What follows is basically a continuation of what I wrote about earlier
today.
EYES WIDE SHUT was released this weekend and the media is all abuzz
about it. You probably already know that its Stanley Kubrick's final
movie and he's made some good ones. It seems to me that his movies are
very intellectual. I haven't seen it yet, but if I know Kubrick all fout
levels will be there. As in Rich's example of the e-mailer, there is the
physical film itself, the sexual desire for Nichole Kidman's naked body,
the treatment of social values like fidelity and monogomy. And I've only
heard critics talk about the intellectual and artistic aspects, but some
of them find the movie interesting on that level. I'm thinking about
this with respect to Pirsig's refusal to sell ZAMM to Redford and all
that it implies. I guess it another question related to the others posed
earlier. Why not allow room for intellectual movies? I definately think
there is such a thing and its one of the best things in the world. The
best movie is just as good as the best novel. I just don't think a
Redford version of ZAMM would be all that degenerate. Might do the world
some good, as an introduction to his ideas if nothing else. And maybe
its just the celebrity worshiper talking, but I respect Redford and see
him as an intellectual, among other things.
Kubrick's 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY seems like a good example here.
Everybody's seen it, right? It's a movie about the evolution of
humanity, right? To underscore the point, Kubrick used the music of
Richard Strauss' ALSO SPAKE ZARATHUSTRA at all the most crucial moments.
(Yea, its the dramatic building sound you're all familiar with. It's
become a cliche and a punch line.) But I recently learned that he wrote
the piece as a tribute to Zarathustra's evolutioanary quest for
knowledge. Kubrick uses the opening of the piece at those evolutionary
moments, such as when the primates "discover" war and murder and then
again when the HAL kills Dave.
The point is that Kubrick made intellectual movies, but he also sold
alot of tickets and was a celebrity at the same time. Why can't Pirsig
do the same? Who ever said a Mystic or a Saint can't write and direct a
movie? Who is better qualified to paint a moral vision of humanity? Why
isn't considered degenerate to turn the cinematic arts into a commercial
enterprise in the first place? Why should the movies even be a social
level activity? Why should it just be a product for mass consumption and
not an art form too? Pirsig admits that documentaries are intellectual,
but aren't Kenneth Branaugh's movies too? Woody Allen? Did anyone see
Pi? Even STAR WARS is based on Joseph Campbell's "Hero".
David B.
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:07 BST