAL's 'perfection.' (What is HAL's perfect track record if not
supposedly boundless/objective knowledge, knowability, etc.?) HAL
represents the eternity or perfection or whatever extreme you want to call
it that can be achieved in the material world. And HAL seeks to extinguish
life. Dr. Bowman, realizing this, is sort of primed to access the monolith
in the way he does. If that makes sense. Which it probably doesn't.

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 1:08 PM, Steven Koteff <steviekoteff at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I think it was "planted" in the sense that there is design to the overall
> schema, even if that design is largely the artist's. I think the question
> of who planted it is a tricky one, and that answer eludes certainty (which
> is itself by design of the artist etc etc). I think you and I agree when
> you say  "Although I suppose there is an element of horror to the
> sublime." I mean, I think part of the horror of the sublime for a human
> being is that the sublime (and the unknown), by necessity, involves the
> fact that the person who is (almost-)comprehending it does not objectively
> matter. Or at least cannot fully know anything, the sublime especially. The
> blackness of the monolith contains all the micro-bits of color and chaos in
> the universe, zoomed out so that they no longer differentiate but fade into
> the macro of chaos's ultimate assemblage into something perfect, and made
> of everything, but with nothing discernible. But of course, given physical
> dimensions and properties, the monolith itself is then a micro-unit of the
> greater...
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 8:48 PM, Mark Thibodeau <jerkyleboeuf at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> And I think that, for SURE it was "planted" in all three spots. The film
>> doesn't make much sense without the idea that there is a puzzle there to
>> decipher (otherwise, why would there be a beacon pointing towards a spot
>> near Jupiter?).
>>
>> J
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 9:46 PM, Mark Thibodeau <jerkyleboeuf at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Horrible? I always thought it represented the sublime, with its perfect
>>> angles and proportions, and its impossible smooth blackness. Although I
>>> suppose there is an element of horror to the sublime. I always saw the
>>> monolith as the ultimate representation of the unknown, and thus, as
>>> something to strive towards. It's also pretty obviously meant to be a
>>> door... a door to the future... the big, long-term future... as in
>>> evolutionary future?
>>>
>>> J
>>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 9:14 PM, Steven Koteff <steviekoteff at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I agree with what you're saying, and think enigma (especially taken to
>>>> include the unknowable) is a good understanding of what the monolith
>>>> embodies, though I would stress that it is an embodiment of broad things
>>>> that cannot, due to their nature, be really known. And I don't think it's
>>>> death exactly. But I think it includes death. Or rather that a human with,
>>>> all his or her innate monomythic layers and assemblages and narratives of
>>>> his or her world--by definition includes death as part of the unknown,
>>>> because the who or thinking human mind is unable to conceive of a world in
>>>> which it does not exist or matter (i.e. In death).
>>>>
>>>> I guess when I watch the movie I don't think of the monolith as
>>>> necessarily purposely/purposefully imparting knowledge or advancement or
>>>> anything to the people who glimpse it, or at least not as just doing
>>>> directly that, but also as just giving them a portrait of something so
>>>> incomprehensible (and thus horrible) that they then respond to it in some
>>>> way. I mean I think the medium is basically the message, as MS sorta notes.
>>>> The unknowability itself revealing to them, what, their own
>>>> meaninglessness/powerlessness, the fallacy of knowledge or control. And
>>>> maybe this can be called a message from the universe. And maybe their
>>>> response is fallacious.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not disagreeing with you, at least not in my mind.
>>>>
>>>> On Dec 1, 2015, at 7:30 PM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> For me the interesting take on MS's outline is her overlay of morality
>>>> on the alien-assisted evolution schema of 2001, apes or humans somehow
>>>> failing a test posed by the monoliths. Black isn't evil, nor death. It is
>>>> enigma. It sparks the crossing of new concious thresholds before
>>>> unimagined, and each one is a huge leap forward' clearly illustrated by the
>>>> Segway if the sinning airborne bone-weapon into a spinning space-station, a
>>>> genius transition. And, obviously the star-child birth at the end is the
>>>> next step forward.  2001 is about evolutionary "uplift," IMHO.  I'm sure
>>>> this is a common understanding of 2001 today.
>>>>
>>>> David Morris
>>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, December 1, 2015, Jochen Stremmel <jstremmel at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You were right, Johnny:
>>>>> http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0009.html.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2015-12-01 22:20 GMT+01:00 Johnny Marr <marrja at gmail.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It's by Margaret Stackhouse. I'm struggling to send links (or to type
>>>>>> competently for that matter) on this phone, but a bit of Googling will dig
>>>>>> it up soon enough for anybody interested.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tuesday, December 1, 2015, Johnny Marr <marrja at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think Eyes Wide Shut is major Kubrick - it's his defining
>>>>>>> statement on sexual identity, societal secrecy and individual reputation.
>>>>>>> Always find something new in that film.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> David Thomson claims that Kubrick locked Tom Cruise out of Nicole
>>>>>>> Kidman's cuckolding scene, demanding a strictly closed set, that the actor
>>>>>>> credited with playing the cicisbeo has no other recognised film or acting
>>>>>>> credits, and that Kubrick spent an entire day filming them copulate, only
>>>>>>> to use about five seconds worth of footage in the final cut.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I do have a loose theory that the final scene in 2001 is something
>>>>>>> of a collation of mankind's greatest achievements throughout history
>>>>>>> gathered together in a space-time continuum warp, as a final testament to
>>>>>>> mankind as he (we?) begin to die out and find ourselves replaced (much like
>>>>>>> the apes at the start of the film) by 'superior' beings.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Kubrick said the best and most intellectually rigorous analysis of
>>>>>>> 2001 he had ever read was from a 15 year old girl who wrote to him
>>>>>>> privately with his theories. I've read that letter and from distant memory
>>>>>>> it is very impressive - I'll try to dig it out soon.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sunday, November 29, 2015, Steven Koteff <steviekoteff at gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks for the recommendations, Mark. Agreed on all counts, really.
>>>>>>>> Spent yesterday trying to find car floor mats in the pattern of the carpet
>>>>>>>> from *The Shining *but no luck. The blog is very cool--I'm glad
>>>>>>>> people like you are out there, keeping blogs like these.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And John, yes, *Eyes Wide Shut *has grown on me lately as well,
>>>>>>>> even if it's not, what, Major Kubrick? The whole thing's fascinating,
>>>>>>>> anyway. All of it elevated by what became of Cruise in the years after that
>>>>>>>> movie (which you almost sense Kubrick playing with, ahead of time, way
>>>>>>>> prescient).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Steven Koteff <
>>>>>>>> steviekoteff at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sis loved it, was deeply absorbed/moved. She's
>>>>>>>>> moderately-to-severely bipolar, and so had a really rough teenagerhood.
>>>>>>>>> Dropped out of high school, few hospital stays, etc. She is very, very
>>>>>>>>> smart but is so sensitive and has spent much of her life in so emotionally
>>>>>>>>> precarious a state that she has spent a lot of time shying away from art
>>>>>>>>> that is at all high-stakes. She's been a voracious reader, but much of that
>>>>>>>>> has been, like, harlequins.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But lately she's been stable enough that I've been able to
>>>>>>>>> recommend things to her, and she's been able to follow through. I'm sort of
>>>>>>>>> her cultural gatekeeper so I'm basically trying my best to give her a
>>>>>>>>> trajectory that probably apexes with her being able to appreciate something
>>>>>>>>> like *GR*, to extract some of its wonders, etc. She can probably
>>>>>>>>> handle it from there.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 5:43 PM, Paul Mackin <
>>>>>>>>> mackin.paul at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> what did Sis think about it?☺
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> P
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Steven Koteff <
>>>>>>>>>> steviekoteff at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yesterday I got my sister very stoned and took her to see 2001.
>>>>>>>>>>> It was playing at the Logan Theatre here in Chicago. Her first time seeing
>>>>>>>>>>> it (she's 21) and the first time I'd seen it in theaters.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm sure the movie and the director have been talked about ad
>>>>>>>>>>> mortem on here but if anybody had anything to say about it I am all ears. I
>>>>>>>>>>> will personally confess that I consider it an important part of my life, a
>>>>>>>>>>> work of art that elicits genuine awe from me. Sometimes I put the scene of
>>>>>>>>>>> Hal's deactivation on in the background on a loop while I work.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Realized I've never actually read a Kubrick bio. Or anything
>>>>>>>>>>> about him/his movies. Anybody have any recommendations? -
>>>>>>>>>>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20151202/05fdfbde/attachment.html>