Great interview with Kubrick

I recently came across an interview (via @jasonbessey) that Joseph Gelmis conducted with Stanley Kubrick in 1969. Especially of note to me in the interview is the section where Kubrick describes the emotional connection with film, which he equates to similar as the effect of music and painting. Based upon the narrative quality of film many people relate the medium to the novel. However, such a comparison is a stretch at best. The way that a movie conveys a story is through image and sound, which have a more immediate and emotional effect. As per Kubrick:

Strangelove was a film where much of its impact hinged on the dialogue, the mode of expression, the euphemisms employed. As a result, it's a picture that is largely destroyed in translation or dubbing. 2001, on the other hand, is basically a visual, nonverbal experience. It avoids intellectual verbalization and reaches the viewer's subconscious in a way that is essentially poetic and philosophic. The film thus becomes a subjective experience which hits the viewer at an inner level of consciousness, just as music does, or painting.

Actually, film operates on a level much closer to music and to painting than to the printed word, and, of course, movies present the opportunity to convey complex concepts and abstractions without the traditional reliance on words. I think that 2001, like music, succeeds in short-circuiting the rigid surface cultural blocks that shackle our consciousness to narrowly limited areas of experience and is able to cut directly through to areas of emotional comprehension. In two hours and forty minutes of film there are only forty minutes of dialogue.

I think one of the areas where 2001 succeeds is in stimulating thoughts about man's destiny and role in the universe in the minds of people who in the normal course of their lives would never have considered such matters. Here again, you've got the resemblance to music; an Alabama truck driver, whose views in every other respect would be extremely narrow, is able to listen to a Beatles record on the same level of appreciation and perception as a young Cambridge intellectual, because their emotions and subconscious are far more similar than their intellects. The common bond is their subconscious emotional reaction; and I think that a film which can communicate on this level can have a more profound spectrum of impact than any form of traditional verbal communication.

The problem with movies is that since the talkies the film industry has historically been conservative and word-oriented. The three-act play has been the model. It's time to abandon the conventional view of the movie as an extension of the three-act play. Too many people over thirty are still word-oriented rather than picture-oriented.

For example, at one point in 2001 Dr. Floyd is asked where he's going and he replies, "I'm going to Clavius," which is a lunar crater. Following that statement you have more than fifteen shots of Floyd's spacecraft approaching and landing on the moon, but one critic expressed confusion because she thought Floyd's destination was a planet named Clavius. Young people, on the other hand, who are more visually oriented due to their new television environment, had no such problems. Kids all know we went to the moon. When you ask how they know they say, "Because we saw it."

So you have the problem that some people are only listening and not really paying attention with their eyes. Film is not theater -- and until that basic lesson is learned I'm afraid we're going to be shackled to the past and miss some of the greatest potentialities of the medium.

Kubrick was a master of his use of the image for emotional resonance. I believe that the image has a much more personal relationship than do words. Words are always intellectualized; they are things that we have to learn over time. Images, however, are natural, a pure sense. We relate to the world around us in terms of images, which allows film to touch us at our emotional core.

The rest of the interview can be found here.

Scorcese on 3D in Hugo Cabret

Yesterday, The Guardian posted a great interview with Martin Scorcese, one of my all time favorite directors. The famed Oscar winner spoke passionately about his relation to film and the emotional connection he draws with the camera. However, what I was happiest to find in the interview was Scorcese's musings on the advent of stereoscopic 3D:

"Every shot is rethinking cinema," he enthuses, "rethinking narrative – how to tell a story with a picture. Now, I'm not saying we have to keep throwing javelins at the camera, I'm not saying we use it as a gimmick, but it's liberating. It's literally a Rubik's Cube every time you go out to design a shot, and work out a camera move, or a crane move. But it has a beauty to it also. People look like… like moving statues. They move like sculpture, as if sculpture is moving in a way. Like dancers…"

I am happy to see Scorcese tackling the medium in his forthcoming Hugo Cabret and excited for what the director will be able to do with the added dimension. It is my belief that 3D has the capability of enhancing the emotional connection between viewer and film, but that – as-of-yet – these capabilities have not been harnessed. Cameron did his part to advance the technology, but he failed to push the boundaries of what 3D can do as a storytelling device, perhaps because Avatar didn't have much of a story. Scorcese, on the other hand, is a natural storyteller whose films have urgency and emotional truth. If anyone can show that 3D is a viable addition to filmic storytelling and not just good for shock value, it is him. 

The new IMDb layout sucks

However, luckily there is now a solution. Less IMDb is an extension for Safari that will change the layout of IMDb to move credits into a more prominent and accessible place on the page. Now you don't need to go rifling through useless trivia and star scores in order to get to the information you were really looking at IMDb for.

What I Write About When I Write About Movies

Every now and again I am faced with questions of pseudo-philosophical origins: Why do I choose to spend so much time on movies? Why does this form move me so and stir such a passion in me? Why do I write? Why about movies?

These questions are difficult enough to formulate, mostly composed of lurking thoughts in the back of my head that slip away as soon as I reach to formulate them. Answering them, then, would seem nearly impossible, but as I’m currently in an introspective and borderline masochistic mood I will do my best to put into words my love of movies, of art, and of writing itself.

Watch This Movie: "American Splendor" 2010 Review

American Splendor (2003) combines interviews, archival footage, and fiction into a wonderfully cohesive and brilliant biopic that keenly observes an artist’s relation to his creations. Simultaneously, the movie turns a watchful eye to the goals and pursuits of blue collar America and the strive for individualization and self-definition in the face of inevitable mortality. And, in doing so, manages to create a bittersweet, poignant piece of art.

"Monsters" (2010) Review

Monsters (2010), directed by Gareth Edwards, created a stir on the festival market due to the stunning special effects that Edwards created on a super-low (~$200,000) budget. The movie takes place in a world where a large portion of Mexico has been infested with extra-terrestrial monsters, which the Mexican and U.S. government now seek to contain in an “Infected Zone.” Despite the noticeable similarities to Blomkamp’s District 9, which was also done on a low budget and focused on a quarantined alien ‘invasion’, Edwards takes this set-up and basically ignores the monsters all together. Instead Edwards uses this world as the backdrop to a simple, burgeoning relationship between Andrew (Scoot McNairy) and Samantha (Whitney Able). The movie takes on similar tones as Lost in Translation and, despite some flaws, manages to be a simple and enjoyable love story told in a world on the border of apocalypse.

Movie Recommendation: "Sin Nombre"

Sin Nombre (2009), directed by Cary Fukunaga, is a pertinent and beautiful movie about the hope for a brighter future in the face of despair and retaining that hope even when its known to be in vain. Focusing on the relationship between Sayra, a Honduran girl emigrating through Mexico to the U.S., and Willy, a Mexican gang member on the run from his gang, the movie traces their burgeoning relationship and journey to the U.S. Sin Nombre makes strong commentary on gang violence and immigration without ever resorting to a preachy tone. It is beautifully shot and moments that could easily be emotionally exploitative are handled with a minimalistic hand, which actually helps to heighten the severity of the issues being addressed by showing how everyday these moments have become to some. Sin Nombre is a tactful, yet powerful movie that I strongly recommend to everyone. The only complaint I have is that the movie could have been longer and some points feel rushed, but this is an easily ignored shortcoming in an otherwise brilliant movie.

AMC's 'The Walking Dead' and the state of the horror genre

This past Sunday (10-31), AMC premiered their new show The Walking Dead, based off the graphic novel of the same title. This premiere became the number one watched original series for AMC, a huge feat for a channel that airs both Mad Men and Breaking Bad. However, this post isn’t about the amount of people that watched the show, it is about how the show represents a revival of old-school horror in a country that has recently turned to brutality as a replacement for suspense (see: Saw. Get it?)