#I will fight to the death for amateur artwork because it brings so much light into my life

[julie-su]

Some of you need to get invested in a character who has 2 pieces of fanart, one of which you found in the depths of a 20 year old website still hanging on by a thread, the other by yourself. Somebody draws that character for the love of the character, and apologises for it being 'amateur', but I'm about to cry of joy that somebody else feels the connection to this character. I don't care if it's the first creative endeavour of your life. You understand me deeper than any modern-day Davinci, baby. This artwork means the world to me.

[mucky-puddler]

So, I’m doing a module on Kubrick, and I’m bringing you along for the ride

Context; I’m required to upload weekly blogs about the lectures and screenings and readings from the week. This is that.

Okay, so first is the lecture; one of the first things Nathan said is that Kubrick is that he has a film in every genre other than a western - we were not given a reason why; I guess he just hates them.

After my first introduction to Kubrick, I didn’t really know what to think about him - he seems a little high maintenance because he was very nit-picky about something changing on his set, whether that was a slight difference in the lighting or a prop had shifted. It should come as a surprise to no-one that Kubrick was an avid photographer as a young man because the skills he learnt whilst as a photographer at Look Magazine have bled through into his film-making. I also enjoy photography, so I connected with him at least on a very surface level. His other hobbies, like chess and other physical sports, also can be seen manifesting themselves through his work - some good, brief examples are his three short docu-style films. Day of the Fight illustrates his passion for sport and shows how he experimented with his photography at the same time; a good example of this is what I am calling the ‘under-the-fight’ shot, where the boxers are shot from underneath - we can see both of their faces and where the blows are hitting, and it gives the audience a glimpse into what it might have been like to see the fight live. Perhaps his strength and talent in photography lead people to see him as a “New York Intellectual” - part of me thinks that the deep and entwining themes came along after his experience as a photographer.

As most filmmakers do, Kubrick responded to the debates and ideas of his time, and made films within the context of those issues (more on this later). He seemed a little stuck up, especially when considering that he did not compromise his stylistic or intellectual integrity; some might say that that is noble of him, that he remains true to himself and the standards he upholds, but try thinking about it from the other crew’s point of view - he might have turned down their ideas because they did not align with his. This is, of course, speculation and I have no evidence to prove either way. Also, I’ve been informed that he had to check everything himself and didn’t trust other people to make his imagination come to life, which seems controlling to me - for example, he would often insist on holding the camera himself in order to effectively portray a point of view or something. I think if he could direct, hold the camera, do all the edits, record the sound, and act all the characters, he would. It would appear that he wanted everything to be just how he wanted it - but maybe that’s my pessimistic mindset coming through.

Let’s talk about the first three shorts Kubrick was commissioned to do. The first was called “Day of the Fight” in 1951 and is a documentary about Walter Cartier, an Irish middleweight boxer preparing for a fight. The narration, paired with the footage shot by Kubrick himself, informs the audience of how a semi-professional boxer prepares for a fight. Through this short piece, we can see Kubricks interests creep in - his enjoyment of sport and passion for chess is represented by the boxing itself, but also his love for animals can be seen through his inclusion of Cartier's dog. It is in this piece that the first ‘under-the-fight’ shot is used, emphasising his love for interesting shot and photography. His next short is called “The Flying Padre” (also 1951) and is another docu-piece about the priest Father Fred Stadtmuller who used his plane to spread the word of God and reach as many people as possible. He is portrayed as a lawful good hero, a Superman type. This is the shortest of the three, and there isn’t much more to say about it. The final short Kubrick released was made in 1953 called “The Seafarers”, and contained information about the perks that these navy-esque men receive for their service. It sheds an innocently positive light on the domestic aspects of their work and the options available for them (although they do say the word ‘seafarers’ far too much). It looks like some of the short were staged, especially as Kubrick probably would have had only one camera, but that is a common method to use when creating docu-style pieces. One question I did have though, nothing to do with Kubrick though, is how are the families of the seafarers perceived? Are they judged or pitied for not having a man around (because it was the 50′s, ya know)?

I’ll briefly (or not) discuss the other two feature-length films that Kubrick released about the same time. In 1955 he released “The Killers Kiss” whose story revolved around an ex-boxer and a dancer who fell in love and wanted to run away together to escape her creepy boss. As is the case with all of Kubrick’s films so far, this one started with some internal monologuing. The first 15 minutes or so heavily mirror “Day of the Fight”, from the vanity inspection beforehand to the ‘under-the-fight’ shot, which makes sense - Kubrick was only in his 20s when both of these films were released and his experience (like most of ours) was limited at the time (also we all draw inspiration from previous work/real life or whatever). Other than the glaring social issues (gotta love the 50′s) and peculiar plot holes, I felt that the music offset the desired atmosphere during scenes that were meant to be particularly tense - we learned that Kubrick enjoyed his music, jazz, in particular, so I find it strange that he would not try to better match the music with the intensity of the scene; perhaps it was that he did not have much music to work with. Kubrick uses a lot of noir features in this film e.g. harsh shadows, casting light through slatted blinds, utilising the aesthetic of smoking and fedora hats standing at street corners and at the ends of dark alleys, which I always enjoy. The second film we were introduced to was “The Killing” from 1956 - according to Nathan, this film inspired Tarantino to use split narrative, and this is one of the worlds first heist films. I don’t have as much to say about this one, both sport and chess can be seen within it illustrating Kubrick’s love for them both, it has a lot of noir tropes, and I think there was a gay couple in it? But I might be reading into it a little too deeply. There was an interesting switch of gender roles between two couples - in one, the man was dominant and overbearing, but in the other couple it was the woman who essentially bullied her partner, which was potentially quite progressive when considering the time in which it was released.

Here’s a brief (actually, this time) intro to the film I want to focus on - “Fear and Desire” was the first Kubrick film I watched, I had no expectations or thoughts about it beforehand and didn’t really know what to make notes on. After doing some reading, certain things became clearer, so I’ll pair the reading with some of my notes on the film itself.

In the introduction of the reading, James Enyeart talks a lot about the implications and developments of photography in the mid 19th century - these are some of the attributes he gives it;

- highly graphic and structures

- photographers had a keener eye

- composition gave structure and harmony

- gave a more aesthetically pleasing view of the world

- the more graphic an image and the more dramatic it’s presentation, the stronger the emotion

I agree with these conclusions - obviously, technology has advances since then, but these comments still ring true today. Additionally, Enyeart discusses photos in relation to the context they provide, and I have a theory; if a collection of photos can give more context than a single image, therefore a film (which is a series of photos shown in quick succession) can give the maximum amount of context? Alternatively, it could have the opportunity to convey multiple contexts, which could be considered themes?

Word of the day; Apotheosis – a perfect form or example of something, the highest or best part of something, elevation to a divine status.

I also agree with Enyeart’s comment suggesting that the overlap of cinematic photography, fiction, reality, and documentary style is the apotheosis of film.

Cherchi Usai’s chapter on Kubrick and “Fear and Desire” is more tailored to discussing the film – also I didn’t read any of the other chapters because I didn’t have time and that shit is long.

One of the biggest things discussed is how Kubrick hated the film in question (and I have to partially agree – it’s not great), but what is interesting is that no one can seem to agree whether it is a masterpiece or not. After the film was made and ready to be distributed, Kubrick was in love with it, as any young creative is with their most recent work. It is said he called “it’s structure; allegorical. It’s conception; poetic.” However, soon after its public release, critics called it “amateur” and said nothing more. However, after the initial hype, Kubrick ignored the fact that it ever existed, and it was after that that critics and fanatics thought the work to be more than it’s original worth. To me, it feels like a stranger wandered into Kubrick’s childhood bedroom and riffled through his GCSE artwork to find something for a museum – I do not understand why “Fear and Desire” is obsessed over.

It was at this point that I debated whether I wanted or even cared about the origins of the film, but my degree told me yes.

Also, keeping a camera in a paper bag is terrible camera care and hurts my physically.

One of the main points that were discussed was the theme of obsession – Kubrick had obsessions in his life, and he made films surrounding obsessions of different themes; death, lust, war, money, fear (also narration and film noir for Kubrick himself). In the film “Fear and Desire”, those obsessions are made manifest through Mac’s conversation with Corby about the Governor – he is obsessed with killing the enemy and winning the war, so much so that he died for his cause.

The final point to discuss is the double use of the actors – the actor for Corby also plays the Governor, which adds an air of humanity. Additionally, the narration played over their images is existential and inward-looking, therefore humanising both sides of the war.