It is currently Thu Jan 18, 2018 10:35 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 238 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 20, 21, 22, 23, 24
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jun 30, 2015 12:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 9:35 am
Posts: 179
ThEos wrote:
The throwing of the bone in the beginning was not supposed to be taken as triumphant, but as folly, of the tendency of man to disregard and dissociate from his own acts of violence, and the history between then and the future scene with the spaceship was confirmation of that tendency.


yep, and a condemnation of the capitalistic impulse to colonize space

I don't think I have ever seen a yew tree. Do they grow in Texas, Louisiana or Mississippi or anywhere else in the Southern US (other than Florida)?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 02, 2015 11:40 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2014 11:01 am
Posts: 1106
Location: Hope, BC
this just in: http://www.private-files.com/documents/ ... ubrick.pdf

from Godlike Productions thread.

_________________
The only thing new in this world is the history you don't know.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2015 5:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2014 6:24 pm
Posts: 28
Gotta ask, what is the event this document is referring to? Is this supposed to be like a smoking gun showing that he was first courted for an event, then tasked to become a propagandist, then he did the moon landing, and thus all his ideas are suspect? Or is it just another piece of supporting circumstantial evidence towards your idea that 2001 was government propaganda? 2001 was in the works as far back as '64 (according to the wiki page, and one of the OG titles was "Journey Beyond The Stars").

That is interesting though, but the NASA/Reservoir Dog photos are even more interesting. To me.

Been super busy with BS, no time to respond to the previous threads, and then so much time passed I just left it as it was.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2015 6:44 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2014 11:01 am
Posts: 1106
Location: Hope, BC
It's unknown to me what it's referring to. It's not a smoking gun but it's solid piece of evidence (if any were needed) that the government was actively involved in recruiting filmmakers for propaganda purposes, and that SK was on a short list in 1965.

I put it at this thread as it's the most active one that explores SK-movies having a propagandist aspect.

What are the NASA reservoir dog photos?

_________________
The only thing new in this world is the history you don't know.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 08, 2015 12:27 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2014 11:01 am
Posts: 1106
Location: Hope, BC
Quote:
The first manual, "KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation", dated July 1963, is the source of much of the material in the second manual. KUBARK was a U.S. Central Intelligence Agency cryptonym for the CIA itself.[8] The cryptonym KUBARK appears in the title of a 1963 CIA document KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation which describes interrogation techniques, including, among other things, "coercive counterintelligence interrogation of resistant sources". This is the oldest manual, and describes the use of abusive techniques, as exemplified by two references to the use of electric shock, in addition to use of threats and fear, sensory deprivation, and isolation.[8]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Army ... IA_manuals

_________________
The only thing new in this world is the history you don't know.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 18, 2015 9:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 9:35 am
Posts: 179
Quote:
Northrop Frye on 2001:“The international airport, completely insulated even from the country it is in, is perhaps the most eloquent symbol of this, and is parodied in Stanley Kubrick’s movie 2001, where the hero lands on the moon, dependent on human processing even for the air he breathes, and finds nothing to do there except to phone his wife back on earth, who is out.” [“Canada: New World without Revolution,” CW 12, 439.]


https://macblog.mcmaster.ca/fryeblog/fr ... he-movies/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2017 6:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2017 10:10 am
Posts: 2
I think questioning the motives and the quality of 2001 is fair and overdue, but I can't say I'm convinced. I think you will find this topic makes people irrational and angry because you are asking people to give up the only thing they thought/think they had/have - their fandom. I know as a huge fan of experimental music of the 60s and 70s, I was at first unwilling to examine the idea that much of the music was either controlled or made in a culture that had been debased. I've since deleted my one Grateful Dead album, my Beatles (no great loss), Who (still not losing much), The Doors (hurts a bit), and though I've held onto Zappa and Beefheart, I've been listening to mainly pre-WWII music lately. I think you'll find not just Kubrick fanboys, but any fans of film don't want to lose Kubrick - and sadly for film lovers, Welles, Bunuel (w/his associations with Dali and Dada) and Lynch all have questionable aspects. I'm ready to ditch everything from this culture, but for now I'm all argue in defense of Kubrick. Not that his art is utterly valuable and needs to be saved - I would ditch it with the rest of this debased culture - but I don't think the film promotes what you say it does, at least not exactly.

TO 2001:

>2001: A Space Odyssey is the head corner stone of the Kubrick mythos, and I suspect that, without it, the whole edifice crumbles.

I see what you mean, but I think Paths of Glory and Dr. Strangelove could support the mythos themselves. Perhaps he'll be re-evaluated as a great young director who was given a little too much freedom (or maybe the opposite, became too controlled).

>My point here (and I think Kael’s too) is that the story of 2001, what there is of it, is perfectly congruent with a very basic form of state propaganda, one which Kubrick apparently believed in: that the only God is science, and that in mastering science man will become the master of his own destiny and a god in his own right, extending himself outward into the stars and “beyond the infinite.” And the conquest of space was an essential part of this “spiritual” journey, by which man would meet his maker and recognize his own spiritual potential, etc., etc.

Other than the last sentence, I can agree with your point, but fail to see how that shows 2001 is not good art. Your problem here seems philosophical - you don't like the ideas that you see as congruent with state propaganda - but surely the idea that through mastery of science we can move into space and in the process make ourselves reach a higher potential is not all that objectionable is it?

I'm no fan of social engineering, and I can see how your aligning the ideology of 2001 with the ideas generally put forward in "Changing Images of Man" and the human potential movement - but on a certain level don't we want to reach a higher potential as humans? Perhaps move past human into something even better as per Nietzsche? (Not to get off topic, but I think Nietzsche's work holds up despite it being used/maybe inspiring some of these mind controllers and social influencers. Nietzsche said about Christianity that Jesus was the only Christian and the followers were all hypocrites and fools (to paraphrase a lot), and I think Nietzsche was the only one of his kind with the ideology and honesty to believe in the will to power without becoming an abusive hypocrite or fool.)

What I'm saying in a long winded way is that it seems your objection is that the film supports an ideology you don't agree with - therefore it can't (or maybe you wouldn't say can't, but more or less that appears what you mean) be good art.

In a later post you say:
>The film doesn't suggest that Man transcends despite being a killer bent on the conquest of everything, but because of it.

The film first shows man hunting other animals, and then becoming a territorial fighter of other tribes - I wouldn't call either of those killing in the conventional sense (killing someone from an different tribe in the context of a battle for resources makes perfect sense, watch some robins out the window fighting over a little patch of grass).

It's also bizarrely moral, something I wouldn't expect after hearing you admonish others for bringing in morality. Are we really upset that Kubrick didn't dare condemn the history of man? Didn't dare condemn the conquerors? Why should Kubrick pretend that for much of the past humans battled over resources? Why was that wrong, morally or otherwise? Simply because we now have abundance and lack imagination?

But is the film even saying man transcends through violence? The only further "transcendence" is not through violence, unless we count self-defense against AI. The further transcendence is through accomplishment and scientific achievement.

Might we imagine the message is - in the past we evolved to gain technology and we used that to conquer and also kill, but now we as a species must leave behind that combative spirit and make the next evolutionary leap by working on scientific advancement and colonizing space? Perhaps the killing of the violent AI is a metaphor for man needing to kill the violent associations of his technology (which were ultimately programmed by man, and must be undone by man), and move to a more purely motivated scientific purpose.

I'd also note that there is no transhumanism in the film, man does not evolve by joining with technology, so we needn't give too much credit to Kubrick's vision.

You acknowledge the technical brilliance of the film, and maybe you can accuse the film of a little plagiarism, but I would hardly call the short trip to the moon the highlight of the film's concepts. Surely the battle with HAL is the most memorable and influential part of the film. I think the slow, straight sci-fi approach to the opening of the film, makes the slow burn horror of HAL's section all the more realistic and powerful. We could debate whether genre art is worthy art, but purely on that level, I fail to see how one can criticize the film for lacking an engaging narrative. We might criticize the ending for the light show not being quite amazing (I enjoyed it sober as a child, but perhaps that was my debased culture bleeding through), and the narrative thread getting lost a bit, but it seems the film doesn't want to give us the answers. Sure, maybe Kubrick and Clarke hadn't though the idea all the way through, but maybe they wanted to present their vision without exposition, and let people figure it out or not on their own. If the whole film was as disjointed as the ending, I could understand the criticism, but the everything preceding it is fairly well-designed sci-fi horror.

My complaint would be the film is a bit of wish fulfillment. What if there was some mysterious object way out in space that just popped up and you were going there? What if you once you got to the object you found it held immense knowledge or power? Wouldn't that be cool? Wouldn't that be a life worth living? This all appeals, as you say, to the conqueror in us, and I can see how this could be a subtle element of mind influence in the same vein as Campbell's hero's journey. But to me, the meat of the film, the battle with HAL, remains compelling, and makes the end a sufferable ambitious attempt to make something interesting for us to see inside the monolith - I mean, how could the sequence live up to all our hype? We watched a man slowly travel across the solar system, painstakingly destroy a monstrous AI, all to get to the mysterious object that contains knowledge or something to evolve us - it's something unfilmable, and so Kubrick gave it a shot.

I do find your comment about Kubrick being unwilling to let someone write a book with mixed reviews highly suspicious, and I do see legitimate connections between the film and the 60s new age, intelligence ideas, but whether Kubrick was himself in on it or controlled vs whether he was just another dupe is the question that remains for basically every popular artist. However, I don't see the damaging ideas you seem to. Would the film be usable for influence by elitist agendas - probably. Probably all art that can be used as pop culture can be used to distract and control the populace. But I don't see how the ideas of the film are necessarily negative or pro-elitist agenda.

I didn't read the whole thread, just a dozen pages or so, so I hope I'm not repeating someone elses objections.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 30, 2017 10:53 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2014 11:01 am
Posts: 1106
Location: Hope, BC
thanks for chiming in and sorry it got held up so long in moderation; i don't receive email notifications and hardly ever check the forum anymore, for probably obvious reasons.

I wouldn't say the comment you singled out was necessarily moral-istic. It's all in the eye of the beholder. Usually my aim is to show how certain ideological principals (such as evolution through violence) dovetail with known SE agendas.

_________________
The only thing new in this world is the history you don't know.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 238 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 20, 21, 22, 23, 24

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group Color scheme by ColorizeIt!