At the time, this wasn't the case, with the film losing money, which would in turn bankrupted Tati.

It is however, a new experience in the world of films, and fiction in general. Tati had intended the film to be something new, to be something he called a “spectacle cinématographique”, something similar to live theatre. However, what most people do not know is that PlayTime (1967) is more than a film —— it's a theme park.

Welcome to TatiVille. Enjoy your disorientation and reality!

There's a certain theme park I keep thinking of throughout my experience of seeing PlayTime (1967) for the first time.

When I was a kid, specifically ten years old, I had a memorable field trip with my school to this strange edutainment-focused indoor theme park. It is a 'city of children' called KidZania, where kids could play pretend to 'work' in various professions from firefighter, lawyer, journalist, pilot, forensics...everything except executives. Work (or rather, the simulation of it) becomes playtime.

The 'city' itself, while obviously a miniature of a city with child-sized work facilities, looked realistic. Yes, this is an actual theme park. And yes, they are at an extent, aware of the implications of the nature of the attractions (there's a good reason why the park and their cast members call it 'professions' instead of 'jobs').

Chances that you've seen the Defunctland video about the 'genre' of theme parks that KidZania belongs to, that are 'kid cities', with the video pointing out how these 'kid cities' reflects our consumerist society with all the corporate sponsorships baked into the attractions, with the excuse of “it's life as adults know it”. Meaning that children needed to be confronted by the reality of consumerism in the real world, somehow. The 'city' is consumerist because that's how it is in the real world, it seeps into the miniature as a result. (Whether or not the sponsorships 'pills' children into full acceptance of consumerism remains as debatable as the long-term effects are mixed to say the least, but that's another story, or rather, 'an other ztory')

But the miniature city has a surreal, liminal quality to it with the ceilings painted with blue sky and white clouds. Coupled with the dim lighting meant to simulate nighttime and buildings made in the style of the past and present, it looks like a city built inside of a René Magritte painting, which avoids the park from looking sterile and too much like reality. KidZania is the regime of light, in a sense. It keeps the nature of simulacra intact, and the uncanny valley qualities dominating the park, further hardening the wall of separation between it and the real adult world. Therefore, KidZania as the miniature of consumerist society becomes a spectacle, a playtime for kids and spectators to get lost in the zany land of 'kool' kids.

Is KidZania a real city? Ceci n'est pas un metropolitan. Because it's a theme park that immerses you in an imagination of metropolitan life. It's a city imagined through the eyes of a child, witnessing the hectic life of real world. If 'Fantasy' is the main keyword for Disneyland, then 'Reality' is the main keyword for KidZania. The park prides itself as being a 'Better World', a simulation of the real world that is obsessed with details, and yet fully committed in making its 'reality' look too palatable to children that it turns children into adults disillusioned with the actual reality that isn't as 'kool' and zany as the land of 'kool' kids that they stepped into years ago. These adults wish that real working life of adult world is playtime, just as how the park did it. How did this happen? The park's obsession in portraying reality instead turns the miniature city into simulacrum as defined by Gilles Deleuze in his work The Logic of Sense, where the simulacrum becomes an image without resemblance —– in that KidZania bears no resemblance to any existing city in the real world, even with all the corporate brands in the park's attractions. And so, the kids learn that reality isn't playtime, not like what the park had 'promised' them, wallowing and wishing for a better world. The Treachery of Reality.

Once upon a time, I walked inside of a fantasical recreation of our consumerist society that disillusioned my views of the real world. 15 years later, I became an adult and witnessed TatiVille, another city built from imaginations of the real world. I walked inTatiVille, doing the same thing as my trips to KidZania, without the play pretend part that is.

I'm not the first person to talk about KidZania in relation to PlayTime (1967), and not without reason —– PlayTime (1967) reminded me of it a lot. It even starts with a scene set in an airport terminal, just like how you enter KidZania, that is through an airport terminal facade!

TatiVille brought back my memories of KidZania. Hard to not do that with the film's vignette structure of focusing on one thing in TatiVille for a short time before moving on, which for me, felt very reminiscent to the 'gameplay' and overall structure of KidZania where every profession (attraction) takes 15-45 minutes to do, so kids can experience/roleplay as many professions as they want to. In TatiVille, you don't 'stay' in one cubicle —– you see the entire TatiVille, and the unique people inside of it.

Before KidZania, there was TatiVille, that opened to the public thirty-two years earlier....

And now onto the film itself:

TatiVille is a satiric, in-your-face microcosm of our hyperconsumerist, 'bland' society ruled by corporations and the lack of novelty. It looks 'unpalatable' to anyone. It looks 'unpalatable' by default. However, the genius of PlayTime (1967) is that it offers a playtime for the audiences instead of letting them see the dreariness of life and completely wallow in the ridiculousness of it in sadness. In TatiVille, people will find the makings of perfect days, either through the funny shenanigans that life brings them to, or the presence of people like Monsieur Hulot that gives novelty to their days. Even if they're stuck in the 'boring' world, the colors inside their souls will brighten their lives and make it fun. They are changing the world they live in —— into a world they long to live in.

However, nothing in this movie is bland, it's always full of new and novel things. Even with the 'gray' set design, everything is designed to be catchy with clever composition, to be looked at several times with the symmetry and details. Like theme park attractions that you can always go back to. There's always things in TatiVille that will catch your eyes. Each frame is brimmed with details, gags, and zany shenanigans. It's like a theme park. It's playtime!

While TatiVille looks sterile and 'bland' with the corporate-looking buildings, liminal insides, boring cubicles, advertisements and washed-out colours, you can actually feel so much life breathed on it through what's in TatiVille. Never before a boring corporate world look this appealing. And it all owes to the details the background where visual gags, funny background events, and overall hecticness of people in it becomes the grasps of life, resisting the takeover of 'corporate' and keeping the world to look like your imaginations of adulthood and Paris — rejecting the dull reality and wanting to live in a better world. This mixture of hyperreality and whimsy makes the city brimming with uncanny valley that avoids the film from looking like reality. It looks so real, and yet unreal, just like a theme park.

With the curious Monsieur Hulot not wanting to 'conform' to the dullness of corporate life by wandering around, the 'corporate' TatiVille becomes a spectacle of your imaginations of Parisian adult life, straying away from the reality of Paris that the film wants to show you. It makes the film feel like a simulation of Jacques Tati's imaginations of real life. The real life as Tati knew was heading into a consumerist, corporate direction, and it seeps into TatiVille as a result. It's up to the inhabitants to react and live as themselves to fight against it.

Is TatiVille a real city? Ceci n'est pas un metropolitan. Because it's not Paris. It is TatiVille, an immersive, miniaturised depiction of one's imagination of De Gaulle's France. Even when he ruins France, that doesn't mean that he can ruin the people inside it. The people in TatiVille embraces zaniness slowly, as a way to express their growing feelings of disagreement to the 'bland' reality they live in. The closer TatiVille tries to become the real world of De Gaulle's France, the more fantasical it becomes that the city no longer resembles De Gaulle's France, as the people in TatiVille begins to form a new reality, deviating from De Gaulle's France. The film is satirical, and yet it produces an idealised image of reality that people would like to live in. TatiVille instead promises the audience that there is a better world, it's still possible to build one in the middle of corporate takeovers, which is hammered even more in the film's ending. The Treachery of Reality.......that might form a new reality. TatiVille is preparing you for a world you'll want to create.

Get Ready For A Better World.

Every scene in this film felt like theme park attractions, with its own process, start/endpoints, durations, and unique interactions. This gives TatiVille a lot of personality, adding the feelings of whimsy and zaniness that gradually builds up before it fully explodes in the second part where the film fights back against the dreariness and becomes a full-on 'theme park' spectacle, really accentuating the film's very apt title.

The way the camera shows working life in TatiVille brings you in as a visitor to this unique, theme park-ish city. Never staying on the same situation, always showing new and different things, like a visitor engaging in attractions. There's busy airport workers, tourists and tour guides, a flower seller, office workers, salesmen, waiters, cooks, and a busy street. But we don't just merely see them. We also experience them through how the camera focuses on them for a long while before moving on. These are the theme park attractions that TatiVille offers you to experience.

Through the camera and Monsieur Hulot's reactions, the film lets you experience TatiVille as a visitor engaging in the world of the film, and by the time the film ends, you're begging for more. You want the playtime to last forever. You will want to visit TatiVille again and again, to experience all the attractions, especially the ones you haven't experienced. You want to pick up new details in these attractions, and the park's environment. And the lesson you will learn through TatiVille is the desire to fight corporate formality by being zany and whimsical.

Jacques Tati's direction is nothing short of a spectacle. It's less of 'film directing' and more of theme park managing, with the synergy of actors, sets, camerawork creating a whole new immersive world for the viewer to experience through the screen. He accomplishes the task of a Walt Disney with so much ease, you'd believe that Tati would run a successful theme park (Hulotland?), and you wouldn't believe that this film had difficulties in the making. Nearly every scene is a painting, and the staging is very complex, with a lot of actions and directions and events going on in the same frame, and yet never overwhelms the viewer, easily comparable to theme park engineering. The way everyone and everything intersects in TatiVille is the stuff that gets theme park engineers jealous. So much clever planning, patient organizing, and deceptively simple yet difficult choreography.

However, this film does take a LOT of patience to watch. You need to be in the mood for a fun time in a theme park to watch it. It demands you to look at the many details baked into the frames. It doesn't have a 'clear plot' and clearly wants you to be immersed in the atmosphere and the world of TatiVille instead of telling a clear story. The pacing also gets slow at times, but that's what waiting in lines in theme parks are.

In a sense, PlayTime (1967) is a theme park movie. In that the world of TatiVille is just that immersive, built by skilled Imagineers with true vision and story to tell, that you felt really teleported into this new world. Yes, it's a satire of the real world, but wrapped in a fun packaging that you just can't help but get amazed, shocked, and excited at.

So what are you waiting for? Put on your RFID bracelets, get your plane tickets to TatiVille now and experience a one-of-a-kind playtime!

#review #film #Letterboxd #JacquesTati #MonsieurHulot

David and Lisa (1962) is one of such films. Carrying profundity and heart towards the then-taboo subject of mental health with care humanity at the time where the subject was looked down upon is a reason for this film to be remembered today.

However, there's more than heart in this underrated film, in that it tells us about life, death, love, and growth.

(note: NG means Not Good — the opposite of OK)

Even before the New Hollywood era of American cinema, the early-1960s was already a time period of challenges in the world of celluloid dark rooms. Films such as The Apartment (1960) and A Child is Waiting (1963) were challenging the world of American cinema with portrayals of mental health and mental problems that are sympathetic to the subjects with these conditions and does not demonize them or painting them as 'scary'.

David and Lisa (1962) nests among those films. Directed by Frank Perry —– who would later direct the infamous Mommie Dearest (1981) —– and written by his then-partner Eleanor, based on the book Jordi/Lisa and David by Theodore Isaac Rubin, it tells the story of David Clemens (Keir Dullea), a 16-year-old teenager with fear of being touched. David is being admitted in a psychiatric hospital by his mother with hopes that the hospital and Dr. Swinford (Howard da Silva) will bring David to a cure. However, David remains withdrawn from the other patients and Dr. Swinford until he caught the attention of Lisa Brandt (Janet Margolin), a girl with two personalities; Lisa — who can only speak in rhymes, and Muriel — a mute. Slowly, both gets drawn to each other and opens up to their issues.

Right from the start, it is clear that the film isn't seeking to be a 'scary' tale of mentally unwell people, but to humanise them. The lovely score by Mark Lawrence gives the film a feeling of melancholia mixed with teen melodrama right at the beginning. This tone stays consistent throughout the film, and while it gives off the feeling of 'teen melodrama', it is quite effective in capturing emotions.

The portrayal of mental illness and treatments of mental illness among teenagers certainly deviated from the stereotypes and stigmas associated to it from the 1960s. It is certainly no One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975), as David and Lisa (1962) instead focuses on the humanity of these young people with problems, and framing it as an coming-of-age story heightened the humanity present in the film, and arguably, makes the film ahead of its time, and yet, even today, this film still manages to be more respectful on portrayals of teenage mental issues, even managing to portray the topic of generational trauma —– that the world of (western) cinema has recently picked up lately. One noticeable trait of this film is how the teenagers act —– they're not 'crazy teenagers', they're simply teenagers with problems. Again, it's less One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975), and more West Side Story (1961) from the natural way the teens act with distinct personalities (especially Carlos, played by Jaime Sanchez).

Ultimately, this film focuses on David whose fear of being touched is portrayed as a result of generational trauma as his mother recalls her harsh life and how it affects her way of raising David and wanting David to appear respectable and 'normal', resulting in David seeing a touch as something that forces him to conform to the image of respectability, and manifested into him not wanting to be touched to avoid inheriting his mother's generational trauma. Which unfortunately can be mistaken as Freudian manifestation stemming from his feelings towards his mother for viewers who are unfamiliar with the concept of generational trauma.

Notably, David starts the film as a child with a fear of death (what his fear of touch is about) and as the film goes, we see him become accustomed to life, and goes from merely living to being alive. In the end we see David actually alive, which is what this film's thesis is ultimately about: What being alive actually is David and Lisa approaches the subject through the love story between the haunted-by-death David and the living-but-sheltered Lisa where both of them finally gets over their issues together and grow up.

Another notable aspect of David and Lisa is the way the film discusses David's fear of death through the theme of the linear nature of time and inevitability gives the film an almost Ingmar Bergman-ish sensibilities, complete with the natural black-and-white photography that gives the film a similar feeling to Bergman's earlier input from 1950s, with David and Lisa having a similar look and feel to Bergman's Summer With Monika (1953) in particular, although this film is sprinkled with fantastical visuals of the clock-guillotine dream that adds a whimsical quality to it. Previously, I have described this film as closer to West Side Story (1961) but this film felt like what if 1950s Ingmar Bergman did something similar to West Side Story (1961) as a drama.

As far as the acting goes, the melodramatic tone does a good favor for the actors in this film. But in particular, Keir Dullea's performance might appear to be 'robotic', but he gave David an interesting growth in that he went from being insufferably 'less emotional' to endearing without being exaggerated. David has a really precise diction, calculated movement, and a certain kind of rigidity that hides his inner pain and closes the path to his soul through the way Dullea portrays David with his expressive eyes (the windows to David's soul —– the only path that is open to others) that could tell many emotions from slight movements, and as the film goes, David becomes more open in his emotions and pain in subtle changes in body motions and expressions without changing too much, it feels that his calculated movements accommodates to his changing openness to emotions. He feels complementary to Lisa's bubbly personality instead of clashing with her as a result. Also the way David talks and shouts feels oddly prescient of the behaviours of Gen Z teens on social media. It is a performance with purpose that feels rewarding, and is clear why this was Dullea's breakout role that established him as an exciting new talent at the time.

Similarly, Janet Margolin felt as she was born to play the role. Her natural beauty works well for the rougher-edged Lisa, and same goes for her performance, she never felt like a 'Manic Pixie Dream Girl' as we clearly see her flaws and how she grows out from it, while hoping that David will come through. She looks like a friend you'd have in real life. Margolin not only plays Lisa sympathetically, but she portrays Lisa's glowing heart in a natural, non-artificial (or exaggerated cuteness) way.

The supporting cast, as previously mentioned before, realistically act much like actual teenagers that heightens the setting. While there are criticisms of how the characters felt a little bit like 'spectacles', this film does remind you that the characters are teenagers. Teenagers acts like that, and David and Lisa felt that the expressive aspect of teenagers is well-shown. Everything about David and Lisa felt alive and 'lived' as a result, giving the impression of the viewer as 'living' with the characters. Special mention to Howard da Silva who portrays Dr. Swinford with full grace and affection that tells us that the children in the psychiatric hospital are well-loved as human beings with actual lives. Another mention to make is Simon, played by Matthew Anden, who provides queer subtext (per the usual for 1960s American films) via his affection for David being more than a friendly affection as evidenced in him wanting David to be friends, with his dismissal of Lisa being a feeling of slight jealousy.

The weakness of David and Lisa, despite the very strong qualities it has —— is the lack of focus on Lisa. This might be attributed to the fact that the original book did not focus on her. While Lisa is given her own story of growing up and opening herself up to others after a long time of isolation all for love (David living in her system!) and care (there is a subtle motif that alludes to this throughout the film), there's still something lacking about Lisa, despite the wonderful performance by Janet Margolin.

Still, David and Lisa remains a strong, wonderful, and heartful work deserving of a second chance that dared to show something 'new' at the time as normal and loving. It is full of heart, wants you to see a reality unseen, feel the reality and step out from the cages of the facade of 'respectability' (a.k.a the illusion of 'normality'). This is a film deserving of a Criterion Collection release, although you can watch this film for free (with ads) in TUBI.

Although forgotten for years, this film acts as a sort-of precursor in the genre of dramas that deals with young people with mental health and mental illness set in psychiatric hospitals such as Girl, Interrupted (1999), I'm A Cyborg, But That's OK (2006) from famed director Park Chan-wook, It's A Kind of Funny Story (2010), The Perks of Being a Wallflower (2012), and most recently in 2023, the music video for OMG by NewJeans (which has unintentional parallels to David and Lisa).

David and Lisa eventually don't let eachother go, they're right there for eachother 24....

#film #Review #OdysseyOfMichiru #OMG #NewjeansNeverDie

David Clemens - David and Lisa (1962)

He has an interesting growth in that he went from being insufferable to endearing without being exaggerated. David has a really precise diction, calculated movement, and a certain kind of rigidity that hides his inner pain through the way Keir portrays David with his expressive eyes that could tell many emotions from slight movements, and as the film goes, David becomes more open in his emotions and pain in subtle changes in body motions and expressions without changing too much, it feels that his calculated movements accommodates to his changing openness to emotions.

He feels complementary to Lisa's bubbly personality instead of clashing with her as a result. Also the way David talks and shouts feels oddly prescient of the behaviours of Gen Z teens on social media, that's a bonus. (speaking as a Gen Z myself)

Steven Lake - Bunny Lake is Missing (1965)

The thing is that even though Steven presents himself as this charming, seemigly-trusty person, his eyes says otherwise, but clouds his true intentions behind his 'helpful' acts to find Bunny, and feels that he's trying to get both Ann and the audience to trust him. Even though this didn't really work due these acts obviously being him trying to cover up his true intentions, there's still a tinge of shock when he revealed himself as the baddie.

As previously described in the previous section Keir's eyes can do a lot, and it really shows in here with how easy it looks for Steven to completely switch his 'mode' from 'charming and composed' to a complete psycho just through eyes and sudden change in body motion.

It is jarring, yet effective and sends you shivers. You can see this in the final sequence as Steven quickly switches his 'little boy' playfulness to again, complete psycho in a switch.

This character felt like a precursor to baddies with suspiciously charming facade in modern thrillers, particularly Park Chan-wook films like Oldboy (2003), Stoker (2013), and Decision to Leave (2022) – which is why I highly recommend checking out his works if you love Bunny Lake is Missing. Same goes for people who like Park Chan-wook, Bunny Lake is Missing feels like a prototype to Park's films and that's why you should watch it.

Paul Grenfel - The Fox (1967)

I really did not expect Paul to not be overtly-condescendingly evil at all, given what The Fox is about. Like Steven, Paul is presented as seemingly harmless, charming even as you get to know him at first. But he's completely repulsive and chauvinistic at the same time. Through eyes and body movements, Keir makes Paul both charming and dislikeable at the same time. It helps that Keir's lower-than-usual voice he used for Paul really brought Paul's malice and desire for dominance forward. As my friend puts it: “His eyes in this movie in particular were incredibly striking, like swords stabbing through you. And his body language definitely put me off several times throughout!”

This also makes Paul dangerous, because he doesn't present himself as a straight-up asshole. You'd expect him to straight up be insulting to Jill but instead, he shows his attempts to dominate the women using stares, expressions, body movements, and the low tone of his voice instead of visible anger to affect and hurt them.His conversation with Jill manages to still be insulting without going straight to actual insults, just through Paul's eyes and condescending tone. You can really feel his dislike of Jill displaying HIS qualities (and subsequently, Jill's role as March's partner) and his anger towards March seeing him as 'an experiment'. He feels like the personification of the malicious Fox spirit from Eastern folklore who preys on people.

The film itself is great. It was pretty ahead of it's time.....and arguably still worth a watch today, since some aspects are still pretty forward, such as the idea that sexuality is a spectrum —– March strikes as someone through a bisexual awakening through a sexual encounter with a man, remembering that bisexuality as an idea was almost unheard of in 1967 (in the West, at least).

Dave Bowman - 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

When I first saw this film as a teen, I actually thought that Dave is a real astronaut from how realistic he acts. Dave is very professional and handles everything like you would expect real-life astronauts handles things (that's why he appears as machinelike)

This doesn't make Dave 'fully unemotional' though, as his face tells the emotions, as is his careful body movements. I have to remind people that Dave isn't given time to grief and cry over Frank's death and the Monolith, he must take serious action to handle it. Even then, you can tell from his eyes and twitches of his lips that he's struck with serious emotions over it. He even sounds like trying to hold back anger when HAL confronts him. Keir plays Dave like actual trained astronauts who are careful and not letting emotions take over him, but at the same time, his graceful body movements makes Dave appear balletic and ethereal (which fits with how 2001 is an operatic film), and it's wonderful.

This is what people tend to not see in 2001: Dave might be 'mechanic' and 'machinelike' (as Keir himself agreed), but to really see his expressions...you'd have to see his eyes, lips, eyebrows...they move accordingly, even twitches on reaction. There's even a little moment where he smiles after he closes the airlock!

Read more on my insights on Keir's performance and the entire film here.

Rick Dylan - Paperback Hero (1973)

The film's tagline of “Every woman's had one....every man's been one....once” is very accurate. My biggest praise for this film is how the character of Rick, a young man trapped in his 'tough-guy' persona who thinks he's 'cool' and 'macho' like the Big Guns in the old west, is portrayed as realistically exasperating, annoying, and worrying.

Rick feels like an adolescent grappling in his cowboy fantasies and when confronted with the reality that he doesn't live in the ideal world of the old west (in other words, he needs to grow up), he instead doubles down on his cowboy delusions, becomes violent (lashes out to the 'Enemy'), and loses his identity in the process. Keir's usual strength of emotional eyes, body motions, and precise tone actually makes Rick sounds both like a cowboy and a (man)child at the same time, and he did a great job for not making Rick romanticised. Rick is real, but his cowboy persona isn't.

I have to point out that Keir normally don't play characters like this, and he still does it pretty well!

#film #review #OdysseyOfMichiru

The Ultimate Trip: A Breakdown and review as I (re-)watch

INTRO (OVERTURE): Two minutes of blackness. With some creepy music courtesy of Gyorgy Ligeti. This is an overture, akin to a night at the opera. While this might sound unnecessary to many audiences watching it on TV, laptops, and phones, this tells you about one of the experiences you will be getting in 2001. Unsettling, but that is what space is. They are preparing us for an odyssey in an unsettling wide space. It is an entracte, so 2001 truly is a theatrical production.

Now it's a sunrise. Also Sprach Zarathustra, a composition about the ubermensch Zarathustra. The sun rises above, a neat parallel to Zarathustra's rise over humanity. The sun, in a sense, is God, showcasing His creation. The fact that the dramatic part of the music is preserved during “A STANLEY KUBRICK PRODUCTION” shows something: Kubrick is showing us a grand creation. A sci-fi to redefine the genre.

Very solid intro, I can say. The music fits the epic scale of the visuals. Let the epic begin.

Dawn of Man: The beginning of mankind. The monkeys fight eachother over a puddle of water, signifying that we as humans weren't so different as monkeys when it comes to right to own things. In a sense, these monkeys are displaying traits that we humans still have. And it came. A black slab —— the Monolith, that was not there, standing still, accompanied with Ligeti's music. And here in this scene we see the monkeys coddling into it, holding it with their hands. Curiosity, it's a natural trait in every single living being. When confronted with something we never knew, it is in our instinct to touch it, feel it —— to understand it. The monkeys are trying to understand what it is.

Very soon we see one of the monkeys cracking bones, interspersed with cuts of a tapir being beaten up. They have discovered means of violence. This realization gets played clearer so soon after it where they once again, fight in the same puddle of water —– now with weapons. The fact this happened after the appearance of the Monolith suggests something sinister —– the Monolith is a 'prophet', or a 'God', enlightening the monkeys (essentially its' followers/worshippers) on the act of violence.

A bone gets thrown. It turns into a spaceship. It is evolution of human history. Viewers might not understand what this sequence is about in first watch, I admit that I myself did not understood it. However, it is nicely photographed, which is to be expected. The fact that I did not believe that the backgrounds were matte paintings says it all. But the problem persists —– it demands full attention to even notice what is going on, and the rest of the movie operates on this.

The Odyssey: This is it. A vision of a future from 1968. A Pan-Am (how ironic) star-liner heading to a space station. With only few passengers on board, there are minimal amount of gravity, and things float. The music is The Blue Danube, a romantic waltz from the 18th century. To use that piece of music to show the future only shows romanticized optimism that humanity can do wonderful things. The usage also turns the sequence into a ballet performance.

This is a ballet in film form. A space-age ballet performed by spaceships. Something you would see in Royal Opera House on a special night. The Stewardess —– the only human being performing the ballet —– is dancing to the Blue Danube, and she is walking in a similar manner to a baby, learning to walk. The circular space station rotates like a ballet dancer spinning graciously while the star-liner quietly 'dances' with small pointe into it.

All the spacecraft, LED computers, and technology looked sci-fi for 1968 audiences, but a lot of them have become reality, and in addition, aged well. This is not so much 'science fiction' —– it is 'science eventuality', as in this is a vision of something we will see in our lifetimes.

This is a continuation of the 'Evolution' theme. Mankind walked the Earth, and now attempts to walk in space. There is a feeling of grandeur, and wonder that is ever-present here, contrasting with the violence of the previous sequence.

Somehow, this is reminiscent of dancing sequences from glorious Old Hollywood Musicals, with the stewardess's movements, she looks like she is dancing to the music. The spacecraft, space stations, all beautifully dancing to the Blue Danube. The release year being 1968 brings a poignancy that this is the bridge between Old Hollywood (1945-1967) with New Hollywood (1967-1980). The epic aspirations of Old Hollywood, but with the messaging and 'agenda' of changing times of New Hollywood. Evolution of cinema. That alone gives this sequence a great impression and awe from me. Incredible all around. This must've blown the minds of people in 1968, and I can understand why. It doesn't even look like a movie from 1968 (1966-67 if you follow the production history)—– it looked like it was made in 1988. The slowness in this sequence isn't a problem. After all, it is a ballet. In actuality, not much is actually happening in this sequence, it's just a spacecraft docking, but Kubrick took this opportunity to showcases the best of visual effects in 1968.

Simply put, it is magic. The beautiful visuals and music are nothing short of feast for the senses.

Dr. Floyd's Mission: We have arrived into the space station, along with the first spoken line in the movie, 25 minutes in. We immediately see a short immigration process, it looks way easier than real immigration processes. The process to go to space is now as easy as getting a flight, which makes the depiction of interstellar travel in this movie quite optimistic than our bleak reality of space travel dominated by greedy assholes. Of course, corporate presence is still present —– Pan Am is the spacecraft, Howard-Johnson has an 'Earthlight Room', and Hilton seems to be providing the goods of space hotels. But compared to our reality, their presence felt like bystanders instead of chokeholds as their presence doesn't even felt like product placement. Undoubtedly, I am sure that Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke would have been sad to learn the reality of planned commercial interstellar travel today.

Just like the the star-liner sequence before it, the design of the space station aged well with its' pristine white interiors and bright lights. Even in 2021, there are still places that looked like it. The whiteness of the room is contrasted with obviously sixties-looking red chairs. However, the chairs has a timeless quality that it also looks futuristic at the same time, as these style of interior design is still popular to this day. This is a running theme in 2001's art and production design. It is obviously a product of 1960s NASA handworks, but it's practical enough to keep it relevant and futuristic.

Floyd then calls his daughter using a pay phone, and this is where 2001 shows its' age. As we all know, we have smartphones, but his daughter's lines (“I want a telephone” / “We have lots of telephones already”) suggests that she has a phone while Dr. Floyd does not. Predicting generations after Gen Z being children raised by smartphones at early age? The generational gap between 'kids these days on their phones' and their older parents as perceived from the older parents? Of course not. Kubrick and Clarke definitely did not consider all that, but it is a strange prophetic moment. (note: the writer of this breakdown/review is Gen Z herself)

The interaction between the American Floyd and the Russian scientists felt like a statement in 1968, that in the future, none of the cold war reality will be carried into outer space. To see them interact professionally without antagonization is a dream that we sadly still dream of today. But it also shows what Kubrick really wanted for humanity —– to just stop fighting and invent tools together. A poignant hopeful message to be made in 1968, especially since 2001 was made right after the bleak, nihilistic Dr. Strangelove. And then this is where the story starts. Floyd is heading to the moon, there is a strange signal coming from it. But it's been closed off, with Floyd's curiosity taking over him. This in a sense, is a showcase on how humans will interact in the future —– not so different than in present, only that the year number is different.

We see another star-liner sequence, now heading to the moon. A trip to the moon, it seems. Just like the previous star-liner sequence, it's also a ballet, while showcasing one of the many 'Movie Magic' moments of 2001, namely, the zero gravity effects, space-walk, the realistic-looking moon, and the elegant and graceful landing. To create this before the moon landing must've been a difficult challenge, but the production team did it beautifully, and the results are mind-blowing, even though they got some of the physics wrong (No, landing on the moon will not produce dust! And also, moon gravity does not work like that).

And now the mystery unfolds itself. They head to a crater in Moon, while talking over space foods. Typical. And then it appears again. The Monolith, now causing a ruckus on moon. There's an interesting switch in camerawork as Floyd and his squad descends into the monolith, as the previously calculated camerawork suddenly shifts into handheld. It looks like they are eager to learn what is it in front of them. Just like the monkeys, Floyd's first instinct is to touch it as a way to understand it. A human being understanding a divine being. Humans in the face of a God in object form.

A buzzing noise blasted on their ears, and the sun rises. Is it transmitting a message, just like in the Dawn of Man sequence? Is it what it sounds like? Immediately, we jump to 18 months later without answers.

Again, just like in the Dawn of Man sequence, we are left with questions instead of answers, and we are also treated with a showcase of evolution. For this entire sequence, it did a good job introducing us to the imagined version of the millennium and the technological feats. However, the characters are not compelling and felt like vessels for audiences (unless it is what Kubrick is going for), Dr. Floyd could've been a better character. The set-up is quite abrupt and a bit sudden, and we're not given enough time to learn more about the motivation of Floyd.

Or was he entranced by the Monolith, compelled to seek and understand the mysterious God-like being? Even then, that is my interpretation.

It is interesting that the Monolith's relationship with humanity (and the monkeys) suggests something: God and Followers. Both sequences shows a God/Follower subtext.

The Jupiter Mission (SCHERZO): Very abruptly we see a new act. 18 Months later since the trip to the moon, and presumably the year is 2001. Just like the jump from the bone to the spaceship, this shot is showing evolution. Was the Monolith enlightening humanity to develop space travel that will go far into Jupiter? That is the question in your mind, probably. The ship design is a round thing with a long tail. Interesting design choice, but certainly realistic to real science. Like the ships in the Floyd sequence, it all aged well.

Cut to a man jogging in a cylindrical room, literally running in circles, exercising to Aram Khachaturian. Just like the usage of Blue Danube, it is an optimistic view of humanity's progress. In this sequence, we see one of the most famous instances of 'Movie Magic' —– the man runs through the cylindrical station with no regards to gravity. He runs upside-down to right-side-up. Although he is fiercely exercising, it still feels like a ballet. Again, not much is happening, but much is happening —– he's doing his everyday job.

Then we cut to him having lunch, joined by another astronaut. These two men are quiet, it looks like it's just another routine for them on the mission. An interesting subtle performance that most don't pick up here is how the other astronaut reacts to how hot the space foods he is holding from the oven (kind of like saying “Every single time! Can the oven stop doing this?!” with hand gestures), but it does not phase him that much. It is a sign of professionalism. They're eating while streaming news on tablets, one thing Kubrick got right, a habit that we would do 40-50 years after 1968. Yet another 'Movie Magic' moment in that it shows something that would only be invented over two decades later. They even look like actual tablets from late-2010s.

The astronauts are very responsible and behaved professionally that you'd be forgiven for thinking that Keir Dullea (Dave Bowman) and Gary Lockwood (Frank Poole) were actually astronauts in real life hired to play themselves, instead of actors playing astronauts. They also look realistic, as they don't wear fancy aluminium/plastic costumes, only practical NASA-grade uniforms.

I can see why Kubrick cast these two, it's in part realism in that real life astronauts are younger people, and he wanted to subvert the tropes of sci-fi characters usually being old scientists with grey hairs. It actually works. Keir Dullea as Dave Bowman looks like a real scientist (although he looked like as if a pretty boy Anime character got brought to life). Meanwhile, Gary Lockwood as Frank Poole looked like he's plucked straight from an Apollo mission. Astronauts in real life looks like him.

We later see mundane routines for these astronauts. To them, it's a job, and they are expected to be professionals. They might seem to be 'unfeeling', but that's what expected when you're doing your job. In addition, Dave and Frank have known each other for so long, they've probably ran out of things to casually talk about, and it won't matter much in their already-good working relationship. So all they can do is just doing their job as professionals.

And also, they WERE definitely chosen in the mission for their not-emotional reactions to things. Let's face it, space is scary and wonderful (like a fairy tale), and for these astronauts to give low-emotion reactions to space? That's a sign of high-level expertise. Dave and Frank are professionals at their best, and this is what people have missed on when they say that the actors were bland and unemotional. They have emotions (it is subtle), but when your job requires space and zero-gravity, all the unknown, exciting, and scary things about it will be sucked out of you to the point that they just become mundane things in your life. Their jobs also requires them to keep their heads levelled in the face of difficulties, however bad and ridiculous it is.

The acting isn't so much 'acting to give out story to audience' —– it's 'reacting to the plot' through subtle expressions and balletic body language and body motions. Dave and Frank are reacting to the world and story given to them. Keir Dullea and Gary Lockwood did a great job at being convincing realistic astronauts, and my praise is sincere.

It is interesting to see HAL being portrayed as more emotional than the human astronauts. On the outside, it seems that HAL is displaying more emotions than the astronauts (well it's because HAL has no physical body to worry about space!) It may feel uncanny, but these astronauts (Dave, at least) regards him as a crew member like them (as HAL said before, he has a stimulating relationship with Dave and Frank). Dave's expressions (that cute smile!) as HAL talks about personal things looks like a comforting smile to a friend. These three astronauts know each other so well that Dave's interactions with HAL comes off as two good friends (heh) communicating with each other. Indeed, Dave and HAL is exhibiting their stimulating relationship with each other. HAL seems to get more human as he interacts with Dave and Frank, but his interactions with the humans suggested that Dave and Frank does not treat him as a mere machine.

And we soon see Dave and Frank do their job outside. There is no music because it is space, space has no sound. This sequence is very slow (again, balletic), but it's to show how it's like in reality to do these things. Being an astronaut isn't that exciting, even though the movie shows us how beautiful space and technology looks. But of course, it's just Dave and Frank's life.

Now the astronauts are back on board. Dave gives a Kubrick stare to HAL, and we soon see that HAL have made a mistake, but HAL contributes it to human error. He read Dave and Frank's lips. Something bad is going to happen, and Dave and Frank are adamant that things are hidden from them.

This sequence, overall, is where the focus of 2001 is in. The story, progression, and everything clears up in this sequence. Everything is gradually explained, we see more of the world and setting, things gets explained, and we see a set-up for actual plot. Overall, better than the Floyd sequence and provides a magic of its' own. Helps that it actually has interesting characters, with HAL 9000 being the most memorable one (and easy on the ears!), though Dave and Frank is also interesting (and easier on the eyes if you ask me). Also helps that it is less slow than the previous sequence.

INTERMISSION: Nothing to say here. Only a black screen with more creepy Ligeti music. In a sense, it's setting up for the mood in the next part of the movie.

HAL'S Mutiny: Now it's Frank's turn to walk in space. Immediately, we see our second casualty in the movie (the first was the tapir in Dawn of Man). As I have elaborated before, Dave must act professionally in face of difficulties. He isn't given time to grief and cry over Frank's death, he must take action to handle it. Again, this is the reality for astronauts in real life. Though, thanks to his Kubrick Stares, and twitching lips, it's clear that Dave is in some way, pissed off. He even looks down in a way that gives off the impression that he is showing expression of loss. This is where my praises for the acting heightened, it is difficult to do grief and anger with minimal facial emotions. And through eyes and lip movements, the grief and anger are expressed subtly.

More murders soon follow. HAL shows his anger. This is one of the most sadistic murder scenes in history of movies, in a sense. The other astronauts are helpless, they cannot scream, shout, or beg for life. They can only sleep as their sleep becomes an eternal rest, forced upon them as their bodies gradually dies. HAL's eyes now shows emotions of anger, and it's all only a red dot. Incredible how the same shots of a lens can convey different emotions by changing the contexts. This is some visual storytelling, telling the story of an inanimate object's five stages of depression.

HAL does not let Dave go back in, and HAL is clearly mad that Dave and Frank are planning to 'kill' him behind his back as his reason, therefore conflicting with his programming. HAL also sounds irritated that he is being blamed for a mistake that he senses as human error. This is denial, but in a sense, HAL was right, why would an AI lie to humans? He is programmed to tell the truth, and he trusts Dave and Frank (and vice versa). Dave and Frank hiding from him, discussing their plans is a breach of that trust. HAL is panicking over the loss of control and his life at the hands of humans —– his creators, so to speak, even though Dave was not his creator. This sequence is an example of humanity's fear of tools rebelling against them, but in this case, HAL's fears isn't dumbfounded, and as a result, it becomes an emotional standoff.

Going with the theme of 'God/Follower' subtext present in the previous sequences, HAL is in a sense, regarding humans as Gods, and he is being rejected by Gods. Dave, in HAL's eyes, is one of the Gods who rejects him.

Dave enters the Discovery nonetheless, without helmet and gravity in an impressive zero-gravity dive. It looks like a ballet in 2x speed. Maybe the word 'Movie Magic' isn't appropriate to be used in this scene for the sinister context, but attempting to do this stunt without CGI is a magical feat in itself. More Kubrick stare follows, and the camerawork now shifts into handheld, like at the end of the Floyd sequence. Dave looks like he is getting serious. In a way, the handheld camerawork enhances Dave's emotions and intention. Things are going to get serious.

HAL now goes into bargaining with Dave, now that he knows that his life is at stake. Now Dave is inside HAL's hard drive, with more instance of 'movie magic' being shown with Dave appearing to float in zero-gravity. We now see HAL's depression, as he asks Dave to stop. This is in a sense, an ultra-violent scene, as Dave is essentially violating HAL's autonomy and taking it away from him, while HAL has no means to resist. HAL can feel his mind disintegrating as Dave takes it away from him. Dave is killing a living being. However, you can see that Dave had no choice from his distressed facial expressions, with his profile shots even suggesting expressions of sadness. Dave feels for HAL. After all, they had a good rapport and (stimulating) relationship in with each other. Dave isn't killing a machine, he is killing a friend.

And to follow the 'God/Follower' subtext throughout the movie, Dave, a being that HAL regards as a God, is killing a God's creation, for being too God-like to the liking of the Gods who created him.

HAL resets to factory mode, and sings to Dave, easily the most harrowing scene of the movie as HAL reaches (forced) acceptance of his death. Although HAL sings it on factory mode, the choice of song makes it look like an ode to to a friend who is not reciprocating HAL's feelings, which accidentally adds a subtext of HAL and Dave's relationship before this scene.

And now we see the big reveal —– it's the monolith. They are in reality, heading to the monolith. The entire mission was a lie. HAL was right, it was a human error, and the humans were hiding something from him and the astronauts. The humans broke HAL's trust and programming that HAL has become more human than mankind, only to be rejected. Now Dave is all alone, heading to the monolith, with the revelation in his head.

While this is technically part of The Jupiter Mission part of the story, this storyline is very much solid. HAL and Dave has a great tension, HAL is very compelling, and Dave's subtle emotions actually is given time to shine. There are less 'Movie Magic' moments, but it is easily the best part of the movie.

There is no monolith in this sequence, but it is a strange coincidence that HAL's console looked like a monolith, even in the same dimensions. This plays rather well in the 'God/Follower' dynamic that was previously shown through the monoliths and the monkeys and humans. HAL is a tool built in the image of Gods —– Monoliths, by Humans, who is regarded as Gods by tools. HAL is a 'follower' for humans, but in the process, he gains enlightenment that reaches the level of humans —– Gods who created him. He is rejected by the humans, on grounds that such a tool that is shaped on the image of a God has the potential to become like God.

Jupiter and Beyond the Infinite: Opens with impressive shots of outer space, especially Jupiter and its' moons. Now we are at the penultimate scene. Dave is all alone, facing the unknown, something that isn't part of his job. He's not touching the monolith —– he is going inside it. Dave is looking for any intelligent being behind he monolith. Will it be aliens, gods (which would appeal to Clarke's dabbling into Hinduism and Indian mythology), or simply advanced humans? We don't see it, and it is a brilliant choice in Kubrick and Clarke's part. Our imaginations will always come up with better ideas of who are the ones behind the monolith. Lights begin to appear, colours are bursting into our eyes. The music by Ligeti becomes the only sound in the movie.

When people say 'Movie Magic', a lot of them will point out to the entire Star Gate sequence. It is nothing short of impressive magic, indescribable by words. But it is in a sense, a journey of enlightenment. Sort of one going through the way to Nirvana itself. These light shows the road to whatever is above our existence. Dave is going through a journey that goes beyond humanity, time, and space. He is on the path of Godliness. We even see Dave's expressions as he sees the lights. It suggests that everything feels inhuman, and he is being fed with revelations that no human being should be able to take. Regardless, he is sitting still on the pod, not losing his sanity. In a sense, Dave's low amount of emotions is a trait that enables him to path of Godhood. All that revelation and is still going? Become God, you may

And we have arrived at the end of the movie. It's a beautiful Louis XVI-styled room (an unintentional call-forward to Barry Lyndon), made futuristic through the floors and the whiteness of the walls. All the computers in the pod are non-functional, which is very unsettling. When computers are unable to give information, you know that you are stepping into the unknown. This isn't Earth. This isn't anywhere in the galaxy. Cut to a heavily-aged Dave. This is Limbo.

In Limbo, you will experience your entire life in flashes. The concept of time does not exist in Limbo, you will just age rapidly and die. The process has just begun for Dave. His expression looked like someone who has seen really harsh, unacceptable (to human capabilities of thought), inhuman things. Things that a human being should not be seeing and knowing. And Dave is stuck on that room. As he is no longer human.

There is a bathroom (in a Stanley Kubrick picture, bathrooms are signs of 'shit is about to happen'), and the bed has clothes laid on it. Why not take a nice bath? that's what the limbo suggests. This also provides an excuse for Dave to look in the mirror in shock of his aging face. The bathrooms has alien sounds, which are probably the voices behind the monolith. Dave turns around only to see himself aging further, having a proper meal after two hours of space food being shown to us. If you noticed something, none of the Daves ever return to the position where they stood before. They're always somewhere else —– staying there. Now we see Dave in his deathbed, with the monolith in front of him.

David Bowman is ascending into Godhood. He is to be rebirth as a Divinity, a reward for his actions in the face of adversaries, and a reward for keeping his humanity.

This is easily the most 'abstract' sequence in the movie, and undoubtedly the MOST confusing of all. Yes, it operates in “show, don't tell” to the extremes. It BOTH works and does not work. This sequence can either make or break audiences. It is easy to see why people gets divided over this.

Though, it is nothing short of visual feasts. I do think there IS a reason for that. These visual feasts turns your brain on and think of the infinite. Is there something beyond the infinite? It is the question that this sequence asks you, and Kubrick and Clarke wants you to ask it yourself, while interpreting what does beyond the infinite looks like for you.

DESCENSION OF THE STAR CHILD (FINALE): Thus spoke Zarathustra. The piece of music from the Overture returns. If the intro shows a creation of God, then the finale actually shows a God. Dave have been reborn into a child —– not a human child, but rather, a divine child. The Star Child.

He turns over, and looks at Earth. He will bring message to humanity.

FIN

Al those visual feasts, and trips to infinity. That is 2001: A Space Odyssey. It is a movie about the infinite potentials and capabilities of humanity, as well as the limits of humanity, and what happens when humanity goes beyond the limit. It also has something to say, in regards to human instincts of curiosity and violence and how it evolves while humanity faces evolution. It is a celebration of humanity, and ascension from humanity, while interrogating itself through subtexts.

Evolution, Violence, Godliness, God.

Mankind creates tools through messages from God, Mankind uses tools to enact violence that is engrained within, Mankind evolves and so does their tools and forms of violence. Mankind seeks more than tools and violence by turning to God, Mankind sends the best possible human being to face God, The human being is given adversaries, trials, and commits forced acts of violence towards creation of humanity, The human being learns the truth of life and the universe, The human being faces God, The human being becomes God.

That is my best attempt to sum up 2001. It is a ballet about humanity and infinity. An actually great movie, with zero faults on technical aspects from cinematography, art and production design, camerawork, to music. As a graphic designer, 2001 managed to stay relevant too in the realm of graphic design —– the usage of sans-serif fonts and flat UIs stays in reality to this day. Reality is much closer to films than we think.

I can even like the slowness —– Kubrick's thing is utilizing slowness to give our sensory and brains something to think about without overloading it, an aspect of his style that gets better in his later films, and often misunderstood by his imitators —– most Kubrick imitators keeps forgetting that 'sensory overload' wasn't his thing.

And as I have elaborated before, the acting is not cold and unemotional —– it's realistic, human reactions to fantastic situations. While William Sylvester (Heywood Floyd) and the rest of the cast in the Moon Mission do look professional and definitely scientist-ly, the ones who did the great job are the Jupiter Mission cast Keir Dullea (Dave Bowman), Gary Lockwood (Frank Poole), and Douglas Rain (HAL) who brought the movie to life wonderfully while portraying astronautics realistically —– special mention to Douglas Rain, who masterfully made us feel for HAL.

And again, it is not only a movie, but also an operatic epic consisting of ballets. Space Opera.

I understand if you don't like it. Don't worry about that. It is very slow, very sparse in terms of story, reliant on subtexts, and demands your fullest attention and multiple re-watches. Not for everyone! Only see this if you are in the mood. And if possible, see it on bigger screens like TVs or huge monitors.

Though it is important to understand that my interpretation is not the real interpretation of 2001. It is meant to be interpreted by yourself, using your own thoughts and brains. Why am I writing this then? Knowing that I personally don't think that it is Kubrick's best? (that title goes to Eyes Wide Shut —– but in hindsight that one is much harder to write about than 2001)

Well, I just love this movie, that is all. I cannot shake off the influence 2001 has on media too, from Sci-Fi as a whole to K-Pop videos.....2001 has placed its' monoliths on them. And I am writing this to understand why it did. And I understood. It is truly a monumental film. A showcase of what the medium can do at its' best, giving you something that literature, music, and even video gaming cannot do. I did admit that I did not get what 2001 was about, even when I was completely spellbound by it.

On another hand, It's strange that 2001 caters to my exact niches, after all, “A pretty boy becomes God surrounded with beautiful space sets and visual effects and classical music, interspersed with a plot that concerns Godliness and Humanity's awe of the presence of God” does look like something I could've written, right? Yeah, that helps.

As an aside, if you like it but still cannot comprehend what is going on, fear not, Visual Memory is here to guide, and Keir Dullea is here to help (with Prof. Brian Cox too).

#film #writeup #review #ProjectSK8 #DirectorSpeedrun #StanleyKubrick #Letterboxd #OdysseyOfMichiru

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

Reception of Stanley Kubrick (Star of the City) Act 8: Lolita (1962)

That was....a lot. For starters, I read the book back in highschool and actually planned to see this adaptation, but never gotten around to. Took me 6 years but I guess better late than never?

And yeah, very different from the book. This is less of “Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita” and more of “Stanley Kubrick's Quilty” (drop your ao3, king stanley!! you're good at making canon-divergent fanfics of books!!!) to me.

I get that the censors wouldn't let Nabokov & Kubrick to bring this tale to the screen, but one thing I found about the book it's that.....it's unfilmable. Even if you were to adapt this book today, it's still not possible. Lolita WAS made for print and print only. And not because of the content. The way the book is written, the puzzles, and how Humbert Humbert is like, it is ultimately made TO BE A BOOK. I don't think anyone could do a good adaptation of Lolita, ever.

I know Stanley loves to “make records” and honestly I bet that “ok what if I attempt the impossible task of adapting lolita possible” was on his mind when he read the book, but.....it's just difficult. My favourite part of the book are Humbert's thoughts and narrations that made me sure that the events of the book might be fake and made-up, but in this adaptation....there's none of it. (Weird considering that Stanley LOVES narration??)

A lot of the things just feels....different. Yes, I should've known this would happen from seeing the year it was released in. Yes, I should've known this would happen from knowing who directed this. (HOWEVER, Eyes Wide Shut was pretty faithful by all accounts)

But a lot has been changed that I feel that I wasn't seeing the same story I had read years ago.

H. H in this version just felt like a weepy, totally unlikable creep that you'd want to kick around, there's none of the charm of his narration in the book that made you felt 'invited' by him. I hated this film's H.H without a trace of curiosity (unlike Book!H.H where I hate him, but I want to know more about him). James Mason is pretty good though.

Though I must admit that the actors did a great job and really brought the characters to life. Shelley Winters is just impeccable and made me symphatize with Charlotte Haze even more (and honestly? I think Kubrick should've....changed some stuff with Charlotte. As in write more scenes with her, lmao).

Also Peter Sellers is the MVP, no wonder Stanley expanded Quilty's role....actually, every movie should've had Peter Sellers being a funny asshole and playing more than one character.

While the movie felt really long, it did a good job showing things that happened in the book, I found the pacing quicker than I thought.

Verdict? Bit middle-ground, sadly. But hey, fortunately for Stanley, he's boutta hit a HUGE glow-up after this.

Postscript: I cannot believe Stanley did my girl Vivian Darkbloom DIRTY! I WANTED MORE OF HER!!

Project SK8: Film 8 of 8

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

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