Stanley Kubrick: The creative genius
iView Author: Vishal Chaturvedi (Bangalore, India)
Email: vishalc2005[at] gmail [dot] com
Stanley Kubrick: The creative genius
A character in a movie is usually defined with reference to the script; it does not exist beyond the confines of the script. The character exists because the story needs to progress, the There may be some film-makers who try to flesh-out the character by mulling over the likely responses to a designed situation. But a rare few see m to think of the characters as actual entities beyond the action–response cycle. The peculiarities of the character are pre-defined, and it does not usually grow, it does not evolve into a more violent, a more loving or a more disgusting person as the story progresses. His mannerisms, his gait, his eccentricities, his dialects, the people he loves or hates, are all decided by someone else for him. Stanley Kubrick, however evolved characters rather than just defining them. Consider the way his characters from different movies referred to the act of sex. For the marines in the Full Metal Jacket, it was the bellicose, martial ‘boom-boom’. For the deranged and vulgar Alex DeLarge and his bunch of drooges from ‘A Clockwork Orange’ it was the ‘ol’ in-out in-out’. Professor Humbert Humbert, the step-father-cum-lover of Lolita, with all his erudite ambivalence and the meandering ways of the small town, referred to it as ‘getting a cavity filled’. The estranged couple of ‘Eyes Wide Shut’ had lost its allure and could only describe it as the ‘physical act of love’. Just by referring to a single apparently insignificant event in the film, the characters here are establishing their unique identities and acquainting the audience with their mind-sets and milieu. Even if these may ideas from the screen-writer or anyone else associated with the films, I’d give credit to the film maker for having provided the room, the urge, for the stimulation of such creativity.
For Stanley Kubrick, the character was a lot more beyond someone who took the script to its logical culmination. For him, the character was a story by itself. In Dr. Strangelove, Jack Ripper was not just one militant, Russian-communist-hating maniac; he was also a failed lover who somehow managed to attribute even his inability in bed to the Russians. Even the complexity of HAL in 2001: A space odyssey was dictated by an innate ‘logical’ intent to make sure that the mission succeeds, which according to it, was possible only when, the rest of the crew was eliminated. The violent streak of Jack Torrance in Shining was not out-of-the-blue. It was just an exaggerated manifestation of his minor irritations at his wife and son.
Just by the way they expressed themselves, the characters in Stanley Kubrick’s movies established themselves as individuals with distinctive personalities. Each expression, each step, each action and each word uttered went towards strengthening that personality, to such an extent that they would start appearing like the natural behavioral traits of the individual. At these times, we forget that what we perceive as being personality traits are all contrived and manufactured; we tend to ignore the fact that the personality itself is a figment of someone’s imagination, so how can the traits be inherent. We fail to realize that there is no Dr. Strangelove out there who has this extraordinary figurative hand running out of control, we never dwell upon the fact that there have been no historical records which tell us how the ape-man from the ‘dawn of man’ felt that surge of all-conquering power when it devised it’s first ‘weapon’. Once we realize that this is all a result of the creative imagination of an individual, of course, abetted by a few others, but largely, a single individual, we realize the enormity of the brilliance that we behold.
Such meticulousness, the remarkable eye for details and a razor sharp mind, were only some of the things which established Kubrick among the world’s most imaginative and exalted film-maker s. Kubrick’s penchant for authenticity was so extraordinary that he his replica of the B-52 bomber he used in Dr. Strangelove had the US Air Force questioning him on how he managed to shoot in a USAF bomber. Everything, right from the controls to the survival kit contents was precise and accurate. At times, his meticulousness went to absurd proportions. Like, in 2001: A space odyssey; for a sequence in a space station when the toilet is shown, there is a reference to a printed ‘instructions for using a zero-gravity toilet’ put up near the toilet, which the protagonist is unable to read because of the small text size. Thereafter, there’s no further reference to the zero-gravity toilet or the instructions. Many year later, the actual instruction booklet was exhibited, which was actually five-page long, and when you go through it, you’ll realize that it actually tries very hard to simplify using a toilet in a zero-gravity situation describing numerous contraptions and their functions. In another such instance, in clockwork orange, when Alex is shown in a record store, flirting with a girl, one of the records on display is that of 2002: A space odyssey. What was this? Advertising? An idiosyncrasy of an eccentric genius? Or a ploy to play with fans? We’ll never know for sure.
Tags: Stanley Kubrick
Anurag Kashyap
Abhay Deol
Dibakar Banerjee
Hansal Mehta
Khalid Mohamed
Kundan Shah
Anish Kuruvilla
Jaideep Verma
Manish Gupta
Navdeep Singh
Bhavani Iyer
D. Santosh
Onir
Ashvin Kumar
Ramu Ramanathan
Sudhir Mishra
Pankaj Advani
Revathy
Saurabh Shukla
Shilpa Shukla
Sujoy Ghosh
Suparn Verma
Santosh Sivan
Shashank Ghosh
Shivajee
Pavan Kaul
Partho Sen-Gupta
Prroshant Naryannan
Sam Langoria
Satish Kasetty
Good Post on Kubrick
Thanks for the post Vishal..wished it could have been longer.
good post Vishal…would love it of you could review some of his movies as well……
Thanks for posting something on Kuberic… he is such a treat to watch.. loved all his masterpieces… shining, strangelove, clock works orange, space oddesey, killing, full metal jacket.. he always had a habit of showing little to audience and keep many a treasure under the carpet of plot.. he treats audience as a intelligent viewer and never spoon feeds all his scenes.. if i watch a movie over and over again.. every time i’ll find something new..
though for me ‘eyes wide shut’ was little disappointing…
I am yet to see clock work orange and have seen 2001 and Eyes wide shut. Whatever little I saw of shining was very scary. I thought Eyes wide shut had the film maker constantly engaged in dialogue with the audience – not spoon feeding – but creating some imagery, the meaning of which hasn’t yet struck a chord in me. I hope to ‘get’ it at some point later. I will give it my benefit of doubt. The mansion scenes and the wardrobe rental scenes had some meaning underlying – I simply fail to get them – but I do know that there is something out there and I probably must read a bit more to ‘get it’. Looks like I have to grow up a bit more before passing a judgement on EWS.
Stanley Kubrick remains one of the finest directors of all times, good post on him!
Clockwork Orange is my personal favorite.
Cheers!
Thanks for the compliments all. Scrap maniac i agree ews was sk’s most disappointing work for me as well maybe along with spartacus. And jaiganesh. The best way to enjoy cinema is by watching them like you do. By the way, it’s sad to see the number of responses to the posts these days. Does this indicate that pfc’s dying?
Hi,
I wish i could’ve seen 2001 on the big screen!
Regards,
Santino
2001 – is a remarkable piece of work.
How is it possible to visualize and present a story whose major part of soundtrack is just mechanical hiss and computer hum and still make it rivetting? Classic for all times.
Vishal.. dont worry about the comments.. they are less on substantial post.. comemnts are high where people argue.. show off.. bitches …
Here we all agree.. and probably people are to lazy or find it silly just to say “Good work Boss”.. Keep writing the good stuff.. even if teh count is less.. there are folks in PFC who look fwd to read good stuff..
Ooh….missed this one. Kubrick happens to be my favourite director as well.
My personal favourite remains A Clockwork Orange. Here’s a commentary I’ve written on the film…
http://rant-avenue.blogspot.com/2007/03/boomerrrang.html
I also liked Dr.Strangelove (the only time I saw a work by a non-brit transgress brit humour by miles). Full Metal Jacket was too depressing for me, though a remarkably well made film. The Shining remains the scariest movies of all time for me. Yet to see Lolita, Spartacus & EWS.
However, two of his most underrated movies IMO are Paths of Glory & The Killing. Paths of Glory sent out a stronger anti-war message than even FMJ. And the Killing was the baap of all non-linear narrations.