Reception of Stanley Kubrick (Star of the City) Final Act: A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001)

My eyes, buttered and wide open, have seen it all to the end.

This is a Steven Spielberg film. The sensibilities, feel, and philosophy is all Spielberg. But it also all Kubrick.

This is the final send-off from a futurist who envisioned a future. 2001: A Space Odyssey imagines a future of mechanical humanity from 1968 lens, A.I imagines a future of human mechanism from 2001 lens.

Lyrics quoted from: String Theocracy by Mili

Open the curtains, Lights on, Don’t miss a moment Of this, experiment

Oh, the book is strange, Like, clockwork orange Keep your eyes buttered till the end.....

A.I. Artificial Intelligence (from here on will be referred to as A.I) is basically an excellent art trade between two artists. Kubrick does the (very detailed) lineart, then Spielberg does the (warm and soft) coloring. The result? Possibly one of the most heartfelt and harrowing movies ever made.

Despite the Spielberg-ness of the movie, he managed to successfully capture the ideas, philosophy, humanity, and musings of Kubrick. Hence why I included this as a part of Kubrick's filmography. This movie even has a bathroom scene!

And it is also the culmination of Kubrick's depiction of humanity in meltdown. Everything he showed from 2001 to Eyes Wide Shut has reached its' zenith here. In A.I, he puts machinery into Realization.

Which “you” are you going to be? Hm-mm-mm

Inside the mirror do you see, Someone else in that body?

After speedrunning myself through the 8 key films of Kubrick, a red string that I have found in his (Stanley) Parables is that:

There is a yin-yang duality of Humanity and Machinery/Artificiality. Humanity is degrading into machinery, and machines are the new human. The world is indifferent towards humanity.....and it will be even more indifferent to humanlike machines, let alone actual machines. Which humans destroys on a daily basis. We see humanity on a meltdown, Humanity is distorting.

(say, that's a MAJOR Kim Jihoon moment right there....the Jihoon-est of them all!)

It is best described in this long quote from the man himself, said during the Tet Offensive:

“The most terrifying fact about the universe is not that it is hostile but that it is indifferent; but if we can come to terms with this indifference and accept the challenges of life within the boundaries of death–however mutable man may be able to make them–our existence as a species can have genuine meaning and fulfillment. However vast the darkness, we must supply our own light.”

His films....or Stanley’s Parables, if you may, portrays humanity in pretty, well-made, orderly, inviting, colourful pictures that are easy in the eyes, feast for senses. But the humanity in those Parables are a far cry from the beautiful packaging. It's cold, chaotic, detached, and indifferent. It is having a meltdown, and it has a lust for power (an insight best shown through the Match-Cut in 2001)

It is a “String Theocracy”), in a sense. The indifferent, drawn theatrically using Stanley's well-made, well-placed strings of filmmaking.

(This is some Kim Jihoon moment....in a movie full of Kim Jihoon moments!)

Dance for me One and, Two and, Three and,

Sit like a doggy, Till I finish my read

Some readings of Kubrick that I have noticed is how people think that 2001 is a warning against people today, that “A.Is will take over humanity”, but no. 2001 is anything but that. It is humanity not going through the Realization accepting its’ own creation, that is machinery. Kubrick himself had a positive view on the creation of A.Is, instead of mindless, soulless machines, as quoted below.

“He decided to make this film because he wanted people to shift to a more positive view of A.I., he was quite open to me about that. Kubrick was fascinated by artificial intelligence and fond of robots, which he regarded as a more environmentally adaptable form of human being. He said, 'I think of them as I'd like to think of my great-grandchildren.' And he's very fond of his grandchildren.” – Sara Maitland on Kubrick

And A.I (released in the actual year 2001 no less) elaborates it further, now showing an A.I's viewpoint on the future. It is ultimately about a cold, distorting world indifferent to humanity in meltdown, and machinery as creation of humanity, with an A.I providing love and warmth. Coincidentally or not, both 2001 and A.I has protagonists with the name David. If it was a coincidence, well, what a fitting one, but with the species reversed. Both films even has “Stop Dave, Please Stop” lines.

Human Dave heartbreakingly bends to the machine-like authorities’ rejection of HAL’s humanity to shut down HAL, an A.I gaining humanity. And both HAL and Human Dave are victims of the indifferent world they were born in. A.I Dave, meanwhile, had a luckier fate, with Monica refusing to shut him down, therefore accepting that A.I Dave is a creation of humanity, and accepting the humanity that A.I Dave has gained. But still, A.I Dave was born in a world indifferent to his existence, and his humanity.

Cut it off, cut down your loss, All that stubborn loyalty, is gonna get you killed, In a world built on convenient theories,

For the puppets on TV There is comfort in the strings If you’re gonna control me At least make it interesting, theatrically

A.I Dave was born to serve humanity, while being given humanity of his own. Monica rejected him at first, but comes to accept A.I Dave as a creation of humanity. However, Martin soon comes and rejects it. Martin rejects A.I Dave as a creation of humanity. Then Monica soon changes her mind as soon as David exhibits human sins (jealousy), as David's 'sins' is a threat to Martin’s (a human) safety. A.I Dave exhibiting jealousy is human trait. It is a step to A.I Dave's “realization”. However, unlike HAL, A.I Dave does not go berserk on humans. He simply finds a way to be a real human being, if it have to come to that.

Both Daves however, shares interesting endings. In Kubrick's filmography, his characters tends to;

1) Accept their fates and molds themselves into the indifferent world they live in while keeping considerable amount of light in their hearts (see Joker in Full Metal Jacket, Alex in A Clockwork Orange —– but after experiencing a meltdown), 2) Experience Meltdown, but gets distorted beyond humanly possible after losing light in their hearts (see Pyle's gradual distortion in Full Metal Jacket, Jack in The Shining —– but, again, after experiencing a meltdown)

Both Daves gained new forms while getting the former ending. In a rare occurrence in Kubrick writing, both Daves experience.....

3) Realization —— accepting their existence and fate, planting light in their hearts, then becoming a culmination of their existence, and gaining a reward for their realization.

Human Dave became the Star Child, while A.I Dave becomes a real boy (though, only Human Dave shed his real form). This provides a twist in the “Human / Machine” yin-yang duality of Kubrick in that we can attain enlightenment when we accept the duality through Realization, but still, they face the same Kubrickian ending —– accept the indifferent world, and live. This is where Spielberg comes in, to combine the realized duality that was only subtly implied in 2001.

How does it feel to be free? Hmm-mm-mm

Why don’t you try it yourself? The gate opened on me

So I leaped

Where exactly does Spielberg comes in? The eyes of David, a child David, a child, challenges his life, fate, and the indifferent world. Spielberg is a storyteller known for seeing things from a child’s eyes and innocence that gives A.I a warm fairy-tale feel and framing. This film, at its’ (golden) core, is Pinocchio in the future after all.

Here, Spielberg puts us in the shoes of a childlike A.I, asking us what we feel about Kubrick’s yin-yang duality when a child is directly involved as the receiving end of the duality. Does a child, let alone a non-human being gets to have a meltdown and distortion because of humanity? To humans, children needs to be loved, protected, and nurtured. But an A.I in the form of a child? Do we have to think of them as not real, or as real as real innocent children?

The Flesh Fair sequence hammers this down to our faces as we see humans cheer at the destruction of adult A.Is (without the A.Is undergoing meltdown at all), but back out when an A.I looks like a child. It’s especially clear on how the film portrays Gigolo Joe’s life. He gets all kinds of shit thrown at him because he has the body of a grown man (a prostitute, to boot). He’s not a child, he’s far from innocent. kicking on him is acceptable, he’s an adult, but he isn’t real. He’s only a (Super)toy to pleasure humans’ carnal pleasures. He’s an object. It’s acceptable. But luckily, this didn’t make Joe less than real than David is. He fulfills the role as both David’s surrogate father figure and The Tin Man in Brick Yellow Road (sorry, Stanley, I know you hate The Wizard of Oz, but I had to….) excellently. Ultimately, the film is about David and Joe discovering humanity, and experiencing realization of their role in the human world.

Do humans cared about David because he is a child? And therefore inherently innocent? Would they cheer on his death had he took the form of a grown man instead of a child? Spielberg’s insight on children’s perspective, innocence, and acceptance enhances this message, and changes Kubrick’s yin-yang duality into a Harmony that puts machinery and humanity into one, and puts David into a realization fueled by machinery-and-humanity. This harmony and realization is achieved through….The Blue Fairy.

Down, down, and down I go, I tell myself I’m a tough girl Down, down, and down I go, I could never, ever, ever touch the soil

My heart goes right, My head goes left, And end up on your bed Huh-ah

The Blue Fairy is a messianic figure that David searches in his journey to become human. To him, “she” will make him a real boy, that Monica will accept him. Dave is aware that as much as Monica loved him, she still sees him as a mecha, not a real boy. But “The Blue Fairy” is also responsible on his loss of innocence. That is Prof. Hobby, who is the real father of David. Prof. Hobby is here to provide a dilemma —— machinery as replacement for humanity —— a.k.a what some people thought 2001 was about.

Prof. Hobby turned out to have created David to replace the real David who died, so he could have David all for himself, as a child, forever (as Stanley elaborated in Eyes Wide Shut, a frightening word). As it turns out, not even David can replace Prof. Hobby’s own David. Prof. Hobby tries to be God to create Adam to love him, but it didn’t work. David had found his motherly ‘Eve’ (and ‘Lilith’), that is Monica. That humanity threatens Prof. Hobby's ideas and fantasies of David as his own toy/object, because ultimately he couldn’t have David all for his own.

Innocent David believes that everything will last forever, and he will be special, forever. But then David’s innocence was betrayed. There’s more of him, there’s even Darlene(s), waiting to be loved and thrown out. They are the “love of your own” that are ultimately living marionettes that can be easily discarded and rejected. Prof. Hobby accepts David’s existence, but will gladly shut him down as soon as the Davids he made did not resemble the real David (best shown in the scene where David finds discarded bodies of past and failed Davids).

It is almost the “Harmony” of Kubrick’s duality, but it is ultimately a form of Humanity’s selfish desires to have one for another. To achieve realization, David must understand this, and must let this co-exist with his innocence.

It is here where David learns that there is no way Monica would accept him as he is, He must be human. Luckily for David, Prof. Hobby is not the real Blue Fairy. After all that betrayal, David still retains his innocence while he understood what his role really was. We never learn if he was programmed to stay innocent forever (as the other, meaner, colder David showed to him —– not all Davids are innocent), but David is still a child. He still believe that the real Blue Fairy is out there. It is the final path to his realization.

Sure I’ll be your marionette Here, tug on my thread Spread me open for dolly pink, Snow white artificial beauty

Maybe we’re all cold machines Stuffed in the human skin With human sins Sewed up by the Gods of city

David’s journey brings him to The Blue Fairy, the messianic figure he seeks out. He wishes to her, even if it takes forever. Ultimately, he didn’t get his wish to come true. In a Stanley Parable, this usually leads to characters distorting —— but not David, who is a child. He keeps wishing and wishing for 2000 years. But ultimately, his wish came true.

The final scene of the film is a heart-rending culmination of David’s realization. While it is a Spielberg ending (though it was 100% the brainchild of Kubrick, which makes all the discourses surrounding the ending’s inclusion being 'against Kubrick's vision' rather ironic), with the future mechas providing a way for David to enjoy one last day with Monica, therefore having his wish of having Monica see him as a real boy come true.

But it is also ultimately, a Kubrickian ending. In the future, all hope looks lost. The world has come to an ice age (not far from Bong Joon-ho’s imagination of a modern ice age in Snowpiercer), with full extinction of humanity. It is more hopeful, though, as it shows a hope in humanity —— in the future mechas who attempt to learn and understand humanity.

David’s only hope lies in the future mechas, that only gave David a chance for his wish to come true for research on how humanity lived in the past. All of this still makes the world indifferent to David’s existence. Even the animated Blue Fairy tells David right away that the indifferent world will only give him a day.

However, David, being an innocent child, accepts this indifference, as long as he gets to be with mommy Monica. That is the result of his realization, accepting the circumstances of his life, while being able to live as he wanted to be. His realization rewards him a day with Monica.

But it’s the only possible ending for David, as he has no place in any of the two Kubrickian Endings. David can't accept himself as an A.I, and David's programmed child-personality and innocence can't distort him. Therefore, Spielberg provided the harmony of Kubrick’s duality by giving David a day where he can become a real boy —— while not making him a real human being. David and Monica spends the day in harmony of machinery and duality.

It is one of the darkest endings in the history of cinema. In an indifferent world that rejects humanity in creations, David was given a day of bliss —– while the world outside of him ceases to exist. Like a computer shutting down. In a way, David's end echoes HAL's. Both reverted to their innocent, childlike forms, experiencing love, before completely shutting down. The journey of David ends here. His fairy tale ultimately came true. Daisy, daisy, she gives David her answer do.

David shuts down in happiness. In the loving embrace of the daisies, in the stylish marriage between humanity and machinery.

Cut it out, you’ve already lost, All that precious bravery, Is gonna get you hurt In a world that feeds on the minority

May that self-centered belief Lead you to peace If you’re gonna replace me, At least have the audacity to kill me thoroughly

The ending to me, personally, is the perfect harmony between Spielberg's warmth and Kubrick's coldness (literally too). While David decides to stay in stasis in the face of an indifferent world, he accepts the duality as a harmony, and undergoes realization of his existence, for one brief, shining moment. And even David finally feels genuine meaning and fulfillment in his life, both as a real boy and a mecha.

And it sends a message that a child’s innocence can challenge life itself, even power the darkest of darkness. After all, however vast the darkness, we must supply our own light. And David did exactly that. This is why the ending is the perfect send-off to Kubrick. It’s a final message that even in the face of darkness, we have light. As in the collective light of humanity. Realization.

Even the message extends to the fate of humanity as a whole in the film. Joe asks David to tell women about him. And in the future, he might be one of the few men that future mecha women remembers. Monica’s love for David is implied to be what future mecha learns about how humans used to love one another. It’s humanity preserved. Even if humanity distorts, it will stay alive in many, mysterious ways.

The future mechas is the anthithesis of “machines will take away humanity” scare, as these mechas becomes an extension of humanity, saving itself from extinction. These human-made machines turned out to be preserving humanity. This goes in line with Kubrick's view of A.Is and Robots as grandchildren of humanity, instead of cold machines stuffed in human skins (and sins).

All in all, A.I is a heartfelt story on how humanity will endure itself even in the darkest of times. Even when the ones who carry out humanity aren’t humans themselves. It is a complex film, wrapped in a straightforward fairy tale. Spielberg used his sensibilities to the absolute best, and Kubrick turned out to be correct on his choice to hand A.I to Spielberg. Only an idealistic director full of wonders and innocence like Spielberg can deliver this masterful work.

Indifference will never kill humanity. Creations of humanity will help preserve humanity.

The discourses are wrong, the haters are wrong, THIS movie was NOT a waste of potential. It did not diminish Kubrick’s vision at all, this movie is the best possible interpretation and manifestation of the vision. But also, this is ultimately a vision from two very different imaginators —— Kubrick the realist, and Spielberg the dreamer. A Realization between 'real' and 'dream' that leads to a Harmony.

Like 2001 and A Clockwork Orange this is yet another vision of the future by Kubrick. And like E.T and CE3K, this is yet another dream of a child by Spielberg.

A dream of the future.

When does it end for me? Hmm-mm-mm

I think I am done with everything

Now I’m ready to leave

Production-wise, it’s as excellent as the usual oeuvre of both Kubrick and Spielberg. Some technical aspects might have not aged well, but unlike other Sci-Fi movies from the 2000s, the Y2K aesthetics of A.I has aged surprisingly well. Some of the locations and styles are coming back, and it looks like something we would be living in, on the 22nd century..

Every frame of A.I felt like a painting in a children’s storybook, it is dreamy, fantastical, full of colour and warmth. The cinematography feels reminiscent of Barry Lyndon in a way. Even the Flesh Fair and Rouge City gives off these aspects. The setting and production design is a future as seen from a child, and it shows rather excellently.

The performances are all excellent, with Haley Joel Osment and Jude Law as MVPs of the film. Their difference in age and innocence actually complemented eachother, and it was heartwarming to see Joe being David’s surrogate father, their chemistry really shows clearly that I felt really sad to see Joe go.

The John Williams score is excellent, and tugs your emotions and anticipation, as per usual. The minor futuristic elements adds a sense of wonder and stronger fairy tale feel of it all.

Though I admit, the first part of the film for me, is a hard watch, almost the same level as A Clockwork Orange to me, since A.I stories rarely ends happily. It's about a child rejected by his parents!, and I was on the verge of tears in the first 30 minutes alone....ready to stop watching because the feels are TOO strong,

Verdict? An excellent art trade between two artists, ‘nuff said.

And a great exploration of Artificial Intelligence that does not resort to “A.I Scare”, but also exploring humanity, only rivalled by Lobotomy Corporation and Library of Ruina (both games —– directed by Kim Jihoon —– with similar Kubrickian approach to humanity and machinery in an indifferent world, albeit only narratively —– with a similar message of providing our own light in darkness)

Dragging out One line, Two line, Three lines,

Connect our hands When I no longer can live on knowledge alone

A.I is ultimately a story of a precious bravery, in a world that feeds on minority. Even if David is a cold machine with human sins, built by gods of the city, his hopeful curiosity leads him to happy answers in his discovery. It is a story of puppets in strings, controlled in excellent theatricality by two very different li….

You gave me strength Hopeful curiosity

Maybe there are still happy answers left for my discovery What’s the colour of the electric sheep you see?

And if you love me Can you love your everything too, for me?

Project SK8: Encore Film

#film #writeup #review #ProjectSK8 #DirectorSpeedrun #StanleyKubrick #StevenSpielberg #ProjectMoon #Letterboxd #WhatNoLimbusCompanyDoesToAMF

Stray thoughts and minor writings on SK11 – The Shining (1980) and SK13 – Eyes Wide Shut (1999)

Reality, distorted to hell and back (Kim Jihoon moment you say? Yes)

Stanley's String Theocracy goes into the human mind...The rainbow ends in overlooked minds. Fidelio

Slight NSFW warning for the Eyes Wide Shut section!

Reception of Stanley Kubrick (Star of the City) Act 6: The Shining (1980)

The Shining is about the power of the mind. It can influence, change, or destroy, and how it can defend you.

Overlooked ghosts of victims of the past haunts their place of death. A cycle. It's a destructive cycle (Kim Jihoon moment...) that invades your mind, projects itself into your mind, distorts your mind, then your self through the manifestations of your distorted mind (Kim Jihoon moment...). You gradually lose yourself.

Or were the ghosts manifested from yourself? Therefore your own self leads you to distortion?

This film dances around the two possibilities, it is subtle (well, it is Kubrick after all), unexplained, and draws you into the madness. You are left thinking on how Jack's distortion came to be.

All work and no play Makes Jack a dull boy?, or All ghosts and no motion Makes Jack a Distortion?

Stephen King famously took offense on Kubrick's approach to the book, and to me, King had a point. My main criticism of this film is how Jack's apparent distortion feels like it's already on going in the start of the film, rather than showing signs of distortion (Jack's past, why he quit teaching, etc). Instead, Kubrick threw Jack into visible stages of distortion from the get-go. But this allows Wendy to be shown as a person who is deeply resistant (and defensive) against distortions. It's all in the mind, after all

All work and no play makes Jack becomes less of a Jack....then Jack becomes a distorted vision of himself. (Kim Jihoon moment...)

Danny sees manifestations of distortions.....then he warns the resistant, Wendy of it.

Wendy is inflicted from the effects of distortion.....then she resisted.

This film is largely an atmospheric film. There are subtle allusions to America's overlooked (heh) past and how the cycle influenced the humans currently inhabiting the stolen land....though of course we have to see it deeply, because it's SK.....nothing is explained. You just see things unfold and distort right before your eyes.

I've noticed something about his works is that they have a “video game” feel (Stanley Parables, if you will) where protagonists feels like 'playable characters' and stuff gets unveiled to us like it's being loaded and coded beforehand. Wendy is us, and the Overlook Hotel is a survival horror game with denpa elements. We see things from Wendy's perspective and our objective is to find out and get out. Points A to B to C, and so on.

Also this is largely Shelley Duvall's film. Fuck Razzies. Wish she didn't have to go through shit during making though.

Postscript: Being a passive K-Pop video watcher makes my speedrun interesting as I can't stop thinking of K-Pop music videos as I am doing one Kubrick at a time. Is he possibly one of the granddaddies of K-Pop music videos? (Wong Kar-wai is definitely the undisputed granddaddy/king of K-Pop MVs, though)

Project SK8: Film 6 of 8

Reception of Stanley Kubrick (Star of the City) Act 7: Eyes Wide Shut (1999)

Don't you want to go to where the rainbow ends?

Legitimately one of the scariest movies ever. Kinda sus that Kubrick died after making this....

Stories like Eyes Wide Shut feels already familiar to me thanks to urban legends and “rumours” that I frequently hear about socialites holding nightly rituals to “sacrifice people” to gain wealth and success (EWS made me constantly think of this specific viral TikTok). Fucking hell this movie made me feel like a 12 year old hearing these stories for the first time again.

I don't know. I can't write anything about this film. This is a film that you have to experience. The plot isn't really there. It wants you to put yourself into Bill's shoes as he gets entangled in two nights of distorted reality that we don't know what is real and what is not.... (Kim Jihoon moment...)

Kubrick is really good at making things uncomfortable, and EWS shows it to the max.

Is it about marriage? Relationships? Faithfulness? It could be, but nothing is clear. As the night goes on, it's less about sex and relationships —– it's more of what you see. It is more on what you believe.

Seeing is believing

On what you see, EWS distorts everything you see and feel as Bill's adventure for sex goes on, and it starts right at the New York depicted in this film. It does not look like New York. Well, It was shot in a British Studio but that's not what I am saying. What I am saying that the vibes were....off. The streets somehow looked like New York, but at the same time it does not. A curious portrayal of New York that is coming from a lifelong New Yorker.

Compare the portrayal of New York in Kubrick's first ever feature, Day of the Fight (1951), where 1951 New York is faithfully documented that it is real, to the dreamy, possibly-faked New York of EWS.

EWS distorts New York. Everything is made-up. Is it possible that the New York we see after the weed night (heh) is a collective dream of both Alice and Bill?

A lot of the things even molds itself to Bill's vision of sex. Everything that happened in the two nights are connected to sex, passion, and love affairs —– distortions of it. The obvious things that supports this theory is the thing with Domino and Milich's daughter, while the less obvious things is in the homophobic gang (Bill's impotence?) and the painting in Ziegler's bathroom (I assume it is the work of Christiane Kubrick —– it's so distinctive. Her depictions of sex and nudity always give off “strange walls” that makes sexiness looks 'off')

Even the cult might be a dream. Was it a real cult? Was it just a weird party where rich people pretend to be cultists? (think Marina Abramovic's “Spirit Cooking” performance, but with sex)

Or was it just Bill's distorted vision of sex and passion? Was the conspiracy also a distortion of Bill's paranoia? Maybe.

Everything that happened after the cult can even be interpreted as signs that Bill needs to “wake up” and stop dreaming (the obvious scene that points this out is Bill's conversation with Ziegler about Mandy. This scene also shows the indifference the world has towards Bill). After all, how can you prove things you might have dreamed to be real? Are there any proof that all of it happened?

It's a dream. Keep your eyes wide awake, while keeping it shut. It's a distorted vision. You must keep yourself real or you will be more of what you dream yourself to be, than the real you. (Kim Jihoon moment...)

I think I've read somewhere that SK starts making his films with “an emotion, a feeling, a sense of a subject or a person or a situation. The theme and technique come as a result of the material passing, projector lens.” and it shows. This is a movie built on actions and emotions of characters. It's like a video game, if it makes sense. Bill Harford is the player, traversing from point A to B randomly, but the randomly-generated events gets more and more sinister as the night goes on that you are given no choice but to go on-rails in the day after....and you will want to get to the end, just to see how it ends.

The dream-like sets, lighting, and backgrounds are beautiful though. Great on the eyes, good for drawing reference. However I wasn't convinced that it's set in NYC. It's way too “London”. Not a bad thing though. But it enhances the dreamlike quality of the film. After all, the NYC we see is a someone's dream of NYC....

In a dream, where does the rainbow ends? In reality, where does the rainbow starts?

I am giving this five stars simply because it fucking scares me. This is simply scarier than The Shining. And yes, Stanley's second best. Just under 2001 for me.

Postscript: This is the longest K-Pop music video I have ever seen. Also the slowest K-Pop music video. Perfect World by TWICE rules btw, best homage to EWS ever (or to ever exist?)

Project SK8: Film 7 of 8

#film #writeup #review #ProjectSK8 #DirectorSpeedrun #StanleyKubrick #ProjectMoon #Letterboxd #WhatNoLimbusCompanyDoesToAMF

Reception of Stanley Kubrick (Star of the City) Act 5: Full Metal Jacket (1987)

People didn't lie, the first part is simply....chef's kiss....perfect. One thing I am beginning to notice about Stanley the Manley is that his comedic skills are pretty good. R. Lee Ermey and Vincent D'Onofrio out-Joker'd the hell out of Modine that it's funny to see 'Joker' being the cringe one in the beginning.

But the second part is where the film shines. It is a good piece of anti-war film. And with that, we say goodbye to our sweethearts....

Goodbye, my sweetheart...

(Title explanation: Full Metal Jacket –> The 12th film of Stanley Kubrick (SK). Therefore, SK12. I will refer to Kubrick's filmography with “SK(number): The [noun]-ity”.

Yes, it's a reference to the anime SK8 the Infinity. Coincidentally, 2001 happened to be Kubrick's 8th film —– SK8 —– and it is about “the Infinity”)

Hello, Vietnam

A lot of people dislike the tonally stark second part, and yes, it's pretty jarring, while still managing to balance the tone of the first one with inappropriate songs (I FUCKING HATE THE BIRD SONG PLS GET IT OUT FROM MY HEAD) and Annihilation (2018) worthy score to set the darker tone. But Full Metal Jacket might be the Stanley parable (heh) with the best writing.

Truffaut claimed that it is impossible to make a completely anti-war movie because people will think that the aesthetics of war is inherently cool, and well, admittedly, FMJ still fell into the trap with the first part's patriotic packaging (even though it is meant to be satire), R. Lee Ermey's creative insults immortalized into memes, Animal Mother's Lord Garox-style of speaking and cussing, and the unrelenting brutality of the US soldiers. But I argue that the film's writing.....distorts the “cool” image of wars.

The first part builds a shiny, colourful, and plentiful image of a war. It looks very...clean (in the most Kubrick-ian sense of the word where clean means 'terrible shit is happening behind it, and there will be blood') and organized with ultra-precision. The sets are very organized, the bathroom is CLEAN (unusual for a military bathroom), the marches are very well-choreographed, and everything is orderly. Well, except for the end of Part 1, where the pristine image of wars gets broken down.

Then the second part distorts it to hell and back, even moreso than the end of the first part. It distorted the shiny, pristine image of Wars as “noble men fight for what's right”, as we see Joker's journey to dehumanization. He is being distorted in a similar manner to Jack Torrance, only that Joker's distortion is more subtle and made him a blank weapon of war instead of completely losing his sanity.

The dialogue is brutal and well-crafted that if you see the real meaning behind the crude language, you can feel the dehumanization and the distortion of the soldiers. Their language really shows the true nature of the US when they invade regions, they don't give a fuck, they just want to destroy. Wars suck indeed (Kim Jihoon moment...)

Animal Mother's name is completely apt in this story. He's the mother of the animals that is the US Military.

Humans becomes lower than animals. Distortion. (Kim Jihoon moment...)

One thing about Kubrick that people often overlook (heh) is his writing. Yes, it is an adaptation. Yes, he didn't write his own stories. But there's a red string that can be found in his movies: Humanity, or the distortion of it in the middle of a world indifferent to it. (Kim Jihoon moment...)

As usual, his human/machine duality (I call this Stanley's “String Theocracy”) is ever-present. The most obvious sign of the presence of this duality is the fact that the characters are never referred to their real names, and them giving their rifles feminine names. That is the first step of degrading humanity, and the process of becoming a machine. There is A LOT MORE of this duality in play, but it can take a whole essay of its own to unpack this specific thing. Read this, and this instead.

It's his depiction of degrading humanity and how his MCs mold themselves into it (Kim Jihoon moment...). And how in the end, the indifferent world asks us to keep living and keep our sanity. We may never change the indifference, but we can get over the indifference by holding onto ourselves, not letting this indifferent world distort us.

Yes, Joker definitely gets mildly-distorted (or in ProjectMoon terms, “meltdown”) in the end, but it's his perseverance to live that avoids him from being distorted. He attempts to fill the darkness in his fate....seeds of light” (Kim Jihoon moment...)

“I am in a world of shit, yes, but I am alive.” “And I am not afraid.”

My favourite thing about this film is how the colours pop out despite the bland war setting, even the ruined locale of Hue looks “nice” (given the British shoot location, probably owes to British Bleakism movement that Threads (1984) and 1984 (1984) popularized). Every shot is very pleasant to look at, on par with Kubrick's usual oeuvre of course.

And i think this is the only film where it made military bathrooms look APPEALING. Yes, folks, Stanley Kubrick is a Certified Bathroom Boi!

The last 20 minutes to the ending is perfect. It is the culmination of the dehumanization that Joker is experiencing. He's no longer the Joker, he's the Killer. And the child sniper is a perfect representation on the results of the US's war machine. Innocents distorted into killers for survival (Kim Jihoon moment...)

There are no more friendships, only mindless servitude to the US. There is no more humanity, only distorted remains of it

The usage of the Mickey Mouse Club song is oddly appropriate and aged well too, it felt like an accidental allegory of the real reason of the US stomping on Vietnam (using Disney to show “American-ness”). How did WB got away with it?

And the sudden change in tone from Band of Brothers-like camraderie to Arknights level of “war is hell” darkness is harrowing. The tone went from daylight to an Arknights cutscene seamlessly. It's like a whiplash of events in real wars. Bright colours washed into fire.

It is best described in this long quote from the man himself, said during the Tet Offensive:

“The most terrifying fact about the universe is not that it is hostile but that it is indifferent; but if we can come to terms with this indifference and accept the challenges of life within the boundaries of death–however mutable man may be able to make them–our existence as a species can have genuine meaning and fulfillment. However vast the darkness, we must supply our own light.”

War is Hell Itself.

Also, justice for Joker/Pyle pls

Project SK8: Film 5 of 8

#film #writeup #review #ProjectSK8 #DirectorSpeedrun #StanleyKubrick #ProjectMoon #Letterboxd #WhatNoLimbusCompanyDoesToAMF