Showing posts with label Kubrick. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kubrick. Show all posts

10 June 2013

The Trouble With Choice



Conditioning is basically the idea that a specific stimulant can elicit some sort of involuntary response. The brains behind this idea was a physiologist named Pavlov who used his crazy new concept to torment dogs by tricking them into dribbling. The plan was to serve them food every time a bell rang until eventually they associated the noise with feeding time. After a while they'd simply salivate when hearing, it regardless of if they'd been fed or not. As great as all that is though, I think I'd prefer scientists to piss about with dogs only after they've cured cancer and discovered whatever species Gary Busey is. Having said that, it was whilst learning this concept in school that a fellow student enquired if we could condition ourselves into getting better grades. The teacher responded by asking how he planned on doing this to which he announced that every time he did well in an exam, he would have a quick wank to reward himself. Although the teacher failed to inform us if this would work, I can confirm that from my own experiments the answer is a very sad no.

A Clockwork Orange is a 1971 film by Stanley Kubrick that is assumed by idiots to glorify violence. Set in a dystopian future Britain, it tells the story of a pleasant young chap named Alex whose amiable personality is only slightly let down by his love of ultra-violence. Like Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket the film itself is kind of split into two halves. The first shows Alex revelling in his rape-y joys and the second depicts his subsequent comeuppance. In the same way that my fellow student wanted to wank himself into a brighter future the government of A Clockwork Orange attempt to condition Alex into being a better member of humanity. Famously, this conditioning sequence involves sitting him in front of a screen and pinning his eyes open as though he's about to be forced to watch Sex and the City 2: Pigs in a City. Instead however he's made to feel sick and shown violent imagery until he associates the two things together. He's then released back into the wild where he quickly learns that society is a massive, scary twat and without the means to defend himself, he'll be well and truly fucked.

Wait- what are we watching?!
Recently I saw a documentary called Room 237 in which a bunch of oddball movie fans rambled on about their understanding of The Shining for a couple of hours. Each of their theories ranged significantly in subject so that by the end the only thing we as an audience could be sure of was that these obsessive weirdoes should probably be locked up. The point is though that with Kubrick, there are so many possible interpretations of his films that it's difficult to really come to a definitive conclusion as to what they're really all about. With A Clockwork Orange though I suppose the main thing that I get from it is that it is an examination into the morality of freewill. I'm sure a million other people could watch the film and decide that it has a different agenda and for them I recommend the comment section below. Not only would we be able to have an interesting debate but most importantly it'd help me get some more traffic here. As anybody with a blog will know, I'm a whore for the hits.

Anyway, as valid as alternate interpretations may well be, if there's one thing that this film definitely does not do, it is portray violence for the sheer joy of it. I think probably the only idiots who assume A Clockwork Orange contains gratuitous horror are those who can't be arsed to actually watch it themselves. Hearing a film has been banned for 27 years for inspiring copycat crimes does sound a little grim but that's only because the reputation is a sensationalist slab of shite. I don't believe that films can cause somebody to act out of character as I stupidly have some small degree of faith in humanity. Perhaps a few psychopaths did commit similar crimes to Alex, but crazy fucktards will always find something to inspire them. Blaming anything other than their own mental health is lazy and dangerous. With the amount of violent films I own, I could commit more or less any crime I liked without worrying about being held responsible. The reason it was banned too was not actually because of its dangerous influence on society. Apparently it was because people were so outraged about its fake violence that their only response was to threaten Kubrick with the genuine stuff. Thankfully the film was re-released in 1999 when its recently deceased director became notoriously more difficult to murder.

That's not to say of course that I'm denying the violence of a scene in which somebody gets their head caved in by a giant cock. In my opinion all the rape, murder and assault simply exists to promote a discussion on the nature of freewill and morality. The more shocking Alex's earlier antics are the more justified his later brainwashing may seem to be. The title A Clockwork Orange implies that something might seem natural on the outside but under the surface everything is robotic and controlled. Pavlov's dogs didn't dribble because they were hungry but because like Alex, they had been conditioned into an involuntary response. Alex might have changed his violent ways but that's not because he has become a better person and the lack of choice surely undermines the morality of the situation. Adding to this, the experiment wasn't done to improve society either but instead was being used as a political advert for a self-serving Government. I'm not saying that Alex doesn't deserve to be punished but allowing those in charge to try and keep power by dicking about with his brain doesn't seem right either. Perhaps the message of the film is that the price to pay for freewill is that some people will always act like cunts.

Despite how grim it might all sound though, A Clockwork Orange is funny as fuck with Kubrick himself describing it as “a social satire”. From what we know, Ed Gein killed about as many people as Alex did but he doesn't even look bright enough to tell the most basic of knock-knock jokes. Alex might be a nutcase but he's also capable of politeness, friendliness and at least has a decent sense of humour. There's therefore an implication that he may simply be a product of his environment which also contains aggressive authority figures and a constant barrage of casual pornographic imagery. Although it wouldn't excuse it, I suppose there could be some irony if his violent behaviour was woven into him to begin with. At the very least it would again throw up the hypocrisy of a Government that aims to control and condition somebody out of a behaviour that they're a partial cause of.

"Please believe me!"
I hate to put on my tin-foil hat and start talking in a hushed tone but with its subversive nature, if I was in charge back in 1971, I'd probably try and discredit the film in some way too. Focusing on its violence and linking it to a genuine and shocking crime seems like a good way to do that. Also, while the crispy hat of conspiracy is on, I think that the Royal Family are Lizards, Aliens live in our volcanoes and The Chuckle Brothers are really father and son. Actually, it is worth noting that at the time of its release, the film was condemned by the Catholic Church which banned its followers from watching it. Ironically though, the voice of reason in the film is probably Alex's Prison Priest who appears outraged at the idea of conditioning and declares that goodness must come from within instead. Still, I'm guessing the Church missed that point as I suppose watching and judging a film while knowing many of your representatives rape and abuse little children can be a little distracting.

Since its release in 1971, A Clockwork Orange has gone on to become a stone-cold classic. Its influence can be felt everywhere from Trainspotting to The Dark Knight and even the epic N64 game Conker’s Bad Fur Day. Despite his brilliant performance as Alex however, Malcolm McDowell's career never took off the way it should thanks in part to drug addictions and his face shrivelling up into a chestnut. Although I probably slightly favour The Shining, I don't think any Kubrick film about a likeable nutter is any less than genius. Every time I watch this movie, I notice something different. On first viewing I noticed the humour and on second I thought more about it's stance on morality. Most recently however I noticed something huge that had previously escaped me. Apparently the big gay looking man near the end that carries the cripple about is actually Darth Vader! How I've only just viddied that bolshy veck, my gulliver will never fathom. 

Follow this blog or I'll fucking cut you.



26 November 2012

Branching Out



For some reason there are certain things that just seem impossible to photograph. The Loch Ness Monster, Big Foot, and Terrence Malick are all undeniably camera shy with some people even doubting whether or not they actually exist. Since his feature film debuted in 1973, there have been many reported sightings of the reclusive filmmaker although most have been debunked as simple hoaxes. If the camera isn't out of focus or too shaky, then the odds are that it's just someone wearing a rubber Malick suit in the distance. In actual fact I once thought I'd spotted the legendary movie maker surfacing for air in the middle of a lake. Turns out it was just a rotten log and a dead badger.

Since releasing Badlands almost forty years ago, Malick has become one of the most respected and critically adored filmmakers of all time, which is impressive considering that in the entirety of the last four decades he's only made about five fucking films. In half that time alone, Michael Bay has produced enough shite to fill an entire cathedral with bollocks movies. Until recently, the only two Malick films that I'd seen were Badlands and The Thin Red Line and I was obviously a huge fan of both. They were meditations on the nature of humanity and both were shot with a poetic love for life. The Thin Red Line has a huge cast consisting of cinema’s most famous faces and yet it’s shots of leaves and crocodile shit that Malick decides to focus on the most.

The latest of his films to be released is The Tree of Life which, despite being heckled at Cannes, managed to end up winning the 2011 Palme D'or. I know a film being booed is usually considered a bad thing but when it's coming from the French, I'll generally make an absolute effort to love it. With this in mind I finally got around to watching it the other night and was absolutely blown away. How the French can boo what is obviously a masterpiece is completely beyond me. First they surrendered Paris to the Nazi's and now this. It's just one stupid mistake after another with them, isn't it.

Jeff Spicoli: Earth's Mightiest Hero
It's hard to kind of describe the plot of The Tree of Life, but I'll have a go anyway. So- for some reason it starts with Sean Penn walking around aimlessly in a modern day city. I'm not sure what he's doing there but I don't think it really matters. It's Sean Penn, so he's probably just roaming the Earth, looking for some political injustice to get angry about. When the world is controlled by shadowy Corporations and corrupt Governments, it honestly makes me feel so much safer to know that we're being protected by an ageing Jeff Spicoli.

The film then starts to depict Penn's birth and childhood. He was raised in the 50's in Texas by Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain. He has two brothers with the family grieving over the sudden death of their oldest son. His mother is depicted angelically as a woman who wants to instil her children with a sense of wonder for the natural world. Brad Pitt on the other hand has the temper of a cunt and thinks the world's going to shit. Whilst she's outside pissing about with butterflies, he's inside teaching the kids that society is a manipulative rapist that will sly-fuck them into the grave. At one point, he educates his son on how to defend himself by asking him to punch him in the face. For some reason though the child seems bizarrely reluctant to physically assault his own Dad. As we all know though, when Brad Pitt asks you to hit him, you do so immediately and you aim straight for his fucking ear.

Whilst Penn's character’s childhood does take up the bulk of the film, there's also a few other things thrown in for good measure. Every so often, we're randomly treated to some scenes from the creation of the Universe which, to be fair, are absolutely mesmerising. Responsible for these shots was legendary special effects Supervisor Doug Trumbull who had worked on 2001: A Space Odyssey and whose previous film had been Blade Runner almost thirty years previous. I watched his work on The Tree of Life and was in absolute awe of how eye-bleedingly gorgeous everything looked. I seriously wouldn't recommend watching whilst stoned though as you could easily lose a few hours to gawping at any single frame of this film, though having said that, I did also once lose about fifteen long minutes by just staring intently at a door handle. It looked so plastic and shiny that in my stupor, I seriously couldn't believe my luck.

"Clever girl..."
There's another scene thrown into this film too which actually received a little bit of criticism. A dinosaur is lying helpless by the side of a stream when a larger carnivore heads over to eat it. Before the sharp tooth chows down however, he has a second thought and decides instead to scuttle off without murdering his intended victim. If only OJ Simpson had a similar epiphany then perhaps that murder that he 'didn't' commit wouldn't have happened either. This is apparently supposed to represent the birth of conscience with the meat eater feeling too guilty to kill its helpless meal. Most critics seem to think that overall this section is just a little bit out of place but fuck it, they're all wrong. In fact I don't think there's a single film out there that couldn't be improved with a few extra dinosaur scenes thrown in for good measure. Sure The Godfather is great but is a T-Rex's head not more threatening than a horse’s? If there was a risk of a Raptor attack in any of Katherine Heigl's movies, one of them might even be in danger of being watchable. There's a big emphasis on the word ‘might’, there.

So as is probably obvious, The Tree of Life doesn't have a standard and straight forward narrative. In a way, this film actually consists of two separate halves. The first is a montage of those above sections, highlighting the poetry of love, death and nature. There's the beauty of the universe, the kindness of a species and the sheer joy of Penn's youth. In fact I think this could be the most exuberant depiction of childhood that could exist without an XBox or widescreen TV. On one of the rare occasions that my boyhood self decided to play outside, I ended up finding cans of beer and grotty pornography in the bushes. It was one of those ‘reader’s wife’ magazines featuring such a manky standard of fanny that I think I was genuinely traumatised for a good few years by it. The young Penn however luckily just plays ball games and frolics in fields with his brothers.

"Ah... Flash back humour."
If it wasn't for Pitt's brooding bulk of insecurities then everything in the boy’s life would be great. It's not that Pitt doesn't love his kids; it's more that he wants to ensure they're hardened to a world that's disappointed him. He'd dreamed of being a musician but ended up being a failed business man. In fact everything that irks Pitt here was cheerfully summed up by Pitt in 1999, “We've all been raised on television to believe that one day we'd all be millionaires, and movie gods, and rock stars. But we won't. And we're slowly learning that fact. And we're very, very pissed off”.

The second half of the film tones down the collage of beauty and instead focuses a little more on the 50's upbringing. The young Penn also starts to become angry and disillusioned by his father after noticing the hypocrisies of what he preaches and how he acts. In fact the film surprisingly starts heading slightly into Badlands territory as the young boy goes a little off the rails turning slightly into Sid from Toy Story. He starts vandalising buildings, assaulting people and abusing animals. At one point he ties a frog to a firework and sets it off. I'd like to say this scene ends with the frog, “falling with style”, but it doesn't, he just explodes like a big green twat. I can't say for sure, but I suspect this is about the point that the French audience probably started booing.

Moustache, coffee stain or caterpillar?
Easily every single thing about this film can be described as beautiful. Generally I hate that word because it has too many vowels and makes me sound either a little pretentious or a little gay. However it really does apply to every single aspect of The Tree of Life. The visuals, the music, the themes and Jessica Chastain are all heart stabbingly beautiful here. The acting is also inspiringly great with particular praise being owed to Hunter McCracken. McCracken is the chap who brilliantly plays the young Penn with the character really appearing in his more youthful form for ninety-nine percent of the film. It would have been fairer for me to instead refer to Penn's performance as the Older McCracken but fuck it, since when was life fair? If he wants to compete with Penn for fame then he's got to spend the next few decades churning out brooding performances, engaging in political activism and growing a distinctively shitty moustache. Beating the living shit out of Madonna once or twice would probably help too.

"I'm 21 and wearing nothing but nipple tassles."
So anyway I guess I should say what The Tree of Life is actually all about but in honesty I haven't got a fucking clue. I mean, I can see that it's examining the meaning of life and exploring the presence of God or divinity in nature but I'm not sure what's concluded. However I don't think that it's a film that intends to provide any definitive answers either. It's one of those movies with enough openness and ambiguity that I think it will just feed back to you with whatever you go in looking for. Kind of like having a conversation on one of those sex lines where they're always just going to tell you what you want to hear.

Special Effects aside, this film obviously has a lot of thematic and narrative similarities with 2001: A Space Odyssey as both are films that look at the origins of life, the purpose of existence and how everything links together. However, where Kubrick's film can appear cold-hearted and pretentious, Malick's plays out like it's straight from his heart. In my opinion, 2001 has a kind of lecturing feel whilst The Tree of Life is more like a poetry of observations and of optimistic expressions.  If Kubrick was the strict Professor shutting the class room blinds on a sunny day then, Malick would be the soon-to-be-fired hippy teacher dicking about in the leaves and mud outside.

Malick on set of latest film?
It should probably also be pointed out just quite how autobiographical and personal this is for Malick too. He was raised in a similar place at a similar time and within a similar family setup. The film contains all of his usual nuances such as whispering voice-overs, use of natural light, a warm but smothering sense of existentialism and of course, a couple of neglected A-List actors. Sean Penn was allegedly pissed off with the film because his character ended up with significantly less scenes than he'd filmed. Although I can see why he'd be annoyed, I wasn't the one who spent time filming them, so fuck him.

The Tree of Life is such a phenomenal and joyous movie that I genuinely think it should be shown and discussed in schools. Teachers put plenty of effort into convincing kids to read books but not enough into weaning them onto decent movies. It might sound like a sit off, but encouraging children to write an essay on their perceived philosophies of this film would probably be more beneficial than pretending to read Macbeth for the five-hundredth time. If we taught them the joy and truth of cinema then perhaps cunts like Michael Bay wouldn't be so rich. When I was in school, there was a teacher who was a domestically abused, alcoholic with a lesson plan consisting of simply handing out word searches. As much as we used to enjoy how her horrific personal life would allow us an easy lesson, a movie from Terrence Malick would probably have been somewhat more educational.


Follow this blog or I'll fucking cut you.