All Content Copyright Kubrickian.org and Scott Sheckman No reprinting without permission. Thank you. All inquires, please contact [email protected] or USA-310-741-7617
In the Year 2014: “2001: A Space Odyssey” is a Hit with Males of All Ages
By Scott Sheckman Founder/Webmaster – Kubrickian.org December 2014
On November 1, 2014, I had the very rare pleasure of seeing “2001: A Space Odyssey” via a new 70mm film print at the opening weekend of the Kubrick Exhibit at the world-famous TIFF building in Toronto. I attended the screening with my father from South Jersey, coincidentally named Stanley, who just turned 70 and traveled with me to Canada for the special events. While not as obsessed as myself with Kubrick’s full body of work, my dad is a card-carrying Kubrick fan dating back to “Dr. Strangelove”. Viewing 2001 with us was a packed theater, predominately males, most appearing under 55.
The screening was significantly enhanced with the live appearance and candid confessions of 2001’s aging stars Keir Dullea and Gary Lockwood, who later provided autographs for those who braved the barriers to entry. The night before, we saw a big-screen digital projection of “The Shining” featuring a brief interview with Kubrick’s longtime Executive Producer and Brother-in-Law, Jan Harlan, who later co-introduced a 35mm screening of Kubrick’s last film,“Eyes Wide Shut”, with his sister and Kubrick’s widow, Christiane. I had a chance to briefly meet Jan Harlan and ask a couple of key questions which I hope to address in a future feature-length story at Kubrickian.org – stay tuned!
TIFF’s Director with Dullea & Lockwoood before 2001 via 70mm Christiane Kubrick & Jan Harlan on stage before EWS via 35mm
I’m detailing the projection format (70mm, 35mm, Digital Projection) because I feel it is important to note that most major cinemas have practically retired their classic 35mm/70mm film projectors, and are quickly becoming 100% digital projection thanks to wide-scale industry and audience adoption. It’s actually difficult to experience a film via 35mm projection these days unless it’s being shown at a small revival or art theater. Imax 70mm still has some legs, but 4k Digital is leading traditional film projection towards functional obsolesces.
While digital projection seems superior in almost everyway compared to relatively fragile and bulky physical film, there’s a growing mound of evidence that seems to indicate that the human eyes and brain see digital and film projection distinctly differently, even to the point of affecting brain wave activity – i.e. according to some papers I’ve read, viewing a movie via 24fps flash-frame film, even an old/dirty print, is more mentally and emotional engaging than digital’s reception, which is more akin to watching interlaced moving images on a home video monitor, a facsimile of sorts, especially if the original content was recorded with analog/chemical physical film. More reading is available on the internet, and check out Quentin Taratino’s POV – hint, he’s not digging digital exhibition, like a number of purists and cinema lovers. But as with recorded music for over 30 years, Cinema is being forced to get with the digital distribution/exhibit paradigm. Fortunately, At TIFF: Huge model of 2001’s Discovery spaceship physical projection film can enjoy a long shelf-life, if stored correctly.
Now that the technical stuff is out of the way, I’ll try to focus on the heart of the matter – how was a 70mm film projection of 2001 received by a pair of related men (47 and 70 years of age) in November 2014? In short – SPECTACULARLY! Jan Harlan and the 2001 stars mentioned that 2001 was literally saved in the late 1960’s by males under 30 year of age – it was rated “G”, then and now. In other words, late 1960’s boys and young men generated enough box-office to make most 2001 investors happy, including Kubrick, after a very rocky and unsure start including premiere walk-outs and mixed critical reviews. My dad, 24 years old in 1968, seemed like he was right back there, returning to the best theater in town to see 2001 before it left the visual landscape for a long while, which at that time, could be several years. I asked Dullea and Lockwood if they realized 2001 was going to be a cinema masterpiece upon release – they said with honest surety that they had no doubts – they knew Kubrick was a unique and gifted cinematic genius before they even met him in the mid 1960’s.
I’ve seen 2001 probably 21 times on some kind of home monitor and DLP projector, but I have no memory of seeing it via physical film before this Nov. 2014 screening. So one of the things I could easily do while viewing was measure my engagement and enlightenment by seeing 2001 the way Kubrick originally intended - the way millions of people have seen the film in the “old days” when theatrical first runs lasted months and revivals were something to celebrate/attend - before home video characteristically changed the way we consume movies in the 21st Century. Experiencing 2001 via 70mm film (according to TIFF - a costly and new prime edition print) was like seeing a famous painting up-close-and-personal in a museum, when the best I could do prior was look at a picture in a book or the internet. With TIFF’s big screen, I could clearly see the brush strokes, study the paint and choices. I could hear the music in a large hall, practically a live orchestra.
Beyond the authentic spectacle of experiencing 2001 similar to audiences in 1968, I don’t want to dive into the deep layers and meanings. All I can say is Kubrick was oh-so-good at including everything we need and should want to know about mankind and the great unknown, as a boy, 2001 was fascinating to view repeatedly on crappy low-resolution home video dating back to the 1970’s. As the years went by and home video improved to standardized 1080HD, privately viewing 2001 at home has becomes more enjoyable by default. Each HD viewing is an opportunity to see, hear or realize something new, something you didn’t catch before, maybe due to just getting older and wiser, or more observant.
My longtime conclusion, with help of infinite professional references dating back to 1970, is that Kubrick was allowed to be liberally experimental with the making of 2001 – so much so, that the film is still one of the most sophisticated sci-fi dramas created, and it transcends that genre in almost every imaginable way. In short, it’s a lasting masterpiece example of film art, practically without peer – a must see for everyone who has enjoyed the fruits of Kubrick’s pioneering work, such as the Space and Sci-Fi epics of the late 20th Century (e.g. Star Wars). 2001’s vanguard narrative and subtext structure is still something most directors dream of achieving, but it seems Kubrick was always trying to top himself, even at the end of his life/career. Seeing 2001 on modern home video is perfectly fine, but seeing it on 70mm film is absolutely required reading for those who are serious about experiencing Kubrick’s art to the fullest extent. Considering that 2001 features only a handful of minor female characters and contains a significant amount of male-male interaction and violence, it’s not surprising to learn that young males “saved” 2001 in the late 1960’s, some who continue to carry the torch. Of course, females greatly appreciate 2001 – As Kubrick possibly intended, perhaps females see his film art distinctly differently?
I feel compelled to note that late 2014 also saw the initial release of Christopher Nolan’s epic “Interstellar”. I’ve seen Interstellar twice since its release, both times via digital projection - IMAX and average screen. Coincidentally, 2001 was widely re-released in the UK in late 2014, and in some multi-plex theaters, British moviegoers had the choice between seeing Interstellar and/or 2001, like any modern competing release period. I enjoyed Interstellar for the most part, especially its many obvious visual and audio nods to the Space Race, Climate/Political Change, Popular Physics, and Kubrick’s influence on Cinema and perhaps mainstream culture…but I think two viewings will be all I’ll give Nolan’s film until it’s on cable. While both films are big-budget thought- provoking visual spectacles, unlike 2001, Interstellar is heavily dependent on audio 2001 & Interstellar Wheel Ships Compared – either dialogue and/or scored cue music, providing information for story and/or reason to be emotional. By comparison, Kubrick uses music in 2001 sparingly and strategically – mainly stand-alone orchestra pieces created before the film, and the scant dialogue is legendary. In short, the films share similarities and qualities, especially lessons to be learned from seemingly invisible higher beings hanging out near the edge of our solar system, but Interstellar did not grab me as an definitive art-film circa December 2014, despite it’s artistically abstract CGI. However, it is surely Nolan’s homage to 2001 and its heart, and only time will tell if Interstellar is an important film worth re-watching repeatedly over the years, a label that 2001 has hard-earned over the decades. Moreover, will Interstellar find new audiences in the years ahead, especially young Americans who will no doubt first see it on home video? We’ll just have to wait and see.
In late 2014, I offered the opportunity (via Facbebook’s popular Kubrick discussion groups) for guest writers to contribute to Kubrickian.org with their reviews of 2001 in 2014. Below are the diverse responses I received - my thanks to the Kubrick fans who participated. Note: I am the only American viewer reporting – the others are from Canada and the UK. Please give their reviews/opinions a read, as you can see, they really put thought and time into their modern reflections.
Thank You and Happy New Year (2015)! Scott Sheckman Founder/Webmaster – Kubrickian.org Physically Based in South Florida, USA
Scott Sheckman getting autographs from Lockwood & Dullea Later Inside TIFF’s Kubrick Exhibit’s 2001 Room “2001” in 2014: It’s Kind of Cerebral
By: Ari Grief (Toronto, Canada) December 7, 2014
In some ways, watching Stanley Kubrick’s “2001: A Space Odyssey” is an exercise in metamorphosis: it changes as my life and perspective changes. Though he might not have said it in such a way, Kubrick made films that encompass the artistic enterprise; and good art, in my opinion, begs to be viewed, seen, listened to and interacted with multiple times in order to come away with a deeper meaning about what the artist was attempting to convey.
I’m not completely sure how many times I’ve seen “2001” but it’s definitely more than five. Specific occasions do stand out for me however. The first is somewhat hazy and lost in childhood memory: I was possibly five or six years old and watched it on television. I remember sort of getting the apes. I remember cool, white sets contrasted with primary colours. But the monolith and the science-babble at the space station left me at a loss. The two astronauts talking to the computer made me feel even more confused. And hey, I was already a “Star Trek” fan, so a talking computer wasn’t something totally foreign to me. And the fact that Gary Lockwood was in this film as well as in the original second “Star Trek” pilot also lent an air of familiarity for me. Lockwood is killed in both “2001” and “Star Trek.” But that’s where the comparisons end.
And of course, the last portion of the film left me completely puzzled.
The next time was when I was in film school, taking a course exclusively on Kubrick. I don’t remember whether we viewed a print. It was the late 90’s before DVDs were pervasive, so either we saw some sort of print or it was on, gasp, vhs!!! I’m pretty sure it was 35mm though. I remember asking the professor about the relationship, if any, of Lockwood’s involvement in the film and in “Star Trek.” He laughed me off. In any case, having an academic perspective and reference point definitely helped, but didn’t clear up, many of the questions I had about the film. But by now my respect and utter awe of Kubrick’s oeuvre was certain.
I’ve seen the film twice in the last 6 months, in a year where my Kubrickian worship has grown leaps and bounds – and led me to start the Stanley Kubrick Meetup in Toronto. The first was on DVD in the comfort of my own home, after discovering Simone Odino’s brilliant blog about “2001.” Simone has thoroughly researched all aspects of the film, from its early beginnings with the meeting of Kubrick and Clarke, through to its titling, the casting of all the smaller, uncredited roles, the set construction and other golden nuggets of information pertaining to the production and its cultural influence. 2001 Star Keir Dullea with Ari Grief in Toronto Nov. 2014
The second, but by far the best in my life so far, was here in Toronto as part of the film programme taking place with the Toronto International Film Festival’s hosting of the touring “Stanley Kubrick: The Exhibition.”
The colours popped. The music was triumphant and beautiful. The details, the sets, the beauty, the wonder… it was all there in its full glory. I could see details that I was never able to see previously. And the reel change marks made me feel nostalgic for film as film once again.
I knew well in advance that TIFF was spending $25,000 to produce a brand new 70mm print of the film. What I didn’t know, was that both Keir Dullea and Gary Lockwood would be on hand for the print’s “premiere.” Their anecdotes, followed by an autograph signing after the screening, made for a great day of Kubrick (which was capped off with a screening of “Eyes Wide Shut” as introduced by Christiane Kubrick and Jan Harlan). Seeing “2001” in its original format (sans Cinerama), with a full audience --some of whom were seeing it for the oh so lucky first time -- including the lead/end music and the built-in intermission, was astonishing.
My ears perked up during the break when I overheard someone say: It’s kind of cerebral! Just another way of uttering what Rock Hudson famously blasted as he stormed out of the film’s 1969 premiere: Will someone tell me what the hell this is about!?
And with all that, for me the highlight was when, as the film reached its final crescendo, music blasting, goosebumps popping, starchild turning its gaze towards the Earth, I turned my gaze towards the theatre exit, to see Keir Dullea standing, watching the same mysterious, evocative, perplexing and wondrous end to this most amazing film. Later, I thanked him for being a part of film history. He emphatically responded: Don’t thank me. Thank Stanley Kubrick!!
Ari Grief is a graduate of Concordia University’s film school in Montreal; he is a writer/director/producer of videos and digital content, an avid hockey fan and founder of The Stanley Kubrick Meetup – Toronto.
“2001” vs.“Interstellar”: A Comparative Review (Circa December 2014)
By: Berbank Green (Cambridge, United Kingdom. Occupation: Designer/Developer) December 2014
As the film trailer and marketing for 'Interstellar' referenced some aspects of 2001, certainly tonally, I was expecting a film that evoked similar responses to 2001, and perhaps that was an unfair expectation. Nevertheless that's the expectation I had, and the tone of the film itself certainly aspired to that. In the few interviews I've seen with Nolan, this also seemed to be a goal of his. Here are my thoughts on how they compared, for a modern audience.
2001 maintains a stately, weighty, thoughtful, and powerful imagining of our future. It achieves unrivaled economy with its narrative in brilliantly executed scenes with little or no exposition. The Jump Cut. The simplicity and gravitas of the monolith (which in early drafts had a flat screen tutorial video to instruct our primitive ancestors, which thankfully was removed in later revisions). The sleeping astro-commuters. I could go on well beyond my word count limit. It proceeds confidently from distant past, to near future, to beyond the infinite, and we feel honoured to be along for the ride.
Interstellar feels clunky. There are great ideas in it, many of them, but it always feels confused, or rushed. There is a lot in the opening act that feels clumsy, as if there were either a lot of backstory which needed explaining to hold it together, or that the story had too many holes in it and needed to be patched with awkward dialogue and staging. 2001 gives solid footing for all the jumps it makes. With Interstellar, the story, the characters, and the science, all feel slippery.
Dramatically interstellar underperforms too: Lithgow is underused, Caine is poorly used (and poorly shot in some cases!), Foy is excellent, Chastain is excellent, McConaughey cries a lot. Despite the amount of crying and shouting that McConaughey does, and the brow-beating Zimmer score, I felt emotionally disconnected from this film. Compare this to 2001, where the acting is on-point, subtle and utterly in keeping with the characters and professions portrayed. In interstellar it feels as if the soundtrack is there to carry a flat performance. In 2001 it is intrinsic to the film's core.
The pacing is much faster in Interstellar, but surprisingly little happens of dramatic weight. The Matt Damon side story is rather forgettable. The whole farming/dirt/failed crops back story didn't carry much weight. The bizarre NASA set up and super-pilot McConaughey coincidence made very little sense. Even the staging seemed to be led by a need to keep things moving, such as having the NASA meeting room literally next to the exhausts of rocketship. Strange. In 2001 everything has a reason and the pacing reflects the importance or emotional needs of the scenes.
The science and visual effects of each film are also worlds apart. To be fair, there are some great moments in Interstellar: The black hole is rendered very well; The ship's passage through space in long-shot is memorable; The frozen clouds are beautiful; The tidal wave is impressive (although scientifically a little shaky); The entrance into the warp hole is well handled. And 2001 has its (very few) issues, the main (and only?) one being the early, and few, 'scale-and-move' effects of the mooncraft and first few satellites. Forgivable because they are done so well and practically every special effect was breaking new ground on that film. It is in the inconsistencies that the two films dramatically part company. To be clear, I don't advocate that a film has to be scientifically accurate. I enjoyed Guardians Of The Galaxy and Star Wars (IV-VI) as much as anyone. But when a film takes itself seriously and uses science principles as a fulcrum of the story, it really should get it right. I only saw Interstellar once, yet from the outset I was continually taken out of the movie by inconsistencies and odd statements. Again I'm constrained by word count, but the definition of Murphy's Law seemed oddly confused for something as pivotal as the naming of a major character. Time dilation appeared to be amusingly localised all of a sudden for story purposes. Those Robots! I'm not particularly partial to androids, but those robots were comically bad. The inconsistent technology with spaceship locomotion (particularly in the Matt Damon segment). The morse-code/binary message insanity. The poorly thought out tesseract sequence, pleasantly visual though it was. At nearly every key narrative point there were inconsistencies. In 2001, the science is meticulous, informed, and intrinsic to the story and the actions of the characters.
The tragedy of Interstellar is that it doesn't treat the audience as if it has much intelligence. There is a lot of exposition. A lot of heavy handed soundtrack use. A lot of unnecessary action, and a story that has been either crippled by trying to get it into one movie, or that was not fully formed to begin with. What it does do is keep things moving so there's always something to distract. A trait of modern cinema. The positive is that many people new to these concepts will enjoy this film and be inspired to find out more, which I know is something Christopher Nolan considers very important.
2001 treats the audience as if they are smarter than they are. All you need is there, and more. Every detail has been considered and researched, to a degree that is hard to appreciate or even believe. There are aspects that date 2001, and they are exclusively cosmetic. I know young friends who saw it for the first time this year and were amazed by it, then retrospectively disappointed in Interstellar.
It's a long time since 2001 first came out, and we're still struggling with form, narrative and performance.
2001: A Space Odyssey is still the benchmark.
“2001” in 2014: Young Eyes Can See Clearly
By: Sam Smith (Hampshire, England, United Kingdom) December 2014
Being a 15 year-old I am a fairly recent Kubrick fan myself. “2001” was the first film of his I saw and I’ve admired his work ever since. I watched “2001” for the first time last year and sat watching in awe. So, of course, when I heard that “2001” was being re-released in cinemas this year I knew this immediately that this wasn’t an opportunity I wanted to miss.
I ordered tickets early to make sure I would definitely get seats and it was lucky I did because upon my arrival the screen was packed. The majority of the audience was probably about 40-50 years old (however there were some younger children who were obviously brought there by their parents along with a few young couples) so I did feel a bit out of place but I knew that we were all here for the same reason so my mind was at ease.
As the opening music began against the blackness of the screen the theatre fell silent. My heart racing with excitement. From start to finish the entire audience was silent (except for the occasional packet crinkle and one man towards the end), either out of admiration, disbelief or confusion.
As the words ‘Jupiter and Beyond the Infinite’ lit up on the screen I was enthused. This being my favourite part of the film I knew I was going to be amazed. I remember hearing one man at the back say “get ready” as if he was talking to his son. And ready I was. Needless to say I was amazed. The entire ending sequence looked and sounded better than I had ever heard it before. The entire showing wasn’t just a film; it was an experience. The sound and music was perfect and the special effects still look as good as they did 46 years ago. The showing was pure excellence.
Even now, 46 years after its original release, “2001” is a masterpiece; pure art. I’m glad this film was re-released as it brought the film to a new audience of younger viewers who could experience the film the way audiences experienced the film 46 years ago and still be filled from head to toe in amazement. I also feel it is important for people to realise what it was that shaped sci-fi and made it what it is today.
### KUBRICK RETURNS!! As a Main Character in a Hollywood Script
A Conversation with Screenwriter STEPHANY FOLSOM
By Scott Sheckman with contribution from Jim Cirile - June 2014
During the height of the 2014 Winter Olympics, Kubrickian.org was delighted to connect via telephone with Stephany Folsom, the solo screenwriter behind the hot feature-length spec script: “1969: A Space Odyssey or How Kubrick Learned to Stop Worrying and Land on the Moon”.
The alt-history story focuses on iconic filmmaker Stanley Kubrick getting uncomfortably recruited by the US Government to help NASA stage the Apollo 11 Moon Shot as a public relations failsafe in a critical period of Superpower Cold War history. Folsom’s script garnered significant attention in Hollywood, placing it on the prestigious 2013 Black List by a league of seasoned entertainment industry executives - a nice compliment in the 21st Century compared to the notorious McCarthy-era blacklists, which doomed many honored and talented artists of the mid-20th Century.
Folsom’s achievement attracted the earnest interest of world-famous film producers Alex Kurtzman & Roberto Orci, who have the track record and clout to develop the “1969” script into a major cinematic release at a quick pace. In what could be considered as a serious rehearsal, Folsom is directing a live reading of her script with top performers at the 2014 LA Film Festival. Moreover, Folsom recently made news in the Hollywood Reporter by landing a special Warner Brothers script assignment to adapt Harlan Coben’s best selling novel “Missing You” for the screen. In many respects, Stephany Folsom is the definition of a classic young and talented Hollywood writer in demand, who will no doubt make more important news during her fruitful career.
Also on the call was LA-based writer/producer Jim Cirile of Coverageink.com. When Jim isn’t working on his own exciting material, he helps writers to succeed via his company’s screenplay development services. The goal of the call was to cover as much ground as possible from the perspective of both the spec screenplay writer and broad-spectrum Kubrick aficionado. Kubrickian and Coverageink are happy to note that Stephany Folsom did a great job bringing the late 60’s and Kubrick to life on the pages, including his passion for perfection, and Chess.
Kubrick’s personal chessboard displayed at LACMA, and Chess in his film sets. The classic game appears often in Folsom’s “1969” script THE CONVERSATION
Scott and/or Jim (K): Please tell us how you got started as a writer, and what brought you to LA.
Stephany Folsom (SF): I grew up in Colorado Springs. From a young age, I knew I wanted to be a writer, and starting writing as soon as I could learn how. As there wasn’t much to do in my hometown, I’d frequently visit the local movie theaters or DVD rental store, watching new and old movies as much as possible, studying the various crafts, genres and history. I became an instant Kubrick fan after being shown “Dr. Strangelove” in a high school class, which inspired a personal quest to learn more about Kubrick and his other works. When it was time to head to college, I decided to attend film school at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles, which provides the wonderful opportunity to participate in all processes of filmmaking – writing, producing, directing, editing. It was an invaluable education.
K: How did you break into working in the Hollywood system?
SF: After graduating Loyola, I found work in Hollywood’s development trenches, writing script coverage and notes. It was beneficial industry experience, but I felt like I could not write for myself while working full-time in development. So I left LA to assist a friend shooting a film in India, and then found myself working for a foundation that required a lot of travel shooting documentaries on important topics such as human trafficking and AIDS. In my opinion, traveling is the best thing a young screenwriter can do for their career – meeting and talking with diverse individuals with fascinating stories. That experience really shaped me as a screenwriter and helped me to approach the industry when I returned.
K: How did you come to write the “1969” script on spec? Was it on your mind for a while as a Kubrick fan, or did something inspire you? I read that you attended the Kubrick Exhibit at LACMA when it finally came to the USA for the first time in late 2012, did that experience have any influence?
SF: I was thrilled to have the chance to attend the opening of the Kubrick exhibit at LACMA in November 2012. I took my time to take it all in and read everything presented - they literally had to kick me out at the end of the day! I felt the exhibit really gave a sense of who Kubrick was as a human being as well as an artist…he became tangible to me there. While I was exploring the Exhibit, I recalled the crazy moon landing conspiracy that had been floating around for decades suggesting Kubrick helped the US government fake the landing for TV in 1969. I thought to myself that it would make a great story and made a mental note to check my personal conspiracy files and the internet when I got home. The visit to the Kubrick Exhibit at LACMA certainly catalyzed the concept.
K: Sounds like a great experience at the Kubrick Exhibit, which I can personally say is a very impressive & influential experience. So, Are you one of those conspiracy theory freaks I keep getting warned about?
As an expert photographer who preferred to run the cameras himself, Kubrick collected some of the best cinema equipment of his era, on display at the Kubrick Exhibit at LACMA (left). The middle image is a special super fast 0.7 lens created for NASA’s mid-century satellite imagery. Kubrick procured this unique lens and had it custom attached to a rare camera (right) for filming the candlelit scenes in “Barry Lyndon” (1975) – a successful trend-setting experiment for color film. NASA’s 0.7 lens plays a pivotal prop in Folsom’s “1969” script. SF (amused): No, I’m not a conspiracy theory freak, but I guess you can say I’m obsessed with conspiracy theories – I don’t actually believe in them, but I’m fascinated that people come up with these fantastic ideas to help explain how and why strange things happen. Sure enough, I found a lot of information about the Kubrick-faked-the-moon-landing theory, and found myself working on a script in earnest by January 2013.
K: How did you first hear about the rumors of a fake moon landing and Kubrick’s alleged involvement? For serious Kubrick scholars, it’s almost impossible not to trip upon the decades of rumors and derivative works suggesting his involvement with what audiences saw with their own eyes in 1969.
SF: I believe the rumors started soon after the moon landing in 1969, and like a lot of urban legends of the era, it took a life of its own. There’s a French mockumentary titled “Dark Side of the Moon” featuring some very important people including Rumsfeld, Kissinger, and Kubrick’s wife Christiane, who seem to suggest in a tongue and cheek way that Kubrick played a role in staging the landing footage…and the recent documentary “Room 237” explores the possible hidden messages in Kubrick’s adaptation of “The Shining” book, which some feel was Kubrick’s way of confessing his involvement with the landing via numerous cinematic clues.
K: As industry participants, we can appreciate the practical spirit of the old showbiz proverb “There’s no such thing as bad publicity”. While many consider Kubrick a rare cinematic genius, he also had to play the classic showman in order to survive in this tough business and stay relevant as an independent producer/director over the decades. That said, do you think there’s any truth in the rumors, or Kubrick simply went along for the ride?
SF: While my script explores the concept of Kubrick getting recruited to help produce the spectacle of 1969, it seems very plausible that Kubrick winked at the urban legends as they didn’t damage his brand, and perhaps spoke to his wicked sense of humor! But the rumors certainly took a unique life of their own over the years, and he didn’t actively try to deny them. Only the Government and Kubrick know for sure.
K: I’ve read a number of Black List scripts over the years, and I consider yours one of the best I’ve read in a while from a craft perspective – a solid example of professional-level writing with an exciting period piece story that speaks to my inner conspiracy theorist! But considering your script was written on spec and you’re still relatively young in the industry, how did the “1969” script get lifted from obscurity?
SF: I wrote the script quickly in early 2013, basically as a love letter to Kubrick from a fan, thinking it was a fun, quirky script written from the heart that I could possibly produce independently one day on a low budget. While I was talking with my managers about a TV pilot, I mentioned the “1969” script and they took immediate interest. I think my reps were smart about how went about the process by first giving the script to notable Hollywood tastemakers. After that, it seem to spread like wildfire and take a life of its own. People I met for the first time at a cocktail party said they read my script, which was a bit new and bizarre to me!
K: I think it’s very brave of you to take on Kubrick as a main on-screen character. From what I understand, your script is the first to do so, with the only produced example being Stanley Tucci’s relative small role playing an early 1960’s Kubrick in “The Life and Death of Peter Sellers”, and Kubrick mentioned only by name in “Color Me Kubrick” inspired by real life stories from the 1990’s. It seems you had to walk a fine line in respect of honoring and respecting what people know about the Kubrick while making him as engaging as possible, and roll all that together into this interesting and heady mélange. That said, please tell us how you approached Kubrick as a character for your script.
SF: As a fan and big admirer of everything Kubrick did, I didn’t want to undermine his image in any way. He’s an icon and his work is amazing - I wanted to honor and enhance the legacy, but also wanted to make him human – after all, he wasn’t perfect. So I immersed myself in everything I could find out about him via a number of resources…my goal was to get a fully fleshed-out perspective of Kubrick as an artist, icon, and a human being. I listened to Kubrick’s limited audio interviews non-stop to get a cadence of his strong accent and how he phrased things, so I could picture him while I was writing his dialogue. I guess you could say I was stalking him online!
K: Please tell us more about your research of the period, as you’re only 30 years old and born well after the height of the Space Race. I’m impressed by the Barbara character who does most of the talking with Kubrick on behalf of the US Government, and the audience.
SF: My parents were products of the 1960’s, so that was a great help, and my mother was very actively involved with the women rights movement that characterized the era. So I felt like I grew up with a good understanding of the times. I created the Barbara character as a foil for Kubrick. Barbara is a composite of several strong women that I discovered were involved with the Nixon administration in the late 1960’s and early 70’s, as well as other interesting women filling shoes in government for the first time who came from the private sector, typically over-qualified for the jobs available.
K: Considering this may be the first feature-length film to be released featuring Kubrick as a main on-screen character, what are your thoughts on the success of your script starting a flood of material showcasing Kubrick as a driving character? What would you say to writers who want to include Kubrick as a character in their scripts? Now that you’ve made the break-through, do you see yourself writing another script featuring Kubrick?
SF: I hope we do see more movies featuring Kubrick as a main character, leading newer generations to his genius and work. I would advise writers taking on Kubrick to do the same amount of homework that one would do for any real-life character. Come from a place of respect, love and humanity, and you can’t go wrong. I think this script was my personal homage Kubrick, therefore I’m not planning any additional scripts about him at the moment. However, I would like to do other work that honors Kubrick and what he taught me about storytelling and filmmaking. I feel like Kubrick’s cinematic influence will be present in everything I do.
K: Besides all the wonderful and wacky stuff we’re talking about in regards to the premise of your script, what do you think are Kubrick’s significant and signature contributions to the art of cinema and the industry?
SF: Kubrick was one of the first artists to work independent of the studio system and inspired many to follow in his vanguard footsteps. On the artistic side, he was one of the few filmmakers to advance the visual language and vocabulary of cinema. Like Orson Welles and Hitchcock before him, Kubrick provided other filmmakers new ways to tell stories without spoken or written words. What he could visually tell you with one frame of film was astounding. Similarly, with an actor’s look and the music. We take it for granted that what we see today is the language of cinema, but Kubrick had a strong hand in creating the contemporary language. He should be honored as one of the forefathers of cinema.
K: We couldn’t agree with you more about that! Thank you for taking the time to talk with Kubrickian.org and Coverageink.com, and best of success with the production process – we can’t wait to see the release! For the record, what’s your favorite Kubrick film?
SF: I love and appreciate all of his films, but my favorite is still my first experience - “Dr. Strangelove”!
Only Kubrick could make a comedy about nuclear WW3 in 1963. The center image of the DSL War Room is a model at the Kubrick Exhibit.
Stephany Folsom’s “1969” Script centers about the WHAT IF of that fateful summer, and we’ll just have wait for the finished product to see where Stephany, the Producers, and the participating artists ultimately take the concept. Folsom’s representation of Kubrick and the era may not satisfy every avid Kubrick fan, or patiently waiting conspiracy theory enthusiasts, but there’s no doubt that she gave the subject matter fervent thought and energy that should appeal to Kubrickians old and young, as well as a wide variety of moviegoers. “I hope it brings people together who love Kubrick so we can talk about and celebrate his films – that’s the place I was coming from in writing the script - as a Kubrick fan,” Stephany cheerfully concludes.
More About Stephany Folsom: Personal Website/Blog @Twitter POSTSCRIPT - JUNE 2014 Op/Ed by Scott Sheckman, Kubrickian.org
Although I’ve been tripping on Kubrick as a personal study project for about 5 years (Kubrickian.org was launched in 2013 after my visit to the LACMA Kubrick Exhibit) I’ve rarely had the chance to talk with fans/scholars as knowledgeable and friendly as Stephany Folsom. I’m hoping this is the first of many amicable encounters with smart folk who have seriously studied the bounty Kubrick left behind, and quality moments with those lucky enough to have worked closely with the master filmmaker before his untimely passing in 1999. With millions of followers on social media, myriads of independent books & analysis, and a dedicated Exhibit touring art museums around the globe, there’s no doubt that Kubrick is considered a very important filmmaker by the experts, despite the relatively low output of 12 feature-length films. In fact, the Vatican honored Kubrick and his family by placing a restored copy of “2001: A Space Odyssey” in its exclusive library. So it seems safe to say that even the Pope digs Kubrick!
As the reader may know, Kubrick had three daughters – two of blood and one adopted, the child of his third and final wife of over 40 years, German-born Christiane Kubrick. Christiane continues her own artistic passions at their Childwickbury Manor Estate (St. Albans outside London), where Kubrick is buried under his favorite outdoor sitting spot. Perhaps being surrounded by women for most of his life led Kubrick to understand them well, and vice-versa. So it should come as no surprise that a young woman is first to market with a viable story about Kubrick fictionally involved in Big US/World History. Moreover, Stephany’s script effectively trips to a retired era that wrapped well before she was born, where flying men rode shotgun to the heavens on blatant phallic symbols when they weren’t driving red Corvettes along the FL Space Coast. She also brings to the table a strong G-Woman who could be working with the NYC Madmen if it wasn’t for a higher calling. Combined with the fine period details, “1969: A Space Odyssey or How Kubrick Learned to Stop Worrying and Land on the Moon” should be an awesome film, starting with a unique live reading at the 2014 LA Film Festival.
In addition to Folsom’s account of 1969, which could make it to screens before the 50th anniversary of the US Moon Landing, Kubrick is scheduled to appear in spirit this decade via his painstaking preparations for “Napoleon”, recently crowned “The Greatest Movie Never Made” by Taschen Books. Kubrick started development on “Napoleon” in the late 1960’s, spending considerable funds and man-hours researching every moment of Bonaparte’s life, even the dull days when the highlight was merely the soup du jour. Perhaps no historian understood Napoleon better than Kubrick, and no doubt, it would have made a great 20th Century film if he could have secured the backing in the early 1970’s - an interesting WHAT IF showbiz story unto itself. According to reports, Steven Spielberg is currently developing Kubrick’s “Napoleon” for a potential HBO miniseries. Spielberg last partnered with Kubrick’s ghost on the critically acclaimed “AI: Artificial Intelligence” released in 2001, after many years of now-legendary lengthy conversations via dedicated phone and fax lines.
Over a span of almost 50 years, Kubrick released 12 feature length films, or 13 films if his 1953 debut “Fear and Desire” war genre feature is also counted (Kubrick reportedly did not want “Fear and Desire” included in his oeuvre). Of course, Kubrick produced much more than the released features, if we include his unrealized projects, short documentaries and famous “Look Magazine” still photos. No matter the final count, it could be said that War, and how it negatively affects society and individuals, is the subject that Kubrick preferred to explore most via film. First two frames above represent Kubrick’s landmark research on the life & times of Napoleon Bonaparte. The iconic Vietnam-era helmet from “Full Metal Jacket”, with its conflicting logos and statements, uniquely symbolizes the duality of man - “The Jungian Thing”. It seems that no other historical military/political figure has been written and discussed about as much as Napoleon Bonaparte, and the way it’s looking circa 2014, Kubrick may hold a similar title as a historical filmmaker. In addition to his completed works and deep research on uncompleted projects, it feels as if there are more third-party Kubrick-themed books, essays, and multimedia than one can easily find and properly digest in a lifetime. And who knows what’s lurking on highbrow subscription websites and the paper files of universities?
Surely, many Kubrick and/or Space 1969 fans are still interested in the facts and legends nearly 50 years later. Stephany Folsom is living proof that a new young generation is not only fascinated by the 1960’s, but can recognize Kubrick’s genius via viewing his cinematic works and conducting some scholarly study. A 1964 B&W Kubrick satirical film about a highly-radioactive WWIII touched Stephany in high school. An opening visit to the Kubrick Exhibit at LACMA in late 2012 influenced her again. The Internet proved an invaluable research tool, and now she’s the first serious writer to make Kubrick a main on-screen character in a Hollywood script featuring real famous names and locations from an era slipping into Americana History, despite the echo of the Cold War being heard in recent years. Perhaps Kubrick was partly responsible for cooling the height of the 1960’s Cold War with showbiz-risky releases like “Dr. Strangelove” & “2001”.
So, perhaps all this rambling begs a question: is Kubrick an American Hero similar to the rugged 1960’s Astronauts showcased in books and movies like “The Right Stuff”? As a semi-pro Kubrick and 20th Century scholar, I can’t imagine a filmmaker/storyteller better qualified to be labeled an American Hero, at very least for what we KNOW Kubrick accomplished in 50 years - namely the remarkable photos and deep/thick films that help define the mid-to-late 20th century and beyond, all while raising a career and family in two continents. Kubrick elegantly explored the follies of modern society and dark side of human nature in ways many cinema artists wouldn’t dare or know how to try. He traveled so far and climbed so high, he’s now widely considered a World Artist, hence the globe-trotting Kubrick Exhibit that only recently landed on North American shores.
At the very least, Kubrick’s 12 feature films influenced the many professional storytellers who seriously studied them. If Kubrick academically increased and enhanced the vocabulary and narrative forms available to modern filmmakers, that’s reason enough to be celebrated for decades to come, as those triumphs are similar to adding linguistics to the popular vernacular, or even inventing color film. Kubrick was notoriously tight-lipped about his own critical contributions, but if Stephany’s love letter script is any indication, there are leagues of cinema artists ready to let the world know that Kubrick, may have been indeed, the first human to land on the Moon!
NOTE: The filmstrip outlines for this Kubrickian story are actual frames of Kubrick’s personal 70mm print of “2001” (center frame) included in limited first editions of “The Stanley Kubrick Archives” published in 2005 by Taschen Books. Right Frame: Kubrickian.org founder Scott Sheckman enjoying his day at LACMA’s Kubrick Exhibit , Spring 2013.
© 2014 Scott Sheckman and Kubrickian.org. All rights reserved. No reprinting without permission. Most images by Scott Sheckman. Special thanks to the Kubrick Exhibit for allowing photography. Third party images courtesy of the Internet under Fair Use principals. Thank you rights holders. All inquiries, please email: [email protected] Return to: KUBRICKIAN.org Thank You Stanley Kubrick’s Eyes Wide Shut Changing the Form, and then Some… Just O-Pen Your Mind?
Abstract by Scott Sheckman E: [email protected] T: USA-310-741-7617 December 2009, Revised January 2014
No reprinting or distribution without permission
In the Special Features section of the home video releases of Stanley Kubrick’s final film, Eyes Wide Shut (EWS), confidant Steven Spielberg is interviewed in July 1999 about their unique personal and professional relationship. In the interview, Spielberg fondly recalls some of their intimate conversations in the years leading up to Kubrick’s untimely death in March 1999, which occurred just months before the film’s scheduled theatrical release (July 16,1999). About halfway into the discussion, Spielberg touches on what could be considered an extremely important revelation regarding Kubrick’s long-time obsession with changing the contemporary form of cinematic storytelling:
“He [Kubrick] would tell me the last couple years of his life when we were talking about the form. He kept saying, ‘I want to change the form…I want to make a movie that changes the form’. And I said ‘Well didn’t you do that with 2001’? He said ‘Just a little bit…but not enough…I really want to change the form’. So he kept looking for different ways to tell stories”. (Steven Spielberg, July 1999 Interview).
Many who follow Kubrick and the entertainment industry know EWS was not widely embraced by critics or the public as a lasting cinema masterpiece, or even as a good “popcorn” movie. Par for the Kubrick cinematic course, many initial reviews were downright awful, accusing Kubrick and Warner Brothers of the equivalent of movie manslaughter and misleading public expectations with false promises of superstar sex and a heart-pounding thriller. Despite the sea of negativity and the mysterious loss of the artist to help navigate the tricky waters, EWS has quickly become Kubrick’s highest grossing film to date, with over $160M in worldwide box office as of 2009.
As with most of Kubrick’s works, there has been a growing forest of uniquely positive, even glowing reviews of EWS in the years following the initial theatrical release. Considering the big hint provided by the rare source material that inspired Kubrick for almost 30 years (Arthur Schnitzler’s 1926 “Dream Story”), several film scholars and Kubrick fans have diligently begun to peel away at the mysterious underlying subtext and symbolism in EWS – deep psychological onion layers that can be perceived in all of Kubrick’s feature films for those who dare to tread. Indeed, many analysts have gone to great lengths to highlight the dream-like aspects of the EWS’ presentation, pacing and cinematography, and have provided fascinating perspectives of dream logic, looping, and alternative meanings.
However, there does not seem to be a comprehensive official or third party analysis that details what may be the Eyes Wide Shut’s most remarkable cinematic and artistic asset, hidden in plain sight as the title suggests: The introduction of a vanguard narrative design perhaps never before attempted on a commercial scale – a shining follow-up to Kubrick’s groundbreaking and initially misunderstood 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Is EWS a form-breaker on the level of Kubrick’s previous 2001: A Space Odyssey, perhaps even a significant game-changer that eluded the critics, industry insiders, and most of the viewing public? If so, what are the evidences and support for this bold rationale? Perhaps it can be found in the shot-by-shot composition of EWS – Kubrick’s infamous and meticulous hand in all aspects of production and editing with the goal to create a dazzling, confusing and complex on-screen puzzle. What may seem like insignificant filmmaking errors by a master could actually be critical clues to this new brand of narrative structure. Through purposeful and delicate exploitation of fundamental filmmaking conventions and practices, Kubrick created a fantastic, unusual, and alternative way to convey a story via EWS. In the process, he provided a pragmatic example, as well as artistic and financial permission to all filmmakers who want to follow in his footsteps.
Like 2001: A Space Odyssey, Kubrick’s reasons for creating EWS may remain a sublime enigma for decades or generations. If Kubrick lived to see the marketing campaign, carefully stated words may have changed the way it was initially received and perceived. Despite the death of the artist, the proof is in the pudding - one only needs a remote control and a desire to adapt a new cinematic dialect to see them both clearly in EWS. Once consciously registered, there’s no going back to movie-as-usual viewing – Kubrick’s game of Cinematic Chess will only just have begun.
© 2009-2014 Scott Sheckman E: [email protected] T: USA- 310-741-7617
All Content Copyright Kubrickian.org and Scott Sheckman No reprinting without permission. Thank you. All inquires, please contact [email protected] or USA-310-741-7617