a timeline - kubrick's ouvre as 24 hours

[Pubrick]

ok.. i don't know if u remember this, but a while ago JB asked me to elaborate on sumthing in the Best Kubrick Film thread and i totally snubbed it. i didn't wanna go into it on the board cos it was sorta wacky theory and whatever blah blah, so here's the answer YOU WERE NEVER MEANT TO SEE..

just for shucks, here's a basic timeline of kubrick maturity..

optimistic youth - Strangelove, 2001, Clork Orange.
maturity and the beast - lyndon, shin, fulmj.
old guy saying "this is how it was in my life" - ews.

Can you expound on your 2001 placement, though?

certainly. i think what i'm talking about really is vitality. kubrick is a lesson on how to stay vital. what cbrad said in his quote unintentionally supports this theory i'm about to propose, again just for "shucks".
god there's so much to say..
imagine, if u will, that Kubrick only came into his own once he made lolita. not a very controversial theory, warner bros certainly supports it. what happened at this juncture i think goes beoyond mere flirtations between studio/director soulmates, even beyond his marriage to the country. due to the harmony that Kubrick attained at this point in his life, it is easy to draw a number of categorical constants which thread through his entire subsequent output. in my bored hours i hav grouped the films in relation to drugs, modern-song equivalents, and the one i'm gonna discuss here: Time, from a Day to a Season to EWS.
this stuff is so much easier to talk about than to write about. always.
before u convince urself this will make no sense, just humor this idea: the kubrick canon can be divided roughly into Day and Nite. where Day lasts from Lolita to Clockwork Orange, and Night is Lyndon onwards.
in essence, Lolita is a stretch in the morning, nothing has been done but to awaken. what better environment in which to blindly STRETCH ur limbs, than in the arms of a genius such as nabokov.. his First movie was one of the best books ever written!
in fact, didn't kubrick say once that the only real geniuses he has worked with are Vladimir Nabokov and Peter Sellers? after 2001 (a.c. clarke) he didn't work intimately with another genius again. this i connect with his conscious awakening
with Strangelove, by addressing  cold-war paranoia fear-mongering absurd politics, he was gathering his thoughts and deciding how to accept the reality of 'the day'. it was truly him setting his eyes on the prize. what can be said about the orgasm at the end of this film, it's morning wood. two things happen after ejaculation: in a dream, u wake up; in a waking state, u fall asleep. he was saying goodbye to the dream that was the projected reality of the world, and hello to the dream that was his vision. and that's precisely what he follwed in his next film..
get ur boots on
when i think of a full day, the active part between sunrise and sunset, i think of experience. of walking down the street. in 2001 kubrick was essentially translating his own experience, of his vision, in the cleanest sense i think anyone has ever achieved. here is this ambitious idea which is his daily effort to follow, itself a reflection of its own following. chasing ur own tail (tale), things spinning. it's a self-contained bubble of brilliance that cannot be burst from any angle cos it's not even part of our temporal universe. it was kubrick's time.
oh how the boat drifts
clockwork orange is the sunset. it's effectively a struggle against the inevitability of tomoro, life violently resisting the end of the Day. is it any wonder, then, that this is his most dated movie? he realises that his day is over, and there may not be another, so the choice is to say No to everything and pummel forth hoping that Yes there will be another day, and u will be Of it. this is where he put to rest his youth, the future is not born in light, it may not even be born in darkness..
this is the good stuff
u know the worst thing about the first time the sun ever went down? having no idea when it would come up again. barry lyndon is a slow dive into the nite. he sees the pool, but he can't see how deep it is. ppl tend to group Dr Strangelove, 2001, and Clork as Kubrick's "future" trilogy, spanning from immediate, to conceptual, to The Glorious End.. they fail to recognize Barry Lyndon as the most accurate futuristic movie he ever produced. here he is predicting his own future experience, what is left when even Time leaves u? the entry into darkness may be the smoothest transition of all.. so smooth in fact that it may seem like it has been there all along.
don't u ever see faces/figures on walls, curtains, and most other surfaces in ur home?
midnite, the stars, and u. it's no secret that the shin is my soulmate. well this is it, isn't it, the end of the libido, the passion, and ultimately the life.. but not the fear. why is this the midnite movie? why does it matter? what the hell am i talking about? eventually i want to create a thread for this film alone, i think it can barely be explained here in relation to this Time concept. this is a film (partly) about contempt for everything that moves forward: marriage, children, technology. i've said before that this is not really a movie set in the late 70s. the mysteries it unravels originate from the question of "progress". kubrick had remained vital by looking ahead, even creating the most epic tribute to the gathering darkness, and where did that get him.. still here. naturally that is where one begins when there is nowhere else to go. in darkness, stillness, one becomes closer to the eternity of the moment than in action. it was a transition from the refined maturity of lyndon to the RAW immersion into "responsibility" that is the beastly crux of the shin.
ing. have u passed through this nite?
fmj. one day i hope to understand the fog, where time and life and fear itself is born and destroyed. until that day i will hav to trust kub when he says that in the heart of darkness, life/cruelty/concept/fear/mercy/language/redemption/death all lose their meaning. so that Summer is the same as Winter. and everything Is.
u may notice that we have now left space/time forever.
the dream story. it has no solution, only meaning and form.

and then he died.



Light years are interchangeable with years of living in darkness.
The role of darkness is not to be seen as, or equated with, Ignorance, but
With the unknown, and the mysteries of the unseen.

[molly]

Light years are interchangeable with years of living in darkness.
The role of darkness is not to be seen as, or equated with, Ignorance, but
With the unknown, and the mysteries of the unseen.

who said that?

[Pubrick]

thirty-seven views and one reply.    

well, at least it's molly.

who said that?

lyrics from Coded Language, by DJ Krust feat. Saul Williams.

[Jeremy Blackman]

..and that is how a mind is blown.

Still some questions...

How do you resolve the star child with the cynicism? Or does the star child simply answer that question? And how is the end a sunset?

I love your Barry Lyndon theory, and I can honestly say I've heard nothing like that from any one else. It's just not supposed to fit.

We definitely need some future expansion on the Shining theory. That one baffles me. But I'm probably looking too much at the surface, or the wrong surface.

[MacGuffin]

thirty-seven views and one reply.    

C'mon, you know the rule: Too much to read = no responses.

[ono]

thirty-seven views and one reply.    

C'mon, you know the rule: Too much to read = no responses.

Paragraphs, man.  It's great that you wrote all that.  We need more well-thought-out threads like that.  But if we can't read it, we can't reply.

[Jeremy Blackman]

Well, I thought the paragraphs were pretty clear...

[ono]

They all run together.  Usually, either an indentation or double-spacing is needed for things to be clear.  Not to split hairs or anything.  Just saying.

[Pubrick]

how do they run together, when there is clearly a line between them all? i didn't know i was writing a children's book here..

How do you resolve the star child with the cynicism?

it's a self-contained bubble of brilliance that cannot be burst from any angle cos it's not even part of our temporal universe. it was kubrick's time.

there is no cynicsm, the star child is another (future) 2001 looking back at kubrick's prototype.

And how is the end a sunset?

it's not, that's clork. 2001 is "the active part between sunrise and sunset". it escapes the trappings of everyone else's experience, and that's how it attains a sort of ethereal transcendence. whereas the shining, as i've said before, is the antithesis to that. 2001 may as well hav never happened. it's like why should that moment be acknowledged above all others? the shining is ours, a gift to those who feel the trappings of all things past, indiscriminately, more strongly than an ideal future.. but at the same time are trapped in geometry. in the shining everything exists in the present, so much so that even ghosts and past incidents dwell there.. in 2001 he annihilated the Now (unless, of course, everyone else was doing the same thing as him), it was spiritual progress. do u see how jack is devolving, and bowman is transcending?

[Jeremy Blackman]

there is no cynicsm, the star child is another (future) 2001 looking back at kubrick's prototype.

What about the whole "man has used and will use tools for destruction" thing? Isn't that a penetrating angle? And doesn't the prehistorical throwback remove us from Kubrick's temporal spaceless timeless universe? Doesn't it at least kind of burst that bubble?

And how is the end a sunset?

it's not, that's clork. 2001 is "the active part between sunrise and sunset".

What I mean is how does it lead to a sunset? Doesn't it lead to a sunrise? Or are you suggesting that's it's timeless as a movie and doesn't lead to anything?

do u see how jack is devolving, and bowman is transcending?

So the inescapable present is a state of deevolution?

[NEON MERCURY]

u know the worst thing about the first time the sun ever went down? having no idea when it would come up again.

......great read.......

i especially love the line i quoted from you......

[molly]

thirty-seven views and one reply.    

well, at least it's molly.

who said that?

lyrics from Coded Language, by DJ Krust feat. Saul Williams.

you should be proud - you made us think

[cine]

Not to split hairs or anything.

[Pubrick]

sorry JB, sumtimes i take long to reply cos i can't think of a satisfying answer in which i'm not repeating myself. there's a few original things here tho, so enjoy..

there is no cynicsm, the star child is another (future) 2001 looking back at kubrick's prototype.

1 . (What about the whole "man has used and will use tools for destruction" thing? Isn't that a penetrating angle?)
2. (And doesn't the prehistorical throwback remove us from Kubrick's temporal spaceless timeless universe? Doesn't it at least kind of burst that bubble?)

1. i suppose that is an element of the story, in as much as it is present in most of kubrick's films. in this case i think it's interesting, the role it plays is a bothersome one.. it begins with "our" learning to use tools and ends with "our" discarding them, with an infinite time in between. the moment the film is alluding to may never take place within the present time. think about it, the film itself aims to redefine the speed, quantity, and quality of information that can be communicated in cinema: how intense can the Present be felt? as an experience, it is asking "what does it mean to be this close to eternity?". the metaphor of Day still works in this, u hav to remember it's not the sunrise or sunset, but the active brilliant part of the unencumbered sun.

it's acknowledging the presence of a great illuminating forcce but asks the question "what is it not showing me?", and i think that is answered by the child. it's not showing u the distance between the present and the future.

2. not at all.. the days set in prehistoric time are as entombed in a spaceless timeless bubble as the days depicting kubrick's unforeseen future. for more information refer to above.

What I mean is how does it lead to a sunset? Doesn't it lead to a sunrise? Or are you suggesting that's it's timeless as a movie and doesn't lead to anything?

none of the films lead to each other within themselves, they embody each part of the day that is allocated to them. the glorious sun is all that 2001 is meant to reflect.

So the inescapable present is a state of deevolution?

yes, we die don't we? we're not getting younger.


finally.. don't u find it incredibly excellent that he spoke about Icarus when accepting his DGA lifetime achievement award?  ..another reason why 24hr Party People is really, really, very good.

[(kelvin)]

I would like to add some unelaborated thoughts to this:

I think you can link Kubrick's films (after and including 2001) to centuries or epochs in the occidental history.

Obviously, 2001 represents the 18th century (the siècle des Lumières, Aufklärung; I don't know the English word) with all its illumination. The hotel room at the end of the film emphasizes this. (Louis XVIII style, if I'm not mistaken)

Barry Lyndon, which plays in the 18th century should be situated in the 20th century, because of its main character driven by individualism and his illimited hybris.

A Clockwork Orange also fits into the 20th century because of its references to uncontrolled violence, WWII footage etc.

The Shining is clearly to be linked to the 19th century, the century of psychoanalysis, of the steam machine, of subconscious pulsions...

Full Metal Jacket is difficult to categorize. The 20th century would be too obvious, but for the moment I don't see a connection with any other century.

Eyes Wide Shut can be related to the 19th century for the same reasons as The Shining. (the 19th century also being the century of Freudian interpretation of sexuality)

I apologize for posting these rough reflexions, but give me some time and I'll try to elaborate. (if there is any need)