Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
9 791097 024048
Revue interdisciplinaire d’Humanités
Stanley Kubrick
Nouveaux horizons
Membres fondateurs
Brice Chamouleau, Bertrand Guest, Jean-Paul Engelibert, Sandro Landi,
Sandra Lemeilleur, Isabelle Poulin, Anne-Laure Rebreyend, Jeffrey Startwood,
François Trahais
Comité scientifique
Anne-Emmanuelle Berger (Université Paris 8), Patrick Boucheron (Collège de
France), Jean Boutier (EHESS), Catherine Coquio (université Paris 7), Phillipe Desan
(University of Chicago), Javier Fernandez Sebastian (UPV), Carlo Ginzburg
(UCLA et Scuola Normale Superiore, Pise), German Labrador Mendez (Princeton
University), Hélène Merlin-Kajman (Université Paris 3), Franco Pierno (Victoria
University in Toronto), Dominique Rabaté (Université Paris 7), Charles Walton
(University of Warwick)
Directeur de publication
Sandro Landi
Secrétaire de rédaction
Chantal Duthu
Les articles publiés par Essais sont des textes originaux. Tous les articles font l’objet d’une double
révision anonyme.
Tout article ou proposition de numéro thématique doit être adressé au format word à l’adresse
suivante : revue-essais@u-bordeaux-montaigne.fr
La revue Essais est disponible en ligne sur le site :
http://www.u-bordeaux-montaigne.fr/fr/ecole-doctorale/la-revue-essais.html
Éditeur/Diffuseur
École Doctorale Montaigne-Humanités
Université Bordeaux Montaigne
Domaine universitaire 33607 Pessac cedex (France)
http://www.u-bordeaux-montaigne.fr/fr/ecole-doctorale/la-revue-essais.html
École Doctorale Montaigne-Humanités
Revue de l’École Doctorale
ISSN : 2417-4211
ISBN : 979-10-97024-04-8 • EAN : 9791097024048
© Conception/mise en page : DSIN - Pôle Production Imprimée
En peignant le monde nous nous peignons nous-mêmes, et ce faisant
ne peignons « pas l’être », mais « le passage »*. Dialogues, enquêtes, les
textes amicalement et expérimentalement réunis ici pratiquent active-
ment la citation et la bibliothèque. Ils revendiquent sinon leur caractère
fragmentaire, leur existence de processus, et leur perpétuelle évolution.
Créée sur l’impulsion de l’École Doctorale « Montaigne-Humanités »
devenue depuis 2014 Université Bordeaux Montaigne, la revue Essais
a pour objectif de promouvoir une nouvelle génération de jeunes
chercheurs résolument tournés vers l’interdisciplinarité. Essais propose
la mise à l’épreuve critique de paroles et d’objets issus du champ des
arts, des lettres, des langues et des sciences humaines et sociales.
Communauté pluridisciplinaire et plurilingue (des traductions
inédites sont proposées), la revue Essais est animée par l’héritage de
Montaigne, qui devra être compris comme une certaine qualité de
regard et d’écriture.
Parce que de Montaigne nous revendiquons cette capacité à s’exiler
par rapport à sa culture et à sa formation, cette volonté d’estrange-
ment qui produit un trouble dans la perception de la réalité et permet
de décrire une autre scène où l’objet d’étude peut être sans cesse refor-
mulé. Ce trouble méthodologique ne peut être disjoint d’une forme
particulière d’écriture, celle, en effet, que Montaigne qualifie de façon
étonnamment belle et juste d’« essai ».
Avec la revue Essais nous voudrions ainsi renouer avec une manière
d’interroger et de raconter le monde qui privilégie l’inachevé sur le
méthodique et l’exhaustif. Comme le rappelle Theodor Adorno (« L’essai
comme forme », 1958), l’espace de l’essai est celui d’un anachronisme
permanent, pris entre une « science organisée » qui prétend tout expli-
quer et un besoin massif de connaissance et de sens qui favorise, plus
encore aujourd’hui, les formes d’écriture et de communication rapides,
lisses et consensuelles.
Écriture à contrecourant, l’essai vise à restaurer dans notre
communauté et dans nos sociétés le droit à l’incertitude et à l’erreur,
le pouvoir qu’ont les Humanités de formuler des vérités complexes,
Édito
dérangeantes et paradoxales. Cette écriture continue et spéculaire, en
questionnement permanent, semble seule à même de constituer un
regard humaniste sur un monde aussi bigarré que relatif, où « chacun
appelle barbarie ce qui n’est pas de son usage ».
C’est ainsi qu’alternent dans cette « marqueterie mal jointe »,
numéros monographiques et varias, développements et notes de lecture,
tous également essais et en dialogue, petit chaos tenant son ordre de
lui-même.
Le Comité de Rédaction
* Toutes les citations sont empruntées aux Essais (1572-1592) de Michel de Montaigne.
Stanley Kubrick Dossier
Nouveaux horizons
Dossier coordonné par
Vincent Jaunas
Jean-François Baillon
Avant-Propos
Vincent Jaunas
13 Citons l’ouvrage étendard des études empiristes. Ljujic et al. (éd.), Stanley Kubrick: new perspec-
tives, London : Black Dog Publishing, 2015.
14 Nathan Abrams propose par exemple de réévaluer l’œuvre de Kubrick à l’aune du contexte
intellectuel juif New Yorkais de l’après-guerre. Nathan Abrams, An Alternative New York
Intellectual: Stanley Kubrick’s Cultural Critique, in Ljujic et al. (éd.), Stanley Kubrick: New
Perspectives, Londres : Black Dog Publishing, 2015.
15 Loig Le Bihan, Shining au Miroir, Aix-en-Provence : Rouge Profond, 2017.
16 Graham Allen, The Unempty Wasps’ Nest: Kubrick’s The Shining, Adaptation, Chance, Interpretation,
in Adaptation, vol. 8, n° 3, Oxford, 2015.
17 Voir notamment Peter Krämer, Complete Total Final Annihilating Artistic Control:
Stanley Kubrick and Postwar Hollywood, in Ljujic et al. (éd.), Stanley Kubrick: New Perspectives,
Londres : Black Dog Publishing, 2015.
18 James Fenwick (éd.), Understanding Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey. Representation and
Interpretation, Bristol : Intellect Books, 2018.
10 Vincent Jaunas
21 Voir notamment la critique de The Neon Demon (2016) de Jean-Baptiste Morain, qui qualifie
l’influence kubrickienne de « criarde » : https://www.lesinrocks.com/cinema/films-a-l-affiche/
the-neon-demon/ (dernière visite le 04/12/17).
22 Robert Kolker, Rage For Order: Kubrick’s Fearful Symmetry, in Raritan-A Quarterly Review,
vol. 30, n° 01, New Jersey : Rutgers University, 2010.
23 Cf. Umberto Eco, L’œuvre ouverte, Paris : Éditions du Seuil, 1979.
12 Vincent Jaunas
24 Alison Castle (éd.), Stanley Kubrick’s Napoleon: the greatest movie never made, Cologne :
Taschen, 2011.
25 Pauline Kael. Trash, Art and the Movie, in Going Steady: Film Writings, 1968-1969, Londres :
Marion Boyars Publishers, 2001.
Avant-propos 13
des discours sur internet risque d’en effacer les contours, voire de noyer l’œuvre
elle-même dans un flot de rumeurs et de théories. En associant études esthé-
tiques et approches empiriques, Stanley Kubrick. Nouveaux Horizons souligne
la liberté interprétative que confèrent les films aux spectateurs tout en redé-
finissant les cadres sémantiques et esthétiques au-delà desquels tout discours
risque de tomber dans la surinterprétation, les films devenant alors de simples
réceptacles condamnés à accueillir tout et son contraire.
Si ce volume se veut un lieu de rencontre et de mise en perspective des
diverses mouvances qui animent la critique kubrickienne, il ambitionne
également de s’inscrire pleinement dans la tradition de la revue Essais, qui,
fidèle à la pensée de Michel de Montaigne, est un espace d’échanges, où la
pensée demeure ouverte et rhizomatique. Nous revendiquons ainsi le carac-
tère hétéroclite de ce volume, bien que tous les films du cinéaste n’y soient
conséquemment pas traités avec la même attention. De même, les travaux
d’éminents spécialistes côtoient les œuvres de jeunes doctorants et de non-
universitaires éclairés ; de cette diversité naît ainsi une approche plurielle dont
émerge pourtant une série d’échos et de fragments de sens partagés.
Ce numéro s’ouvre avec l’article de Sam Azulys, qui analyse l’œuvre du réali-
sateur au prisme de la question du corps. Cela le mène à questionner la fameuse
distinction deleuzienne entre cinéma du corps (Godard, Cassavetes) et cinéma
du cerveau, dont Stanley Kubrick serait l’un des emblèmes26. L’auteur considère
que dans les films de Kubrick, une volonté de néant irrigue un cerveau malade
qui s’exprime notamment par la technique. Azulys suggère que le cinéaste,
moins pessimiste que sa réputation ne le laisse croire, envisage néanmoins un
potentiel dépassement de cette pulsion néfaste en dépeignant des personnages
doués de mètis, forme d’intelligence s’exprimant pour et par le corps.
Le scope philosophique et englobant de Sam Azulys est suivi par une approche
historique centrée sur un film, Les Sentiers de la Gloire. Spécialiste des représen-
tations cinématographiques de la Première Guerre mondiale, Clément Puget
considère le rapport si particulier de Kubrick à la véracité historique. Alors que
l’artiste ancre son film en 1916, Puget analyse diverses stratégies formelles qui
évoquent plusieurs faits historiques spécifiques ayant eu lieu de 1914 à 1916. Ses
rappels audiovisuels font de l’œuvre un film fidèle à l’historicité de la guerre, tout
en transcendant tout ancrage précis pour devenir une représentation synthétique
de la première guerre mondiale, voire de toute guerre.
Loig Le Bihan centre encore davantage son objet d’étude et propose la
microanalyse d’une unique séquence de Shining. L’auteur revient sur ce détail
apparemment anodin : au beau milieu du tournage, Kubrick décide de couper
une scène (la découverte d’un album recensant divers faits-divers ayant eu
lieu dans le terrifiant hôtel Overlook) et de la remplacer par une autre (femme
et enfant se promènent dans le labyrinthe tandis que le père en observe la
maquette). Se livrant à une « interprétation indiciaire », Loig Le Bihan suggère
néanmoins que ce changement détermine un revirement esthétique majeur qui
révèle l’ambition à l’origine de ce film mystérieux. Ces trois articles radicale-
ment différents, aux scopes divers, s’accordent néanmoins à considérer que les
images de Kubrick « pensent », sans pourtant contenir « un sens fini, clôturé »27.
Prolifération de la pensée et multiplicité du sens sont au cœur du second
article consacré à Shining. Dans celui-ci, nous revenons sur la réception de
ce film si déroutant et envisageons le phénomène de surinterprétation, mis
en évidence par le documentaire Room 237 (Rodney Ascher, 2013), comme
symptomatique d’un film où l’herméneutique est un défi lancé aux specta-
teurs ; en comparant la dynamique de perception de Jack (Jack Nicholson)
et de Danny (Danny Lloyd), nous suggérons que le récit filmique intègre
deux rapports au monde opposés, l’un hermétique, l’autre ouvert, qui guident
le spectateur vers deux stratégies interprétatives divergentes.
Les considérations sémiotiques de Shining laissent place aux évocations
intertextuelles des deux articles consacrés à l’ultime film du réalisateur, Eyes
Wide Shut. Les travaux d’Emmanuel Plasseraud et de Dijana Metlić explorent
des chemins radicalement différents. Plasseraud envisage les influences litté-
raires et filmiques du cinéaste en proposant une analyse croisée d’Eyes Wide
Shut, adapté de La Nouvelle Rêvée d’Arthur Schnitzler (1926), et de Le Plaisir,
film de 1952 réalisé par Max Ophüls (dont on connaît l’importance pour
Kubrick28) lui-même adapté de trois nouvelles de Guy De Maupassant. Cet
angle permet à l’auteur de comparer deux stratégies d’adaptation et de mettre
à jour des accointances et des points de divergence entre l’esthétique des
deux metteurs en scène. Metlić, quant à elle, se concentre sur l’héritage pictural
du film. Si Barry Lyndon tend à attirer tous les discours critiques sur l’impor-
tance de la peinture pour Stanley Kubrick, l’auteure montre son influence,
plus discrète mais tout aussi centrale, dans Eyes Wide Shut, grâce à une étude
croisée de l’œuvre avec Le Jardin des Délices de Jérôme Bosch29 (1494-1505).
Metlić revient sur chaque panneau du triptyque, qu’elle met en lien avec les
diverses orientations esthétiques du film. Le jardin d’Éden du peintre est ainsi
comparable à la vision du monde initiale de Bill (Tom Cruise), tandis que
le second panneau (L’humanité avant la Chute) évoque les fantasmes d’Alice
dont Kubrick mit lui-même en scène le média télévisuel dans ses œuvres,
l’auteur suggère que c’est peut-être dans les séries télévisées actuelles que l’hé-
ritage de l’esthétique kubrickienne est le plus prégnant, alors même qu’une
minisérie adaptée du scénario de Napoléon, projet que porta Kubrick pendant
des années avant d’être contraint de l’abandonner, devrait prochainement voir
le jour sur HBO. Filippo Ulivieri s’attache quant à lui à la réception de la
persona du réalisateur lui-même. Ulivieri dépasse la dichotomie (si ancrée dans
les études kubrickiennes) consistant à opposer la vision d’un Kubrick méga-
lomane et excentrique, toujours fermement établie, à l’affirmation contraire
visant à blâmer les médias pour avoir entièrement construit cette image diffa-
matoire (opinion notamment soutenue par Christiane Kubrick depuis le décès
de son mari). Après avoir réuni une quantité inédite d’interviews du réalisateur
et d’articles de presse écrits à son sujet, l’auteur affirme que Kubrick construisit
activement son image dans la première moitié de sa carrière, et voit dans le
déchaînement critique des années 1990 un signe démontrant que le cinéaste
vit sa persona échapper à son contrôle.
Remercions chaque contributeur, dont la passion a permis à ce volume
de voir le jour. Nous tenons également à remercier tout particulièrement
Jan Harlan, beau-frère de l’artiste et producteur exécutif de ses films pendant
près de trente ans. En effet, ce numéro fait suite à un colloque international
qui a eu lieu les 16 et 17 mai 2017 à l’Université Bordeaux Montaigne, en
partenariat avec la librairie Mollat et le cinéma Utopia de Bordeaux, organisé
autour de la venue de Jan, dont la générosité et la gentillesse nous ont ému.
Remercions enfin Jean-François Baillon pour son implication et son dévoue-
ment lors de la co-organisation de ces deux événements, ainsi que Sandro Landi,
Chantal Duthu et toute l’École Doctorale Montaigne Humanités pour leur
soutien indéfectible.
Vincent Jaunas
Approche philosophique
Sam Azulys
Partie 1
Stanley Kubrick : le corps et l’esprit.
Volonté de puissance et Mètis dans
l’œuvre du cinéaste
Sam Azulys
Les artistes n’ont pas vocation à devenir les exégètes de leurs propres œuvres.
Et il va sans dire qu’aucun des films de Kubrick ne se propose d’être l’« inter-
prétation » littérale d’une thèse philosophique ou d’une idée particulière :
2001, n’est pas un évangile selon Nietzsche ou Heidegger, Barry Lyndon, une
relecture hégélienne de l’Histoire, Eyes Wide Shut, un délire freudien sur Eros
et Thanatos, pas plus que Shining, un essai sur les contes de fées ou l’éternel
retour du même. Kubrick l’a dit : « Ce n’est pas avec des mots que je pourrai
jamais exprimer mon message »1. C’est aux herméneutes du cinéma que revient
donc la tâche ardue de profiter de la licence interprétative qui leur est accordée
pour tenter de proposer des pistes de lecture pertinentes. Car une grande œuvre
excède toujours le geste conscient de son créateur et recèle un réseau signifiant
de correspondances souterraines qu’il nous revient de mettre au jour.
Nous nous proposons de parler du « Corps et de l’Esprit » dans l’œuvre
du cinéaste et, plus précisément, de l’articulation de ce thème au concept
nietzschéen de Volonté de Puissance et à la notion, empruntée aux anciens
grecs, de « Mètis ». Penser les rapports entre le corps et l’esprit dans le cinéma
de Kubrick nous paraît être un enjeu d’autant plus fondamental que son
cinéma a longtemps été envisagé comme un « monde-cerveau » façonné par
un démiurge perfectionniste jusqu’à l’obsession. Si Kubrick était effectivement
un perfectionniste (mais est-ce vraiment une tare quant on est un artiste de
ce calibre ?), il n’était ni un tyran, ni un misanthrope. Kubrick était plutôt
un homme posé, pragmatique, ouvert, d’une remarquable intelligence, d’une
insatiable curiosité. Il était entouré d’une famille aimante et de nombreux amis.
1 Cité par Christiane Kubrick, Stanley Kubrick. Une vie en instantanés, trad. S. Suchet, Paris,
Cahiers du cinéma, 2002, p. 1.
20 Sam Azulys
qui débouche sur une remise en question de notre humanité. Mais, même
lorsque l’hubris et la Volonté de Puissance se transforment en Volonté de Néant,
même lorsque le Docteur Folamour se dresse comme un diable à ressort pour
célébrer l’apocalypse, même lorsqu’Alex s’affranchit de son conditionnement
en fantasmant des orgies sur son lit d’hôpital, la Volonté de Néant est si débridée
que le nihilisme technologique triomphant se révèle impuissant à la canaliser.
La Volonté de Néant n’est donc pas réductible au néant : les soubresauts du
corps sont les indices d’une Volonté de Puissance irréductible qui est toujours à
l’œuvre chez les sujets-vivants de Kubrick.
Notre hypothèse, c’est que dans l’œuvre du cinéaste, c’est plutôt le corps
qui tient en échec le cerveau. Non pas parce que le corps triompherait du fameux
concept deleuzien de « monde-cerveau », mais parce que, loin de s’en tenir à
« l’identité du monde et du cerveau » en nous proposant une vision pessimiste et
résolument dualiste de l’existence, Kubrick envisage ses personnages comme
des sujets-vivants en adoptant un point de vue physiologique.
Il sera d’abord question des rapports entre le Corps et la Technique. Nous
essaierons de montrer que de quelle façon ce point de vue physiologique sur le
sujet-vivant permet au cinéaste d’interroger le rapport du corps et de l’esprit,
à l’aune des mutations technologiques. Nous nous intéresserons ensuite au
point de vue physiologique proprement dit et à la manière dont Kubrick met
en image la métabolisation de la volonté de puissance. Enfin, nous parlerons
de la Mètis dans l’œuvre de Kubrick. La Mètis, c’est cette intelligence conjec-
turale liée à la faculté d’improviser que les anciens Grecs identifiaient à la ruse
et qui suppose l’existence d’une étroite connivence entre le corps et l’esprit.
10 M. Chion, Stanley Kubrick, l’humain, ni plus ni moins, Paris, Cahiers du cinéma, 2005, p. 233.
24 Sam Azulys
des outils frustrés de ne pas avoir de corps. Des outils autorégulés dont les
processus cybernétiques ne sont qu’une parodie des processus complexes qui
régissent le corps des sujets-vivants.
On est donc loin d’un « monde-cerveau » tel que le conçoit Deleuze. Les
systèmes panoptiques et ubiquitaires de l’univers kubrickien – qu’il s’agisse
des bombardiers de Folamour, des vaisseaux de 2001, de Hal 9000 ou de
l’Overlook Hotel – sont eux-mêmes approchés par Kubrick sous un angle
physiologique : ce sont des produits de la civilisation technicienne, des monades
esseulées et impuissantes, qui aspirent à une corporéité. Ces outils émancipés qui
convoitent l’autonomie et l’immortalité du sujet-vivant, deviennent fous parce
qu’ils n’ont pas les moyens de leur ambition : le bombardier « ensemence » la
Terre en expulsant de son ventre une bombe nucléaire et un cowboy hysté-
rique, Hal expulse de son corps de métal immaculé un astronaute comme un
vulgaire excrément, l’Overlook Hotel veut la peau de ses locataires et dégorge
des hectolitres de sang, comme si un trop-plein de déchets organiques encom-
brait sa tuyauterie.
Le corps-outil du sujet-vivant
au son des fifres et des tambours. Ces « soldats de Vaucanson » sont déjà des
« corps-machines » habités par la Volonté de Néant. Le dressage machinique
des corps est donc déjà à l’œuvre au XVIIIe siècle. Et Kubrick, même s’il
ne fait jamais directement allusion à la philosophie des Lumières dans son
film, ne se prive pas de nous offrir une mise en cause cinglante et ironique
de l’utopie du progrès moral qu’a voulu prophétiser ce courant de pensée à
travers toute l’Europe.
Nous l’avons déjà souligné, chez Kubrick, la Guerre prend la forme d’une
domestication des sujets-vivants par le truchement d’outils meurtriers et de
procédures techniciennes de canalisation des affects. Des procédures techni-
ciennes qu’il ne faudrait pas réduire à une simple confrontation guerrière sur
le théâtre des opérations. Car ce sont, aussi, par exemple, les sermons incen-
diaires du sergent instructeur Hartman de Full Metal Jacket, cet « expert en
intimidation » qui programme les jeunes recrues. De fait, le langage qu’utilise
Hartman n’est pas simplement destiné à leur imposer une discipline, il sert
aussi à « euphémiser » la violence, c’est-à-dire à la déréaliser. En se conformant
à ce langage, qui rappelle aussi le « nadsat » composite d’Orange Mécanique,
les Marines deviendront eux-mêmes des armes-vivantes, de véritables « corps-
outils ». Et l’on sait où ce processus d’intériorisation de la culpabilisation et de
la dévalorisation de soi conduira Pyle.
Dans 2001, le langage est également envisagé comme une arme-outil, au
même titre que pouvait l’être l’os des premiers hominidés. On se souvient des
discussions entre les scientifiques russes et le docteur Heywood Floyd, ce fonc-
tionnaire de la Technique, maniant parfaitement la langue de bois. Kubrick
prend bien soin de lier, dans cette conversation entre les représentants des
deux grandes puissances, la problématique de la Technique à celle de la guerre.
L’enjeu n’est plus la prise de possession d’un territoire – la mare des hommes-
singes – mais celui d’un secret d’État. Mais il s’agit toujours de l’affrontement
de deux tribus. Le changement d’échelle étend le conflit aux dimensions de
la planète entière. Et, si toute forme de violence physique semble avoir été
bannie de la société future, c’est toujours la même entreprise de domination
qui se perpétue derrière les formules de politesse, les questions inquisitrices et
les réponses évasives. Le « salon de guerre orbital » est une métaphore à peine
voilée de la guerre froide.
Dans Folamour, le langage a également été perverti par l’homme de
la Technique. Lorsque le colonel Mandrake reçoit l’ordre de Ripper, il ne
mesure pas les conséquences induites par le « déclenchement du plan R ».
Mandrake s’exécutera avant de réaliser avec horreur que le simple code dissi-
mule, en réalité, la procédure destinée à annihiler l’humanité. Le langage codé
Stanley Kubrick : le corps et l’esprit. Volonté de puissance et Mètis dans l’œuvre du cinéaste 27
Le Traitement Ludovico
Il nous faut encore dire un mot sur l’organe qui, chez Kubrick, permet
d’appréhender le « sujet-vivant » d’un point de vue physiologique. Cet organe,
c’est bien évidemment l’œil. Car, chez Kubrick, c’est par le regard que tran-
sitent les affects et les pulsions. Souvenons-nous du regard dentelé et préda-
teur d’Alex cherchant à satisfaire une pulsion scopique. L’acuité criminelle du
regard d’Alex est, dans une certaine mesure, comparable à celle du primate
de 2001 lorsque ce dernier prend soudain conscience du pouvoir destructeur
de l’arme-outil. Le regard d’Alex, regard calculateur de son propre plaisir et
dénué de compassion, est, d’une certaine façon, déjà lié à la Technique. Pour
que les pulsions violentes d’Alex s’actualisent, il faut que sa vision se mécanise,
devienne elle-même une arme.
En définitive, la pulsion scopique, active et sadique d’Alex sera également
celle du spectateur. Et c’est en suscitant l’adhésion (inconsciente) du specta-
teur devant le spectacle des horreurs (« horrorshow ») que Kubrick parvient à
mettre au jour la véritable nature de la pulsion scopique. La machine de vision
humaine est un outil mis à la disposition des hommes par l’évolution. Avide
de violence, elle participe de la même logique prédatrice que celle du monde
de la Technique. L’œil humain est une machine-vivante qui ne se contente pas
de recueillir passivement les données du sensible : il les recycle activement afin
d’adapter le réel à ses besoins.
Stanley Kubrick : le corps et l’esprit. Volonté de puissance et Mètis dans l’œuvre du cinéaste 31
et se laisse investir par le récit d’un autre. L’entité maléfique de l’Overlook – le
regard surplombant – le submerge et l’absorbe. Dès lors, le regard de Jack ne
se contente pas d’être un regard prédateur, il devient cannibale : c’est le regard
d’un père saturnien qui veut manger son fils, celui d’un extra-lucide qui ne
peut se délivrer de sa terreur qu’en la réalisant. Car la seule façon d’annuler la
vision, c’est de la réaliser.
On vient de le voir, la métabolisation des images par la machine de vision
humaine si elle peut conduire au triomphe de l’intelligence et des affects comme
dans Orange Mécanique et dans 2001, peut aussi devenir un piège hypnotique
qui prive le sujet-vivant de son intégrité physiologique. Chez Kubrick, le corps
est, avant tout, un œil avide qui absorbe et qui recycle les images.
antique comme celle des Argonautes qui, en échange d’un trépied destiné à
Delphes, obtinrent du dieu Triton qu’il leur montre le chenal pour sortir des
bas-fonds. Ce que Triton révèle aux voyageurs réduits à l’aporie, est un poros
(ou diekplous), une manœuvre maritime consistant en un brusque volte-face
destinée à laisser l’ennemi désemparé.
La Métis est, en effet, liée à une certaine audace : celle qui parvient à
déterminer le kairos, le moment opportun. La sortie de Bowman dans le vide
interstellaire exprime cette audace qui implique, pour les anciens Grecs, une
connaissance intuitive assujettie à la contingence et à la corporéité. L’homme
dont l’action est tendue vers une fin, doit toujours tenir compte de sa propre
finitude – de son corps – et savoir que son action s’exerce dans un domaine où
rien n’est jamais stable, le domaine de la contingence. Si l’intelligence humaine
est associée à la Métis, c’est le statut d’être raisonnable de l’homme qui risque
d’être assimilé à celui de l’animal, au vivant sans logos : l’homme ne serait, dès
lors, rien d’autre qu’un animal plus rusé que les autres.
Or c’est précisément sur ce postulat que repose le propos philosophique
implicite de 2001. L’homme n’y est pas envisagé comme un être radicalement
différencié de l’animal, mais comme un animal doué d’une ruse si puissante
qu’elle lui permet de transformer son environnement pour assurer sa survie.
C’est également pour assurer sa survie que Bowman a recours à la Métis. La
singularité et la profonde modernité de 2001 découlent de cette conception
particulière de l’intelligence humaine. Le nihilisme de l’ère de la Technique,
incarné par Hal, se révèle impuissant parce qu’en dépit de ses formidables
potentialités, son intelligence calculante est une intelligence orpheline d’un corps.
C’est bien là le drame de Hal : être une conscience privée de corps qui
se rattache désespérément à sa mission pour se sentir exister. C’est la raison
pour laquelle l’humanité de Hal n’était pas une condition suffisante pour
remporter la victoire dans le combat qui l’opposait à Bowman et gagner le
droit d’atteindre un nouveau palier évolutif. Quant au voyage de Bowman
au-delà des étoiles, il présente également des similitudes avec l’univers séman-
tique et visuel de la Métis.
Lors de sa course folle à travers le tunnel de lumière, Bowman voit sous
ses yeux se transformer l’espace glacial, ténébreux et infini en une route balisée
par d’énigmatiques signaux. En présence de ses compagnons, Jason adresse une
prière solennelle à Apollon afin qu’il lui indique les voies de passages (poroi).
C’est Apollon qui transforme la « mer comme étendue abyssale, chaotique, veuve
de routes » en une voie d’accès praticable. Dans 2001, c’est le monolithe qui
ouvre, dans l’espace infranchissable (apeiros), le couloir entre les pierres errantes
et les sémaphores qui conduisent Bowman « au-delà de l’infini ».
34 Sam Azulys
11 M. Detienne et J.-P. Vernant, Les Ruses de l’intelligence, La métis des Grecs, Paris, Flammarion,
1974, p. 266.
12 Ibid., p. 267.
13 Cf. Xénophon, L’Art de la chasse, VI. 21, Delebecque (p. 76, n° 1).
Stanley Kubrick : le corps et l’esprit. Volonté de puissance et Mètis dans l’œuvre du cinéaste 35
Eyes Wide Shut est, en un sens, une autre histoire de labyrinthe. Ce film
raconte l’odyssée intérieure d’un homme qui chemine à travers un labyrinthe
de fantasmes et prend peu à peu conscience de ses limites. C’est la Mètis de sa
femme qui lui permettra d’en trouver la sortie et de se réconcilier avec elle.
Dans la dernière scène qui a lieu dans un magasin de jouets, Alice oppose
à l’ultime proposition théorique de Bill – il projette leur relation dans l’éter-
nité en employant le mot « forever » –, une proposition simple et abrupte :
« Just fuck ». En choisissant de conclure son film, non sur la traditionnelle
scène de réconciliation propre aux comédies du remariage mais en insistant,
au contraire, sur le caractère à la fois contingent et réfléchi de la décision qui va
précéder l’union des époux, Kubrick rend hommage à la Mètis d’Alice.
Il rend aussi hommage à une nouvelle génération de femmes émancipées
de l’ancien ordre patriarcal qui choisissent de mettre leur Mètis au service
du vouloir-vivre et de l’affirmation du devenir plutôt que de l’abandonner au
nihilisme du monde de la Technique. Le trivial « Just fuck » est un appel
à un retour à l’ordinaire, à une reconnaissance (acknowledgement) de notre
condition sceptique, au sens où l’entend Stanley Cavell. Finalement, il n’y
a peut-être pas besoin d’être un surhomme pour devenir un affirmateur du
vouloir-vivre, semble vouloir nous dire Kubrick, il suffit peut-être d’accepter
d’être simplement humain.
Eyes Wide Shut nous confronte à deux manières d’être au monde radi-
calement opposées : celle de Bill, en apparence posée et rationnelle mais en
réalité superficielle et narcissique et celle d’Alice, intuitive mais cohérente. Dans
la fameuse scène du joint, tout semble indiquer la crispation de Bill, pour ne
pas dire sa frustration : dès que l’objet de son désir lui échappe, il adopte une
posture hiératique qui ne variera pas pendant toute la durée de la dispute.
Bill tente de garder le contrôle de son corps à l’inverse d’Alice qui n’hésite pas
à changer de position, à se lever, à déambuler dans la pièce ou à s’asseoir par
terre. Alice s’exprime aussi bien avec des mots qu’avec des gestes et des mouve-
ments. Elle ne soustrait pas son corps de la dynamique de son raisonnement :
elle fait parler son corps.
Loin d’être déconstruit ou aléatoire, l’argumentaire d’Alice – quoique
échappant à l’ordre du rationnel – obéit à une logique rigoureuse, sorte de
maïeutique intuitive où l’ironie est utilisée pour faire glisser le discours vers les
sentiments et le vécu personnel.
Alice se moque ouvertement de Bill, le provoque dans une joute verbale et
l’oblige à abandonner son rôle de docteur et de mari pour redevenir un homme
générique. La Métis d’Alice est à l’œuvre : son acuité intellectuelle évoque la
« pénétration d’esprit », cette qualité de l’intelligence dont Aristote crédite
surtout la sage-femme qui ne se trompe pas sur le but à atteindre et anticipe
intuitivement le déroulement de chacune des étapes risquées de la parturition.
36 Sam Azulys
14 M. Detienne et J.-P. Vernant, Les Ruses de l’intelligence, La métis des Grecs, Paris, Flammarion,
1974, p. 297.
15 Ibid.
16 Ibid., p. 10.
Stanley Kubrick : le corps et l’esprit. Volonté de puissance et Mètis dans l’œuvre du cinéaste 37
Mais les processus par lesquels une telle métamorphose est possible sont
envisagés par Kubrick de telle façon qu’il sera toujours impossible de réduire les
sujets-vivants à des machines. D’abord parce que si la Volonté de Puissance peut
effectivement être convertie en Volonté de Néant ou en Néant de Volonté par les
procédures techniciennes, cette conversion sera toujours incomplète, partielle,
inachevée. Les facultés de résistance des sujets-vivants sont insoupçonnées et
immenses : Hal est vaincu par Bowman, Jack et l’Overlook par Danny, le
« Traitement Ludivico » par Alex, le conditionnement militaire par Joker, et
l’Apocalypse elle-même, par le sursaut érectile du Docteur Folamour.
Ensuite parce que la Technique ne peut être appréhendée indépendam-
ment de l’hominisation, comme nous pouvons le voir dans 2001 et que le
corps est lui-même, intrinsèquement et dès son origine, un produit de la
procédure technicienne originelle : celle de l’évolution ou celle du bond évolutif
induit par les énigmatiques monolithes. L’œil est l’outil-vivant grâce auquel le
corps accède à l’intelligence et devient lui-même producteur de Technique. Il
est la machine organique grâce à laquelle le sujet-vivant parvient à dominer son
milieu, mais il est aussi la machine de vision grâce à laquelle Kubrick explore
l’intériorité des sujet-vivants.
D’autre part, nous avons vu que l’attitude des sujets-vivants face au nihi-
lisme technologique ne se limitait pas à faire montre de résilience. La Mètis
est l’intelligence du corps, l’intelligence conjecturale grâce à laquelle les héros
kubrickiens peuvent se surpasser et triompher du nihilisme de la civilisation
technicienne. Pourtant la Mètis n’est pas étrangère à la Technique, elle en est
même l’expression la plus noble.
Sam Azulys
New York University, Paris
samazulys@noos.fr
Résumé
Selon Gilles Deleuze, le cinéma de Kubrick est un « cinéma du cerveau »17 plutôt qu’un
cinéma du corps, c’est-à-dire un cinéma où c’est d’abord et avant tout « le cerveau qui est mis
en scène »18. Penser les rapports entre le corps et l’esprit dans le cinéma de Kubrick nous paraît
être un enjeu d’autant plus fondamental que son cinéma a longtemps été envisagé comme un
« monde-cerveau » façonné par un démiurge perfectionniste jusqu’à l’obsession. Le « monde-
cerveau » – autre expression deleuzienne – de Kubrick semble pourtant toujours menacé par
une entropie galopante qui, dans la plupart des cas, le fait, in fine, basculer dans le chaos.
NOTICE BIOGRAPHIQUE
Sam Azulys est philosophe et professeur d’analyse filmique à l’Université de New York à
Paris. Son ouvrage Stanley Kubrick : une odyssée philosophique (Éditions de la Transparence,
2011) se propose d’étudier les rapports entre le cinéaste et des philosophes comme Nietzsche,
Heidegger ou Jünger. Il vient de publier Philosopher avec Game of Thrones aux Éditions Ellipses.
Paths of Glory
Clément Puget
Partie 2
Paths of Glory. Aux croisements
de l’Histoire
Clément Puget
1 Stanley Kubrick, Fear and Desire (1953), traduction réalisée par nos soins.
2 Puget Clément, Verdun, le cinéma, l’événement, Paris, Nouveau monde éditions/Ministère de la
Défense, collection « Histoire et cinéma », 2016, 543 p.
44 Clément Puget
3 Cobb Humphrey, Les Sentiers de la gloire, éd. Altal, Chambéry 2014, 269 p.
Paths of Glory. Aux croisements de l’Histoire 45
Le deuxième point notable est relatif à l’attaque menée par le colonel Dax
dans le no man’s land à l’assaut de la fourmilière.
Cette attaque suicide est collectivement refusée par une partie de la compa-
gnie qui décide de ne pas sortir de la tranchée. Kubrick a repris l’intégralité
de l’épisode développé dans le roman faisant de l’ordre du général Assolant
– « Mireau » dans le film – le point d’orgue de cette séquence (Document 3).
Terrifiant, ce moment trouve difficilement son fondement dans une chro-
nologie précise. Cobb s’est certainement inspiré de l’affaire dite de Souain,
pour interpréter les rumeurs d’un tel ordre historiquement avéré et donné,
en mars 1915, par le général Reveilhac5. En effet, Hormis les doutes exprimés
par plusieurs historiens au sujet de la véracité d’une telle décision, si celle-ci
eut cependant lieu, ce fut en 1915, soit environ un an avant les faits rapportés
dans le film de Stanley Kubrick.
Si l’on envisage l’historicité de l’œuvre, au-delà du simple rapport entre
le fait réel attesté par les archives et le fait strictement filmique, et que l’on
regarde du côté du film de Georg Wilhelm Pabst, on découvre que l’historicité
recherchée par Stanley Kubrick réside peut-être moins dans un quelconque
champ de bataille ou date précise que… dans un autre film, Westfront 1918
dans lequel une scène analogue – côté allemand cette fois – est scénarisée et
mise en images. Une manière de dire peut-être que l’historicité est ici surtout
le rapport de l’événement filmique à l’événement médiatisé, une « mémoire
de seconde main » en somme.
Le « Shell-shock » (Document 4)
Cette expression britannique date de 1915. Elle désigne les atteintes d’ordre
nerveux et psychique provoquées sur l’organisme humain par les déflagrations
d’explosifs. Le terme a progressivement été banni du vocabulaire médical mili-
taire en raison de l’usage néfaste qui pouvait en être fait au sein des troupes.
La langue française offre plusieur équivalents outre « l’état de choc » tel que
traduit dans le film : commotion cérébrale, congestion cérébrale, accidents
nerveux, commotions médulaires, choc émotionnel, obusite se répandent
après-guerre6. Cependant deux psychiatres français, Dumas et Delmas, font
un rapport pendant la bataille de la Somme (octobre 1916), sur la notion
de syndrome confusionnel, pour alerter les autorités militaires des séquelles
tenaces dues aux épisodes de confusion mentale, et insister sur les consé-
quences tragiques de ces séquelles sur le plan médico-légal. Ils y indiquent
que les « non-soignés » car « non-diagnostiqués » comme tels conservent
une hyperémotivité durable qui se traduit sur le champ de bataille par des
5 Offenstadt Nicolas, Les Fusillés de la Grande Guerre et la mémoire collective 1914-1999, éd.
Odile Jacob, Paris, 2002 [1999].
6 Dupouy Stéphanie, « La vérité troublée. Georges Dumas, psychiatre du front », in Christophe
Prochasson, Anne Rasmussen (éd.), Vrai et faux dans la Grande Guerre, éd. La Découverte,
Paris, 2004, p. 235-254.
Paths of Glory. Aux croisements de l’Histoire 47
Justice militaire
L’in-justice militaire
Sorti à la veille des fêtes de fin d’année du côté de New York en 1957, le
film ne trouva d’écran en France qu’en mars… 1975. Pourquoi ? Laurent Véray
a bien exposé les raisons de cette « non-sortie » en France en 1958, suite aux
8 Loez André, 14-18. Les refus de la guerre. Une histoire des mutins, éd. Gallimard, collection
Folio Histoire, Paris, 2010, 690 p.
50 Clément Puget
9 Véray Laurent, « Le cinéma américain constitue-t-il une menace pour l’identité nationale
française ? le cas exemplaire des Sentiers de la gloire (Paths of Glory, 1957, Kubrick) », in
Martin Barnier, Raphaëlle Moine (éd.), France / Hollywood, L’Harmattan, Paris, 2002.
10 Mosse George, De la Grande Guerre au totalitarisme. La brutalisation des sociétés européennes,
éd. Hachette Littératures, Paris, 1999, 291 p.
Paths of Glory. Aux croisements de l’Histoire 51
Paths of Glory n’est donc pas un énième récit plus ou moins fidèle relatant
des événements de la Grande Guerre. C’est peut-être d’abord un film qui
déjà se retourne sur la jeune carrière de son auteur, faisant écho au tout début
de son premier film de long-métrage, Fear and Desire (1953), dont voici la
retranscription/traduction du commentaire off des plans inauguraux :
« […] There is war in this forest. Not a war that has been fought, or one that will
be. But any war, and the ennemies who struggle here do not exist, unless we call
them into being. This forest then, and all that happens now is outside of History.
Only the unchanging shapes of fear and doubt, and death, are from our world. »11
Clément Puget
Maître de conférences
Université Bordeaux Montaigne
Unité de recherche CLARE (EA 4593) - équipe Artes
Chercheur associé IRCAV Paris 3
clement.puget@u-bordeaux-montaigne.fr
Résumé
Paths of Glory, adaptation filmique du roman éponyme de Humphrey Cobb, dont les 60 ans
sont célébrés en 2017, n’est pas un énième film relatant la Grande Guerre. Non, c’est d’abord
une œuvre qui déjà se retourne sur la jeune carrière de son auteur, en 1957, faisant écho au
tout début de son premier film de long-métrage, Fear and Desire (1953). Mais au-delà de cet
évident rapport, c’est celui du film aux événements historiques et à leur historiographie qui
fait tout l’intérêt du 4e opus de Stanley Kubrick dans lequel humanisme, précision historienne
et ironie macabre se croisent à la fois « hors de l’histoire » (si l’on pense aux anachronismes
et invraisemblances du récit) mais également tout en poursuivant l’esquisse du simulacre de
guerre dont les « contours immuables de la peur, du doute et de la mort » sont les plus évidents
stigmates d’un réel passé qui interroge le cinéaste.
Mots-clés
Fusillé, Grande Guerre, refus, combat, justice, historicité.
11 « La guerre est présente dans cette forêt. Ni pourtant une guerre réelle, ni une guerre qui le
deviendra. N’importe quelle guerre en somme, dans laquelle les ennemis qui s’opposent ici
n’existent pas, à moins que nous ne les convoquions dans notre réalité. Cette forêt donc, et
tout ce qui s’y joue est hors de l’Histoire. Seuls les contours immuables de la peur, du doute et
de la mort appartiennent à notre monde. » (traduction réalisée par nos soins). Stanley Kubrick,
Fear and Desire (1953).
52 Clément Puget
Abstract
Paths of Glory, the film adaptation of Humphrey Cobb’s eponymous novel –whose 60th anniversary
was celebrated in 2017– is not yet another film relating the Great War. This is first and foremost
a work which, in 1957, already looks back on its author’s short career, by echoing Kubrick’s first
feature film, Fear and Desire (1953). But beyond this obvious connection, the film’s connexion to
historical events and to their historiographies is of central importance in Stanley Kubrick’s 4th work;
a film in which humanism, historical precision and macabre irony intermingle “out of history” –if
one thinks of the narrative’s anachronisms and improbabilities– while simultaneously pursuing the
depiction of a simulacrum of warfare whose “immutable contours of fear, doubt and death” are the
most obvious stigmata of a real past which the filmmaker questions.
Keywords
Firing squad, Great War, disobedience, battle, justice, historicity.
Paths of Glory. Aux croisements de l’Histoire 53
NOTICE BIOGRAPHIQUE
Document 2 : La fourmillère/Douaumont
Paths of Glory (Stanley Kubrick, 1957, Bryna productions, United Artists), DR.
Verdun, visions d’Histoire (Léon Poirier, 1928, La cinémathèque de Toulouse), DR.
Paths of Glory. Aux croisements de l’Histoire 55
Document 7 : Tribunal-château
Paths of Glory (Stanley Kubrick, 1957, Bryna productions, United Artists), DR.
Loig Le Bihan
The Shining’s genesis, that one may attempt to retrace thanks not only to
the testimonies of some of the production’s key actors –chief among them
Stanley Kubrick and his cowriter Diane Johnson– but also to the many
documents stored in the Stanley Kubrick Archives1 in London, reveals the
complexity of a long-lasting creative process which seems to have branched off
its original agenda. If the initial ambition was to adapt Stephen King’s novel
freely while inscribing the film within the tradition of a genre, it does seem –as
I have argued at length in my book Shining au miroir2– that the film’s creative
path has somehow strayed away from this project. In order to shed light on
the process which led from King’s novel to Kubrick’s film, one must proceed
with a particular kind of interpretation, an “evidential interpretation”.
Evidential interpretation
1 The Stanley Kubrick Archives are situated in the London College of Communication,
University of the Arts London. The catalogue is available online in the UAL website: http://
archives.arts.ac.uk.
2 Loig Le Bihan, Shining au miroir. Surinterprétations, Paris, éd. Rouge profond, coll.
« Raccords », 2017.
3 Carlo Ginzburg, « Traces. Racines d’un paradigme indiciaire » [1979], in Mythes, emblèmes,
traces, Lagrasse, Éditions Verdier, coll. « Poche », 2010.
62 Loig Le Bihan
6 On Souriau’s notion of artistic instauration, one may read one of his texts which best summa-
rize his thought: “Du mode d’existence de l’œuvre à faire” (1956), rééd. in Étienne Souriau,
Les différents modes d’existence, Paris, éd. PUF, coll. « Métaphysiques », 2009, p. 195-217.
Regarding the notion of “truth of instauration”, cf. Ngô-tiêng-Hiên’s analysis, « Art et vérité
dans l’œuvre d’Étienne Souriau », in Revue philosophie de Louvain, 4e série, t. 69, n° 1, 1971,
p. 73-91 ; doi :10.3406/phlou.1971.5589.
64 Loig Le Bihan
The final state / Jack roaming around the hotel; Wendy and Danny
visiting the maze (European version, 00:24:39 to 00:27:16 / American version,
00:37:25 to 00:40:19)
One will recall that after Jack, barely awake, discusses with the enthusias-
tic Wendy who came to bring him breakfast in bed, the next shot opens on a
slow backwards tracking shot centered on Jack’s typing machine laying on his
desk (Ill.1); it then reveals the character of Jack bouncing a tennis ball over the
hearth of the Colorado Lounge (Ill.2). Meanwhile, Wendy and Danny run into
the maze, in which they will lose themselves for a while (Ill.3). After a dissolve
indicating the simultaneity of the events (Ill.4), Jack gets near the maze’s model
and stops to scrutinize it (Ill.5). The shot cuts to a long shot overhanging the
real maze, zooming until one may discern the tiny effigies of Wendy and Danny
who have reached the centre of the labyrinth (Ill.6). Thanks to the montage,
one may wonder whether a fantastic occurrence of clairvoyance is going on.
The scene ends with the irruption of the intertitle card “Tuesday”.
Quoted below are the scenes which correspond to this moment in the film
as they are described in a transitory state of the screenwriting program, one
that can be found in a document available in the Stanley Kubrick Archives
under the title “D. Parker Bound Script”, numbered “SK/15/1/35”. The alter-
ations dated 22/05/78 are in italics, those from 29/05/78 are in bold letters.
Scene 46, whose paragraph is here indented, was cancelled in the screenplay
dated 29/05/78. Underlining is from the original document.
7 “Initial” here does not qualify an “original” state. I term this state “initial” as it is the state the
narrative was stabilized in at the end of the development period and at the beginning of the
production process.
8 On the various versions of Kubrick’s film, cf. chapter “Les trois versions” from my book,
Shining au miroir, op. cit., p. 101-104.
From Zoom to Zoom. An evidential interpretation of The Shining 65
Let us now see the way Jack found the scrapbook and took it up in the
initial state of the script…
9 In Stephen King’s novel as well as in the telefilm he produced (Stephen King’s The Shining,
Mick Garris, 1997), the boiler is the hotel’s real beating heart. Its explosion triggers the final
destruction of the place.
From Zoom to Zoom. An evidential interpretation of The Shining 67
In the completed film, though the scenes of the discovery of the scrap-
book are gone, they have nonetheless left something like “the smell of burnt
toast”, in the words of Halloran. An indelible vestige remained in the film in
the form of this prop lying on Jack’s desk. Even though it is somehow “inhib-
ited” from the film’s narrative logic and, for this very reason, few spectators
may notice the scrapbook, it does appear in the following scene which shows
Jack working (Ill.7), soon to be interrupted by his wife telling him snow has
been forecast (Ill.8); it even appears in the foreground (III.9)…
Diane Johnson repeatedly expressed her regret about the suppression
of those scenes in which Jack discovered the scrapbook and then discussed
with his wife. In a 1999 interview with Nicolas Saada, shortly after Kubrick’s
death, she states: “in the novel, the character’s fairly weak nature led him to
succumb to the ghosts’ influence. He became the hotel’s creature, controlled
by the ghosts. A scene was shot but suppressed during post-production: Jack
Torrance (Jack Nicholson) finds a scrapbook filled with pictures and press
cuttings telling the hotel’s history, articles alluding to the murder of the two
little girls and to other events connected to the ghosts haunting the hotel”10.
In another interview published in 2011, she adds: “He actually took out a
scene that I considered more important [than the original ending scene]. If
you’ve read the novel, it’s the scene were Jack finds the scrapbook in the boiler
room. And I thought that was very important because you had to know the
moment in which he came under the control of the hotel. It’s like the moment
in a fairy story when the hero takes the poison apple. The main character
makes a mistake that brings them into the grip of evil. That was when Jack
made his mistake. Before that, it could have gone either way. It’s his vanity and
his hope to be a great writer that leads him to take this scrapbook as a gold
mine of subjects. That was written and shot. I was sorry to see that Kubrick
cut that out. I would have argued to take out something else”11.
The co-writer has a hard time getting over the loss of the scrapbook scenes,
so useful were they, in her mind, to foster the understanding of the narrative
according to a generic horizon of expectation. From the moment Jack discov-
ered the scrapbook and decided to make a novel out of it, the film was on
10 Nicolas Saada, “The Shining, une histoire de famille. Entretien avec Diane Johnson”, Cahiers
du cinéma, n° 534, Avril 1999, p. 35.
11 Mark Steensland, “The Shining Adapted. An interview with author Diane Johnson”, Kamera,
n°2, republished by the blog: The Terror Trap, mai 2011. [Terrortrap.com (last accessed
5/12/2016).] my emphasis.
From Zoom to Zoom. An evidential interpretation of The Shining 69
track, its generic “rails” were clearly set up. And yet her very statement could
explain the reason why the scrapbook “disappeared” more satisfactorily than
the motives generally put forward –even by Johnson herself12– of duration
requirements, which justify little. Indeed, once the scrapbook discovered,
the range of potential paths would narrow down to only leave room for
one, namely Jack being possessed by the hotel’s history. During the decisive
moment of editing, did Kubrick end up considering the scrapbook to be an
excessively determining object, to the point of being cumbersome?
In order to partially13 (though, I believe, probingly) answer this question,
one must highlight what the late invention of the MAZE ZOOM owes to its
antecedent, the SCRAPBOOK ZOOM –which did get shot, as Ray Andrew
asserted14. Unplanned during the writing of scene 55, shot at a late stage, the
MAZE ZOOM is some sort of “patch”. It is no trifling detail if the zoom on
the scrapbook in scene 47E, which was thought of as the moment in which
the hotel’s haunting take on Jack crystallizes (and whose importance is liter-
ally underlined in the typescript), was replaced formally by this singular, yet
equally “overlooking”, shot of the MAZE ZOOM. From an evidential inter-
pretative perspective, this substitution reveals the occultation of this turning
point –getting under the scrapbook’s spell– which is now missing; but it also
entails some sort of equivalent promotion for the maze. This decisive –shot for
shot– substitution of a SCRAPBOOK ZOOM by a MAZE ZOOM seems to me to
mark a turnaround in the film, which leaves the register of the Gothic and
enters a radical form of the Fantastic. It reveals something very deep regarding
what one may term the author’s final structuring intention.
This “matrix” shot15, inserted late so as to fill the void left by the late
suppression of a formally similar shot, emblematizes the film as a whole,
which is not now scary so much as it is uncanny, in the full –Freudian– sense
of the word. For the labyrinthine feeling of irremeabilis error (“inexorable
wandering”16) is closer to what Freud aims at analyzing in his essay on “The
Uncanny” –which is known to have been used as a source of inspiration for
the cowriters, along with Bruno Bettleheim’s The Uses of Enchantment. Such
acquaintance is made clear upon rereading Freud’s text.
12 Diane Johnson, “Writing The Shining” in Geoffrey Cocks, James Diedrick, Glenn Perusek
(éd.), Depth of Field. Stanley Kubrick, Film, and the Uses of History, Wisconsin, The University
of Wisconsin Press, coll. “Wisconsin Film Studies”, 2006, p. 58.
13 I say partially because the “case” of the scrapbook has been subject to many hesitations as
to what it should contain, notably through a hiatus between a “scripted” scrapbook and a
“crafted” scrapbook. Those hesitations might justify why it became cumbersome. Cf. my book,
section D’un album disparu, p. 67-83.
14 Cf. “Ray Andrew. Interview by Justin Bozung”, in Danel Olson (éd.), The Shining. Studies in
the Horror Film, Lakewood, Centipede Press, p. 721-722.
15 Cf. my book, section “La matrice de l’Overlook”, in Shining au miroir, op. cit., p. 193-200.
16 A term valued by Paolo Santarcangeli in his classic Le livre des labyrinthes (1967), Paris,
NRF-Gallimard, coll. “Bibliothèque des idées”, 1974.
70 Loig Le Bihan
Strolling one hot summer afternoon through the empty and to me unfamil-
iar streets of a small Italian town, I found myself in a district about whose char-
acter I could not long remain in doubt. Only heavily made-up women were to
be seen at the windows of the little houses, and I hastily left the narrow street at
the next turning. However, after wandering about for some time without asking
the way, I suddenly found myself back on the same street, where my presence
began to attract attention. Once more I hurried away, only to return there again
by a different route. I was now seized by a feeling that I can only describe as
uncanny [unheimlich], and I was glad to find my way back to the piazza that I
had recently left and refrain from any further voyages of discovery17.
It is this aesthetics of the uncanny which finally imposed itself in the instau-
ration of the film. It thus subordinates the generic remains remotely inher-
ited from fairy-tales and eventually “works” against the entire archigenesis18 of
the Gothic which nonetheless impacted deeply on the development process
–one may notably keep in mind that the hotel was built upon an Indian burial
ground, an invention of the two cowriters which perfectly fits the genre. The
Shining’s MAZE ZOOM reveals this idea of the film, an idea which finally imposed
itself on Kubrick in such a way that it ultimately led to the ruin of the genre
film which The Shining might have been, had the initial intention been firmly
respected until the end; if, in particular, the scrapbook scenes had been kept.
If one considers how much a kind of “labyrinthine necessity” governed the
deep reorientation the idea of the film went through in the ongoing process of
its instauration, one better understands the occultation of the scrapbook scene
as well as the accumulation of narrative dead-ends. It highlights, for instance,
the logic which governs the heteroclite patchwork of insane visions Wendy
experiences at the end of the narrative. This kind of carnival of seemingly
disconnected apparitions is the ultimate result of the film’s process of indeter-
mination. While Diane Johnson had claimed it had to “have no holes in the
plot”19, Kubrick, however, ended up saying upon the film’s French release that
“like a maze, it is filled with false exits and dead-ends”20.
Loig Le Bihan
EA 4209 - RIRRA 21
Université Paul Valéry Montpellier 3
RIRRA 21 - EA 4209, Montpellier (France)
loig.le-bihan@univ-montp3.fr
17 Sigmund Freud, The uncanny. New York: Penguin Books, 2003, p. 144.
18 Through this neologism, I refer to the influence of the frames of the genre as well as to that of
the “architext” (in Gérard Genette’s definition of the term) on the work’s genesis.
19 Aljean Harmetz, “Kubrick Films The Shining in Secrecy in English Studio”, The New York
Times, 6 November 1978.
20 Robert Benayoun, « Kubrick : “Tous les fous n’ont pas l’air d’être fous” (entretien avec
Stanley Kubrick ) », Le Point, n° 422, 20 ctobre 1980, p. 181.
From Zoom to Zoom. An evidential interpretation of The Shining 71
Résumé
La genèse de Shining témoigne de la complexité d’un long processus de création qui semble
avoir, en certains moments décisifs, bifurqué. Si l’idée de départ était d’adapter librement le
roman de Stephen King tout en inscrivant pleinement le film dans la tradition d’un genre,
le trajet de la production aura quelque peu dévoyé ce projet. Pour restaurer quelque chose
de ce processus qui aura mené depuis le substrat du roman de King jusqu’à l’achèvement du
film de Kubrick, il faut procéder à un type bien particulier d’interprétation, qu’on peut dire,
avec Carlo Ginzburg, « indiciaire ». On proposera, à l’occasion de cet article, une incursion
« micro-génétique » qui visera à remonter le cours des différents états d’une scène embléma-
tique marquée notamment par la disparition finale d’un « zoom sur un album » (SCRAPBOOK
ZOOM) remplacé in extremis par un « zoom sur un labyrinthe » (MAZE ZOOM). Cet événement
de détail dans la genèse du film condense au plus haut point ce qu’on pourrait appeler, avec
Étienne Souriau, la « vérité d’instauration » de l’œuvre de Stanley Kubrick.
Mots-clés
Shining, interprétation indiciaire, critique génétique, intention hypothétique/réelle, instauration
poïétique.
Abstract
The Shining’s genesis reveals the complexity of a long-lasting creative process which seems
to have branched off its original agenda at some key moments. If the initial ambition was to
adapt Stephen King’s novel freely while inscribing the film within the tradition of a genre,
it does seem that the film’s creative path has somehow strayed away from this project. In
order to shed light on the process which led from King’s novel to Kubrick’s film, one must
proceed with a particular kind of interpretation, what Carlo Ginzburg terms an “evidential
interpretation”. Throughout this article, I will delve into a “micro-genetic” incursion into
the various strata of an emblematic scene marked by the final suppression of a SCRAPBOOK
ZOOM, replaced in extremis by a MAZE ZOOM. This detail of the film’s genesis concentrates
to the utmost what one may call, following Etienne Souriau, the “truth of instauration” of
Stanley Kubrick’s work.
Keywords
The Shining, evidential interpretation, genetic criticism, hypothetical/actual intention, poietic
inception.
72 Loig Le Bihan
NOTICE BIOGRAPHIQUE
Ill.1
Ill.2
74 Loig Le Bihan
Ill.3
Ill.4
From Zoom to Zoom. An evidential interpretation of The Shining 75
Ill.5
Ill.6
76 Loig Le Bihan
Ill.7
Ill.8
From Zoom to Zoom. An evidential interpretation of The Shining 77
Ill.9
Inside the interpretative maze of
The Shining (1980).
The search for meaning in crisis
Vincent Jaunas
In The Shining, the motif of the maze may seem to legitimize those spec-
tator-detectives in their investigations. In a maze, one must show perseverance
and cunning to overcome the obstacles laid down by the designer in order
to reach the centre. The omnipresence of the motif of the maze may thus
convince the most tenacious spectators that if they keep digging beyond the
surface, they may eventually reach a hidden centre and unlock a secret reading
strategy that would turn the film into a limpid message.
I would like to argue the maze of The Shining suggests that there is no
hidden centre, no secret key which would unlock all its mysteries and provide
a clear reading. As Roger Luckhurst wrote, “one must chart the structure of
the maze rather than arguing there is only one way through it”5. However,
in The Shining, the obsessive hermeneutic craze of the spectator seems to be
encouraged as well as challenged, so that one runs the risk of getting lost in
an interpretative dead-end. By creating a film-maze, Kubrick integrated the
spectator’s quest for meaning at the core of his aesthetics, to better question it.
In this labyrinthine film, there is no one good path to follow, at the exclu-
sion of all others. The film is what Umberto Eco calls an open work, for it
enables “the increase and the multiplication of the potential meanings of the
message”6. Each sequence, each scene, is a “semantic knot” which encourages
spectators to multiply viewing hypotheses.
As a result, the progression of the film is not linear and does not culminate
in a final revelation that would enable one to select one of those hypotheses
over all others, as in a detective film. On the contrary, it seems that each scene
opens a new interpretative path, and that each viewing hypothesis is eventu-
ally condemned to look like a dead-end. In this regard, one should keep in
mind that we do see the centre of the diegetic maze, as Wendy and Danny
play in it (Figure 1). However, this centre turns out to be an open area, filled
with various potential paths to explore. The centre is thus not a closing one,
but another opening. This constant opening of the film, which prevents any
restrictive interpretation, culminates in the final scene. According to Laura
Mulvey, “There are two grand conventions of narrative closure, devices that
allow the drive of a story to return to stasis: death or marriage”7.
In The Shining, however, the narrative closure which is Jack’s death is
instantly overcome with an extra scene, adding an excess of semantics compared
with the Hollywood convention. The camera zooms forward through a hallway,
a space open on each side which contrasts with the single paths available in a
maze, and then onto a wall filled with photographs. It finally reveals a picture
from 1921 in which Jack seems mysteriously alive, out of our reality (Figure 2).
An apparent sense of closure is thus contradicted with the opening of countless
new potential interpretations. The polysemy of the film is therefore established
through the divide between narrative closure (Jack’s death) and the lack of
semantic closure (his death certainly does not attenuate the hermeneutic craze
of the spectator trying to figure it all out). One may keep in mind that the film’s
final screenplay contained an extra ending scene, in which Ullman visits Danny
and Wendy at the hospital8. This scene would have preceded the zooming on
the photograph, and would have added an extra sense of closure by making the
audience sure Danny and Wendy were alive and well. Deleting this scene thus
focused the ending on the semantic opening provided by the revelation of the
photograph. Such an open film therefore seems to exclude any possibility of
adopting a definitive interpretation of the film, excluding all others. To respect
the intention of the film, any attempt to interpret it must therefore acknowl-
edge its own limits and the coexistence of equally valid hypotheses.
This ultimate scene is one of the main alterations from Stephen King’s
novel. All the major alterations of the screenplay follow the same path and
maintain a narrative clarity while opening the semantic potential of the work.
Michel Chion explains how the changes made for the European version of the
film –a shorter version, modified after the American release– tend to suppress
the causal links binding the sequences together, thus making of each scene a
separate part of a puzzle which it is up to the viewer to piece together9.
If the film therefore celebrates the potentially unlimited semantics of
cinema, The Shining may lose some spectators through this excess of potential
meanings. The hermeneutic confusion of the spectator is heightened by the
loss of spatiotemporal bearings within the hotel. Indeed, spatial disorientation
within the maze-like structure of the hotel is coupled with temporal disorien-
tation. The cartons of the film are a case in point. They first indicate specific
time markers. “Closing Day” thus refers to a specific date, October 30th, and
a specific event, i.e. the closing of the hotel for the winter season. Later on,
however, the captions only refer to deictic markers like “Wednesday”, which
can only make sense if one knows when it was written and by whom, which is
not the case in a movie with no established external narrator. This Wednesday
could refer to any Wednesday. Therefore, as the film moves forward, the
feeling of dread provoked by the dilatation of time mixes up with a feeling of
temporal confusion. This confusion is of course accentuated by the coexist-
ence of three different timelines –the 1980’s, 70’s and 20’s– across which Jack
evolves effortlessly.
8 Anon, “The Shining Screenplay”, SK/15/1/38, Stanley Kubrick Archives, University of the
Arts London.
9 Michel Chion, Stanley Kubrick : L’humain, ni plus ni moins. Paris : Cahiers du Cinéma, 2005,
p. 398-403.
82 Vincent Jaunas
the bathtub, Jack lets himself be drawn to her, and kisses her in a confident,
serene embrace. It is only by watching the woman’s reflection in the mirror that
Jack discovers another aspect of this scene, hideous this time: the woman turns
out to be a rotting corpse. The only time Jack actually fears the ghosts of the
hotel is thus triggered by his look in the mirror. Afterwards, Jack ceases to look
at mirrors and to confront himself to what lies beyond appearances (Figure 4).
Instead of seeing the ghosts for what they are, he no longer distinguishes
them from the living, and walks around a 1920’s party without display-
ing any sign of doubt as to the ontological status of what he hears or sees
(“anything you say Lloyd, anything you say”). During this party, Jack accom-
panies Delbert Grady to the bathroom and seems to go through the looking
glass. In the bathroom, Jack faces the mirrors but he never explicitly looks at
them, as his eyes are fixed on Grady. At times he seems to catch sight of the
mirror reflections, but the camera never reveals the reflection itself. Three
180° shots and countershots then reverse the position of the characters and
objects within the frame as Grady asserts Jack is one of them. Without access
to what the mirrors display, the audience is encouraged to consider that this
time, Jack fails to see, or refuses to see, the oscillation of his own situation.
Jack’s own journey through the looking glass is announced earlier in the film,
when a zoom backwards reveals the shot did not show Jack but his reflec-
tion in a mirror. Mirror images are flat and two dimensional, its depths are
mere illusions, thus suggesting Jack gets trapped in a world of reflections and
appearances. Jack’s path is thus similar to that of the hermetic spectator who,
frightened by the sense that what one sees is only the surface, digs ever deeper
only to restore an appearance of perfect coherence through overinterpretation.
In The Shining, however, the feeling of dread does not arise from the ghosts
as much as from Jack himself. He enters a murderous rage when he decides
to close his eyes to the frightening multi-layered reality, and becomes in the
process the tool of the ghosts. Faced with a world he cannot fully compre-
hend, Jack sticks to an illusory interpretative strategy. If the immensity of the
world and man’s impossibility to comprehend it may be terrifying, Kubrick
suggests that refusing to face this fact is even worse and leads to madness.
Jack’s hermeneutic blindness is opposed to the clear-sightedness of Danny,
which results from his gift, his “shining”. Danny never stops perceiving the
ghosts in all their ungraspable alterity. Each of his visions are marked by audio-
visual effects insisting on the supernatural character of the ghosts (Figure 5): a
progressive zoom towards the character’s face, shaking with fear, and an over-
saturated high pitched sound. His first vision occurs before his arrival at the
Overlook. Danny is in the bathroom looking at a mirror. During this first
vision, the brevity of the images is interspersed with close ups of a terrified
Danny, shot before a black background which disconnects him from all diegetic
spatiotemporal situation. Like Jack in Room 237, Danny fears this new layer of
Inside the interpretative maze of The Shining (1980). The search for meaning in crisis 85
the world which he glimpses at as he shines, but unlike his father Danny does
not shy away from it by mixing up the status of those visions with that of his
everyday reality. His visions maintain their fantastic quality. Danny experiences
them through his alter ego Tony (“the little boy that lives in my mouth”). Tony
prevents Danny from going through the looking glass by underlining the alterity
of his visions. Even at the end of the film, Tony takes over to warn Wendy of
Jack’s murderous intents –thus treating Jack as another fantastic vision, which
points to the fact the father is now trapped inside this other layer of reality.
To warn Wendy, Tony writes Murder backwards, a word that needs to be read
through a mirror: up until the end, Danny does not reduce the fantastically
ungraspable nature of his vision to a more understandable, everyday reality.
This other layer remains fundamentally Other, unthinkable, uncontrollable.
Thus, when Danny actually encounters ghosts in the hotel, he never shares
Jack’s madness and keeps considering these beings as inherently Other.
Danny’s visions overflow with meanings that neither the child nor the
viewers can fully comprehend. Conversely, Jack’s world becomes more and
more limpid as the film progresses and he gets stuck into a simplistic interpre-
tation: all his problems revolve around his family, and he needs to “correct”
them to reach a blissful harmony with the hotel dwellers. This interpretation
is forced upon reality, in a series of assertions terrifying because of their very
simplicity, such as his famous claim that “all work and no play makes Jack a
dull boy”. Jack’s increasingly simplistic worldview climaxes in the end, as he
becomes an animal –as underlined by Nicholson’s howling, screaming and
drooling performance– as well as a child, quoting the three little pigs.
Faced with a contingent world overflowing with ungraspable signs,
Kubrick therefore opposes two viewing models, Jack’s and Danny’s (Figure 6).
Like them, spectators have to face an open work, multi-layered and infinitely
open to interpretation. Like Jack, hermetic spectators deny this multiplicity
to look for a secret key to decipher the work and unify it into an all-encom-
passing, limpid narrative. In the process, they may, like Jack, get lost within
the semantic maze of the film, “for ever and ever”, by digging ever deeper into
the work in an attempt to, paradoxically, better negate its depth.
Danny, on the other hand, appears to be an ideal viewer. In the last
confrontation with his father, he runs into the various paths of the maze and
manages to get out of it alive. Instead of looking for the right path, Danny
accepts the complexity of the maze and plays with it. He decides to walk back
on his tracks. Danny cunningly elaborates a strategy –using his own tracks– to
get out of the labyrinth without trying to solve its mysteries. Its multiple paths
enable Danny to hide himself.
We have seen how, all along the film, Danny does not deny the fantastic
quality of his horrific visions, their alterity and therefore the impossibility to make
sense of them. The ideal viewer of the film is therefore a child, characterized by
86 Vincent Jaunas
his smallness in the gigantic setting he evolves in. From the very opening of the
film, all the characters seem like nothing compared to the sublime immensity of
the landscape, which shrinks mankind to the tiny spot which is the car within
the overall frame. Once inside the Overlook Hotel, the size of the building is
constantly emphasized in the scenes involving Danny. In the game room during
his first scene within the Overlook, Danny must step on a chair to take down the
darts he was playing with, since the target is too high. When he walks around the
kitchen, Danny’s body barely occupies the lowest quarter of the frame, whereas
Wendy and Halloran fill three quarters of it. We may add that in The Shining, the
ceiling is always visible in the frame. If it seems to lock the characters in a cage –a
signature Kubrick effect– it also emphasizes the hugeness of the Overlook. This
feeling is particularly strong when Danny rides on his tricycle. The low position
of the Steadicam follows Danny at his level, whereas the breadth of the frame
is blocked by the narrow corridor, which accentuates in an almost anamorphic
distortion the dreadful immensity of the hotel (Figure 7).
However, Danny manages not to be crushed by the Overlook. He uses its
immensity to his advantage. When Jack runs after him, he uses his small size
to crawl out of the bathroom window, and then hides himself in the kitchen
cupboards. In the early scenes, Jack also seems crushed by the size of the hotel
–all the characters do in the first tracking shots crossing the great hall. But
instead of using it, Jack tries to reduce this immensity, and to take control of
the film space. Nicholson’s paroxysmal acting gives his character an aura that
Kubrick accentuates by making him fill the frame, in various striking close-
ups (Figure 8). When he’s locked in the pantry, an extreme high-angle shot
has Jack fill the whole frame with a monstrous charisma that erases the hotel
around him. The most famous shot of the film is another telling example.
Jack’s face appears through the door he just tore down with an axe, so that
Jack literally destroys the architecture of the hotel and invades the frame.
The two relations of these characters with their environment is elegantly
underlined in their differing ways of dealing with the maze. Looking at the
maze’s model, Jack tries to distance himself from the maze’s depth, to tower
above it and to dominate it, whereas a cut connects this shot to a plunging
low angle shot of the maze. The viewer finally understands he is now looking
at the outside maze, in which Danny and Wendy look like mere dots and
enjoy getting lost in the place, rather than dominating it. “I didn’t think it
was going to be this big, did you?” says Wendy smiling. The film’s over-expo-
sure provides an almost constant depth of field which accentuates the three
dimensional quality of the hotel, and of the outside maze. Jack’s attempt to
dominate space is also an attempt to negate its depth, to make the image a
flat one. Jack’s previously mentioned association with mirrors, with their fake
sense of depth, also underlines his wish to flatten the image, to stick to a reas-
suring two-dimensionality (Figure 9).
Inside the interpretative maze of The Shining (1980). The search for meaning in crisis 87
18 Charles Pierce, quoted in Laura Mulvey. Death 24x a second: stillness and the moving image,
op. cit., 2006, p. 9.
19 Ibid.
20 Ibid., p. 31.
88 Vincent Jaunas
Vincent Jaunas
Laboratoire CLIMAS
Université Bordeaux Montaigne
vincentjaunas@hotmail.com
Abstract
This essay examines the hermeneutics of The Shining (1980) in the light of the manifold
overinterpretations that became apparent since the advent of internet forums and gained visi-
bility with the release of Room 237 (Rodney Ascher, 2012). I suggest that, as highlighted by
the motif of the labyrinth, Kubrick constructed a hermeneutic maze in which Jack –subject
to hermetic thought– loses himself while Danny, whose humility enables him not to fall into
the traps of an organising reason striving to make sense of a world impervious to human
logic, escapes. In doing so, The Shining envisages its own reception through the staging of two
conflicting viewing models.
Keywords
Kubrick, The Shining, hermeneutics, overinterpretation, reception theory.
Inside the interpretative maze of The Shining (1980). The search for meaning in crisis 89
Résumé
Cet article propose de réévaluer les enjeux herméneutiques de Shining (1980) à l’aune de
la vague de surinterprétations du film, manifeste depuis les années 2000 et l’avènement
des forums internet et ayant gagné en visibilité depuis la sortie du documentaire Room 237
(Rodney Ascher, 2012). Nous suggérons que, comme indiqué par le motif du labyrinthe,
Kubrick envisagea son film comme un dédale herméneutique dans les méandres duquel se
perd Jack, personnage soumis à une pensée hermétique, tandis qu’en réchappe Danny, dont
l’humilité lui permet de ne pas sombrer dans la folie qui guette ceux dont la raison ordinatrice
cherche à faire sens d’un monde irréductible à la logique humaine. Ce faisant, le film envisage
sa propre réception en mettant en scène deux modèles de lecture conflictuels.
Mots-clés
Kubrick, Shining, herméneutique, surinterprétation, réception.
90 Vincent Jaunas
NOTICE BIOGRAPHIQUE
Emmanuel Plasseraud
Dernier film de Stanley Kubrick, Eyes Wide Shut (1999) est une adapta-
tion d’une nouvelle d’Arthur Schnitzler, Traumnovelle, parue en 1925.1 Ce
récit, qui se déroule à Vienne, est transposé par Kubrick et son scénariste,
Frederic Raphael, à New-York, à la fin du XXe siècle. Il raconte l’aventure d’un
médecin (Bill Harford) qui, vexé par la révélation faite par sa femme (Alice)
qu’elle a éprouvé du désir pour un autre homme, essaie de la tromper et se
retrouve notamment dans une orgie dont il n’aurait jamais dû faire partie. Du
fait du changement d’époque et de lieux, mais aussi de la difficulté à adapter
au cinéma le texte de Schnitzler, qui est émaillé de réflexions intérieures, cette
transposition ne pouvait que provoquer un certain nombre de changements
importants par rapport au texte originel. Pourtant, comme Michel Chion l’a
constaté en analysant le film, Kubrick en suit « la ligne narrative avec une éton-
nante fidélité »2, prenant le risque que ce récit d’adultère fantasmé paraisse
désuet à des spectateurs de l’an 2000. Il y a tout de même quelques libertés
que Chion repère, comme l’ajout d’un personnage nouveau, Ziegler (incarné
par Sidney Pollack). Les objets du monde de la fin du vingtième siècle inter-
viennent parfois, comme lorsque Bill, qui s’apprête à avoir une relation avec
une prostituée, est interrompu par un coup de téléphone de sa femme, alors
que dans le livre, il renonçait de lui-même. Inversement, des aspects devenus
trop lointains culturellement sont gommés dans le film, comme le phénomène
de télépathie onirique qu’on trouve chez Schnitzler – la femme rêve que son
mari se trouve dans une orgie qui tourne mal pour lui –, qui n’a pas été repris.
À propos du personnage de Ziegler, principale innovation par rapport à
la Traumnovelle, Chion mentionne le témoignage de Jan Harlan, qui explique
qu’il « provient d’une envie de Kubrick qu’un personnage de la vie quotidienne de
1 Arthur Schnitzler, « Rien qu’un rêve », repris dans Les Dernière cartes, Paris, Calmann-Lévy,
1953, p. 125-220. La nouvelle est plus connue aujourd’hui sous le titre La Nouvelle rêvée.
2 Chion Michel, Stanley Kubrick, L’humain, ni plus ni moins, Paris, Cahiers du Cinéma, 2005,
p. 452.
98 Emmanuel Plasseraud
Bill fasse le lien avec (la) société secrète »3 qui organise l’orgie. Chion remarque
d’autre part qu’il « appartient indubitablement à la famille des figures paternelles
choquantes et libidineuses, provocantes, unissant intelligence et grivoiserie, que
l’on retrouve dans toute l’œuvre de Kubrick »4. Mais ce personnage, ou plus
exactement les modifications scénaristiques qu’engendre sa présence, possède
deux autres fonctions qui pourraient expliquer aussi son invention.
La première de ces fonctions est de l’ordre de la stratégie scénaristique,
permettant la mise en place en début de récit d’un implant narratif qui prépare
la fin du film. En effet, c’est chez Ziegler que se déroule un événement impor-
tant pour la suite du récit, qui n’apparaît pas dans la nouvelle de Schnitzler : le
malaise d’une prostituée, avec qui Ziegler a couché, à la suite d’une overdose5.
Appelé à son chevet, Bill parvient à la ranimer, mais la prévient qu’elle doit
faire une cure pour se sortir de son addiction, qui pourrait lui coûter la vie. Or,
à la fin du film, c’est cette prostituée qui est retrouvée morte d’une overdose
dans une chambre d’hôtel. Entretemps, elle a « sauvé » Bill durant l’orgie en le
rachetant. Bill pense que derrière cette overdose se cache un meurtre commis
par des membres de la société secrète, ce qu’il explique à la fin du film à Ziegler,
dans une scène ajoutée par Kubrick et Raphael au récit de Schnitzler. Ziegler y
révèle à Bill qu’il est au courant de son intrusion durant la cérémonie orgiaque
puisqu’il y était aussi. Il tente de lui faire comprendre que les membres de
la société secrète n’ont fait que chercher à l’effrayer, qu’ils n’ont donc pas le
pouvoir qu’imagine Bill et qu’ils ne sont pas non plus responsables de la mort
de la prostituée, dont le mode de vie était à risque. D’où l’intérêt de l’implant
narratif de début de film, qui légitime l’opinion de Ziegler et fait douter Bill et
le spectateur : ce que Bill pense être un meurtre n’est peut-être qu’un accident,
qui d’ailleurs était prévisible étant donné l’hygiène de vie de la jeune femme. De
cette manière, Kubrick substitue à la question posée à la fin de la Traumnovelle
sur l’identité de la victime celle de l’implication de la société secrète dans sa
mort, orientant le récit vers un questionnement sur la véracité de ce que Bill a
vu. Réalité et faux-semblants se mêlent, dans une indistinction qui fait écho au
thème principal du film, résumé dans le dialogue final entre Bill et sa femme :
rêves et fantasmes font partie de la réalité au point que celle-ci ne peut plus être
tout à fait distinguée d’eux.
L’autre fonction de l’ajout du personnage de Ziegler, ou plutôt de cette
scène où une prostituée fait une overdose dans ses bras, est d’ordre inter-
textuel. En effet, l’intertextualité d’Eyes Wide Shut ne se limite pas à l’inter-
3 Ibid., p. 460.
4 Ibid., p. 460.
5 Il y a d’ailleurs un autre implant narratif, puisque le pianiste ami d’enfance de Bill Nightingale
– important car il indique à Bill l’existence des cérémonies orgiaques – y apparaît, alors que
chez Schnitzler, le médecin le rencontre par hasard dans un café.
Les Masques de la vanité. Kubrick, Schnitzler, Ophüls, Maupassant 99
6 L’intertextualité hétérofilmique désigne la référence d’un film à une œuvre qui n’est pas
un autre film (le roman de Schnitzler ou encore l’utilisation du morceau Musica ricercata
de György Ligeti dans Eyes Wide Shut) tandis que l’intertextualité homofilmique désigne un
renvoie d’un film à un autre film. La notion d’intertextualité, d’origine littéraire, a été élaborée
par Julia Kristeva dans Sémiotiké, recherches pour une sémanalyse, Paris, Seuil, 1969.
7 Sur l’influence du Décalogue 3 de Kieslowski sur Eyes Wide Shut, voir Gaspard Delon, « Échange
de regards : Schnitzler, Kubrick et Kieslowski », dans Cinéma, littérature : projections, études
réunies et présentées par Marie Martin, La Licorne, n° 116, Rennes, Presses Universitaires de
Rennes, 2015, p. 187-199.
8 Chion Michel, Stanley Kubrick, L’humain, ni plus ni moins, op. cit., p. 460.
9 Par ailleurs, Ophüls a lui aussi adapté un roman de Schnitzler, La Ronde, en 1950.
10 Sur ce thème, voir Claude Beylie, Max Ophüls, Paris, Lherminier, Cinema classique – les cinéastes,
1984.
100 Emmanuel Plasseraud
11 Ophüls insiste plus sur ce médecin que Maupassant, qui se concentre sur le couple du danseur
âgé et de sa femme. En effet, de nombreux dialogues où la femme explique quelle a été sa vie
avec son mari noceur ont été coupés dans le film d’Ophüls, qui en revanche comprend des
scènes inédites destinées à mieux caractériser le médecin (dialogue avec une femme lors du bal,
aveu qu’il est célibataire et qu’il fréquente les bals, morale de l’histoire et retour au bal). Tandis
que Maupassant concentre son portrait sur le danseur âgé dont il fait, à travers son masque, un
symbole de la vanité de la lutte contre le vieillissement, Ophüls fait de ce personnage le reflet
de ce qu’est en train de devenir le médecin, qui semble en prendre conscience sans toutefois
changer son comportement.
12 L’inconnu est polonais chez Schnitzler, hongrois chez Kubrick.
Les Masques de la vanité. Kubrick, Schnitzler, Ophüls, Maupassant 101
13 Guy de Maupassant, La Parure (1884), repris dans La Parure et autres scènes de la vie parisienne,
Paris, Flammarion, 2006, p. 23-35.
14 La recherche du plaisir n’est pas non plus l’exclusivité des hommes chez Ophüls, comme le
montrent certains sketches de La Ronde.
102 Emmanuel Plasseraud
(à l’exception de Ziegler, Bill ne saura jamais qui sont ces gens), inatteignable
et omniprésente (à partir du moment où Bill est repéré, il est suivi et tous ses
faits et gestes sont connus). L’échec de sa tentative d’intégrer ce monde est
d’ailleurs résumé par la séquence où Bill reçoit un message à travers le portail
du manoir où s’est déroulée l’orgie, lui intimant de cesser immédiatement
toute recherche sur ce qu’il a vu, tandis qu’une caméra située plus haut que
lui le filme à côté d’un globe, symbole de toute-puissance divine15. Mais en
liant cette aventure vécue par Bill au récit du fantasme de sa femme, Kubrick
suggère en même temps que cette vanité sociale, qui est une impuissance à
accéder à un monde plus élevé, est la traduction dans l’espace public d’une
impuissance sexuelle dans la sphère privée. La dernière phrase prononcée par
Alice – qui ne se trouve pas dans la nouvelle de Schnitzler – semble le confir-
mer, rappelant à son mari qu’il est temps de « baiser ».
Eyes Wide Shut n’est pas le seul film de Kubrick où celui-ci se penche sur
la vanité de la vie humaine. Son versant social est également évoqué dans
Barry Lyndon (1975), sa dimension métaphysique, liée au passage du temps,
dans Lolita (1962). 2001, L’Odyssée de l’espace (1968) aborde aussi la vanité
métaphysique sous l’angle de la quête de connaissance de l’Humanité, à jamais
éperdue et inachevée. Les entreprises humaines chez Kubrick sont souvent
vaines, condamnées à l’échec. Collectivement, quand on s’entraîne pour la
guerre en pensant que ça suffira pour la gagner (Full Metal Jacket, 1987), ou
qu’on imagine des programmes de réinsertion des délinquants (Orange méca-
nique, 1971). Mais aussi individuellement, comme Jack Torrance, incapable
d’écrire son roman et sombrant dans la folie, dans Shining (1980). On cherche
parfois ce qui permet de lier thématiquement les films de Kubrick, dont
on connaît le caractère hétérogène sur le plan de leur affiliation générique.
La bifurcation intertextuelle, ouvrant sur une allusion au Plaisir d’Ophüls,
permet de reconnaître en la vanité l’un de ces thèmes. Elle est l’une des carac-
téristiques fondamentales, pour Kubrick, de l’existence humaine.
Emmanuel Plasseraud
MCF en études cinématographiques et audiovisuelles
Université Bordeaux Montaigne
Équipe CLARE - Centre ARTES
emmanuel.plasseraud@u-bordeaux-montaigne.fr
Résumé
Adaptation de La Nouvelle Rêvée d’Arthur Schnitzler, Eyes Wide Shut propose une bifurcation
intertextuelle au cours de laquelle le film intègre au récit, qui dans l’ensemble suit plutôt fidè-
lement celui de la nouvelle, une référence au premier sketch du Plaisir de Max Ophüls. Cette
référence est l’occasion d’une étude sur les jeux de renvois qu’opère Kubrick entre Schnitzler,
Maupassant et Ophüls, qui oriente l’interprétation que l’on peut donner du film dans le sens
d’une réflexion sur la vanité de l’existence, thème qui se trouve chez ces trois auteurs mais que
Kubrick prolonge à sa manière.
Mots-clés
Max Ophüls, intertextualité, Eyes Wide Shut, Maupassant, Schnitzler.
Abstract
Adapted from Arthur Schnitzler’s “Dream Story”, “Eyes Wide Shut” offers an intertextual curve
during which the film’s narrative –which overall follows the novella rather faithfully–integrates
a reference to the first sketch of Max Ophüls’s “le Plaisir”. This reference allows for a study of the
cross references between Schnitlzer, Maupassant and Ophüls, which calls for an interpretation of
the film centred on the vanity of existence, a theme common to all three authors that Kubrick deals
with his own way.
Keywords
Max Ophüls, intertextuality, Eyes Wide Shut, Maupassant, Schnitzler.
104 Emmanuel Plasseraud
NOTICE BIOGRAPHIQUE
Dijana Metlić
In 1999 Stanley Kubrick completed his last film, Eyes Wide Shut, based
on the 1926 book Traumnovelle by Austrian writer Arthur Schnitzler. Set in
early 20th century Vienna, Schnitzler’s story analyses a marital crisis and infi-
delity, psychological pressures caused by dreams and phantasms, and offers
potential solutions for overcoming such unpleasant situations. Kubrick made
a geographical and temporal shift to late-twentieth-century New York, other-
wise remaining faithful to the original novella. He focuses on the relationship
between prosperous doctor Bill Harford and his charming wife Alice, who
suddenly shatters their family harmony by confessing her past temptation to
commit adultery. By revealing her hidden sexual desires that are obviously not
properly fulfilled in the marital bed, she causes a psychological crack in her
husband, who will have to suffer a painful process of self-discovery to recover
his reputation of a doctor, father and family man.
Eyes Wide Shut can be understood as essentially an intimate film about the
unbearable lightness of (domestic) being. It questions sexual confidence on
which family life depends, and tries to highlight the importance of conjugal
trust that is easily shaken by the world’s incitements. Signified as a millennial
work, released in the final year of the previous century, Eyes Wide Shut seems
to summarise Kubrick’s thoughts on crucial existential issues like fidelity,
desire, jealousy, sex, and death. It deals with romance and passion, rethinking
the old presumption that women want love, and men want sex.1 It forces the
spectator to consider the reasons for the (un)expected weakening of erotic
compulsion in marriage and the fading of everlasting love at first sight. It
looks at sex as an important marital driving force whose unifying powers must
not be forgotten and underrated. As Celestino Deleyto pointed out, Bill’s
sexual odyssey taught him a lesson that making love in marriage can be about
enjoying more freedom in the flesh of his own wife Alice. “The measure of
their reconciliation will depend on their ability to turn it [sex] into the joyous,
healthy, and pleasurable affair.”2
Kubrick had been preoccupied with Traumnovelle since at least 1968.3
In the first place, he admired the Viennese author, expressing esteem for his
work in a 1960 interview: “It’s difficult to find any writer who understood
the human soul more truly and who had a more profound insight into the
way people think, act and really are”4. Secondly, Kubrick’s affinity for the
stylistic beauty of the film La Ronde (1950), based on a Schnitzler novel and
directed by Max Ophüls, was also well acknowledged. This Austrian film
maker, according to Kubrick, never “received the critical appreciation he
deserved”5. Finally, Kubrick’s early interest in Sigmund Freud6 was confirmed
by his desire to direct “a contemporary story that really gave a feeling of the
times, psychologically, sexually”7. In 1980 Kubrick sent Schnitzler’s novel to
screenwriter Michael Herr who said that “it intrudes on the concealed roots
of Western erotic life like a laser, suggesting discreetly, from behind its dream
cover, things that are seldom even privately acknowledged, and never spoken
of in daylight”8. It is not surprising that the director waited for almost three
decades to develop this project, although Warner Brothers announced its
production just after the premiere of A Clockwork Orange (1971).9 Therefore,
Eyes Wide Shut unintentionally became Kubrick’s final and most personal
work, the one that underscores the importance of harmonious marriage for
the regularity and stability of daily existence. As Michel Ciment remarked,
this film “is focused on the most intimate aspects of our individuality, the
problems of the couple, the crisis of identity”10.
2 Celestino Deleyto, “1999, A Closet Odyssey: Sexual Discourses in Eyes Wide Shut”, Atlantis,
28.1, June 2006, p. 29-43.
3 Kubrick’s fascination with Schnitzler was analysed in many articles. Consult: Lucy Scholes
and Richard Martin, “Archived Desires: Eyes Wide Shut” in Tatjana Ljujić, Peter Krämer and
Richard Daniels (eds), Stanley Kubrick: New Perspectives, London, Black Dog Publishing,
2015, p. 344-356; Ernesto R. Acevedo-Munoz, “Don’t look now: Kubrick, Schnitzler
and ‘The unbearable agony of desire’”, Literature Interpretation Theory, v. 13, April 2002,
p. 117-137; James Naremore, On Kubrick, London, British Film Institute, 2014, p. 223;
Peter Loewenberg, “Freud, Schnitzler and Eyes Wide Shut” in Geoffrey Cocks (eds.), Depth of
Field: Stanley Kubrick, Film, and the Uses of History, Wisconsin, The University of Wisconsin
Press, 2006, p. 255-279; Michel Ciment, op. cit., p. 259.
4 Castle (ed.), The Stanley Kubrick Archives, Köln, Taschen, 2008, p. 482.
5 Alexander Walker, Stanley Kubrick, Director: A Visual Analysis, New York, London,
W. W. Norton and Company, 2000, p. 14.
6 See: Naremore, op. cit., p. 228-231; Michel Ciment, Kubrick: The Definitive Edition, New
York, Faber and Faber, 2003, p. 259-260.
7 Alison Castle (ed.), op. cit., p. 482.
8 Michael Herr, Kubrick, New York, Grove Press, 2000, p. 8.
9 See announcement entitled Kubrick drama from Kine Weekly, issue dated 8 May 1971,
reprinted in: Alison Castle (ed.), op. cit., p. 482.
10 Ciment, op. cit., p. 259.
Stanley Kubrick and Hieronymus Bosch: In The Garden of Earthly Delights 107
phantoms of Hell (Van Mander). One of the earliest interpretations of his triptychs was intro-
duced by Father José de Següenza, who in 1598 wrote: “I should like to show now that his
paintings are not at all [absurdities], but like books of great wisdom and art, and if there are
any foolish actions, they are ours, not his, and let us say it, it is a painted satire of the sins and
inconstancy of men.” See: Virginia Pitts Rembert, Hieronymus Bosch, New York, Parkstone,
2012, p. 18. On Bosch’s life and work, further read: Carl Linfert, Hieronymus Bosch, New
York, Harry N. Abrams, 1972; Stefan Fischer, Jheronimus Bosch, Köln, Taschen, 2016.
16 Stefan Fischer, op. cit., p. 101.
17 “Aut prodesse volunt aut delectare poatae / aut simul et iucunda et idonea dicere vitae”, in:
Fischer, ibid.
18 Walter Bosing, Hieronymus Bosch: Between Heaven and Hell, Köln, Taschen, 2010, p. 51.
19 Ibid.
20 See: Hans Belting, Hieronymus Bosch: The arden of Earthly Delights, Münich, Prestel, 2016,
p. 85-105. The Garden of Earthly Delights has been studied by many scholars who proposed
contradictory interpretations of its central panel. Some of them see it as a panorama of paradise
lost, while others think of it as a moral warning. Belting interprets it as a vision of humankind in
Paradise untouched by the fall. His arguments rely on the thesis proposed by Fraenger in 1948,
Stanley Kubrick and Hieronymus Bosch: In The Garden of Earthly Delights 109
false Paradise whose transient beauty leads mankind to ruin and damnation.21
His garden is situated between Eden and Hell, the origin of sin and its
punishment. As a common motif in medieval literature, the subject of love and
the consequences of irresponsible sexual behaviour came into Kubrick’s focus
with his final film, his most developed and most mature work, the one that
shows the deceptive nature of the outside world and the ephemeral character
of sensual pleasures.
According to screenwriter Frederic Raphael, Kubrick refused to agree that
the assumptions of marriage, the nature of jealousy and sex, had changed
since Schnitzler’s time: “Stanley turned a book about Central Europe at the
beginning of the century into a modern American story and asks, ‘What’s the
difference?’”22 Already in 1968, the director claimed that the basic love rela-
tionship is too deeply ingrained in the man’s psyche, and that the same sets
of pair-bonding instincts (love, jealousy, and possessiveness) still exist even in
this allegedly enlightened, and liberated times.23 His photo-essay “Jealousy: A
Threat to Marriage” published in Look on 24 October 1950, can be perceived
as an early proof of his fascination with the primitive emotional programming.
Jealousy is “a great source of dramatic conflict”24 and one of the main driving
who believed that sexuality that inspires mankind in the central panel seems to be pure joy,
pure bliss. He also thought that Bosch’s triptych was commissioned by the Adamites, a heretic
sect which imbued the concept of lust with a paradisiacal innocence. (See: Wilhelm Fraenger,
Hieronymus Bosch, 2nd edition, New York, Dorset, 1989) Interpretations offered by De Tolnay
(1937), Bax (1949), Baldass (1960) and Vandenbroeck (1980s) are unanimous and rely on
Bosch’s confirmed religious background, literal sources that inspired him, and his early works.
These art historians assume that the triptych represents a nightmare of the humanity and the
consequences of ephemeral sensual enjoyment. According to Fischer who follows the above
mentioned critics, Bosch’s Garden is produced in conjunction with a marriage and, as such,
it had to deliver a serious, didactic message. It also reflects the primary religious and moral
perspective from which marriage was viewed in Northern Europe. Similarly complex wedding
presents were, for example, Botticelli’s paintings Primavera and Minerva and the Centaur
commissioned by the Medici family in 1482. See: Fischer, op. cit., p. 120. Approaching Eyes
Wide Shut through the theories proposed by De Tolnay, Bax, Baldass, and Fischer, I will try
to interpret it as a film about the safety of marriage and the power of true love which helps
wedded partners to overcome the illicitness of earthly delights.
21 Bosing, op. cit., p. 56. Bosing (following Baldass) notes that the medieval man was very suspi-
cious of material beauty. Behind physical loveliness often lurked death. Many artworks (little
ivory carvings and drawings) popular in Bosch’s time often displayed embracing lovers, but
when turned around reveal rotting corpses. The moralising context of these works was accepted
by Bosch in many of his well-known paintings: Ship of Fools, Death of the Miser, Haywain, and
The Garden of Earthly Delights.
22 Ciment, op. cit., p. 270.
23 See: Eric Nordern, “Playboy Interview: Stanley Kubrick”, in Gene D. Phillips, Stanley Kubrick,
Interviews, University Press of Mississippi, 2001, p. 67.
24 Philippe Mather, Stanley Kubrick at Look Magazine, Chicago, Bristol, Intellect, 2013, p. 166.
Mather also mentions other jealous characters in Kubrick’s films: Rapallo in Killer’s Kiss,
Humbert Humbert in Lolita, and Lady Lyndon in Barry Lyndon.
110 Dijana Metlić
forces behind Bill’s desire for revenge. In fact, Kubrick’s, Schnitzler’s and
Bosch’s worlds are the same: the only true change concerns religion. Bosch’s
phantasmagorical visions of punishment can hardly correct the behaviour of
individuals living in the “modern godless universe”25, or “forbid what is called
‘living out your fantasies’”.26 As Següenza noted, his Garden had warned us
“that wicked blind humanity would not heed the lessons of the Christian
faith, but would indulge in a sinful life in a world that must surely end in
hell”27. Bosing stresses that “to the medieval moralists, it was a woman who
took the initiative in leading man into sin and lechery, following the prece-
dent set by Eve”28. The most important role in The Garden of Earthly Delights
is given to the first woman, beautiful Eve, whose sexual powers cause Adam’s
expulsion from Paradise, because he accepts her proposal instead of keeping
God’s commandment. Kubrick decided to give Alice the role of Eve, who
unadvisedly destroys heavenly love in favour of dangerous earthly love whose
rules new Adam/Bill is not at all familiar with. Eyes Wide Shut alludes to
“Judeo-Christian fall-and-redemption myth”29, depicting mankind as given
over to sin. “Letting the unconscious go its own way and [experiencing] it
as reality”30, Kubrick’s protagonists prove how even an unconsumed sexual
adventure can destroy fidelity and shatter a fragile family peace.
25 Tim Kreider, “Introducing Sociology” in Geoffrey Cocks (eds.), op. cit., p. 286. Kreider
suggests that Kubrick’s “biblical references serve to show us how bankrupt the Christian ethic
is in America by the end of the second millennium AD, how completely it’s been co-opted
and undermined by commerce”. Although I agree with his point, I still argue that Bill’s final
unmasking and the Harfords’ reunion can be understood as Kubrick’s last effort to believe in
humankind’s possibility to change and its capacity to choose true (moral) values.
26 Michel Chion, Eyes Wide Shut, London, BFI, Palgrave Macmillan, 2013, p. 88.
27 Següenza in: Pitts Rembert, op. cit., p. 47.
28 Bosing, op. cit., p. 53.
29 Kreider, op. cit., p. 285.
30 C. G. Jung in: Pitts Rembert, op. cit., p. 101.
31 Fischer, op. cit., p. 101.
32 The Garden of Earthly Delights is mentioned in a journal kept by Italian canon Antonio de Beatis,
who in 1517 visited Henry’s palace in Brussels. Along with other paintings, the triptych was
intended to intrigue and entertain the guests of his court.
Stanley Kubrick and Hieronymus Bosch: In The Garden of Earthly Delights 111
warning for his nephew. Kubrick replaced this medieval panic over syphilis
with the actual fear of HIV/AIDS. Bosch’s nightmarish visions of Hell corre-
spond to death threats that Bill receives, forcing him to stop his wanderings.
From the very beginning of Eyes Wide Shut, Kubrick creates an impression
of the Harfords’ perfect life in the garden of Eden, in their huge apartment
luxuriously decorated with representations of vegetables, flowers, plants, and
domestic pets, painted in bright colours33 and recalling Bosch’s description of
the sixth day of the Creation with God, Adam and Eve (Genesis 1:20-31). The
Harfords are new, twentieth-century Adam and Eve, enjoying God’s blessing
pronounced upon their marriage: “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and
subdue it” (Genesis 1:28). In her fair and slender elegance, Alice is already an
image of temptation: her enchanting nakedness fascinates spectators before
the film’s opening credits, attracting Adam’s gaze, “the first step towards sin”34.
Regardless of the fact that upon his waking Adam directly looks at the newly
created woman and turns towards the world of the senses, he has not yet fallen
from grace. Kubrick’s Bill does not even look at Alice while preparing for
Ziegler’s Christmas party: she is the only woman for him, the one he adores
and loves. It was believed that previous to the Fall, Adam and Eve had copu-
lated without lust, solely for the purpose of producing children.35 After the fall,
the situation changes: initiated by Alice’s first confession, Bill’s self-confidence
is shaken and the marital fidelity is ruined. His wife’s imagined sexual encoun-
ter with another man haunts him and expels him from the safety of home.
Various situations subtly prepare Bill’s expulsion from Eden: Alice’s flir-
tation with the Hungarian Szavost; Bill’s naive conversation with two aggres-
sive models “twined and undulating like two serpents”36; Alice and Bill’s first
sexual encounter in front of the mirror and finally, her confessed fantasy about
the naval officer, that, according to Nelson, reveals “an ordinary female desire
for a passionate, illicit sexual experience outside the restrictions of duty and
commitment”37. On the inner left wing of Bosch’s masterpiece, these danger-
ous situations are symbolically introduced through carefully chosen animals
33 Blue and red dominate Eyes Wide Shut, just like The Garden of Earthly Delights. Although
Bosch’s symbolic use of colours has not been fully explained, it can be assumed that the red
represents temptation, danger, strong energy and libido, while the blue may refer to fear and
lovers’ grief. It is difficult to fully decipher meanings of Bosch’s colours, because they cannot
be separated from fruits, animals or creatures which alter their precise connotations. Kubrick
also shapes the psychology of his characters and the specific atmosphere of each scene by using
red and blue. On the symbolism of Kubrick’s colours, consult: Chion, op. cit., p. 15; Deleyto,
op. cit., p. 32-33; Julian Rice, Kubrick’s Hope: Discovering Optimism from 2001 to Eyes Wide
Shut, Maryland, Scarecrow Press, 2008, p. 187-190.
34 Tolnay in: Fischer, op. cit., p. 102.
35 Bosing, op. cit., p. 57.
36 Kreider, op. cit., p. 286.
37 Nelson, op. cit., p. 281.
112 Dijana Metlić
(an owl, a horse, a cow, a stag, a deer, reptiles, birds, a giraffe, and a swan),
suggesting Adam and Eve’s weakness, spiritual blindness, malevolence, sin,
temptation, seduction, and arrogance.38 The division of the composition into
the male side on the left and the female side on the right can be explained in
the terms of fifteenth-century art: the wife is assigned to the domestic sphere
and the husband to the outside world.39 Throughout the film, Alice proves
her commitment to the family and home. She is seen in various interiors: in
the bedroom, in the kitchen, in the bathroom or the ballroom, and finally
in a toy shop. Kubrick never shows her in the street, thus alluding to Bosch’s
assumption that the woman belongs to her household. Even when innocently
flirting with the Hungarian, Alice stresses that she is married, and explicitly
rejects to agree with Szavos’ observation that “one of the charms of marriage
is that it makes deception necessary for both parties”40. While making love
with her husband, the reflection of Alice’s face with her eyes wide open is seen
in the mirror. A similar woman (Eve) can be found in Bosch’s Hell panel –a
reference to the deadly sin of superbia (vanity, pride). This was considered to
be the very first of all the deadly sins, the one to which Eve surrendered even
in Eden. Therefore, the woman in the Hell panel, facing the mirror, is the
negative complement not just of Adam, but also of Eve, as she is portrayed
before the fall in the Paradise wing. She is associated with lust because of the
devil who puts his arms around her: in almost the same way Bill approaches
Alice before they make love after Ziegler’s party.
By revealing her unconscious desires to Bill, Alice stops at the safe line
and decides not to let her “waking life turn into a nightmare”41. Resisting
the temptation to disappear with the naval officer, she chooses not to sacri-
fice everything– her husband, Helena and her whole future –and admits
that, at the same time, “her love for Bill was both tender and sad”42. Thus
Mrs. Harford confirms that she is aware of the fact that “the wedding is a
God-given union of love between man and woman; [it is] a holy sacrament
performed under the protection of Christ, both at the spiritual and the prac-
tical level”43. Bill will acknowledge this after going down a long and hazardous
road of enticements, obsessed with Alice’s fantasy to which he responds with
jealousy and unsettled desire for vengeance.
The two most important sequences in the development of Eyes Wide Shut
are: the secret orgy in Somerton, and Alice’s verbalised dream image that
was never actually filmed, although Chris Baker made numerous prepara-
tory drawings before the shooting. Kubrick organised these complementary
sequences as realistic and dreamlike manifestations of one and the same event,
which serves to unmask the doctor, make him face his unconscious fears of
infidelity, sexually transmitted diseases and death, and finally show him the
way back home. During his nocturnal journey, Bill will pass through Bosch’s
hell full of temptations before reaching the Somerton mansion where the
orgiastic ceremony is staged. Marion reveals her love for the doctor, bringing
to light her true longings. Prostitute Domino unsuccessfully tries to seduce
Bill who will be saved by Alice’s phone call. Nick Nightingale, “compared
to the devil, the great tempter, particularly at the Sonata Café”44 allows Bill
access to the Somerton ball by giving him the password Fidelio –hinting at
his marital fidelity which is about to be shaken. Finally, “Mephisto” Milich,
the owner of the costume shop Rainbow, who negotiates “like Shakespeare’s
infamous merchant of Venice”45, provides Bill with a mask and a black cloak
with a hood. Thus he prepares the doctor for joining the sexual ritual of a
mysterious group whose members know him already, since he was trustfully
answering their “house calls” for a while.
Unlike Bosch’s nightmarish creatures (a tree-man, a bird-headed monster46,
a woman with a dice symbolising a prostitute, men tortured on an oversized
musical instruments47) –who are trapped in a situation from which there is
no escape, and in which they repeat their activities on earth– Kubrick’s hero
Bill will be saved from various unintentional and unconsumed (sexual) adven-
tures which will remind him that he is “lucky to be alive”. According to Jan
Harlan, “Schnitzler’s blasphemous concept of depravity was already voyeur-
ism in substance, but Stanley changed this by attempting a pornographic
Hieronymus Bosch type of hell, a fantasy world for faceless voyeurs”48. The
password Fidelio unlocks the door to an alternative world in which real social
circumstances are turned upside down, the arbitrary is set as the new ordering
principle, marriage is mocked, and fidelity is nonexistent. Unlike the ever-
lasting garden of Heaven, Somerton becomes an underground kingdom of
carnal love that praises lust, but eventually, “‘the dances will reach their end
and dancers fail’; everything will crumble and decay, for Death lies in waiting
for all”49. The orgy organised in the distant villa for “all the best people” is
actually Kubrick’s modern vision of Bosch’s chaotic hell, dominated by the
“evil inn”, the term referring to brothels and shady taverns in which listening
to secular music, gambling, alcohol, and prostitution led to the sins of lust,
anger, vanity, and greed.50 With imaginative freedom, in many weird episodes,
Bosch shows the humanity succumbing to vices: the couples circling hand in
hand in intimacy around the tree-man’s hat symbolise unbridled sex.51 The
same applies to Kubrick’s disguised wealthy patrons and their irresistible cour-
tesans who enjoy their passionate games freely, regardless of the penalties for
leading a life of sinful pleasures. This is the fallen humankind, the one that
forces Bill to choose between the celestial safety of marriage and the illicitness
of the outside world. For the first time, in front of his widely opened eyes, he
witnesses that the “man has abandoned the true paradise for the false; he has
turned from the Fountain of Life to drink from the fountain of the flesh which
(…) intoxicates and brings death”52.
Finally, Bill’s fear of public humiliation in Somerton is transformed into
the substantial fear of the private embarrassment in front of his wife, after
her second confession. Her erotic and sexually explicit dream shifts Bill from
“Somerton’s Old World masked fakery to the honest emotional landscape of
Alice’s Brave New World of female sexual expression”53. It obviously brings to
mind the central panel of The Garden of Earthly Delights, the extensive park-
like landscape crowded with nude men and women, who eat giant fruits,
play with birds and animals, enjoy the water and above all, indulge in various
amorous sports blatantly and without shame.54 Enjoying their nakedness and
sexuality, consistent in their beauty, these lovers merge into Alice’s dream as an
apotheosis of (appealing) liberated sexuality.
In secular fifteenth-century compositions, these fictive gardens, reminis-
cent of locus amoenus (pleasant places) which had its roots in the literature
of Antiquity, are usually occupied by women and men seen in conversation,
playing games or making romantic advances to each other, while music is
played and food and drink lie close at hand.55 Staged with the help of imagery
drawn from the natural world, Bosch intensifies this sensuality to the point
of sarcasm. His garden is designed as a secular garden of earthly love, the one
in which various aspects of Lust are acted: a couple in a bubble, a group of
figures in a red cylindrical object, a pair concealed in a mussel shell, people
standing, sitting or resting in physical intimacy, eating, picking fruit or
squeezing into vessels, all point to the erotic significance of the scene. When
Alice finally wakes up, she recalls the Boschian sinful world, the one in which
she felt wonderful, lying in the beautiful garden, stretched out naked in the
sunlight, and where “there were all these other people around us, hundreds of
them, everywhere. Everyone was fucking and then I was fucking other men,
so many, I don’t know how many I was with”.56 Residing at a safe distance
from her monotonous, but secure family life, Alice’s fantasy is nothing else
than the central panel of Bosch’s The Garden of Earthly Delights, where lovers
enjoy themselves, unaware that Death chases them from behind.
A fantastical setting for lovers in Alice’s dream is gradually translated into
the closed garden of Somerton, the one in which Bill remains a voyeur because
he is incapable of living out his fantasies. Bosch’s didactic image was probably
inspired by the second part of the well known medieval allegory Roman de la
Rose written in the XIII century and modelled on Ovid’s Art of Love, in which
heavenly and earthly love are irreconcilably opposed as good and evil.57 The
woman, symbolised by the Rose, connotes only temptation and danger. Alice,
Marion, Domino, Mandy, and finally Sally, ultimately signify the power and
dominion of women, which in Bosch’s association are the complementary of
male sinfulness and folly. In the preparatory drawings of Alice’s unrecorded
dream sequence, Chris Baker shows Alice being kissed by multiple male figures.
When the naval officer steps out of a nearby wood towards her, he is shown as
part of the trees, as he moves. The most significant series of drawings illustrate
Alice and the naval officer making love in a variety of positions on the back
55 Fischer, Ibid. Fischer notes that Bosch deliberately changes the pleasant mood and idyllic
atmosphere of late fifteenth-century engravings, such as Large Garden of Love with Chess-
players by Master ES or Small Garden of Love by Master of the Gardens of Love. His enclosed
garden contains hidden symbolism indicating poisonous side of the sexual enjoyment.
56 Quoted from the film.
57 Bosing, op. cit., p. 56. Fischer, op. cit., p. 109-110.
116 Dijana Metlić
58 Lucy Sholes, Richard Martin, op. cit., p. 353. The authors suppose that Kubrick did not shoot
the “Alice’s dream” sequence because “the cinematic versions risk being whimsical, hazily-lit
soft-core pornography”.
59 Bosing, op. cit., p. 53.
60 Fischer, Ibid.
61 Ibid.
62 Fischer, op. cit., p. 117.
Stanley Kubrick and Hieronymus Bosch: In The Garden of Earthly Delights 117
fasting / and thus all the commandments / that one should observe before
God”.63 The strange and the astonishing became both Bosch’s and Kubrick’s
means to design visually appealing works through which the spectators could
experience a different world, the one that transports them beyond the mundane
bounds of daily life. Although it can be argued that at the end of the twen-
tieth century “Kubrick shows himself to be a sexual conservative, since he
confirms the importance of monogamous married relations and the heterosex-
ual, nuclear family”64, he convincingly proves that “there are very few things in
this world that have an unquestionable importance in and of themselves and
are not susceptible to debate or rational argument, but the family is one of
them”65. Ultimately, the viewers will choose their own path: the marriage of two
faithful partners with the aim of producing offspring, the uninhibited sexuality
of Alice’s dream or Somerton’s reality or an in-between possibility in which
marriage and erotic impulses may be combined. Towards the end of a long,
comprehensive study, Erwin Panofsky observed that “the real secret of [Bosch’s]
magnificent nightmares and daydreams has still to be disclosed. We have bored
a few holes through the door of the locked room; but somehow we do not seem
to have discovered the key”66. The same conclusion stands for Kubrick’s Eyes
Wide Shut, a work of art that will inspire new interpretations, sooner or later.
Dijana Metlić
University of Novi Sad
Academy of Arts
dijana.metlic@gmail.com
Acknowledgments
My special appreciation goes to Jean-François Baillon and Vincent Jaunas who helped me
during my work on this article. I am grateful to the staff of the Museo Nacional del Prado
in Madrid, who generously allowed me to use the reproduction of Hieronymus Bosch’s large
triptych The Garden of Earthly Delights.
Abstract
In 1999 Kubrick’s last film, Eyes Wide Shut was released. It was based on the 1926 book
Traumnovelle by Arthur Schnitzler. The director focuses on the relationship between prospe-
rous doctor Bill Harford and his beautiful wife Alice, who unadvisedly shatters their conjugal
harmony by confessing her past temptation to commit adultery. In my paper I approach Eyes
Wide Shut by consulting Hieronymus Bosch’s large triptych The Garden of Earthly Delights,
painted at the beginning of the XVI century as a marriage gift for Henry III of Nassau Breda.
This intricate artwork was intended to serve as a nuptial mirror, as a guide to a successful marital
alliance, and a study of its benefits and risks. Similarly, I understand Kubrick’s film as an
essentially intimate film about the safety of family life and the threats to marriage introduced
by the world of incitements. My attempt was to apply three inner scenes of Bosch’s master-
piece in the interpretation of Eyes Wide Shut. The Harfords’ harmonious life in their paradisia-
cal apartment disrupted by Alice’s first confession is viewed as a mirror-image of Bosch’s left
inner wing showing Paradise and the Creation of Eve. The central panel (Humankind before the
Flood) and the right wing (Hell) are consulted in the interpretation of the Somerton sequence;
in the discussion of Alice’s complex verbalised dream-image, and finally in an attempt to
explain the cycle of Bill’s temptations, which signals the risks of secular love and the dangers
of surrendering to carnal desires. Examining the narrative content and visual styles of both
artworks, I tried to demonstrate how both Bosch and Kubrick construct a didactic, moralising
world picture, and how they use their unique artistic expressions to amuse viewers and instruct
them how to overcome their personal weaknesses through tolerance and love.
Keywords
Stanley Kubrick, Hieronymus Bosch, Eyes Wide Shut, moralizing, painting.
Résumé
En 1999 parut le dernier film de Stanley Kubrick, Eyes Wide Shut, adapté du livre
d’Arthur Schnitzler, La Nouvelle Rêvée, publié en 1926. Le réalisateur explore la relation entre
le riche docteur Bill Harford et sa magnifique femme Alice, qui bouleverse leur harmonie
conjugale par inadvertance lorsqu’elle avoue avoir envisagé une relation adultère. Dans cet
article, nous envisageons Eyes Wide Shut à l’aune du grand triptyque de Jérome Bosch, Le
Jardin des délices, peint au début du XVIe siècle, cadeau de mariage pour Henri III de Nassau-
Breda. Cette œuvre complexe devait servir de miroir nuptial, un guide pour parvenir à un
mariage réussi, et d’étude quant à ses avantages et ses dangers. De même, nous considérerons
l’œuvre de Kubrick comme un film essentiellement intime explorant la sécurité de la vie de
famille et les dangers pesant sur le mariage dans un monde aux tentations multiples. Nous
interpréterons Eyes Wide Shut à l’aide de trois scènes du chef-d’oeuvre de Bosch. La vie harmo-
nieuse que connait le couple dans son appartement paradisiaque et sa perturbation suite à
la confession d’Alice sera mise en parallèle avec le panneau gauche de l’œuvre de Bosch, Le
Paradis et la création d’Ève. Le panneau central (L’humanité avant le déluge) et le panneau de
droite (L’enfer) permettront d’interpréter la séquence de Somerton, le récit du rêve complexe
d’Alice ainsi que le cycle des tentations de Bill, qui évoquent les dangers d’un amour séculaire
et les risques de succomber aux désirs charnels. Grâce à l’étude des contenus narratifs et des
styles visuels de ces deux oeuvres, nous analyserons la façon dont Bosch et Kubrick élaborèrent
chacun une vision du monde didactique et morale, ainsi que leur capacité à tirer profit de
leur expression artistique unique pour divertir les spectateurs tout en les instruisant quant aux
possibilités de dépasser leurs faiblesses grâce à l’amour et à la tolérance.
Mots-clés
Stanley Kubrick, Hieronymus Bosch, Eyes Wide Shut, moralisme, peinture.
Stanley Kubrick and Hieronymus Bosch: In The Garden of Earthly Delights 119
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE
Alice (Lust) and Bill (Devil) in front Woman (Lust) and Devil in front
of the mirror, before making love. of the mirror, H. Bosch, Hell panel.
S. Kubrick, Eyes Wide Shut © Photographic
Archive Museo Nacional del Prado
Stanley Kubrick and Hieronymus Bosch: In The Garden of Earthly Delights 123
The motif of the circle, The motifs of riding in a circle and of riding wildly
H. Bosch, The Garden of Earthly Delights. on animals as a metaphor for the sexual act.
© Photographic © Photographic
Archive Museo Nacional del Prado Archive Museo Nacional del Prado
Pierre Beylot
films de Kubrick ne sont pas des films à thèse, ils ne défendent aucune vérité
positive, ils ne prétendent véhiculer aucun message, ils développent plutôt
une hypothèse dont la signification reste profondément problématique, telle
que : « comment associer voyage interstellaire et méditation sur l’existence
humaine ? » ou « comment le hasard conduit-il un individu de la richesse
à la chute ? ». Nous prenons délibérément deux exemples diamétralement
opposés, l’un 2001, affirmant ostensiblement sa dimension spéculative,
l’autre Barry Lyndon, plus riche en péripéties narratives, voire plus anecdo-
tique. Mais, dans un cas comme dans l’autre, on a affaire à un film-cerveau
que l’on pourrait aussi qualifier de « film-concept », à condition de considérer
que le concept a chez Kubrick une dimension problématique plus que théo-
rématique, pour reprendre l’opposition opérée par Deleuze entre le théorème
et le problème2. Ainsi, le « film-concept » met-il à l’épreuve une hypothèse
qui génère une construction intellectuelle autant qu’une matrice narrative, un
univers mental autant qu’une diégèse autonome.
L’hypothèse sur laquelle se fonde le film y imprime sa marque en traçant
un cadre – argumentatif aussi bien que narratif – qui charpente fortement le
film par des annonces, des cartons, des voix over et des musiques qui forment
un discours d’escorte et orientent la lecture du spectateur. C’est là un premier
versant du film-cerveau : celui qui consiste à bâtir une armature conceptuelle,
à cartographier par avance les parcours interprétatifs en posant des balises
aisément repérables. On verra plus loin que cette grille interprétative est en
partie un faux-semblant car le film-cerveau peut nous égarer autant que nous
guider dans le dédale des connexions logiques qu’il établit. Pour caractériser ce
premier mouvement, celui d’une structuration conceptuelle du film, on peut
se référer à la notion d’« exosquelette narratif » proposée par Michel Chion3.
Le terme est usité dans les sciences biologiques et en architecture et désigne
le squelette externe de certaines espèces (la carapace des mollusques ou des
insectes) ou, par métaphore, l’armature de certains bâtiments (les tubulures de
Beaubourg, le treillis métallique du Nid d’oiseau de Pékin).
Dans les films de Kubrick, l’exosquelette repose sur des effets très osten-
sibles : chapitrage, musiques extradiégétiques, voix over – celle-ci n’étant
présente dans notre corpus que dans Orange mécanique et Barry Lyndon. On
pourrait penser que la fonction de cet exosquelette est d’abord une fonction
d’élaboration et de balisage narratifs : les cartons donnent des repères, par
exemple, dans 2001, la mission Jupiter a lieu dix-huit mois après la mission
sur la lune (Figure 1) ou entretiennent la tension dramatique (l’entracte inter-
vient à un moment d’acmé narrative après que Hal a lu sur les lèvres des
deux astronautes). Mais ces jalons échappent en grande partie à la chrono-
2 Ibid., p. 227.
3 Stanley Kubrick, L’Humain ni plus, ni moins, Paris, Éd. Cahiers du Cinéma, 2004, p. 44-49.
130 Pierre Beylot
Nous avons décrit les espaces kubrickiens comme des espaces de circula-
tion symbolique où le monde fictionnel renvoie comme en miroir à l’espace
mental, mais nous avons pour l’instant laissé de côté un des vecteurs de cette
circulation que l’on pourrait appeler « l’axe œil-cerveau », où se manifeste de
la manière la plus profonde la relation entre le corps et la pensée. C’est au
travers de l’organe du regard – l’œil – que s’opère cette relation envisagée par
Kubrick comme problématique, car l’œil peut donner accès à l’univers mental
du personnage, souvent de manière violente, forcée, mais il peut aussi bloquer
tout accès à son intériorité, littéralement faire écran. On peut donc envisager
cet axe « œil-cerveau » selon deux modalités opposées : celle de l’exploration
mentale ou celle de l’opacité.
Avec l’axe œil-cerveau, on n’a plus affaire à des figures symboliques inscrites
dans la matérialité d’un objet ou d’un décor (monolithe, labyrinthe), mais
d’une figure profondément anthropomorphique qui est celle de l’œil. Le traite-
ment particulier de ce motif dans le cinéma de Kubrick consiste souvent à l’as-
socier à un contexte de violence, d’aliénation, de dépossession comme l’illustre
par excellence le « traitement Ludovico » dans Orange mécanique (Figure 13).
La vision optique en tant que perception sensorielle – les images de violence et
de sexe étant associées ironiquement à la musique de « Ludwig van » – conduit
ici à un formatage psychique qui transforme de fond en comble la personnalité
du malheureux Alex DeLarge soumis à cette expérimentation.
La vision peut être aussi associée à une autre forme d’expérience-limite,
celle de la traversée de « l’au-delà de l’infini » dans 2001 où l’image de l’œil de
l’astronaute, soumis à différentes sortes de déformations chromatiques, s’ins-
crit dans un paysage de formes abstraites et colorées, un univers psychédélique
134 Pierre Beylot
encadre le récit mais produit aussi bien des effets de déphasage que de struc-
turation ; celle du jeu d’écho et de réflexivité entre intériorité et extériorité,
entre espaces fictionnels et espaces mentaux, entre motifs visuels et figures
symboliques ; celle, enfin, de la relation problématique entre le regard et le
psychisme autour de l’axe « œil-cerveau ». D’autre part, nous insisterons sur
le caractère problématique, incertain et ambigu de ce processus d’élaboration
conceptuelle et fictionnelle qui est au cœur de la création kubrickienne et qui
doit avant tout être entendu, non pas comme un geste de clôture du sens,
mais comme un mouvement indéfini de construction et de déconstruction.
Pierre Beylot
Université Bordeaux Montaigne
Pierre.Beylot@u-bordeaux-montaigne.fr
Résumé
Quel rapport le cinéma entretient-il avec la pensée ? C’est au travers de la métaphore du « film-
cerveau » proposée par Gilles Deleuze que nous envisageons cette question sous trois aspects :
celui de la pensée en acte du cinéaste qui déploie une armature conceptuelle qui enveloppe et
circonscrit le développement du récit sans que, cependant, celui-ci lui soit totalement inféodé ;
le deuxième aspect est celui du monde fictionnel envisagé comme monde-cerveau peuplé de
figures – monolithe, labyrinthe, huis clos… – où se cristallise la relation entre espace mental et
espace physique ; enfin, la corporéité du film-cerveau s’affirme dans la relation entre l’œil et le
cerveau quand le cinéma de Kubrick donne à voir des univers mentaux obsessionnels et trau-
matiques et souligne en même temps les limites de cette exploration psychique. Ce parcours
dans le labyrinthe du film-cerveau sera mené au travers d’une période particulièrement dense
de la création kubrickienne, allant de 2001 (1968) à Shining (1980).
Mots-clés
« Film-cerveau », cinéma et espace mental, cinéma et abstraction, motif de l’œil au cinéma,
exosquelette narratif.
Abstract
What kind of connection does cinema entertain with thought? Through Gilles Deleuze’s metaphor
of a “film-brain”, I envision this question under three different lights: the active thought of the film-
maker which builds up a conceptual framework, envelopping and circumscribing the narrative yet
without fully subordinating it; secondly, the fictive world envisionned as world-brain and filled with
motifs –monolith, maze, enclosed space– where the relation between mental space and physical space
crystallises; lastly, the corporeality of the film-brain which is highlighted by the eye-brain relationship
whenever Kubrick’s cinema depicts obsessive, traumatic mental spaces, and which simultaneously
underlines the limits of such mental exploration. This journey through the maze of the film-brain
relies on Kubrick’s particularly active creative period, from 2001 (1968) up to The Shining (1980).
Keywords
“film-brain”, cinema and mental space, cinema and abstraction, motif of the eye on film, narrative
framework.
la puissance commune de ce qui force à penser et de ce qui pense sous le choc : un noochoc »,
autrement dit le « choc qui éveille le penseur en vous », L’Image-Temps, op. cit., p. 204.
136 Pierre Beylot
NOTICE BIOGRAPHIQUE
Figure 2 : Barry Lyndon.
138 Pierre Beylot
Figure 3 : Shining.
Figure 3 : Shining
Figure 3 : Shining
5 56
5 6
7 7 8 8
7
5 5 7 6 6 8
Figures
Figures
5, 6, 7 : Shining
5, 6, 7 : Shining
; Figures 8, 9, 10 : 2001
Figures ; Figures 8, 9, 10 : 2001
5, 7
6 et 7 : Shining. Figures 5, 6, 7 : Shining
8 ; Figu
Figures 5, 6, 7 : Shining ; Figures 8, 9, 10 : 2001
5 6 Figures 5, 6, 7 : Shining ; Figures 8, 9, 10 : 2001
7 7 8 8
Figures
Figures
5, 6, 7 : Shining
5, 6, 7 : Shining
; Figures 8, 9, 10 : 2001
; Figures 8, 9, 10 : 2001 9
7 8 9 10
9 10
9Figures98, 9 et 10 : 2001. 10 10
Shining ; Figures 8, 9, 10 : 2001
9 9 10 10
11 12 11
Figures
11 11 et 12 : Orange mécanique 12
Figures 11 et 12 : Orange
9 10
Figure 14 : 2001.
Figure Figure
14 : 2001
14 : 2001
; Figure 15 (ci-dessous)
; Figure 15 (ci-dessous)
: Shining
: Shining
Figure 14 : 2001
Figure 14 : 2001
; Figure 15 (ci-dessous)
; Figure 15 (ci-dessous)
: Shining
: Shining
Figure 15 : 2001.
The Kubrick Cinematic Universe
Rod Munday
Method
The main method I shall use is a form of textual and semiotic analysis,
based upon network theory –a discipline whose impact has been amplified
due to the rise of the Internet as a mass communications medium. A network
1 Lefort C., Machiavelli in the Making. M.B. Smith (trans.). Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern
University Press, 2012, p. 23.
2 Hollis, A. “War and Justice.” Saturday Review, December 21, 1957, quoted in Kagan N. The
Cinema of Stanley Kubrick, New York: Continuum, 2000, p. 137.
142 Rod Munday
is defined as an object comprising of both nodes and the links between them.
For example, the nodes of a computer network are the individual computers
and its links are the hardwire or Wi-Fi connections. Networks appear in many
different topographical guises, although the form I am interested in using as a
way to structure an analysis of Kubrick films are called “scale free networks.”
These are naturally evolving networks where a minority of nodes within the
network attract many more of the links than other nodes, thus forming hubs.
Scale free networks are found in a wide variety of naturally occurring objects,
from the cellular level of life,3 to the structure of galaxies.4
Scale free networks have three main characteristics that identify them.5
The first is a phenomenon known as high clustering coefficiency. The nodes
of an evolving network are not just randomly distributed but tend to form
into groups surrounding one particular node, which is more connected than
the rest.6 The second is that these clusters then themselves cluster around one
particular node that becomes a hub, or the most connected node over the
entire network.7 The third characteristic is that connectivity over the entire
network can be achieved involving very few steps. Communication across a
network takes place in the form of a dyadic connection between individual
nodes. But due to the presence of both clusters and hubs, communication
occurs between any two nodes in the network in a surprisingly small number
of steps. This is otherwise known as six degrees of separation, or the small
world phenomenon, studied by Stanley Milgram in the 1960s.8 No matter
how large or complex the network is, the steps linking its individual nodes
remain about the same number. For example, there are just 4.7 steps connect-
ing all the users of Facebook, which has over two billion members.9
The network is the cinematic universe itself. Its nodes are the various signs
that can be considered meaningful elements within the individual films. Its
links are the affinities between nodes that occur in different films. Clusters and
hubs in network theory are today called “influencers”10, because their opinions
3 Barabási A.L. & Bonabeau E., “Scale-Free Networks”, Scientific American, 2003, 288: p. 60-9.
4 Barabási A.L., Linked: How Everything Is Connected To Everything Else And What It Means For
Business, Science, And Everyday Life. New York: Basic Books, 2014, p. 71-2.
5 Zhang Z., Zhou S. & Chen L., “Evolving Pseudofractal Networks”. The European Physical
Journal B, 2007, 58(3): 337-344.
6 Watts D.J. & Strogatz S., “Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks”. Nature, 1998,
393(6684): 440-442.
7 Barabási A.L., Linked: How Everything Is Connected To Everything Else And What It Means For
Business, Science, And Everyday Life. New York: Basic Books, 2014, p. 54.
8 Milgram S., “The Small-World Problem”, Psychology Today 1 May, 1967: 62-67.
9 Ugander J., Karrer B., Backstrom L. & Marlow C., “The anatomy of the Facebook social
graph”, 2011, p. 4. Online, URL: Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.4503 [last accessed
13 Oct. 2017].
10 Kietzmann J.H., Hermkens K, McCarthy I.P. & Silvestre B.S., “Social media? Get serious!
The Kubrick Cinematic Universe 143
set the trends for the whole network. In the Kubrick cinematic universe, the
clusters are the pervasive themes found across Kubrick’s films and the hub is
the sensibility of Kubrick himself, who, like a composer, orchestrates these
themes in his work. The nodes are the sign elements found in his films that
the digital theorist Espen Aarseth terms “textons”.11 These are the signs that
are materially present in any text, examples of which include instances of
dialogue, or elements of the mise-en-scène of a film. The interpretation of
textons when viewing a film produces what Aarseth calls “scriptons”.12 These
are the signs created in the mind of the reader from the textons that are avai-
lable. In digital texts such as videogames, for example, the textons can be
reconfigured by the user at the level of the text; however, in traditional media
(such as films), textons cannot be altered, although the scriptons that make
up the readings of them can differ considerably between one interpreter and
another, because the interpretation that a reader makes is unique to them.
In applying these ideas to an analysis of cinematic universes, one can say that
the hubs of the universes of comicbook films are the reoccurring characters or
events of the meta-narrative. For example, the character of Tony Stark is a hub
in the Marvel universe, because his character’s timeline intersects with those of
many other characters. To extend the concept to an analysis of Kubrick films, we
can say that the hubs in this universe are more centred upon common thematics
and aesthetics. For example, a candidate hub is the theme of how otherwise
perfect systems are let down by human fallibilities. Or how the reoccurrence of
symmetric compositions in the mise-en-scène of his films suggests a worldview
that interrogates the human condition in an ordered or systematic way.
2001: A Space Odyssey is an exemplary film to demonstrate how an inter-
pretive method that is already applied to an individual film can be scaled up to
apply to his entire oeuvre. 2001 comprises a mostly visual text; the language
elements that would anchor its meaning to a preferred interpretation13, are
therefore mostly absent. Consequently, thematic points and ideas are commu-
nicated pictorially rather than lexically. The trick at arriving at a satisfying
interpretation for the film –one which draws all of its disparate elements
together into a coherent explanation– is to link the textons intratextually
as a network of signs. An interpreter does this by comparing or contrasting
textons found in one part of the film with those found in other parts. In so
doing, the interpreter constructs a storyline for the film that organizes its affi-
Understanding the functional building blocks of social media”. Business Horizons, 2011,
54(3):241-251.
11 Aarseth Espen J., Cybertext: Perspectives on Egodic Literature. Baltimore, US: John Hopkins
Press, 1997, p. 63.
12 Ibid.
13 Barthes, R., Image, Music, Text. S. Heath (trans.). London: Fontana Press, HarperCollins
Publishers, 1977, p. 39-40.
144 Rod Munday
Kubrick’s first feature film, Fear and Desire, made when he was twenty
four years old14, is a contested addition to the Kubrick oeuvre, because of the
efforts the director made to disown it; allegedly attempting to purchase all
the copies so that he could destroy them.15 While the film is very much an
apprentice work, Kubrick’s moody black and white photography stands out.
However, his handling of the performances and elementary mistakes made
with the editing betray the fact that he was a filmmaking novice.
14 Life, “A Silent Virginia is Discovered”, Life Magazine (11th May, 1953), p. 122 & 125.
15 Rhodes Gary D., Stanley Kubrick: Essays on His Films and Legacy. Jefferson: McFarland &
Company Inc., Publishers, 2008, p. 30.
The Kubrick Cinematic Universe 145
Fear and Desire takes place in an unspecified country at a time when a war
is raging. Four soldiers are stranded behind enemy lines. The film begins with
a sonorous monologue that foregrounds the films status as a fiction.
There is war in this forest. Not a war that’s been fought, or one that will
be, but any war. And the enemies who struggle here do not exist, unless we
call them into being.
The reflexive strategy of foregrounding the film’s fictional status is
mirrored in other places in the narrative. Kubrick and his writer, Howard
Sackler, make frequent references to Shakespeare’s play, The Tempest –a play
that is also concerned with its ontological status as a fiction. The opening
narration, for example, echoes the themes of Prospero’s famous “our revels
now have ended” speech in Act 4 Scene 1: “Yea, all which it inherit, shall
dissolve; And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, Leave not a rack behind.”
The Tempest also provides the frame for Sidney’s descent into madness. Sidney,
the youngest and most childlike of the four soldiers, is given the duty of
guarding an enemy captive (credited only as, “the girl”). She is restrained by
being tied to a tree, like Ariel in The Tempest, trapped by the witch Sycorax.
Sidney’s madness involved quoting from the play and when he eventually
kills the girl, he blames her death on the magician (Prospero). At the end of
the film, Sidney is found wading in a river singing Ariel’s song, “Full Fathom
Five.” An additional more oblique reference to The Tempest appears in the
scenes between the enemy General and his dog, “Proteus”. Proteus is named
after the ever-changing god of the sea, whose name means “the first being”16,
the source for the adjective “protean”. Ideas of metamorphosis and the sea
connects to the theme of Ariel’s song to the god, Proteus, who is also used by
James Joyce as the title for the third part of his novel, Ulysses, as a metaphor
for “the fluctuations of consciousness.”17
While these allusions are interesting, Kubrick does not manage to find a
dramatically satisfying way to weave them into the narrative. Consequently it
is difficult to know how to interpret them. The filmmaker is clearly ambitious.
He strives for gravitas and sophistication. But he lacks the subtlety and the
artistry to achieve his aims. For example, in the film’s opening narration he
uses an authoritative voice to tell us to doubt the film’s ontological authority.
Kubrick thereby undercuts his own authority as a filmmaker, through telling
us of his reflexive intentions. In his later works, he would find ways to hide
this crude didacticism. In Barry Lyndon, for instance, the narration is used as
an ironic counterpoint to the events shown in the narrative.18 The pronounce-
16 Jung C.G., Kerényi K., Science of Mythology: Essays on The Myth of The Divine Child and The
Mysteries of Eleusis, R.F.C. Hull (trans.). London: Routledge, 2002, p. 58.
17 Spinks L., James Joyce: A Critical Guide. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2009, p. 102.
18 Ciment M., Kubrick: The Definitive Edition. London: Faber and Faber, 1999, p. 170.
146 Rod Munday
19 Miller M.C., “Kubrick’s Anti-Reading of The Luck of Barry Lyndon”, Comparative Literature,
1976, 91(6): 1360-1379.
20 Kubrick S., “Forward”. Kieślowski Krzysztof & Piesiewicz Krzysztof, Decalogue: The Ten
Commandments. London: Faber & Faber, 1991, p. vi.
21 Esslin M., Brecht: A Choice of Evils. London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1971, p. 129.
22 Ciment M., Kubrick: The Definitive Edition. London: Faber and Faber, 1999, p. 156.
The Kubrick Cinematic Universe 147
very meaninglessness of life forces man to create his own meaning… however
vast the darkness, we must supply our own light.”23
Killer’s Kiss
Killer’s Kiss (1955) is a contemporary Film Noir, dealing with boxing and
gangster life in New York City. It was again written by Howard Sackler, this
time in collaboration with Kubrick. It is a far more straightforward genre
picture than Fear and Desire. The story of Killer’s Kiss is essentially a fairy tale;
the good knight, Davey Gordon –a boxer in the twilight of his career– sets
out to rescue a princess, Gloria, from the amorous clutches of a vicious ogre,
Vinnie Rapallo, a part-time gangster, who is also the owner of the taxi-dance
hall where Gloria works.
As a means to emphasise his virtue, Davey Gordon is given a corny back-
story worthy of Clarke Kent. We discover, through letters and telephone
calls, that Davey grew up on a farm in Seattle with his Uncle George and
Aunt Grace, both of whom yearn for him to return home again. As was the
case with Fear and Desire, the photography, lighting and composition of the
images in Killer’s Kiss is strikingly accomplished, and in marked contrast to
the acting, writing and editing. However, Kubrick shows that he is a quick
study as a filmmaker, and demonstrates a better understanding of pacing and
drama than in his previous work, especially in its climatic last quarter and in
the boxing match featuring Davey Gordon.
Boxing –a staple subject of Kubrick’s photography work with Look and
also of his first short film, Day of the Fight (1951)– features strongly in the
narrative. Kubrick covers the fight scenes with roving handheld camerawork
and the use of a subjective point of view, which recalls both the fight scene
between Alex and the Cat Lady in A Clockwork Orange, and the fight between
Barry and O’Toole in Barry Lydon.
The director of Killer’s Kiss is clearly not afraid to experiment with film
techniques. For example, Davey Gordon has a nightmare, which is depicted
in the form of a startling tracking shot through the backstreets of New York
City, in negative, and accompanied by a woman’s scream. The movement
of this tracking shot and its abstract expressionism anticipates the stargate
sequence from 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Foreshadowing events in the narrative, a favourite storytelling technique
of Kubrick, is also present in this film. Kubrick was attracted to this technique
because it minimised the effect of surprise. As he stated in an interview with
Michel Ciment: “What is important is not what is going to happen, but
23 Nordern E., “Playboy Interview: Stanley Kubrick”, 1968, in Stanley Kubrick Interviews,
Gene D. Phillips (ed.). Mississippi: University Press of Mississippi, 2001, p. 47-74.
The Kubrick Cinematic Universe 149
how it will happen. […] to gain a greater sense of inevitability and a better
integration of what might otherwise seem melodramatic or contrived.”24 In
Killer’s Kiss, the entrance to the taxi-dance hall is at the end of a long flight
of stairs where a sign that reads, “watch your step” is prominently displayed.
Undoubtedly the presence of this sign is serendipitous, given the guerrilla
filming techniques that Kubrick used. However, its presence symbolises the
sense of dread faced by Gloria. In later films, Kubrick would utilise fores-
hadowing frequently. In 2001: A Space Odyssey, the point of view shot of
the astronauts’ lips moving reveals to the audience that HAL knows they are
plotting against him. Similarly the scene depicting the strained marriage at
the beginning of The Shining already suggests fault lines that will open up
later in the narrative. Finally the death of Barry’s son, Bryan, in Barry Lyndon,
removes all sense of surprise and shock over the tragedy and lends instead
a sense of inevitability about Barry’s impending downfall. The narrator also
underscores this sense of fatalism through dramatic irony.
The climax of Killer’s Kiss is a fight scene between Gordon and Rapallo that
takes place in a warehouse full of tailor’s mannequins. It is a scene that attests
to Kubrick’s fascination with masks. At the end of the fight Gordon spears
Rapallo and Kubrick cuts to the face of one of the mannequins. This is a shot
choice that is recapitulated in A Clockwork Orange, with a crash zoom into a
painting as Alex kills the Cat Lady. The mask motif is one that will appear in
many Kubrick films. In The Killing, Sterling Hayden wears a clown mask when
robbing the racetrack. Alex’s droogs wear masks in A Clockwork Orange when
they invade the homes of both the Writer and the Cat Lady. And the Somerton
orgy sequence in Eyes Wide Shut depicts a masked ball, with the rich and
powerful disguised by striking Venetian and expressionistic face coverings. As
Roger Caillois points out, masks have long been associated with erotic fetes and
with conspiracies.25 The mask liberates its wearer from social constraints, in a
world in which sexual and power relationships are otherwise taboo. In addition
to actual masks, Kubrick is also drawn to the face depicted as a mask. Especially
in times of heightened emotional intensity, his characters wear the rictus grins
and frozen expressions of both agony and ecstasy. Notable examples of this
trope are the painted face of Dolores Haze in Lolita in her confrontation with
Humbert, the astronaut Bowman as he prepares to blast through the airlock
in 2001, and Jack’s famous “Here’s Jonny!” line as his head appears through
the shattered bathroom door in The Shining. Masks are also part of the mise-
en-scène of Kubrick films. In the scenes that take place in the derelict casino
in A Clockwork Orange, the sides of the stage are framed by two enormous
24 Ciment M., Kubrick: The Definitive Edition. London: Faber and Faber, 1999, p. 170.
25 Caillois R., Les jeux et les hommes (Man, Play and Games). M. Barash, (trans.). Chicago, IL:
University of Illinois Press, 2001 (1958).
150 Rod Munday
carnival masks, their comic, and exaggerated features are associated with inde-
cencies, jostling, provocative laughter, exposed breasts, mimicking buffoonery,
and a permanent incitement to riot.26 Also, masks feature in the apartments of
Marian’s dying father and Domino the prostitute in Eyes Wide Shut.
On many occasions throughout his oeuvre, Kubrick uses the dichoto-
mies between the sacred and profane to shine a light on the otherwise private
aspects of the human condition. The Kubrick Cinematic universe is, for the
most part, a Godless place, but one in which the vestiges of a divine absence
are to be marked everywhere, in the rituals that Kubrick’s characters perform.
As with his fascination for bathrooms (which arguably perform a similar
functions to masks, in that they hide the user’s identity), Kubrick focuses on
these secular rituals as ways to reveal hidden facets possessed by his characters.
Oscar Wilde said “Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give
him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.”27 And Kubrick incorporates this
insight into his storytelling.
The Killing
The Killing, based on Lionel White’s (1955) novel, Clean Break, is the first
Kubrick film to be adapted from another source. The film’s script represents
a massive leap forward in quality from his earlier work. In his later works
Kubrick would favour adaptation over original screenplays, commissioning
material from writers to develop stories he could later turn into films. Being
able to analyse a completed narrative played to his strengths as a filmma-
ker. Like planning ahead in a chess game, he could strategise the best way to
present the scenes and foreground the thematics of the narrative. He excelled
at finding visual ways to dramatise the psychology and interiority of novels.
The Killing demonstrates Kubrick’s mastery over the complex, multi-threaded
narrative. The Robbery itself is a meticulously handled operation and Kubrick
manages to integrate all of the members of his large ensemble cast into a satis-
fying drama, where none of the roles seem superfluous or underwritten. In a
novel technique for the time Kubrick elects to tell this story out of temporal
sequence, an artistic decision that helps to foreground the dramatic irony of
Johnny Clay’s predicament, as the robbery unravels. This film also introduces
the pervasive Kubrickian theme of the perfect operation that is thwarted
by human fallibilities. This is a theme that is revisited, notably in Lolita,
Dr. Strangelove, 2001: A Space Odyssey, and A Clockwork Orange, although
there are traces of it in all his works.
26 Caillois R., Les jeux et les hommes, (Man, Play and Games). M. Barash, (trans.). Chicago, IL:
University of Illinois Press, 2001 (1958), p. 130.
27 Wilde O., “The Critic as Artist”, Complete Works, Vol. 4, Robert Ross (ed.). Massachusetts:
Wyman Fogg, 1921, p. 99-226.
The Kubrick Cinematic Universe 151
The Killing also marks the debut of another pervasive trope in the Kubrick
cinematic universe –the Kubrickian anti-hero. From Lolita onwards, Kubrick
displays a preference for flawed protagonists. Unlike other auteurs, such as
Fellini with his frequent casting of Marcello Mastroianni, Bergman with
Max von Sydow, Tim Burton with Johnny Depp, or David Lynch with
Kyle MacLachlan, Kubrick is an auteur who in many of his films does not
present the image of a sympathetic protagonist. His heroes tend not to be
virtuous, nor particularly admirable people. In some cases, such as Lolita, A
Clockwork Orange, and The Shining, they are monsters. Notable exceptions
to this trend are found in his work with Kirk Douglas, in Paths of Glory, and
Spartacus, where the real dramatic intrigue is provided by the machinations
of the powerful generals and senators who oversee the fates of the otherwise
noble protagonists. Even in 2001: A Space Odyssey, the ostensible hero roles
of Bowman and Poole are realised, not through their nobility or dramatic
passions, but through the systematic competences that would be expected of
those who would occupy such positions.
The antihero of The Killing, Johnny Clay, is a professional criminal,
although he is presented a little too sympathetically in the narrative for his
criminality to be entirely credible. The moral universe of The Killing is one in
which bad deeds must not go unpunished. Possibly Kubrick was anxious about
maintaining audience sympathy, so he includes several scenes where Johnny’s
virtues are fulsomely praised by other characters such as Fay, Marvin, and
Maurice. In later films, Kubrick would gain more confidence as a storyteller
and make his hero less overtly likable and more interesting, so that the narra-
tive did not suffer whether audiences cared for them or not. Kubrick would
discover that he could be a more effective moralist if he confronted hegemo-
nic moral frameworks rather than endorsing them. By placing audiences in
the duplicitous position of sympathisers, Kubrick allows a productive tension
to develop between the emotions that his films elicit and the ideas they raise.
Kubrick’s cinematic universe is one in which immoralities produce a sense
of cognitive dissonance. The psychologist Leon Festinger defines this as the
struggle for internal consistency when a person is presented with inconsistent
events.28 Kubrick uses this dramatic technique to place moral questions at the
forefront of his narratives. In The Killing, for example, one of the characters,
Maurice, a chess-playing wrestler, becomes a kind of conduit who articulates
this very Kubrickian perspective.
Johnny, you have not yet learned that you have to be like everyone else. The
perfect mediocrity. You know, I often thought that the gangster and the artist
are the same in the eyes of the masses. They’re admired and hero-worshipped,
but there is always present an underlying wish to see them destroyed at the
peak of their glory.
29 Gerrard D., “The Heard and Self Reflexiveness”. The Kubrick Site, 1999. Online URL: http://
www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0015.html [last accessed 13 Oct. 2017].
30 Hollis A., “War and Justice.” Saturday Review, December 21, 1957, quoted in Kagan N., The
Cinema of Stanley Kubrick. New York: Continuum, 2000, p. 137.
31 Ellroy J., “Feast of Death”. BBC Arena Documentary, directed by Vikram Jayanti. BBC, 2001.
(The quotation comes 43 minutes and 14 seconds into the film).
32 Kubrick S., “Kubrick’s, ‘Notes on Film’”. The Observer Weekend Review. 4th December, 1960,
p. 21.
The Kubrick Cinematic Universe 153
and The Killing– from his later films. The moral universe in which Kubrick’s
stories are set becomes more ambiguous and less certain as his confidence as
a filmmaker and the opportunities afforded him to tell such stories increased.
The work of making meaning is something that is often left for audiences
to decide. In his depiction of marriage, Kubrick was not a polemicist. He was
happier showing the way things are between men and women rather than
presenting an idealised vision of how they should be. In this regard, he was
often accused of misogyny, in the critical responses to The Shining, notably
by Stephen King.33 Critics picked up on the fact that the character of Wendy
is not framed according to the grammatical conventions of Hollywood films.
Like Bowman and Pool she is not heroic, although critics miss how capable she
is, running the hotel and then saving Danny and herself from Jack. Kubrick’s
critics accuse him of misogyny, not because of what is shown on screen, but
because of his reluctance to sentimentalise or idealise. Compared to his later
depictions of married life, the marriage in The Killing is easily read according
to the conventions of Hollywood Film Noir. And yet there is something in
the duplicity, inventiveness and intelligence of Sherry, the wife, that starts to
sketch out an approach that will later transcend Hollywood conventionality.
As with his moral outlook, Kubrick realised that it was far more dramatic to
show behaviour and not to explain it. This desire is most successfully realised
in the character of Alice from Eyes Wide Shut, whom Thomas Allen Nelson
calls the most “complex and layered” and “the strongest of all of Kubrick’s
female protagonists.”34
Killer’s Kiss marks the beginning of the truly Kubrickian film; a film in
which the director’s strengths and his vision combine into a work that not
only excels because of its photography, but also because of the director’s
command of visual storytelling. Kubrick would make other similar “quantum
leaps” in the quality of his technique during the course of his career. But after
The Killing the presence of his strong personal sensibility, that of an endlessly
curious moral satirist would start to become more apparent in his work.
33 Barry D., “Stephen King Hates The Shining Because It’s Misogynistic”. Jezebel, 2013.Online,
URL: https://jezebel.com/stephen-king-hates-the-shining-because-it-s-misogynisti-1361182451
[last accessed 10 Jan. 2018].
34 Nelson T. A., Kubrick: Inside a Film Artist’s Maze. Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press, 2000,
p. 296.
154 Rod Munday
mena across many domains, scale free networks have been identified as a
naturally occurring mode of self-organisation.35 In the context of semiotics,
scale free networks are a candidate for the deep structures that underpin the
organisation of meaningful systems.36 In subsequent papers I hope to revisit
this topic to construct a more complete picture of this universe.
It has not been the aim of this exercise to impose a kind of homogeny
upon Kubrick’s work, at the expense of its diversity. The Kubrick cinematic
universe is a complex analytical object. As a network, it contains hubs but
also nodes that are not thematically conjoined to any others. Kubrick was
a director who constantly tested the boundaries, including those of his own
aesthetics and thematics. The main instances of affinities I have identified so
far include a preference for stories about war and conflict, a liking for masks,
the antagonism for mediocrity, and a self-reflexive quality. However, there is
much to be discovered that lies outside any of these patterns. Indeed there are
also many instances where the texton elements in his films can be read against
the grain of the interpretive scriptons offered here.
A primary interest in exploring the Kubrick Cinematic Universe has been
to regulate the analytical discourse surrounding Kubrick and his films. This
is not to limit the study of Kubrick to a few reoccurring tropes, but rather
to strike a balance between the expansionist discourses of runaway fan inter-
pretations and the overly reductive perspectives associated with Kubrick’s
filmmaking colleagues. Both of these perspectives can be limiting in their
own way, because both attempt to foreclose further discussion. However, the
quality that really drew me to Kubrick’s films in the first place was the seemin-
gly limitless interpretive possibilities that they offered. The horizon shrinks to
the dimensions of the perceiving mind, and I discovered through an apprecia-
tion of his films that my horizons haves been greatly expanded. I think this is
his true legacy as a filmmaker, as well as the gift he gives to his admirers. The
intellectual pathways which are opened up by visiting the Kubrick cinematic
universe is at the root of the pleasure of being an admirer of his work.
Rod Munday
Aberystwyth University
odm@aber.ac.uk
35 Barabási A.L., Linked: How Everything Is Connected To Everything Else And What It Means For
Business, Science, And Everyday Life. New York: Basic Books, 2014, p. 78.
36 Chandler D., Semiotics the Basics. (Third Edition). London: Routledge, 2017, p. 117.
The Kubrick Cinematic Universe 155
Abstract
My paper is an attempt to diagram Kubrick’s body of work as a cinematic universe. Cinematic
universes initially emerged in fan discourses as ways to expand the storyworlds of comicbook,
film and television texts, however, they have more recently been taken up by media producers
as the bases of successful cinema franchises, for example, the new “Star Wars” Sagas. Out of
these instances, a definition of a cinematic universe can be elaborated. It is a closed system
in which the meta-storyworld of “the universe” represents a synthesis of various component
storyworlds which have hitherto developed separately and in isolation.
This paper applies insights from the study of network topology to the textual study of
Kubrick’s films. The internet is an example of a self-organizing system, which is the object
of a branch of mathematics know as network topology. What was hitherto thought of as a
random distributed network, consisting of computer servers and links, is now known to be
a scale-free network; a self organising system of hubs, clusters and short-path-lengths. Such
self-organizing systems were also found to exist in a wide range of phenomena, from the
structure of cells, to galaxies. So it can be inferred that all modes of self-organisation follow
this pattern of organisation. I intend to study Kubrick’s thirteen films as a scale-free network
–in this paper, I focus on just the first three– applying principles from network topology to
explore commonalities and differences between them. The goals of this exercise are twofold: to
discover the hubs of Kubrick’s cinematic universe; those themes and tropes through which is
body of work can be understood, and through this knowledge, to infer the central concerns of
Kubrick, the filmmaker. This approach represents, therefore, a new method to study the work
of a filmmaker as an auteur, through their body of work, or oeuvre.
Keywords
Comic-book universes, network topology, scale-free-networks, the Kubrikian, auteur theory.
Résumé
Cet article explore l’œuvre de Kubrick en tant qu’univers cinématique. Le terme d’univers
cinématique origine chez les fans de comics, de films et de séries télévisées désireux de perpé-
tuer un univers narratif, et a récemment été récupéré par les producteurs de franchises cinéma-
tographiques à succès telles que la saga Star Wars. Ces utilisations du terme permettent d’en
proposer une définition, soit un système clos dans lequel une méta-narration de cet « univers »
représente la synthèse de diverses narrations jusqu’alors développées séparément et isolément.
Nous appliquerons les concepts issus de la topologie des réseaux à l’étude textuelle des films de
Kubrick. L’internet offre un exemple de système auto-organisé qui fait l’objet d’une branche
des mathématiques appelée topologie des réseaux. Ce qui était auparavant envisagé comme
un réseau de distribution aléatoire (constitué de serveurs informatiques et de réseaux) est
désormais compris comme un réseau invariant d’échelle, une plateforme de correspondances
auto-organisée. Ces découvertes furent appliquées à l’étude de nombreux phénomènes allant
des cellules aux galaxies. On peut ainsi inférer que tout mode d’auto-organisation suit ce
même schéma. Nous étudierons par conséquent le corpus filmique de Kubrick comme un
réseau invariant d’échelle (en nous concentrant sur ses trois premières œuvres pour les besoins
de cet article) et appliquerons les principes de la topologie des réseaux afin d’en explorer les
points communs et les différences, et ce avec un double objectif : il s’agira de découvrir les
correspondances auto-organisées de l’univers kubrickien (ces thèmes et motifs grâce auxquels
l’œuvre trouve son unité), et d’en déduire les questionnements centraux du cinéaste Kubrick.
Cette approche explore ainsi une nouvelle méthode permettant d’étudier le travail d’un auteur
en se concentrant sur son corpus plutôt que sur une œuvre individuelle.
Mots-clés
Univers de comics, topologie des réseaux, réseau invariant d’échelle, auteurisme kubrickien.
156 Rod Munday
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE
Manca Perko
1 Alexander Walker, Sybil Taylor & Ulrich Ruchti, Stanley Kubrick, director. New York: Norton,
2000, p. 8.
2 Paul Edwards, The Life and Myths of Stanley Kubrick - Death By Films. 2017, Death by Films,
[www.deathbyfilms.com/the-life-and-myth-of-stanley-kubrick], last accessed 6 October 2017.
3 Flashback: Shelley Duvall & Stanley Kubrick, Battle Over “The Shining”, 2018. Rolling Stone
[www.rollingstone.com/movies/flashback-shelley-duvall-battles-stanley-kubrick-w450947],
last accessed 6 October 2017.
160 Manca Perko
riences. But the following examination of the testimonies and debates on the
collaborative nature of Kubrick’s work provides information of the opposite;
that, in fact, Kubrick’s working process was actually of a highly collaborative
nature. This article investigates how various academic and practitioner accounts
of collaboration in Kubrick’s crews fit or challenge the myths and clichés of
Kubrick as a co-worker. I refer to these testimonies as origin stories.
Origin stories is a term I use to refer to individual stories and anecdotes
from Kubrick’s crew members on the topics of entering a collaboration with
Kubrick, their perceptions of him and how collaboration with Kubrick affected
their work and personalities. The analysis of these origin stories attempts to
shed light on the ways in which Kubrick possibly defied the clichéd assump-
tion about his ability to collaborate and, in the process, questions the applica-
bility of auteurism in Kubrick studies.
Dennis Bingham4 already points out that the problem academics face
regarding Kubrick studies relates to the question of auteur theory’s place
within film studies: “Kubrick is a problematic figure for academics because of
discredited auteurist baggage his reputation has carried.” Therefore auteurism
and the director’s absolute creative autonomy over his films should be chal-
lenged by breaking free from the existent prevailing perceptions of Kubrick
and welcome a new perspective. Instead of focusing on the search for new
interpretations of his films, relevant information on his work practice can be
found in considering Kubrick as a collaborator and not as a single, uncompro-
mising authority. In the quest to identify the collaborative practices employed
in Kubrick’s films, collaborative relationships become my focus. I examine the
connotation of information attainable from Kubrick’s film productions and
aim to identify the nature of both, group and individual work processes.
Kubrick managed his crews with a set of complex ideas on filmmaking.
The way he applied them in his productions displays patterns of behaviour,
actions and the nature of the relationships, developed in Kubrick’s crews.
Collaborative relationships affected the film, Kubrick himself and the indivi-
dual workers on his team. However, the opposite is the case as well; behaviour,
actions and relationships influenced the effectiveness of the collaboration.
The intricate connection between the collaboration and co-working relation-
ships requests an explicit elaboration of the characteristics of these processes.
The characteristics of collaboration mimic group formation in the society in
general and I elaborate on them by taking into account the creative factors in
group formation. I approach the analysis of their implementation in Kubrick’s
case by considering collaboration as a social phenomenon.
4 Dennis Bingham in Mario Falsetto (ed.), Perspectives on Stanley Kubrick, New York: G.K. Hall,
1996, p. 218.
Origin Stories: Stanley Kubrick’s Collaborations 161
A film crew is a group of film workers who engage in the creative process
with the common aim of producing a film. At the same time, the crew is not
only a unit but a body formed of individuals. This fact places collaboration
in a social process which takes place in a social environment. In this analogy,
the crew represents a form of social environment and consequentially displays
its own social rules and practices. I employ Vlad-Petre Glăveanu’s5 two theo-
retical social approaches to analysing collaborative creative work as they will
enable me to identify the representative characteristics of collaboration in
Kubrick’s projects –a socio-cognitive and a sociocultural approach. The socio-
cognitive approach encompasses cognitive elements, such as the conditions
that guide working in film industry. Examining them will allow me to identify
the circumstances present in Kubrick’s working environment. The socio-
cultural approach explores techniques used in connecting the individuals in
a film crew. In the attempt to achieve compromises between collective and
individual intentions, the socio-cultural approach explores communication
techniques used to achieve a higher motivation in groups. The socio-cognitive
and socio-cultural features detail an individual’s career path up to the moment
of becoming a part of Kubrick’s crew. Disclosing workers’ stories on origins
of collaboration displays various perceptions of the circumstances in which
they entered a collaboration with Kubrick. At the same time, the origin stories
address the myths on collaborative relationships between individual workers,
crew as a group and Kubrick himself.
Kubrick operated with the two social concepts simultaneously, and the
constant shifting between them resulted in a mixture of methods and practices
used in his collaborations. Collaboration in Kubrick’s crews can be analysed
with the use of the same approaches employed in observing groups operating
in the society in general. The film industry is not only a part of the society
but functions as a society on its own. It follows certain conventions which
I identify by separating the stories into two thematic blocks; perceptions of
the crew’s shared creative vision and perceptions of individual power on the
ladder of hierarchy in the film industry.
As soon as workers entered Kubrick’s crew, their creative process ceased
to be individual work. They formed a working relationship that was led by a
joint intention. The common intention was represented by attempts to make
sense of their specific working world. As John Thornton Caldwell6 explains
it; the common intentions are the “glue matter”, intended to create social
cohesion in a group of workers. The individual workers were glued into a crew
using a collective effort, a collective intention.
5 Vlad-Petre Glăveanu, How are we creative together? Comparing sociocognitive and sociocultural
answers. Theory & Psychology, Vol. 21, no. 4, SAGE Publications, 2011, p. 473-492.
6 John Thornton Caldwell, Production culture, Durham N.C.: Duke University Press, 2008.
162 Manca Perko
7 Paul C. Sellors, Collective Authorship in Film. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism [online],
Vol. 65, no. 3, 2007, p. 263-271 [www.cronistas.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Collective-
Authorship-in-Film.pdfWiley-Blackwell], last accessed 19 February 2016.
8 John Searle, Collective Intentions and Actions, in P. Cohen, J. Morgan & M.E. Pollack (eds.),
Intentions in Communication, Cambridge, Mass: Bradford Books, MIT Press, 1990.
9 Jamie Duvall, The Kubrick Series Uncut: James B. Harris [online], 2010, [www.movie-
geeksunited.net/uncut.htm], last accessed 10 December 2016.
Origin Stories: Stanley Kubrick’s Collaborations 163
next night. And I picked up the phone and he said, “Leon, did you read it?” It
wasn’t like, “Hello, it’s Stanley,” or anything like that. He says, “Leon, did you
read it?” I said, “Yeah, I read it.”10
Vitali’s immediate reaction to Kubrick’s command cannot only be ascribed
to his desire to collaborate again but the result of Kubrick’s efficient telephone
technique of persuasion. The latter was a reoccurring practice in forming
crews for his projects. Larry Smith recalls being approached for the position
of a DOP on Eyes Wide Shut (1999):
Just having worked with Stanley on Barry Lyndon and The Shining and knowing
really what’s required in terms of body and soul. I didn’t say yes immediately
which a lot of people find hard to understand. But I didn’t say yes because I
had my own career, I was working as a DOP and I had a company which I
was running as well. I just thought I don’t know how difficult this would be?
So I went away and said I will speak to you in a few days. I thought about it. I
thought about it long and hard. […] Thought about it some more. And then,
in the end, I said that I would do it.11
Kubrick’s telephone persuasion was successful because, in his negotia-
tions, he relied on his “social capital”.12 Social capital establishes the position
in the film industry business and dictates the choice of whom to approach
and with which means. Social capital represents the nature of the relation-
ships one builds in the industry. Kubrick was aware of this, employing the
being close without being close approach in his telephone conversations. These
tactics were employed to negotiate collaborations but they also gave him suffi-
cient control over the production of the film. He would ensure his creative
control over a project by following the divide and rule principle. The divide
and rule is a strategy for gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger
concentrations into pieces that individually have less power than the ruling
one. Kubrick exercised division of power by giving freedom to an individual
worker to express his ideas by leading a smaller unit in the crew, i.e. becoming
a sector’s leader. The advantage of this approach is not only that it divides the
tasks between workers; it also prevents small powers from linking forces by
creating smaller collaborations in the form of mentorships.
Such a division of power can be observed in Kubrick’s camera depart-
ment. A small camera crew meant building collaborative relationships in the
10 Brad Schreiber, On Kubrick: An Interview with Leon Vitali, Tin House [online], 2013 [www.
tinhouse.com/on-kubrick-a-conversation-with-leon-vitali], last accessed 25 October 2017.
11 Jamie Duvall, The Kubrick Series Uncut: Larry Smith [online], 2012 [www.moviegeeksunited.
net/uncut.htm], last accessed 10 December 2016.
12 Candace Jones & Robert J. Defillippi, Back to the Future in Film: Combining Industry and
Self-Knowledge to Meet the Career Challenges of the 21st Century, Academy of Management
Executive [online]. 1996, Vol. 10, no. 4. [www.researchgate.net/publication/233857487_
Back_to_the_Future_in_Film_Combining_Industry_and_Self-Knowledge_to_Meet_the_
Career_Challenges_of_the_21st_CenturyResearchGate], last accessed 25 October 2017.
164 Manca Perko
I understood from the beginning that that was the way it was going to be and
it’s not a way that I like to work with most directors but in Stanley’s case I just
looked at his past track record and realized that I was going to come out of it
with my name as editor on a very good film.23
Despite not being familiar with his work methods, Hunter decided to
collaborate with Kubrick. The decision was based on a compromise; the impor-
tance of the outcome of a collaborative relationship with Kubrick had for his
career outweighed the negative aspects. Previous knowledge of Kubrick’s work
methods had generated some predispositions on expectations when entering
the collaboration. It follows that film industry, as a business, follows certain
conventions in the process of forming working relationships. I focus on the
first act of entering collaboration in film production –the negotiating process
between two parties, a process which I understand to be a communication
process of a minimum of two people, commonly between the producer and
the film worker entering the production crew.
23 Revisiting “Full Metal Jacket”: An Interview with Stanley Kubrick’s Editor, 2014 [online].
Twitter, [http: //ow.ly/VxOOy], last accessed 10 November 2017.
24 Ibid.
Origin Stories: Stanley Kubrick’s Collaborations 167
25 The Stanley Kubrick Archive. London. University of Arts: Stanley Kubrick Archive, 2007.
168 Manca Perko
26 Jamie Duvall, The Kubrick Series Uncut: Andy Armstrong [online]. 2011 [www.movie-
geeksunited.net/uncut.htm], last accessed 10 December 2016.
27 Ibid.
28 Revisiting “Full Metal Jacket”: An Interview with Stanley Kubrick’s Editor, 2014 [online].
Twitter [http: //ow.ly/VxOOy], last accessed 10 November 2017.
Origin Stories: Stanley Kubrick’s Collaborations 169
the collaboration process through the eyes of Kubrick crew members, who can
still be accessed today, would further expand the evidence that would help to
determine in what way the process of collaboration had been affected by the
changing circumstances over the years. It is possible that if the circumstances
had been different, Kubrick’s work practice might have taken a different shape.
Manca Perko
University of East Anglia
manca.perko@gmail.com
Abstract
Origin stories represent the information on the beginnings of forming collaborations, specifi-
cally in pre-production, in Stanley Kubrick’s film crews. The common perception of Kubrick
is that he was a brilliant tyrant with little to no ability to cooperate. The manner in which
I challenge these myths is by analysing Kubrick’s work practice as seen in the eyes of his
co-workers and approaching it from a more sociological point of view.
The vast information available on the relationships between Kubrick and individual workers on
his crew appears to take the form of data given in forms of interviews left to individual inter-
pretation. Connecting them and looking from a broader theoretical perspective opens room for
debates that have not been addressed from that angle. This paper presents the stories of origin
that provide the information on the collaborative relationships and consequentially Kubrick’s
(un)collaborative nature itself. I explore the crew formation and indications it had for their
career and their attitude towards film industry. Forming a good relationship can undoubtedly
result in a good collaboration. But was that the case with Kubrick and how did it work?
Information obtained from interviews, data acquired from Kubrick’s archive in London, and
a careful analysis of the practices in the production permit to draw a conclusion on the nature
of collaboration in Kubrick’s crews.
Keywords
Collaboration, crew formation, hierarchy, creative control, autonomy.
Résumé
Origin Stories se réfère à l’étude de la formation des collaborations des équipes de
Stanley Kubrick, particulièrement lors des pré-productions. On se représente généralement
Kubrick comme un brillant tirant incapable de coopérer. Nous questionnerons ce mythe en
analysant les pratiques professionnelles de Kubrick, telles que vues par ses collaborateurs, ainsi
qu’en abordant la question d’un point de vue plus sociologique.
La vaste quantité d’informations disponibles quant aux relations qu’entretint Kubrick avec ses
collaborateurs prend essentiellement la forme d’interviews, par conséquent ouvertes à inter-
prétation. Mettre en relation ces diverses interviews et les confronter à des perspectives théo-
riques permet d’ouvrir un débat inédit. Cet article explore divers récits d’origines qui éclairent
plusieurs relations professionnelles, et par conséquent le potentiel collaboratif de Kubrick
lui-même. Nous explorerons la formation des équipes et les conséquences de ces expériences
sur les carrières et les rapports à l’industrie cinématographiques de ces individus. La formation
d’une relation solide permet indubitablement de mener à une bonne collaboration. Mais cela
fut-il le cas pour Stanley Kubrick, et de quelle manière ?
Les données recueillies par les interviews, mais aussi dans les Archives Stanley Kubrick de
Londres, associées à une analyse des pratiques de production permettent de conclure quant à
la nature de l’aspect collaboratif des équipes de Kubrick.
Mots-clés
Collaboration, formation d’équipes, hiérarchie, contrôle créatif, autonomie.
Origin Stories: Stanley Kubrick’s Collaborations 171
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE
Simone Odino
1 For example in the letter from Kubrick to Clarke, 11 April 1966, Correspondence 1966
Jan-May, Box 4, Folder 2, Arthur C. Clarke Collection; Archives Department, National Air
and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.
2 Peter Krämer, Complete total final annihilating artistic control, in Tatjana Ljujic, Peter Krämer
& Richard Daniels (eds.), Stanley Kubrick New Perspectives, London, Black Dog, 2015, p. 361.
See also Catriona McAvoy, Creating The Shining: Looking beyond the myths, in Ljujic, op. cit.,
p. 3280-307; James Fenwick, I.Q. Hunter & Elisa Pezzotta, The Stanley Kubrick Archive:
A Dossier of New Research, Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television, 37:3, 2017,
p. 367-372.
3 See Arthur C. Clarke, The myth of 2001, Cosmos - The Science-Fantasy Review, No.1, April
1969, p. 310-11; Clarke, The Lost Worlds of 2001, London, Sidgwick & Jackson, 1972; Clarke,
Son Of Dr. Strangelove, first published in Clarke, Report on Planet Three and other speculations,
London, Corgi, 1969, p. 3244-55, reprinted in Ian MacAuley, (ed.), Greetings, Carbon-Based
174 Simone Odino
Mainly focused on the author’s struggle to come up with a satisfying plot and,
perhaps most infamously, on his efforts to finalize a deal for the publication of
the book that the two were concurrently writing, these works have contributed
to a misunderstanding about the relationship between the writer and the
director, that has often described in the general press as difficult or conflicted,
true to the usual narrative about Kubrick the “dictatorial genius”. Actually,
the two enjoyed a long friendship; the usually hard-to-please director said
that his relationship with Clarke was one of the most “fruitful and enjoyable” 4
he ever had, and when the director passed away in 1999, the writer said “My
professional career owes more to Stanley than to anybody else in the world.” 5
By making use of the correspondence held in the Kubrick Archive and in
the recently opened Arthur C. Clarke Collection in the Smithsonian Museum
in Virginia, I will shed some light on the collaboration between the director
and the writer on 2001: A Space Odyssey, using as case histories the key points
in the evolution of the plot and the issue over the publication of the book.
I will also cover their (so far) largely ignored collaboration in the development
of a screenplay based on Brian Aldiss’s short story Supertoys last all summer long
in the early Nineties (a project eventually brought to the screen in 2001 by
Steven Spielberg as A.I.: Artificial Intelligence), to compare the two experiences
and see if their attitudes, interests and working methods changed over time.
The circumstances in which Kubrick first got in touch with Clarke are
well known: in early 1964 a mutual friend, Roger Caras, suggested the
writer as an appropriate collaborator for the director’s intended movie “about
extraterrestrials”.6 In his two previous works, Lolita and Dr. Strangelove,
Kubrick had worked with the authors of the very texts he wanted to adapt
(Vladimir Nabokov and Peter George); in general, all his movies originated
from pre-existing literary works, because the director’s main problem had
always been “to find a strong story, from which he could develop a strong script”.7
Bipeds!: Collected Essays 1934-1998, London, Voyager, 2001, p. 3259-263; Clarke, Back to
2001, first published in Clarke, 2001: A Space Odyssey, London, Legend, 1990, p. 39-18,
reprinted in MacAuley, op. cit., p. 3ix-xix; Neil McAleer, Odyssey: The Authorized Biography of
Arthur C. Clarke, London, Victor Gollancz, 1992, p. 3190-211.
4 Michel Ciment, Je suis un détective de l’Histoire…, L’Express, n.1312, 30 August - 5 September
1976, p. 318.
5 [Associated Press], Arthur Clarke hopes Kubrick will get Oscar posthumously, The Asian Age,
10 March 1999, p. 18.
6 McAleer, op. cit., p. 3190-191.
7 Filippo Ulivieri, The problem is to find an obsession: An Analysis of Stanley Kubrick’s Numerous
Unmade and Unfinished Projects, paper presented at “Stanley Kubrick: A Retrospective”, De
Montfort University, Leicester (UK), 11-13 May 2016. See also Peter Krämer, Adaptation
“Dear Arthur, what do you think?” 175
But when the director set his mind on space, he didn’t show interest in any
specific books by the writer who had been recommended to him.
In his first letter written to Clarke on March 31, 1964 Kubrick did instead
establish that he wanted to work with the English author on a movie that
would explore “the reasons for believing in the existence of extra-terrestrial life”
and “the impact (or lack of impact in some quarters) such discovery would have on
Earth”.8 As these subjects had been, in Clarke’s own words, his “main preoccu-
pation for the previous 30 years”,9 the writer replied enthusiastically and took
the initiative, suggesting to use his short 1948 story The Sentinel 10 as a possible
basis for the movie: its core concept of an alien artifact discovered on the moon
“would give all the excuse [they] needed for the exploration of the Universe”.11
Kubrick and Clarke met for the first time in New York in April 22, 1964 and
hit it off right from the start-talking, on their first day together, “for eight solid
hours”;12 it was in one of their early conversations that a surprised Clarke found
out that Kubrick did have in mind a pre-existing work he wanted to adapt. The
director had been intrigued by a science fiction radio drama broadcast by BBC
in late 1961, Shadow on the Sun, (a story about the invasion of alien lizards
from Jupiter’s moon Europa) to the point of asking Clarke to work on it as
a starting point for their project.13 But only ten days after their first meeting,
Clarke wrote the following note: “2 may. S. scrapped ‘Shadow on the Sun’ and
agreed on ‘Sentinel’ basis for movie” 14 and Kubrick was promptly informed that
the writer “was not interested in working with anyone else’s ideas”.15
This usually overlooked false start in the history of 2001 suggests Clarke’s
importance in the project from the very beginning. It was the writer that
convinced the director that The Sentinel had a greater dramatic potential for
an exploration of mankind’s destiny in space; Kubrick, at the same time, might
as Exploration: Stanley Kubrick, Literature, and A.I. Artificial Intelligence, Adaptation, 8 (3),
p. 3372-382.
8 Kubrick to Clarke, 31 March 1964, “Clarkives” MSS 005 2001 A Space Odyssey - General Notes,
Box 103, Folder 4, Arthur C. Clarke Collection, Smithsonian.
9 Clarke, Son of Dr. Strangelove, in MacAuley, op. cit., p. 3259.
10 Clarke, Sentinel of Eternity, Ten Story Fantasy, Spring, 1951, p. 341-47; reprinted as The
Sentinel in Clarke, Expedition to Earth, New York, Ballantine Books, 1953, p. 3155-167.
11 McAleer, op. cit., p. 3178.
12 Clarke, Son of Dr. Strangelove, in MacAuley, op. cit., p. 3261.
13 Jon Ronson, Lost At Sea: The Jon Ronson Mysteries, London, Picador, 2016, p. 177-178;
Simone Odino, “God, it’ll be hard topping the H-bomb”: Kubrick’s search for a new obsession in
the path from Dr. Strangelove to 2001: A Space Odyssey, in James Fenwick (ed.), Understanding
Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey: representation and interpretation, Bristol, Intellect
Books, forthcoming (2018).
14 Clarke, handwritten note, “Clarkives” MSS 005 2001 A Space Odyssey - General Notes, Box 103,
Folder 4, Arthur C. Clarke Collection, Smithsonian.
15 Clarke, Son of Dr. Strangelove, or how I stopped worrying and love Stanley Kubrick, first draft,
p. 35, ibid.
176 Simone Odino
16 See Ulivieri, op. cit.; Peter Krämer, Stanley Kubrick: Known and Unknown, Historical Journal of
Film, Radio and Television, Vol. 37, No. 3, 2017, p. 3373-395; I.Q. Hunter, From adaptation
to cinephilia: an intertextual odyssey, in Thomas Van Parys & I.Q. Hunter, (eds.), Science fiction
across media: adaptation/novelization, Canterbury, Gylphi, 2013, p. 343-63.
17 Hollis Alpert, Happiness is a film-maker in London, Saturday Review, 25 December 1965,
p. 313. See also Krämer, Stanley Kubrick: Known and Unknown, p. 19-20.
18 McAleer, op. cit., p. 3201.
19 Clarke, The Lost Worlds of 2001, p. 337.
20 Ibid., p. 331.
21 Stanley Kubrick & Arthur C. Clarke, Journey Beyond the Stars: A Film Story, Part. II, p. 3251, in
Piers Bizony, The Making of Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey, Cologne, Taschen, 2014.
22 Clarke, The Lost Worlds of 2001, p. 333.
“Dear Arthur, what do you think?” 177
23 Ibid., p. 3188.
24 Stanley Kubrick, Arthur C. Clarke, 2001 A Space Odyssey, p. 374, “Clarkives” MSS 003.1: 2001:
A Space Odyssey - Screenplay by ACC & Kubrick 6/7/65, Box 103, Folder 1, Arthur C. Clarke
Collection.
25 Ibid.
26 Clarke to Kubrick, 24 August 1965, SK/12/8/1/12, Stanley Kubrick Archive.
27 Ibid.
28 Kubrick’s handwritten note, ibid.
29 Clarke to Kubrick, 25 August 1965, SK/12/8/1/11, Stanley Kubrick Archive, quoted in
Peter Krämer, 2001: A Space Odyssey, London, British Film Institute, 2010, p. 347.
30 Kubrick’s handwritten note, ibid.
31 Kubrick to Clarke, 11 April 1966, Correspondence 1966 Jan-May, Box 4, Folder 2, Arthur C. Clarke
Collection.
32 Clarke, The Lost Worlds of 2001, p. 338.
178 Simone Odino
a “logical reason”: it was “his image of himself at this stage of his development”.33
He would present Kubrick a readable version of the final chapter of the book
by mid-January 1966 –a piece that the writer called “probably the most difficult
thing I’ve ever written” 34; the solution finally satisfied the director, who was
reportedly “very happy” 35 with Clarke’s work.
Another “logical reason” would be needed to explain the exact nature of
the events in a key section of the movie: the trip of the spaceship Discovery
to Jupiter, that had presented Kubrick and Clarke with even more problems,
as the writer put it: “We had the beginning and (approximately) the end; it was
the center portion which refused to stay in one place. I sometimes felt that we were
wrestling with a powerful and uncooperative snake, anchored at both ends”.36
In the final version of 2001: A Space Odyssey the real purpose of the mission
is revealed to the astronaut Dave Bowman –and to the audience with him–
only after the dramatic scene of the disconnection of Hal 9000. But in the
drafts of the script developed by mid-1965, the astronauts Bowman and Poole
and the on-board computer Athena, as it was by then called, were instead
fully aware of their goals, which was to investigate Jupiter’s moons in search
of the destination of the signal emitted by the alien artifact dug up on the
moon. The news of its discovery had indeed been made public, because “No
one could give a completely plausible reason why [the aliens] might be hostile”.37
All the excitement in the story was, by then, provided by a series of random
in-flight accidents; Poole destroys the Discovery main antenna by mistake and
is marooned in space, and the first hibernated crew member Bowman tries to
revive dies because of a fault in the procedure.38 The accidents were not caused
by a malfunctioning computer; Athena was only a laconic and, if anything,
pedantic machine. When Bowman decides to retrieve a section of the antenna
that is rapidly drifting away, she does not allow him to leave the Discovery
because safety rules prevent the ship to be left unmanned; the baffled astro-
naut “curses angrily” 39 and loses precious time to re-program the computer; a
scene that foretells the direction that the story would soon take.
The key change in the whole plot was suggested by Kubrick; perhaps
confident in the potential of adding an element of mystery, he introduced the
momentous idea that the real purpose of the mission could be kept a secret to
33 Ibid.
34 Clarke to Scott Meredith, 19 January 1966, Correspondence 1966 Jan-May, Box 4, Folder 2,
Arthur C. Clarke Collection.
35 Ibid.
36 Clarke, The Lost Worlds of 2001, p. 3125.
37 Kubrick, Clarke, Journey Beyond the Stars, Part II, p. 370, in Bizony, op. cit.
38 Kubrick, Clarke, 2001: A Space Odyssey, p. 374, “Clarkives” MSS 003.1: 2001: A Space Odyssey -
Screenplay by ACC & Kubrick 6/7/65, Box 103, Folder 1, Arthur C. Clarke Collection.
39 Ibid., p. 380.
“Dear Arthur, what do you think?” 179
the crew. Clarke’s reaction to the idea was not, at first, at all encouraging: in
a letter from August 24, 1965 he wrote to the director “It’s simply insulting to
men of this calibre to assume that they can’t keep a secret that hundreds of others
must know”.40 While the writer recognized that this was an element of surprise
in the story, it looked to him “rather artificial and improbable” 41, and it would
have made the astronauts look “irresponsible”.42 Kubrick did not justify his
insight to the writer; in a handwritten comment he cleverly appealed, instead,
to his sense of intellectual curiosity: “Don’t agree. Only if you fail to try to make
it work. […] You can construct this as a logical reason for it if you try”.43
In September Clarke rejoined the director in Borehamwood and the two
discussed the issue, coming up with a brilliant “logical reason”: if Bowman and
Poole didn’t know the purpose of the mission, that meant that Athena was the
only one who had to, because she had to run the ship in case of emergency.
Hence, the computer needed to conceal to the astronauts the true nature of the
trip; but this necessity interfered with the normal behavior of the computer,
so that “it starts to make mistakes, which in turn give rise to desperate attempts to
cover up the mistakes, eventually leading to multiple murder”.44 We gather how
Clarke was able to understand the possibilities that Kubrick’s idea entailed
from an October 12 note to the director, in which he suggested that instead
of being “just an episode invented for excitement”, the accidents depicted so far
could become more integral to the film’s story: “After all, our story is a quest for
truth. Athenas [sic] action shows what happens when this truth is concealed”.45
A justification for the mission to be veiled in secrecy was therefore devised:
as Heywood Floyd revealed in a scene cancelled from the movie, the inten-
tions of the aliens were now deemed “potentially dangerous” and the infor-
mation was now needed to be “kept on a need-to-know basis”.46 The random
mishaps of Bowman and Poole were therefore attributed to the computer’s
behavior, and the switch from Athena to HAL “the villain” was written into
the screenplay between November and December 196547, a mere two months
before the beginning of the shooting of the Discovery sequence.
Regarding the nature of the “accidents”, Clarke would later admit that
“HAL’s episode is the only conventional dramatic element in the whole film. And
so in that way you might say that it was rather contrived. You know, we’ve got two
and a half hours, something has to happen”.48 Still, he and Kubrick had managed
to devise two brilliant plot devices whose conception match the description
given by Roger Caras of the collaboration between the two: “When those two
were together, bouncing ideas off each other, it was like watching two intellectual
duelists”.49 From a creative standpoint things had worked well between the
two, but the archives hold significant hints as well about the nature of their
personal relationship.
In February 1967 Dave Maness, LIFE Magazine’s editor, asked Arthur Clarke
to “spice up” one of his articles about the making of 2001: perhaps there
was “a crisis, an explosion, a showdown” 50, in which Kubrick could have been
depicted in a more sharp of caustic way? The writer answered: “There was never
any friction at all –not even a single blow-up– during the working-out of the
script. This makes it rather difficult to generate any excitement”.51 Clarke’s reply
is especially significant in the light of some bitter remarks that he had made
in the press, as in a March 1966 interview where he said that his work with
Kubrick had been “a beautiful experience streaked with agony”.52 As a matter of
fact, Clarke was expressing his concerns about a very specific issue, that is, the
delay in the publication of the book that he had developed from the initial
novelistic treatment.
A substantial offer to publish the novel had arrived from Delacorte-Dell in
early 196653, and Clarke, that had devoted two years on the project delaying
other sources of income, and had business activities in Ceylon that were
going through financial troubles, felt that he needed the deal closed as soon as
possible. From the spring to the summer of 1966 his agents pressed Kubrick as
well as his lawyer Louis Blau: they were convinced that with the movie release
planned, by then, for Easter 1967, it would have been impossible to put out
the book on time if Kubrick did not green-light the offer. That, in turn, would
48 Gene Youngblood and Ted Zatlyn, Free Press Interview: Arthur C. Clarke, Los Angeles Free
Press, 25 April 1969, reprinted in Stephanie Schwam (ed.), The Making of 2001: A Space
Odyssey, New York, Modern Library, 2000, p. 259.
49 Piers Bizony, 2001 Filming The Future; Aurum Press, London 2000, p. 374.
50 David Maness to Clarke, 2 February 1967, VIP Letters, 1943-2004, Box 1, Folder 4,
Arthur C. Clarke Collection.
51 Clarke to David Maness, 8 February 1967, ibid.
52 Godfrey Smith, Astounding Story! About a Science Fiction Writer!: Astounding Story!, New York
Times, 6 March 1966, p. 3SM115.
53 Meredith to Ken McCormick, 13 March 1968, Correspondence 1968, Box 5, Folder 1,
Arthur C. Clarke Collection.
“Dear Arthur, what do you think?” 181
54 See the following letters from the Arthur C. Clarke Collection: Clarke to Mike Wilson, 12 March
1966, Correspondence 1966 Jan-May, Box 4, Folder 2; Clarke to Louis Blau, 16 March 1966,
ibid.; Meredith to Clarke, 25 April 1966, ibid.; Clarke to Ian Macauley, 1st February 1967,
Correspondence 1967, Jan-May, Box 4, Folder 7.
55 Meredith to Blau, 26 October 1966, Correspondence 1966 July-December, Box 4, Folder 3,
Arthur C. Clarke Collection.
56 Kubrick to Don Fine, 14 January 1967, SK/12/8/1/10, Stanley Kubrick Archive.
57 Kubrick to Scott Meredith, 5 October 1965, in Anon., The letters of Stanley Kubrick, The
Telegraph, 7 July 2008 [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/3555933/The-letters-of-
Stanley-Kubrick.html, last accessed 24 August 2017].
58 A.H. Weiler, Beyond the Blue Horizon, New York Times, 21 February 1965, p. 3X9.
59 Polaris Production to Clarke, 26 May 1965, “Clarkives” MSS 005 2001 A Space Odyssey -
General Notes, Box 103, Folder 4, Arthur C. Clarke Collection.
60 Kubrick to Clarke, 12 July 1966, SK/12/8/1/12, Stanley Kubrick Archive, in James Chapman,
Nicholas J. Cull, Projecting Tomorrow: Science Fiction and Popular Cinema, London, I.B. Tauris,
2013, p. 3100-101.
61 Bruce Handy 2001: A film Odyssey, Variety, 2 February 2018, p. 3197.
182 Simone Odino
own share of problems: “As you can imagine, there is a considerable amount of
money involved in the film, too, and as many good reasons for people wanting
it finished. The only difference has been that instead of continual pressure and
oblique recriminations there has been an objective understanding of the problem,
something that would be greatly appreciated regarding the novel.” 62
It is tempting to see Kubrick’s delay as yet another example of his legend-
ary perfectionism, as Clarke did comment to one of the publishers inter-
ested in the book: “It is just that he is a perfectionist, and does not appreciate
all the problems of the publishing business”.63 Despite the concerns about his
own financial situation, the writer remained remarkably sympathetic and
supportive of his friend’s difficult position; to a collaborator who complained
about Kubrick’s attitude, he observed that he didn’t agree that the director
was “insensitive to the needs of others –he is very sensitive but his artistic integrity
won’t allow him to compromise. I have to admire this attitude even when it causes
me great inconvenience!”.64 But Kubrick’s insistence was not a mere matter of
tight schedules, legal rights or “obsessive” control: the evidence suggests that
the director felt it was his creative role in the writing that entitled him to make
changes to the book up to the last minute –a book in which, for that matter,
he held a significant 40% stake.65
Ever since his early interviews the director made clear that his method
of collaborating with his co-author consisted in doing one chapter each, and
then “each other would kick the other’s work around”;66 also, the corrections
Kubrick made to an article Clarke wrote about the making of 2001 suggest
that he was keen in setting the record straight about the breadth of his input,
as is evident from the following series of notes: “slight implication you alone did
the story ideas”,67 “again implication you do the creative writing”,68 “the implica-
tion here is that you wrote novel alone”.69 It was a contribution that Clarke did
acknowledge with Kubrick’s lawyer Louis Blau: “I must admit that [Stanley’s]
previous alterations [to the novel] have resulted in vast improvements”, although
he added “… but one has to stop somewhere”.70 Kubrick’s creative role in the
62 Ibid.
63 Clarke to William Jovanovich, 22 June 1966, Correspondence 1966 Jan-May, Box 4, Folder 2,
Arthur C. Clarke Collection.
64 Clarke to Tom Craven, 29 January 1967, Correspondence 1967, Box 4, Folder 5, Arthur C. Clarke
Collection.
65 McAleer, op. cit., p. 3197.
66 Alpert, op. cit., p. 313.
67 Arthur C. Clarke, Son of Dr. Strangelove, first draft, p. 38, “Clarkives” MSS 005 2001 A Space
Odyssey - General Notes, Box 103, Folder 4, Arthur C. Clarke Collection.
68 Ibid., p. 310.
69 Ibid., p. 311.
70 Clarke to Louis Blau, 16 March 1966, Correspondence 1966 Jan-May, Box 4, Folder 1,
Arthur C. Clarke Collection.
“Dear Arthur, what do you think?” 183
writing is certified by the fact that it was him that suggested to end the novel
with the very same words that had already been used to end the prologue
set in primordial Africa, that described what the ape-man Moonwatcher had
felt after his evolutionary leap: “For though he was the master of the world, he
was not quite sure what to do next. But he would think of something.” 71 In an
August 24, 1965 letter Clarke wrote Kubrick: “I’m very happy about your finale
(‘He would think of something’) and am drafting various approaches to it”.72
Still, by the end of the project Kubrick might have felt that he had a moral
obligation of sorts towards his collaborator. In later interviews he would grad-
ually shift most of the credit for the novel to Clarke, and while the original
plan was that the names on the book jacket would read “by Arthur C. Clarke
and Stanley Kubrick” 73, it was the director that eventually decided that it
would be the writer alone to appear as author of the novel74. Clarke was later
forced to admit that “In the long run, everything came out all right –exactly as
Stanley had predicted” 75: when the director eventually authorized the publica-
tion in March 196876, apparently without any major revision77, even Clarke’s
agents had to admit that, appearing after the movie, the book would have an
“unprecedented benefit”: the millions already spent in promotion by MGM.78
2001: A Space Odyssey premiered in Washington in April 2, 1968, and
became the critical and popular phenomenon that we all know; the novel,
eventually published by New American Library, sold an estimate of 4 million
copies by the end of the Sixties alone.79 The generous returns prompted Clarke
to comment “Stanley Kubrick and I are laughing all the way to he bank”.80
71 Stanley Kubrick, Arthur C. Clarke, Journey Beyond the Stars: A Film Story, Part I, p. 332, in
Bizony, The Making of Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey; Clarke, 2001: A Space Odyssey,
London, Legend, 1990, p. 3297.
72 Clarke to Kubrick, 24 August 1965, SK/12/8/1/12, Stanley Kubrick Archive.
73 (Anon.), Kulerick and Clarke, Clarke and Kulerick (sic) Get Billing Problem for Space Film Solved,
The Atlanta Constitution, Feb. 7, 1966, p. 37A; Clarke, The Lost Worlds of 2001, p. 331; Clarke
to Kubrick, 4 March 1968, Correspondence 1968 Jan-Jun, Box 5, Folder 1, Arthur C. Clarke
Collection.
74 Meredith to Blau, undated, SK/12/8/1/12, Stanley Kubrick Archive.
75 Clarke, The Lost Worlds of 2001, p. 49
76 Meredith to Ken McCormick, 13 March 1968, Correspondence 1968 Jan-Jun, Box 5, Folder 1,
Arthur C. Clarke Collection.
77 Meredith to Louis Blau, undated, SK/12/8/1/12, Stanley Kubrick Archive.
78 Ibid.
79 Bizony, The Making of Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey, p. 3422. The contract with
The New American Library was signed on 22 March 1968; see 2001 Publicity, 1965-2003,
Box 147, Folder 6, Arthur C. Clarke Collection.
80 Clarke, The myth of 2001, p. 311.
184 Simone Odino
In the years after 2001: A Space Odyssey Kubrick and Clarke kept in touch
regularly, and for a brief period at the beginning of the Nineties it seemed
there was a chance for the two to collaborate again.81 By then, the director
had been working for a long time on the 1969 short story Supertoys Last All
Summer Long 82 by the English writer Brian Aldiss, set in an overpopulated
future in which a childless woman adopts David, an android resembling a five-
year-old boy. In 1982 Kubrick had signed Aldiss to work on Supertoys in order
to develop it into a movie83; to the writer, who doubted that such a short story
could be expanded into a full length script, the director replied: “Why not? I did
it with Arthur Clarke’s ‘The Sentinel’. It’s the same length, 2000 words” 84, indeed a
testament of how satisfied he had been of the collaboration with his old friend.
Kubrick would try to come to grips with the story for almost a decade,
despite the help of other science fiction authors like Ian Watson and
Bob Shaw85, but to no avail. After the release of Full Metal Jacket (1987), his
work on Supertoys overlapped with the very same project he had discarded in
1964: Shadow on the Sun, whose rights he bought in 1988, and reportedly
worked on for a while.86 It is unclear if the two projects where related to one
another; still, the adaptation of the radio drama was evidently not meant to
happen, because the director abandoned it again.
Clarke had consulted unofficially with Kubrick on Supertoys ever since
1989; when he wrote to the director on the last day of 1991, asking how the
work on the script was evolving, Kubrick answered with a fax for which, in
Clarke’s own words, “many writers would have murdered their entire families”:87
“Only you can write ‘Supertoys.’ How much money would it take to get you to
81 In the decades that followed Clarke produced several sequels to 2001: 2010: Odyssey Two, New
York, Ballantine, 1982; 2061: Odyssey Three, London, Grafton Books, 1987; 3001: The Final
Odyssey, London, Voyager, 1997. Kubrick’s involvement with 2010 and with Peter Hyams’
movie 2010: The year we make contact (1984) seems to have been limited to the contrac-
tual negotiations needed because the sequel rights were co-owned by Polaris and MGM; see
MGM-UA In Tug-Of-War With Phillips And 20th-Fox Over Film Righs to “2010”, Daily Variety,
December 21, 1982, p. 1, 13; Peter Bart, Fade out: the calamitous final days of MGM, New
York, Morrow, 1990, p. 63; McAleer, op. cit., p. 307-317.
82 Brian Aldiss, Supertoys Last All Summer Long, Harper’s Bazaar, December 1969, p. 70-72,
reprinted in Aldiss, Supertoys Last All Summer Long and Other Stories of Future time, London,
Orbit, 2001, p. 1-11.
83 Brian Aldiss, Meet the man behind the myth, The Observer, 13 March 1999, p. 143.
84 (Anon.), Brian Aldiss : Young Turk to Grand Master, Locus Magazine, August 2000, [http://
www.locusmag.com/2000/Issues/08/Aldiss.html, last accessed 23 August 2017].
85 See Krämer, Stanley Kubrick: Known and Unknown.
86 Ronson, op. cit., Odino, op. cit.
87 Gary Dalkin, To The Last Word: an Interview with Sir Arthur C. Clarke, 21 April 2000, [http://
tothelastword.com/interviewer/arthur-c-clarke/, last accessed 23 August 2017].
“Dear Arthur, what do you think?” 185
do it? Name a figure”.88 That was, the writer later said, “a challenge I couldn’t
resist”.89 In his reply to the director he admitted that he was flattered by the
offer, but he added that, besides the fact that noney was no longer a problem,
his deteriorating physical conditions and the logistic challenge of working
long distance would have been hard to overcome. He also added something
that, arguably, even his most ardent fans wouldn’t disagree with: “I still don’t
understand why you think I’m the person to help on Supertoys because this sort of
emotional family drama is exactly the kind of thing I’m bad at”.90
Still, Kubrick kept calling Clarke and sending him faxes, trying to lure him
into working together again. In a letter to the writer the director commented
the present state of the manuscript and recalled their successful past collabo-
ration, in the attempt to convince him: “I think overall it lacks poignancy and
rarely captures the sense of an intelligent but limited robot mind. You had it in
the Dawn of Man […]” Kubrick believed that there was “a major story here,
with the subconscious, myth-making power 2001 had, and a degree of emotional
involvement so rare in the genre”.91
Although Clarke said later that “… really I did [Supertoys] because I owed
him so much”,92 the letters he wrote to his friend suggest that he was intrigued
by the idea of seeing the headlines in newspapers “Clarke and Kubrick together
again!”.93 He therefore suggested to produce an outline of his take on the
story, and if this was green-lighted by the director, he would then write a novel
based on this and have Kubrick develop a screenplay from the novel, basi-
cally repeating the modus operandi that they had followed for 2001. Putting
his other projects on hold, in late March 1992 Clarke began sending ideas
to the director; because overpopulation was a key feature of the 21st century
envisioned by Aldiss in Supertoys, Clarke devised a short opening set in the
year 2032 and featuring a black Pope (for the actor Clarke suggested Sydney
Poitier) declaring that birth control was now condoned and authorized by the
Catholic Church.94 Kubrick thought it was a promising start: “…now for just
the next 37 thousands words”.95
As he advanced, though, Clarke became increasingly critical of the work
previously made on the story (especially of the epilogue devised by Ian Watson
before him, that featured robots from the future resurrecting David’s mother
from her DNA, that he called “scientific nonsense”96), and slowly moved away
from it. This is evident in the five-page outline Clarke titled “Child of the sun”,
which was radically different especially in the conclusion; it described David
awakening after 150 years in a world that has made contact with an alien
superior civilization, that sends humans the instructions on how to build a
starship. As the trip would last a thousand years, the ship would be crewed by
androids, and David embarks with them as ambassador of Mankind.97
The themes touched upon in this ending are easily comparable with those
in 2001; Clarke had indeed previously reminded Kubrick that his specialty
was “hard sciences, and not even robotics, but space”.98 The writer recalled years
later that the outline he had sent to Kubrick was “Rejected instantly! […] He
hated it and asked me to tear it up” 99; actually, Kubrick wrote him a more subtle
and amusing fax on May 26, 1992, in which he admitted he had “enjoyed
[it] immensely”. There was a problem, though: the director believed there was
great material in the manuscript, and feared that Clarke had “not only thrown
out the baby with the bath water, but the bathtub, the bathroom, indeed, the
house itself ”.100 The fact that Clarke wasn’t sufficiently interested in the previ-
ously developed material left the director unsure about “what to do next”.101
The writer replied mildly complaining about the lack of direction from
Kubrick, that in the meantime had mysteriously stopped replying his faxes.
Clarke had felt he had no chance but going ahead, developing the ideas he
liked while ignoring those deemed “silly, unconvincing, or uninteresting…” 102
Replying in similar irony to Kubrick’s “bathroom” fax, he admitted their
artistic differences, but declared himself “still excited at the idea of working
with you (and getting into the Guinness book of records as the only writer who’s
survived two rounds.)” 103
The main reason behind Kubrick’s lack of response appears to be the
concurring project he was working on. By the summer of 1992 the director
had already developed two drafts of the script of Aryan Papers, an adaptation
of Louis Begley’s book Wartime Lies about a boy and his aunt hiding from the
Nazi regime during the Holocaust, and was getting involved in the logistics
104 Jan Harlan, Alison Castle, From Wartime Lies to “Aryan Papers”, in Alison Castle (ed.), The
Stanley Kubrick Archives, Cologne, Taschen, 2005, p. 3509; Artur Piskorz, Aryan Papers: The
Polish Connection, Media –Kultura– Komunikacja społeczna, 12/2, 2016, p. 373-79.
105 Kubrick to Clarke, 6 September 1992, Correspondence with Kubrick 1991-2005, Box 56,
Folder 4, Arthur C. Clarke Collection.
106 Clarke to Kubrick, 9 September 1992, ibid.
107 Clarke to Kubrick, 2 August 1992, ibid.
108 Kubrick to Clarke, 2 June 1992, ibid.
109 Interview with Mick Broderick included in Dr. Strangelove, or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying
and Love the Bomb, Blu-Ray, Criterion, 2016.
188 Simone Odino
but Aldiss’s; the writer, admittedly working on the project only out of a debt
of gratitude, wasn’t involved as he had been with his own The Sentinel, and
couldn’t cope with the director’s requests. Supertoys wasn’t Shadow on the sun
either, because this time, Kubrick –increasingly frustated– was not willing to
see the project deviate from a story he had cherished for so long, and that he
had envisioned to expand into a “sentimental, dream-like fable”.115
The available evidence suggests that Clarke was not particularly hurt by
Kubrick’s decision to abandon Supertoys (the two would later meet again in
1994, and would keep in contact regularly until the director’s death in 1999);
still, when the director surprised him with his last communication about his
“new” next film, Clarke could not let him get away without one of the jokes he
was famous for, sending his agents a fax that at the same time vouches for the
unflappable humor of the English author and the inevitable difficulties that
most writers experienced when dealing with the demanding and “stimulating,
occasionally exasperating –but great fun” 116 director: “I’m thinking of writing a
piece entitled “If Stanley Kubrick calls, say I’m out.” 117
Simone Odino
simoneodino@gmail.com
Abstract
From their fruitful four-years partnership on one of the watershed in the history of movies,
2001: A Space Odyssey (1964-68) to the unsuccessful effort –in the early 90’s– of develop-
ing a story based on Brian Aldiss’s short story Supertoys Last All Summer Long (eventually
brought to the screen by Steven Spielberg as A.I.: Artificial Intelligence), Stanley Kubrick and
Arthur C. Clarke enjoyed a long friendship that lasted until their deaths, and that has been
described as a “successful cerebral marriage”; the two constantly stimulated one another with
a flow of ideas and challenges, ever since the first letter written by the director on March 31,
1964, where he mentioned his intention to work with the writer on the “the proverbial ‘really
good’ science-fiction movie”.
Usually discussed only through the lenses of Clarke’s published memoirs about the making
of 2001: A Space Odyssey, the relationship between the writer and the director has often been
described as difficult or conflicted, true to the usual narrative about Kubrick the “dictatorial
genius”. By making use of the correspondence held in the Kubrick Archive and in the recently
opened Arthur C. Clarke Collection in the Smithsonian Museum in Virginia, I will shed some
new light on their collaboration on 2001, using as case histories the key points in the evolu-
tion of the plot and the issue over the publication of the book. I will also cover their (so far)
largely ignored collaboration in the development of Supertoys to compare the two experiences
and see if their attitudes, interests and working methods changed over time.
115 John Baxter, Stanley Kubrick: A Biography, New York, Carroll & Graf, 1997, p. 3355.
116 [Associated Press], op. cit.
117 Clarke to [Jack and Jacqueline?], undated, Correspondence with Kubrick 1991-2005, Box 56,
Folder 4, Arthur C. Clarke Collection.
190 Simone Odino
Keywords
Kubrick, Clarke, 2001, Odyssey, collaboration.
Résumé
De leur collaboration fructueuse sur l’un des films les plus marquants de l’histoire cinéma-
tographique, 2001 : L’odyssée de l’Espace (1964-1968) jusqu’à leur tentative avortée, dans les
années 90, pour développer une histoire inspirée de la nouvelle Supertoys Last All Summer Long
de Brian Aldiss (finalement adaptée par Steven Spielberg avec I.A. : Intelligence Artificielle),
Stanley Kubrick et Arthur C. Clarke entretinrent une longue amitié jusqu’à leur mort, qui fut
décrite comme un « heureux mariage cérébral » ; les deux hommes se stimulaient l’un l’autre en
s’échangeant des idées et se lançant des défis, et ce depuis la première lettre écrite par le réali-
sateur le 31 mars 1964, dans laquelle il fait part de son intention de collaborer avec l’auteur
pour créer « le tant attendu “premier chef d’œuvre” de science-fiction au cinéma ».
La relation qui s’établit entre l’écrivain et le cinéaste, essentiellement envisagée à travers
le prisme des déclarations de Clarke au sujet du tournage de 2001 dans ses Mémoires,
fut souvent décrite comme difficile voire conflictuelle, en accord avec l’image d’Épinal de
Kubrick, le « génie dictatorial ». Grâce à l’étude de la correspondance conservée aux Archives
Stanley Kubrick ainsi que dans la collection Arthur C. Clarke récemment ouverte au musée
Smithsonian de l’état de Virginie, cet article propose de ré-explorer cette collaboration en se
concentrant sur certains moments cruciaux dans l’évolution du script de 2001 ainsi que sur
les problèmes liés à la publication du roman éponyme. Enfin, nous reviendrons sur la seconde
collaboration des deux artistes, actuellement peu étudiée, lors de l’adaptation de Supertoys ;
nous pourrons ainsi comparer ces deux expériences et considérer les évolutions quant aux
attitudes, aux méthodes de travail et aux intérêts du duo à travers le temps.
Mots-clés
Kubrick, Clarke, 2001, Odyssée, collaboration.
“Dear Arthur, what do you think?” 191
BIOGRAPHIC NOTE
Simone Odino is a public librarian and archivist in Bologna (Italy), where he studied
Political Science. For the last four years he has been actively researching the movie 2001: A
Space Odyssey conducting interviews with cast and crew and visiting archives in the United
Kingdom, the United States and Italy. An extended version of a presentation given at the
Stanley Kubrick conference in Leicester (May 2016) is due to publication in the forthco-
ming book Understanding Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey - representation and interpretation
(Intellect, 2018). He also runs the website www.2001italia.it.
Réception et intermédialité
Matthew Melia
Filippo Ulivieri
Partie 7
Stanley Kubrick at the Interface
of film and television
Matthew Melia
a chance to portray all of Europe and North Africa –from Lisbon to Moscow,
from the dry deserts of Egypt to the snowy wastes of the Russian Steppes– in
an era of upheaval6.
In a 1969 interview with Joseph Gelmis (in the same collection) Kubrick
discusses plans for staging the film’s intended battle sequences and their
projected scale:
We’re now in the process of deciding the best places to shoot, and where it
would be most feasible to obtain troops we need for battle scenes. We intend
to use a maximum of forty thousand infantry and ten thousand cavalry for
the big battles which means that we have to find a country which will hire its
armed forces out to us –you just imagine the cost of fifty thousand extras over
an extended period of time.7
Once, the limited scope and dimensions of the home TV set, and the
economic limitations of TV production would have made such a project
impossible. With 21st century advances in home televisual technology8, new
broadcasting technologies and the epic production scale of contemporary
programming (from documentary to drama), television as a cultural medium
is once again challenging the cultural dominance of cinema, and is increasingly
up to the task of accommodating such an enormous project as well as the vision
of a director synonymous with expansive cinematic spectacle and idiosyncratic
design: HBO’s monolithic flagship fantasy series Game of Thrones (for instance)
recently included comparatively similar epic battle sequences of the size and
scale envisioned by Kubrick for Napoleon, one battle sequence9 in the serial
using only 500 extras digitally reproduced and replicated in their thousands10.
The centrality of television to Kubrick’s work has so far been critically
overlooked and few studies have been dedicated to the “tele-centricity” of the
films. The hope of this study is to examine Kubrick’s own position at the inter-
face of the two mediums. I aim to illustrate the “tele-awareness” of Kubrick’s
cinema, suggesting that as the scope, ambition of contemporary television
programming has widened Kubrick’s films are becoming more than just a
point of knowing iconographic homage and pastiche but that the language of
his cinema (stylistic, thematic, formally, in design) is increasingly becoming a
referent and part of the new 21st century cinematic language and vernacular
of television itself.
11 Film scholar and author and authority of Kubrick’s Dr Strangelove, or How I Learned to Stop
Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964).
12 Mick Broderick, “Animating Kubrick - Auteurist Influences in The Simpsons”, Screening
The Past (“Post Kubrick Dossier”), Issue 42, October 4th 2017, Melbourne, LeTrobe
University. http://www.screeningthepast.com/2017/09/animating-kubrick-auteur-influenc-
es-in-the-simpsons/. Last Viewed: 05/03/2018.
13 Robert Kolker, “Rage For Order: Kubrick’s Fearful Symmetry”, in Raritan: A Quaterly Review,
Summer 2010, Vol. 30 (1), p. 53.
14 For the purposes of this discussion and for expediency’s sake I have chosen to focus on contem-
porary “quality” television drama rather than other forms such as documentary or popular
entertainment shows.
15 Helen Wheatley, Spectacular Television: Exploring Televisual Pleasure, London: IB Tauris, 2016,
p. 1-2.
198 Matthew Melia
Television In Kubrick
16 Rod Munday, A Kubrick Cinematic Universe, in Vincent Jaunas and Jean-François Baillon,
“Stanley Kubrick. Nouveaux horizons”. Bordeaux: Essais, hors série, 2018, p. 135-150.
17 The archive does contain a large amount of documents relating to the television marketing of
Kubrick’s films: a letter from Kirk Douglas for instance, dated 13th April 1959, proposing a
“television spectacular” around the release of Spartacus as well as documentation and research
materials for “TV-Spots”. The television marketing of Kubrick’s films, however, will form the
subject of a later study and for expediency’s sake have been omitted from this discussion.
18 This scientifically complex and mathematically dense article was editorially retitled to “Extra-
Terrestrial Relays: Can Rocket Stations Give World Wide Radio Coverage?”, for publication.
19 “Early Bird” was the first International geosynchronous commercial communications satellite
or “Intelsat 1”, launched from Cape Canaveral on Tuesday, 06 April 1965. J. Terry White
describes it: “Though primitive by today’s standards, Early Bird functioned well its role as
a communications satellite. Among its many accomplishments, the satellite helped make
possible the first live television broadcast of the splashdown of a manned spacecraft when
Gemini 6 returned to earth in December of 1965. Early Bird was deactivated in January of
1969” (J. Terry White, “Early Bird Satellite Launch”, White Eagle Aerospace, 2012. http://
www.whiteeagleaerospace.com/early-bird-satellite-launch/. Last viewed: 19/11/2017).
Stanley Kubrick at the Interface of film and television 199
tion between Clarke and Kubrick23) the alien artefact the hominids encounter
was imagined as a glowing television-like cube rather than the film’s enigmatic
black Monolith. Citing Bruce Sterling24 he states:
As they worked together, conjuring up the novel and the film, correspondence
reveals a pre-occupation with “the Cube” (later transmuted to “The Monolith”).
Responding to Clarke’s suggestion in 1966 that the cube communicates
directly with the man-apes who would populate the film, Kubrick instead
advocated a more enigmatic presence: “We see only the hypnotic image and
the spellbound faces of the apes.25
Watching or gazing is Kubrickian trope and with the troubling, invasive
and enigmatic “Kubrick Stare” characters repeatedly look beyond the screen
boundary into the audience space. In 2001: A Space Odyssey the celestial
and hopeful (according to Peter Kramer26) gaze of the Starchild into the
camera is relayed and challenged in the opening shot of A Clockwork Orange
with Alex’s conversely malevolent stare beyond the fourth wall (Figure 1).
Barry Keith Grant reminds us that:
In Kubrick’s cinema, eyes figure prominently as images of vision and percep-
tion, or the lack of it. A Clockwork Orange features numerous close ups of
Alex’s eyes, first in droogie garb with make-up and eyeball cufflinks and later
when his eyes are propped open during the Ludovico technique. Kubrick’s last
film, completed just before his death shows people blinded by the quotidian
world, entrapped within their own egos with “eyes wide shut”.27
In Kubrick’s films television is an “enigmatic” and suspicious techno-
logy which controls the viewer and holds them “spellbound” (not unlike the
Monolith in that regard). During the “Ludovico treatment” sequence in A
Clockwork Orange Alex is physically restrained and unable to look away from
23 Kubrick scholar, author and 2001 expert Simone Odino offers a comprehensive analysis of
the relationship between the two in his paper “Dear Arthur, What Do You Think? The Clarke-
Kubrick Collaboration on 2001: A Space Odyssey and A.I. from their Letters from the Smithsonian”
(paper delivered at the conference Stanley Kubrick: Nouveaux Horizons, Université Bordeaux
Montaigne, 17/05/2017).
24 Bruce Sterling, Personal Writings of Arthur C. Clarke Reveal the Evolution of 2001: A Space
Odyssey. Smithsonian.com: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/person-
al-writings-arthur-c-clarke-reveal-evolution-2001-space-odyssey-180954967/, May, 2015. Last
Accessed: 17/02/2018.
25 David Pescovitz, 2001’s Monolith was Originally “The Cube” BoingBoing. https://boingboing.
net/2015/04/29/2001-a-space-odysseys-mon.html, April 2015. Last Accessed: 17/02/2018.
26 At 2018 during the Inaugural Stanley Kubrick Lecture, London Community College, University
of the Arts, London, Kramer suggested that the final shot of 2001: A Space Odyssey, signified
both a rebirth and hopeful fresh start for humanity. This paper argues that this view is countered
by the next film A Clockwork Orange, and the malevolence of Alex’s stare into the camera.
27 Barry K. Grant, “Of Men and Monoliths: Science Fiction”, Gender and 2001: A Space Odyssey,
in Robert Kolker (ed.), Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey, NYC, OUP USA, 2006,
p. 112-113.
Stanley Kubrick at the Interface of film and television 201
28 This image may be seen reflected in the staging of Samuel Beckett’s, 1973, production of Not I
at the Royal Court and the way in which actress Billie Whitelaw was physically restrained for
the performance. A reading of Beckett in Kubrick will, however, be the subject of a later study.
29 In the first episode of the podcast, The International Anthony Burgess Foundation Graham Foster
suggests that this has its roots in author Anthony Burgess’s familiarity with the text The British
Way and Purpose: a collection of essays/textbook used by members of the education corps in
teaching student soldiers abroad the way of the “responsible citizen” as well as the formative
influence of Huxley’s Brave New World Revisited (1958) and it emphasis on social condition-
ing, totalitarianism and Pavolvian control.
30 Stanley Kubrick Archive, University of the Arts, London, ref. no SK/12/3/4/3/19.
31 Helen Wheatley, Spectacular Television: Exploring Televisual Pleasure, London, I.B. Tauris,
2016, p. 1-2.
202 Matthew Melia
32 Thomas Allen Nelson, Kubrick: Inside a Film Artists Maze, Indiana, Indiana University Press,
2000, p. 123.
33 Stanley Kubrick Archive, University of the Arts, London, ref. no SK/12/3/4/3/19.
Stanley Kubrick at the Interface of film and television 203
34 Barry K. Grant, “Of Men and Monoliths: Science Fiction”, Gender and 2001: A Space Odyssey,
in Robert Kolker (ed.), Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey, NYC, OUP USA, 2006, p. 112.
204 Matthew Melia
In this sequence Helena watches the Bugs Bunny cartoon The Fright
Before Christmas (1979); in The Shining (extended cut), in one sequence we
observe Danny watching a Roadrunner cartoon in a shot which follows the
brief sequence of Halloran wending his way back along the snowy night time
mountain pass to the Overlook. In the final image of Full Metal Jacket the
young platoon advance across a hellish warzone yomping to the theme tune
to The Mickey Mouse Club: “Who’s the leader of the gang, the one for you
and me?”. Animated TV cartoons recur across Kubrick’s films rendering the
idea of childhood in crisis: the stability of Helena’s childhood is threatened
by the breakdown of her parent’s relationship (and the first time we meet her
she is palmed off onto a babysitter and asks to stay up watching television);
Danny seems to find refuge from his own (abusive?) childhood trauma in
the comic violence of Warner Brothers cartoons used meta-textually within
the film’s narrative when at the end of the film the lupine Jack becomes
“Wile E. Coyote” to Danny’s “Roadrunner”; and, the wholesomeness and
all-American-ness of Disney’s Mickey Mouse is set in contrast to both the
dehumanisation of these young men, barely out of childhood, the destruc-
tion of innocence AND the unwholesomeness of the American presence in
Vietnam. In a further example of intertextual, communicative relay, Helena’s
Bugs Bunny cartoon recalls Danny himself, whose pet name, as Halloran
detects (through his mental connection with the boy) is “Bugs”.
Tom Klein contextualises Kubrick’s use of TV cartoon animation, citing
Dr Alberta Stiegel’s research into the effect of “violent” cartoons by animators
and artists like Walter Lantz and Shamus Culhane:
Conventional wisdom prescribed that watching film violence was cathartic
and would mitigate aggression in an audience. However, soon Dr. Siegel was
famous for disputing this idea and the American press effusively covered the
story. She launched a whole cottage industry of research-driven social science
around media violence which endures to this day. The momentum for this
concern was probably not that kids might imitate Woody [Woodpecker], but
rather that a handful of skilled animation directors –Avery, Jones, Culhane,
Hanna and Barbera– had pushed cartoons to such an outrageous level of noto-
riety… It was the adults who were shocked at their children’s delight in seeing
bombs, weapons, rockets, dropping anvils and unchained malice.35
During the sequence in which the Torrances travel to the Overlook they
discuss the Donner Party, the pioneers in “Covered Wagon” times, who were
trapped in the mountains during a savage winter and who, allegedly, turned
to cannibalism36. After Wendy objects to Jack’s mentioning of cannibalism to
Danny, Danny states that “I know all about cannibalism, I saw it on TV”. Jack
35 Tom Klein, “Stanley Kubrick and Violent Cartoons”, Walter Lantz Archive, Cartoon Research,
22/08/2015. https://cartoonresearch.com/index.php/stanley-kubrick-and-violent-cartoons-1956/.
Last Viewed: 22/11/2017.
36 Anticipating the situation the Torrances will later find themselves in.
Stanley Kubrick at the Interface of film and television 205
responds sarcastically “See, its ok, he saw it on the television!”. This recalls Stiegel’s
influential research as well as further drawing attention to Kubrick’s somewhat
suspicious view of the medium. Here Danny’s conditioning to TV violence is
presented as an inverse to the enforced aversion therapy of A Clockwork Orange.
The transmission of wireless broadcasting signals, communication and
images occur throughout the film, and here we may observe the extended
influence of Arthur C. Clarke’s work on Kubrick beyond 2001: A Space
Odyssey. Danny and Halloran, share a telepathic link in their ability to “shine”.
They are synchronous bodies for the broadcasting, relay and reception of a
wireless signal, which in the archived 1978 script is described as a sort of elec-
trical signal. Describing the sequence in which Halloran returns to the hotel,
the script directions read:
131 – SNOWCAT CAB – INT-DUSK-BP
Halloran driving. Maybe he is being communicated to by both Tony and
the hotel. The hotel causing electronic reverberate echoes in his skull, sinister
phrases repeated over and over.37
Elmer Lower’s earlier appraisal of Clarke’s article: “All of the electrical
energy needed to run the relay stations, according to the article, could come
from the Sun”38 shares similarities with how Kubrick conceptualises the tele-
pathic link as “electronic reverberations” relaying, transmitting and emana-
ting from a central hub –in this case the Overlook hotel itself. This “wireless”
link and relay between Danny and Halloran is foregrounded in the sequence
in which Halloran lies on his bed at home watching the television and receives
the transmission from Danny / Tony at the hotel, Danny appears to be under-
going a seizure or form of electric shock (Figures 5 and 6), this is heightened
by tense, high pitched (electronic) tone. The twinning of Halloran and Danny
is coded in the mise-en-scène and framing of the Halloran’s bedroom where
the television, reporting the blizzard is framed centrally between two table
lamps on either side, we view the television from Halloran’s perspective as it
is framed also between his two feet (Figure 7). The “wireless” link between
Danny and Halloran is also coded by the twin images in the symmetrically
opposed paintings on opposite facing walls.
Kubrick’s suggestion in the ’78 script that “maybe he [Halloran] is being
communicated to by both Tony and the hotel” has further implications. The
extended U.S. Cut of the film contains a sequence in which we see Danny and
Wendy watching a film, The Summer of 42 (Mulligan, 1971) on the television
set in the hotel lobby. Danny is positioned at its feet, on the floor looking up,
engrossed in its images; Wendy, is positioned further back on the couch, both are
separated (again) by some distance (Figure 8). The TV is positioned absolutely
centrally, dominating the frame (as it does in Halloran’s bedroom) –it is on but
not plugged in. It is afforded a ghostly, almost demonic presence, an embodiment
of the hotel’s control over the family, breaking it up. Kevin McLeod observes:
Television connects the film to The Summer of ’42: an older child than Danny
and a younger woman than Wendy flirt in the Kitchen and it combines with
another scene in the film: the breakfast sequence mirroring Jack’s breakfast in
bed earlier, even coffee is poured (this TV is a mirror). 42 is a doubling of 21,
the year of the July 4thball Jack attends in the film’s final shot. The image is lit
by the same light as Jack’s transfixed solo previously (in the black sweater, the
reverse on Danny and Wendy is no less contrasted… (if they are not careful
the Hotel will absorb them as well)… the TV is a phantom of the hotel: there
are no cables that connect it to a power source.39
TV’s control over Torrance family life is further hinted at in the ’78 script:
after Ullman leaves, Jack comments (in dialogue redacted from both cuts of
the film), “Well folks, I think we should go inside, get something to eat and
make sure the TV works!”. Television is a priority for the family. McLeod
suggests that the TV is a “Phantom” of the hotel, but the hotel itself may
be read as “phantom” and an embodiment of television. Danny spends a lot
of time looking at screens, and he is established as a receptor for the (small)
screened image. The archived ’78 script directions indicate (during the games
room sequence): “Pinball machines, electronic TV games, pool tables, table
tennis. Danny is blasting away at a Star Raiders game…”40.
Earlier script directions read:
DANNY’S VISION
“A Montage of shots which will include Jack talking to Ullman at the hotel,
and the POV shot of the car driving up to the hotel. The Images are stylized
in some special way. We will also see terrifying but unintelligible fragments of
sinister violence at the hotel. We will not recognise the people involved, nor
will we be sure what is happening.”41
These fragmented bursts of violent imagery to which Danny is subjected
recall the subjection of Alex to the intense bombardment fragmented violent
imagery in A Clockwork Orange. During The Shining’s games room sequence
Danny encounters the Grady twins for the first time, they are the first image
relayed and broadcast by the hotel and their repeated “Come and Play with us
Danny…” becomes akin to a televisual catchphrase. Later it is used in proxi-
mity to the dramatic jump cut to their mutilated bodies, recalling the juxta-
position of children, play and violence signified through Kubrick’s interest in
animation. The Hotel is a broadcaster, a transmitter of the image, and each of
the Torrances become receiving satellites in the final third of the film, orbiting
the hotel, picking up its transmissions. This is not only true of Jack but also of
(“confirmed horror movie addict”) Wendy, who receives a range of “broadcast
images”: the “Manbearpig” and the “Guest” framed through a hotel room
doorway; the party guest with the axe wound to the head; and in the film’s
extended cut the Buñuelian skeletons in the deserted space of the ballroom
(Figures 9, 10 and 11). Ghosts, after all, may be read as synonyms for the
television42: simultaneously present and absent, an image or imprintand were
recognised as such in the work of the British sci-fi / horror television writer
Nigel Kneale43. These images are part of the hotel’s violent narrative and each
of the Torrances are in danger of being “absorbed” or written into it (as Jack
is shown to be at the end, in the final “Photograph” shot).
The film’s mise-en-scène also offers further evidence of the film’s televisua-
lity: the yellow carpet of the corridor which extendd into the hotel ballroom
(Figure 12) is patterned with squares, inside of which appear to be stars:
TV-like glowing cubes, an image again observed in the light fitting illumina-
ting the maze in the film’s finale and recalling the original conceptualisation
of the Monolith in 2001: A Space Odyssey.
In the article “Ted Kramer Has A Nightmare” Greg Keeler draws critical
comparison between The Shining and Kramer Vs. Kramer (Benton, 1979):
In The Shining Daddy has lost his job and has been forced to find a new one,
but this time the original job was not so glamourous (an English teacher) and
the new job is shaky to say the least (an erstwhile novelist-come-caretaker. And
Mom, Mrs Torrance, perhaps more realistically has chosen not to abandon the
little tyke for a brilliant career, but to stick out and help Dad with his.44
With The Shining reduced down in this way, the family-driven narrative of
the domestic television drama begins to emerge. Eyes Wide Shut also exhibits
an identifiable televisual identity in its privileging of the home-space and its
domestic interior; its family narrative (the breakdown of communication,
42 The term “Ghost” has particular televisual resonance. “Ghosting” according to Jorma Hyypia
(“Beating Interference”, Popular Mechanics, June 1980, p. 126) refers to a replica of the TV
image, offset and superimposed on top of the actual broadcast video image, it’s caused by the
TV signal making its way to the antennae by two different paths causing problems in the time
of its arrival. It causes the image to become distorted, uncanny.
43 Kneale is a recognised influence over author Stephen King and certainly a figure Kubrick
might have been aware of (the influence is certainly felt in The Shining). His TV plays deals
with the Ghost/TV image juxtaposition and with television as a haunted space. This is most
clearly evident in the 1972 BBC2 television play The Stone Tape in which the spectre of a maid
servant is pronounced as is through a degraded video image –this has also been noted By
Stacey Abbot and Lorna Jowett, TV Horror: Investigating the Darker Side of the Small Screen,
London, I.B. Tauris, 2013, p. 94.
44 Greg Keeler, “Ted Kramer Has a Nightmare”, Journal of Popular Film and Television, Vol. 8,
1981, p. 3.
208 Matthew Melia
45 A. Costa, The 90s Sitcom Establishing Shot - A Dying Art Form, 23/11/2010. https://stevebusce-
mifanfiction.wordpress.com/2010/11/23/the-90s-sitcom-establishing-shot-a-dying-artform/.
Last viewed: 22/11/2017.
Stanley Kubrick at the Interface of film and television 209
50 Luke Ottenhoff, “The Young Pope is Kubrick for Millenials”, A. Side, 13/2/2017. http://onth-
easide.com/culture/the-young-pope-is-kubrick-for-millennials/. Last Viewed: 22/11/2017.
51 Not least in Season 3, Episode 5: “Contorno”, in which a violent, climactic fight between
Jack Crawford (Laurence Fishburne) and Hannibal Lecter (Mads Mikkelsen) is staged in slow
motion to the overture from Rossini’s opera, The Thieving Magpie, A Clockwork Orange.
52 Zach Dionne “Bryan Fuller Explains Hannibal’s Nod to The Shining”, Vulture, 5/05/2013.
http://www.vulture.com/2013/04/bryan-fuller-explains-shining-homage.html. Last Viewed:
22/11/2017.
53 Ibid.
212 Matthew Melia
54 Film scholar, Kubrick researcher and co-convener of the conference Stanley Kubrick, Nouveaux
Horizons, Université Bordeaux Montaigne, 16/05/17 - 17/05/17.
55 Vincent Jaunas, “Inside the Interpretive Maze of The Shining”, in Vincent Jaunas and Jean-
François Baillon, op. cit., 2018, p. 76.
56 Kubrick’s films are full of children who attempt to break their programming: HAL, Alex,
Private Pile, even David in Spielberg’s 2001 “adaptation” of Kubrick’s own unmade A.I.:
Artificial Intelligence.
57 Stephen Mamber, “Kubrick in Space”, in Kolker R. (ed.), 2001: A Space Odyssey, New Essays,
NYC, OUP USA, 2006 p. 58.
58 Ibid., p. 59.
Stanley Kubrick at the Interface of film and television 213
Dr Matthew Melia
Kingston University, UK
M.Melia@kingston.ac.uk
Abstract
This essay explores and posits Stanley Kubrick’s relationship to the medium of television
through a close reading of a selection of films (2001, The Shining and Eyes Wide Shut) and
an analysis and observation of the presence of televisions, the act of television watching and
the appropriation of TV aesthetics into this most cinematic of oeuvres. This is the first time
such a study has been undertaken and the essay draws upon a body of research carried out at
the Stanley Kubrick Archive, London. In part 2 of the essay, I further examine the position
of Kubrick at the interface of film and television by offering critical discussion of the current
Cinematic, auteur led “Spectacular” TV revolution and Kubrick’s status as a key point of
stylistic reference, homage and appropriation.
Keywords
Kubrick, television, communication, broadcast, inter-textuality.
59 Ibid., p. 56.
214 Matthew Melia
Résumé
Cet article envisage la relation entretenue par Stanley Kubrick avec le médium télévisuel à
travers l’analyse détaillée de trois de ses films (2001, Shining et Eyes Wide Shut) ainsi que
l’étude et l’observation quant à la présence de télévisions, de personnages regardant la télévi-
sion et de l’appropriation de l’esthétique télévisuelle dans cette œuvre si cinématographique.
Cette approche est inédite et se base sur un ensemble de recherches effectuées aux Archives
Stanley Kubrick de Londres. Dans une seconde partie, nous examinons la position kubric-
kienne à l’interface du cinéma et de la télévision en proposant une discussion critique centrée
sur l’actuelle révolution télévisuelle, davantage spectaculaire et auteuriste, et sur le statut
central de Kubrick, générant références stylistiques, hommages et appropriations.
Mots-clés
Kubrick, télévision, communication, médias, inter-textualité.
Stanley Kubrick at the Interface of film and television 215
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE
Matthew Melia is a senior lecturer in film and TV at Kingston University, UK. He has
research interests in the work of Kubrick and Ken Russell and the role of space and architecture
in visual culture. His PhD was on Architecture and Cruelty in the work of Samuel Beckett,
Antonin Artaud and Jean Genet.
216 Matthew Melia
Figure 1 Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Stanley Kubrick at the Interface of film and television 217
Figures 5 and 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
218 Matthew Melia
Figure 9 Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12
Figure 13 Figure 14
Stanley Kubrick at the Interface of film and television 219
Figures 15 and 16
Figure 17 Figure 18
Figure 19 Figure 20
Figure 21
From “boy genius” to “barking loon”:
an analysis of Stanley Kubrick’s
mythology1
Filippo Ulivieri
1 This essay is a revised and expanded version of a talk I presented at “Stanley Kubrick : Nouveaux
Horizons”, an international conference at the Université Bordeaux Montaigne, France, on
16-17 May, 2017. I would like to thank the organisers, Vincent Jaunas and Jean-François Baillon,
for accepting my proposal.
2 Tim Cahill, “The Rolling Stone Interview: Stanley Kubrick”, Rolling Stone, n. 507, 27 August 1987, (http://
www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/the-rolling-stone-interview-stanley-kubrick-in-1987-20110307)
last accessed 6 October 2017.
3 Gene Siskel, “Candidly Kubrick”, Chicago Tribune, 21 June 1987, p. 4.
4 Jack Kroll, “1968: Kubrick’s Vietnam Odyssey”, Newsweek, n. 109.26, 29 June 1987, p. 65.
5 Jay Cocks, “Kubrick: Degrees of Madness”, Time, n. 98.25, 20 December 1971, p. 85.
6 Richard Schickel, “Kubrick’s Grandest Gamble”, Time, n. 106.24, 15 December 1975, p. 75.
7 Gene Siskel, op. cit., p. 4.
222 Filippo Ulivieri
8 Hellmuth Karasek, “Sind Sie ein Misanthrop, Mr. Kubrick?”, Der Spiegel, n. 41, 5 October
1987, p. 238. English translation by the author.
From “boy genius” to “barking loon”: an analysis of Stanley Kubrick’s mythology 223
9 The dichotomy between “the mythological filmmaker” and “the real man” has permeated all
the Kubrick literature, and the trope “the man behind the myth” has been attached to Kubrick,
too, even before his death. Cf. Vincent LoBrutto, Stanley Kubrick. A Biography, New York,
Donald I. Fine Books, 1997, p. 1; in a prologue titled “The Myth of the Reclusive Auteur”,
LoBrutto writes: “Kubrick’s notorious secrecy, obsessive perfectionism, and ever-widening
chasm between films have created a torrent of apocryphal stories, producing a mythology more
than a man.” The authors who have touched Kubrick’s public persona in their studies so far
have shared this perspective. Cf. David Church, “The ‘Cult’ of Kubrick: Cult Cinema in the
Land of the Auteur”, Offscreen, n. 10.5, May 2006 (http://offscreen.com/view/cult_kubrick),
last accessed 9 October 2017; Kate Egan, “Precious footage of the auteur at work: framing,
accessing, using, and cultifying Vivian Kubrick’s Making the Shining”, New Review of Film
and Television Studies, n. 13.1, 2015, p. 63-82.
10 The words “perfectionist”, “mysterious,” “eccentric,” “megalomania,” “recluse,” ”demented,”
“control,” “controversial,” “secrecy,” “genius,” “obsessive,” “meticulous,” “enigma,” “hermetic,”
“shocked,” “demanding,” “tyranny,” “subversive,” “phobia” are just a few of those that flash in
quick succession at the very beginning of the film to the Kubrickian tune of Gioacchino Rossini’s,
La Gazza Ladra: Ouverture.
11 Jan Harlan has affirmed several times that this was the purpose of the documentary. See for
example Matthew Hays, “Life with Stanley”, Globe and Mail, 15 November 2001, p. R1: “the
main reason I wanted to make this film was to impress upon people that Stanley was not a lunatic.”
12 Mildred Stagg, “Camera Quiz Kid”, The Camera, October 1948, p. 37.
224 Filippo Ulivieri
“had turned nineteen a week [prior], and [had] been a staff photographer for
Look magazines since age seventeen.”13 Similar laudatory descriptions occur in
articles that appeared subsequently in American newspapers, as soon as Kubrick
left Look to pursue a filmmaking career.14 When his first feature film, Fear and
Desire (1953), financed independently, was acquired for national distribution
by Joseph Burstyn, Kubrick became a “wunderkind,”15 a “boy genius.”16
Conversely, in 1998, at the end of his life, Kubrick was described using very
harsh tones in an anonymous column in the English tabloid Punch featuring a
report from the set of Eyes Wide Shut (1999):
We’re hearing stories that suggest Kubrick is even more insane than psychia-
trists have led us to believe […] There’s a thin line between being an artistic
perfectionist and being a barking loon. Stanley has clearly crossed that line,
and then some.17
Kubrick’s 50-year journey from “boy genius” to “barking loon” is the
subject of this essay.
13 Ibid., p. 37.
14 Cf. Thomas M. Pryor, “Young Man With Ideas and a Camera”, The New York Times, 14 January
1951, p. X5; A.H. Weiler, “By Way of Report [Producer]”, The New York Times, 19 June 1952,
p. X3.
15 A.H. Weiler, “By Way of Report [Youths’ Entry]”, The New York Times, 15 March 1953, p. X5.
16 Arthur Juntunen, “Snap Hundreds, Says ‘Boy Genius’”, Detroit Free Press, 11 June 1953, p. 30.
More ensuing articles repeat the concept: Kubrick is defined “boy wonder” and again “wunder-
kind” in Laura Lee, “More Action, Less Talking in Movies”, The Sunday Bulletin [Philadelphia],
26 July 1953, p. 8, 10. Again the label “boy wonder” can be found in Simon Burgin, “29 And
Running, the Director With Hollywood by the Horns… Dissects the movies”, Newsweek,
n. 50.23, 2 December 1957, p. 96-97. Finally, in Will Jones, “Boy Genius Holds His Own
Amid the Alumni”, Minneapolis Sunday Tribune, 15 March 1959, p. 3.
17 Anon., “Lowdown: Kubrick’s buzz word”, Punch, n. 60, 1-13 August 1998, p. 4.
18 Cf. Mike McGrady, “Stanley Kubrick: a Filmmaker Obsessed”, Newsday, 11 February 1964,
p. 3C. The article summarises Kubrick’s obsession with the subject of nuclear war. In the end,
the reporter asked Kubrick what will his next picture be. Kubrick replied he did not know yet: “I
haven’t found anything I can get so obsessed with. It takes me two years: that’s too big a commit-
ment for something that may suddenly go flat. Other directors don’t work this way. Why should
they? They get the same money for working 12 weeks that they would get for two years. There’s
no reason to do it my way unless you are, as I said, obsessed. You must be obsessed.”
From “boy genius” to “barking loon”: an analysis of Stanley Kubrick’s mythology 225
19 Nick James, “At home with the Kubricks”, Sight & Sound, n. 9.9, September 1999, p. 12-18.
20 Ibid., p. 14.
21 Ibid., p. 12.
22 The new course in media management happened very quickly, almost instantaneously. So
highly felt must have been the need to present a truer account of the director’s persona that
at the end of March 1999, three mere weeks since Kubrick’s death, his widow Christiane
opened her own website, then available at the address http://www.eyeswideshut.com/ck/, and
wrote: “On this website I intend to take the opportunity to confirm the truths about Stanley
and correct the inaccuracies, at least the gross ones.” As she later admitted, “Shortly after
the funeral a few things happened that made me think I ought to have a website so I could
immediately write back, but then Warners and Rick Senat said, ‘Be very careful, you’ll reap
the whirlwind if you do that’ […] I would have been very stupid to blurt out any and every
indignation I felt and they quite correctly warned me not to do it.” Cf. Nick James, op. cit.,
p. 15-16. In fact, Christiane only used the website to criticise Frederic Raphael’s book, Eyes
Wide Open. The Kubricks chose to use traditional media instead and inaugurated their new
strategy by asking journalist Peter Warren to “write an article designed to correct the myth
which has built up around Stanley Kubrick.” Cf. Peter Warren, “Let’s tackle some of the more
ridiculous lies straight away”, Scotland on Sunday, 11 July 1999, and Peter Warren, “Myths and
the legend of Kubrick”, The Express, 11 July 1999. Then the Kubricks summoned reporters to
cover virtually all the major European countries. Cf. Leonetta Bentivoglio, “Definire Stanley
un genio era una scusa per insultarlo”, La Repubblica, 22 August 99; Urs Jenny, Martin Wolf,
“Er war einfach schüchtern”, Der Spiegel, n. 35, 30 August 99; Serge Kaganski, “Madame K”,
Les Inrockuptibles Hors Série, September 1999; Dalya Alberge, “Window opens world’s eyes
226 Filippo Ulivieri
to the real Stanley Kubrick”, The Times, 4 September 1999 (abridged in the international
editions with an even more catchy title: “The Kubrick I knew was no monster”); Danae Brook,
“I’m sick of all these lies about my husband. They wounded him so much”, The Mail on
Sunday, 12 September 1999; Eric Dahan, “Stanley était ridiculement optimiste”, Libération,
15 September 1999; Jean-Luc Wachthausen, “Christiane Kubrick: ‘Stanley n’était pas
sociable’”, Le Figaro, 15 September 1999; Patrick Amory, “Dans l’intimité de Stanley Kubrick”,
Paris Match, #2626, 23 September 1999. During the summer the Kubricks also invited docu-
mentarian Paul Joyce, interestingly the same director who made the negatively-biased docu-
mentary The Invisible Man, to interview the family for his film The Last Movie: Stanley Kubrick
and Eyes Wide Shut, broadcast on Channel Four on 5 September 1999. The Kubricks’ attack
against the mythology culminated with the self-produced documentary Stanley Kubrick: A Life
in Pictures. I would argue that this new course has not been entirely successful: my impression
is that there might now be two distinct images of Kubrick, one exemplified by the mythology,
which still persists, and one stemmed from the glaringly positive depictions of Kubrick that
the members of his family and his closest collaborators have been offering in interviews since
he died –perhaps a new mythology in itself.
23 Nick James, op. cit., p. 14.
24 Ibid., p. 16.
25 Frederic Raphael, Eyes Wide Open. A Memoir of Stanley Kubrick, New York, Ballantine Books,
1999; John Baxter, Stanley Kubrick. A Biography, New York, Carroll & Graf, 1997.
From “boy genius” to “barking loon”: an analysis of Stanley Kubrick’s mythology 227
26 Paul Joyce, The Invisible Man, Lucida Productions, 1996, originally broadcast on Channel 4 on
20 June 1996.
27 Ibid.
28 Ibid.
29 Ibid.
30 Paul Joyce, producer and director of The Invisible Man, maintains that his film is critical of
Kubrick but fair. Joyce, an artist and a filmmaker himself, says he wanted to make a docu-
mentary about Kubrick because he was fascinated by the “incredible power” he had managed
to obtain in the industry. His concept behind the invisible man was “to cover Kubrick with
something so that we could see, the shape you know, what’s there? Maybe there’s nothing
there. Maybe it’s all The Emperor’s New Clothes.” Filippo Ulivieri, Interview with Paul Joyce,
10 September 2017.
228 Filippo Ulivieri
have anything new about Kubrick after Full Metal Jacket, they exaggerated
what they knew for the sake of creating a juicy story, in a decade increasingly
devoted to gossip and celebrity cult.
This escalated so much that, apparently, in his later years, Kubrick was
“starting to worry about it, and minding the maliciousness and inaccuracy”31
of what appeared in the press.
Indeed, the “barking loon” article is significant not only because it stands at
the farthest point of the spectrum, but also because it succeeded in achieving
something unprecedented: Kubrick sued Punch magazine. Prior to this, at
most, he had written a few letters to the editors, and only to defend his films
–most notably A Clockwork Orange (1971) from the accusation of being
a fascist movie.32 Kubrick never cared to defend himself but, when Punch
questioned his very sanity, when it claimed that he was clinically insane, he
took the magazine to court for libel.33
New Yorker profile,34 Gene Siskel of the Chicago Tribune,35 and Lloyd Grove of
The Washington Post,36 among others. The same happened with the publications
that sought Kubrick’s cooperation: we have drafts of Jerome Agel’s The Making
of Kubrick’s 2001 and Alexander Walker’s Stanley Kubrick Directs, extensively
amended by Kubrick, who checked these texts very carefully, clearly considering
them as opportunities to promote his films and himself.37
Despite what has been said, Kubrick did talk to journalists. I collected
almost 350 reports containing original quotes by Kubrick, given to international
media over the course of his 50 years of work, from brief press releases to
lengthy, articulate pieces. For a director who only made 13 films, certainly it
is not a small amount. The myth that Kubrick never gave interviews is simply
not true.38
34 Cf. Jeremy Bernstein, “Newton’s Rings. Memories of Stanley Kubrick”, London Review of
Books, April 1999. “My interviews were done before tape recorders were commonplace. I
certainly didn’t have one. Kubrick did. He did all his script-writing by talking into it. He said
that we should use it for the interviews. Later on, when I used a quote from the tape he didn’t
like, he said: ‘I know it’s on the tape, but I will deny saying it anyway.’ I had sent him the
galleys of the articles before publication and they came back to me marked with numerous
corrections in ink. This was followed by a phone call. He said the profile was terrible and that
if the ending came out in its present form he would never speak to me again. […] I had ended
my profile with this story. I met him at the studio in Elstree to discuss the ending. ‘Look at
it,’ he said, ‘you get all the good adjectives. ‘I get nothing but shitty adjectives.’ ‘OK,’ I said,
we’ll take all the adjectives out and divide them up so we both get the same number of good
an shitty adjectives.’ That is what we did. We put them on slips of paper and divided them up
evenly. That is how they appear in the published profile.” Bernstein’s profile was “How about
a little game?” The New Yorker, #42, 12 November 1966, p. 70-110.
35 Cf. Gene Siskel, “Kubrick’s Creative Concern”, Chicago Tribune, 13 February 1972, p. L3:
“Before I could start my tape recorder, he began saying how he hopes the article I will write will
turn out. Once a director… He says he doesn’t want it to contain only or primarily his words.
If that is the case, he explains, it will turn out to be like an article he had neglected to write
and now had hastily conceived. He stresses he does not want two or more of his answers strung
together for the sake of reading simplicity. If that is done, he explains, it will leave the reader
with the impression that Kubrick has logorrhea. Furthermore, he asks if I had been informed
[I had] that he wants to edit any quotes of his I plan to use. It’s not so much that he doesn’t
want to be caught making an untoward remark, he explains, it is that he cares about what he
says. [The changes he made bear that out.]”
36 Cf. Lloyd Grove, “Stanley Kubrick, at a Distance”, The Washington Post, 28 June 1987, p. F5:
“Midinterview, Kubrick requests to see a transcript of his quotes. He wants to make sure that he
can recognize his voice. Some days later, after 18 pages of transcript are dispatched to London,
he sends back 28 pages of corrections. He insists during a subsequent discussion that he has no
interest in appearing spontaneous in an interview, that he sounds inarticulate to himself that
that’s not the way he talks. (A few of his suggestions were incorporated into this piece.)”
37 Cf. Jerome Agel, annotated drafts of The Making of Kubrick’s 2001, Stanley Kubrick Archive,
University of the Arts London, SK/12/5/47; annotated drafts of Stanley Kubrick Directs,
Fondo Walker, Cineteca del Friuli, Gemona (Udine).
38 We may amend the definition of recluse that Anya Kubrick gave: recluse is not someone who
doesn’t talk to journalists but someone who doesn’t go to celebrity events.
230 Filippo Ulivieri
39 Inviting reporters at he studio is a common practice, in use during the making of Paths of
Glory, Spartacus, and Lolita as well. What sets Dr. Strangelove and 2001 apart is that the report-
ers didn’t only do cast and crew interviews but were given a guided tour of the sets and were
invited to read portions of the script.
40 Still, with an average of 15 to 25 interviews for his later films, Kubrick can’t really be defined
an inaccessible filmmaker.
From “boy genius” to “barking loon”: an analysis of Stanley Kubrick’s mythology 231
Two years later, in 1953 when Fear and Desire debuted, for a New York
Post reporter the wunderkind had already become a “star” even if his casual
look didn’t match his new stature: an “unconventionally garbed, sensitive,
brown-eyed youth with a mop of unkempt dark hair.”46 Articles from this year
combine expertise –a “new all-around movie wizard,”47 a “factotum”48– with
modesty: a reporter said that, “Unlike most youthful prodigies [Kubrick] is
quiet spoken and graciously modest. He has his snare of self-confidence but
he keeps it to himself.”49
In 1957, when Paths of Glory opened, the New York Times found Kubrick
a “slightly elusive, seemingly diffident young man who talks little, wears dark
suits in the bright sunshine on Canon Drive, and makes astonishing movies.”50
The same year, an Esquire profile called Kubrick “a phenomenon” and
noted how his “air of self-confidence has been commented upon by everyone
who has known him.” After adding that he was “genuinely sloppy [with] a
constitutional inability to match his clothes,” the profile also reaffirmed that
“While not exactly a recluse, Kubrick tends to keep to himself.” Kubrick’s
unusual frugality was also addressed in detail:
He doesn’t own, or rent, a Beverly Hills home, doesn’t have a swimming pool.
His only conspicuous piece of property is a small black Mercedes he brought
back with him from Germany. He rents furnished rooms, and moves from one
to another, carrying with him the stack of books he is currently going through.
He doesn’t collect anything, and never buys anything he doesn’t need.51
In another article we can read words such as “sureness,” “awareness,”
“guiding perception often not duplicated in directors twice his age and many
times his experience,” “a quiet but determined young man, not easily deterred
from his objective. He is polite, he listens, he offers his own point of view
–then he goes ahead and shoots it his way.”52 “Self-assurance, in fact, is the
personality trait most apparent in this intense and dark-browed young man,”
wrote another reporter, who called Kubrick “Indomitable.”53
46 Irene Thirer, “Kubrick Another Boy Film Producer”, New York Post, 27 March 1953, p. 58.
47 Anon., “Sultry New Siren and New All-Around Movie Wizard Spark ‘Fear and Desire’”, People
Today, 8 April 1953, p. 58-60.
48 Samuel L. Singer, “24-Year-Old Is ‘Factotum’ Of New Film”, The Philadelphia Inquirer, 26 July
1953, p. 16.
49 Alton Cook, “Non-Pro Features May Set a Trend”, New York World Telegram, undated clipping
found in the Stanley Kubrick Archive, SK/5/4, most likely from April 1953.
50 Joanne Stang, “Film Fan to Film Maker”, The New York Times Magazine, 12 October 1958,
p. 34.
51 Hollis Alpert, “Tell Me, Who is Kubrick?”, Esquire, July 1958, p. 44-47.
52 Dick Williams, “Stan Kubrick’s Mettle Tested by ‘Spartacus’”, Mirror [Los Angeles], 21 September
1960.
53 Eugene Archer, “Hailed in Farewell”, The New York Times, 2 October 1960, p. X9.
From “boy genius” to “barking loon”: an analysis of Stanley Kubrick’s mythology 233
When Spartacus (1960) was about to open, we see a first change: a newspaper
wrote Kubrick “had a reputation for trouble,”54 possibly because the friction
with Kirk Douglas had leaked from the set, or simply as an embellishment of
his determination. In any case, until 1964 Kubrick’s image was fundamentally
that of an unusual and potentially controversial but ultimately benign
presence within the film industry:55 an interesting rising filmmaker with a
strong personality and a few bizarre but innocuous eccentricities that were the
standard mark of a genius. It is with the distribution of Dr. Strangelove that
Kubrick’s image altered dramatically.
The customary interview with The New York Times called Kubrick
an “argumentative director who, in his stormy career, has quarreled with
practically everyone.” The once enfant prodige had metamorphosed into an
“enfant terrible.”56 It is also during the production of this film that we find
the word “perfectionist” attached to Kubrick for the first time.57 Interestingly,
this change happened when Kubrick further expanded his control and began
taking charge of the marketing and promotion of his work.58
This then exploded with the making of 2001: A Space Odyssey: from
1966, when shooting was under way at the studio, Kubrick supervised the
publication of a number of articles in different media to raise awareness of his
film among the public.59 A multitude of press releases was also distributed,
describing the many technical innovations Kubrick devised and the futuristic
gadgetry used in the film.60
54 Alton Cook, “Kubrick Unshattered By $12 Million Epic”, New York World Telegram, undated
clipping found in a scrapbook in the Stanley Kubrick Archive, SK/9/2/1, most likely from
September 1960.
55 “Controversial” is the obvious tag attached to Lolita, the novel by Vladimir Nabokov that
Kubrick selected as his next film in 1958. The resulting picture, approved by the Production Code
Administration “for persons over 18 only,” proved to be less scandalous than the source novel.
56 Eugene Archer, “How to Learn to Love World Destruction”, The New York Times, 26 January
1964, p. X13.
57 Voice of Broadway column by Dorothy Kilgallen, retrieved as Anon., “Anthony Quinn Having
Ball in Paris”, The Washington Post, 23 August 1963, p. B11.
58 Again, like the presence of reporters on set, Kubrick’s interest in marketing and promotion is
something that can be traced back to Lolita when Kubrick employed famous photographer
Bert Stern to shoot sexy pictures of Sue Lyon for the film’s poster, but it is with Dr. Strangelove
that Kubrick gained reign over these areas, a process not entirely without frictions with
Columbia Pictures. For Dr. Strangelove Kubrick devised a highly imaginative campaign featur-
ing a trailer done by advertising genius Pablo Ferro using his revolutionary quick-cut tech-
nique, and a cartoon rendition of the film’s characters for the film’s poster. Cf. David Nylor,
Inside Dr. Strangelove, Columbia Pictures, 2000.
59 See for example: Anon., “Backstage Magic for a Trip to Saturn”, Popular Mechanics, April 1967.
60 Among these, the employment of closed-circuit television to check the actors’ performances
when they were inside the centrifuge and a video tape recording system to watch them minutes
after a take. Press releases covered the use of prototypes of “newspads” –basically what we now
know as tablets– and electronic dictaphones that can transcribe a speech.
234 Filippo Ulivieri
61 Victor Davis, “Only 33 years away –an air hostess on the moon!”, Daily Express, 29 March
1968, p. 7; “Tomorrow will decide if Kubrick has goofed”, Daily Express, 1 April 1968, p. 6;
“It’s a fantastic world –wrapped in reality”, Daily Express, 3 April 1968, p. 8; “Give me the
moon, baby…”, Daily Express, 16 April 1968, p. 7; “‘how to spend £4 million without even
trying’”, Daily Express, 17 April 1968, p. 6; “So who wants to die on the moon?”, Daily Express,
18 April 1968, p. 13.
62 Victor Davis, op. cit., 17 April 1968.
63 Ibid.
From “boy genius” to “barking loon”: an analysis of Stanley Kubrick’s mythology 235
stand flies and was informed that a plague of flies was imminent. And finally:
“He refuses to fly,” and “His chauffeur is not permitted to go above 25 miles
per hour.”64
We have found, I believe, the origin of the “usual Kubrick anecdotes.”
With such an outcome, one would think that Kubrick would have been
crossed with Victor Davis. Yet, in a letter he sent him in summer 1968,
Kubrick was very cordial and thanked him dearly for his work.65 Four years
later, Kubrick summoned Davis again and conceded him an interview for A
Clockwork Orange, where some of the same myths are reiterated.66 We have
not only found the origin of the Kubrick mythology, but also its originator.
Kubrick didn’t use a single journalist to shape his persona. The text that was
featured in the Clockwork Orange program was a profile by Alexander Walker
where Kubrick is called “enigmatic as the monoliths” in 2001 and “almost as
elusive,” a “hermit” keeping the world “always at a distance,” behind “gates
encrusted with verboten notices guarding his privacy.” Walker writes Kubrick is
“fanatical in preparing his films” even using “maps of the incoming flight paths
at the nearby airport. […] If this director takes infinite pains, he gives them
too. A Clockwork Orange demonstrated once again his ruthlessness in pursuit
of absolute authenticity.”67 It is worth remembering that Walker was not an
ordinary writer but one of the very few journalists that Kubrick trusted.68
A second program for A Clockwork Orange contained an editorial
biography that reads: “Kubrick’s reputation for control is legend. In addition
to producing, directing, and adapting A Clockwork Orange, he operated the
camera, lit the sets, was involved in every decision regarding casting, art
direction, scoring and mixing.”69 Combining the “control freak” myth and
some eccentricities, the Barry Lyndon press kit states: “There is only one boss
on a Stanley Kubrick film –that’s Stanley Kubrick.” A “painstaking genius”
of The Fight he “did everything himself, from directing to arranging the lights,
stands and reflectors.” Kubrick said he was certain he could do his next film
for $50,000, instead of the millions required by Hollywood standards. How?
The answer is carefully planning. We have worked out on paper every scene,
every shot. There will be no writers, producers, directors or art directors to
contend with. There won’t be any time lost in argument or discussion. There
will be only one boss –me.74
Basically, this survey of media reports and promotional profiles shows
variations on the same concepts. And it also reveals the mastermind behind
them. The 1950 news story marks the birth of an image that Kubrick nurtured
for 40 years. It started with the picture of a precocious, unusual, reserved but
determined young director and then evolved and expanded to incorporate
an obsessive drive, an uncompromising pursuit of perfection, a penchant for
secrecy, and a number of eccentricities.75
The most extreme example of Kubrick manipulating his own image, I
think, is given by Gordon Stainforth regarding the editing of the documentary
The Making of The Shining:
There were two sequences that we put together for Vivian’s documentary of
Stanley actually directing […] they showed him in a rather warm light and they
didn’t show him in that kind of aggressive light that has been rumored about.
[…] In our cut he was very warm and nice, and he wanted those scenes cut
out and what was left were the sequences of him shouting at Shelley [Duvall]
in the snow. It was almost as if he wanted that side of him to be shown and not
the side where he was very gentle and nice to his actors.76
I spoke with Jay Cocks, who met Kubrick in 1968 to write a profile for
Time magazine.77 He was also the author of that article were Kubrick dismissed
the myths as “your usual Kubrick anecdotes.” In those years, Cocks became
friendly with Kubrick and it’s interesting to see how a text written not by a
journalist but by a friend still repeats the mythology, and asserts “all the stories
are true.”78 Cocks said to me:
I was always very amused at this ‘mad genius’ stuff, and I can tell you for a
fact, Stanley thought it was pretty funny too, but –Cocks stressed this word
strongly– but he was aware of the publicity advantage of it. He constructed a
mysterious persona of himself. There was nothing mysterious about him. He
was just a wonderful, funny guy, a great companion.”79
“The wonderful, funny guy” is the image we are starting to appreciate
thanks to the people who are speaking about Kubrick since he died. But it was
definitely not his image while he was alive.
As Cocks suggested, the construction of a controversial image was done to
the benefit of the filmmaker: being a megalomaniac, perfectionist, obsessive,
reclusive and eccentric genius helped Kubrick find and keep a place in the
business. These are all positive, or captivatingly negative qualities. Having a
mystique was useful for his work –to hire actors, to secure collaborators, to
keep his independence, to turn his films into great occasions.
The “Crazy” part of the mythology was instead problematic. It was neither
created nor nurtured by Kubrick: it originated externally, and mostly in the
’90s, and it was this nasty part that worried him in his last decade, because
it was both offensive and damaging. And it was against these myths that he
consequently took action.80
wear. Then there are the stories about his mania for safety: how he will not ride in a car going
more than 30 m.p.h. (unless he is behind the wheel), and how he wore a special helmet while
working on some of the intricate 2001 sets.” Incidentally, we could consider this as a likely
origin for the “helmet inside the car” myth.
79 Filippo Ulivieri, Telephone interview with Jay Cocks, 29 March 2017.
80 It is intriguing to note that Christiane, Anya, Katharina and Jan Harlan protested against the
entirety of the Kubrick mythology, instead. What they said to reporters as a result of their new
course in media relationship questions how much they were aware of Kubrick’s intentions. For
example, the explanations Christiane gave for the “30 mph” and the “insecticide with an heli-
copter” myths to Sight & Sound clearly contradict what I believe was Kubrick’s strategy. The
Kubricks’ new course was indeed somewhat problematic. When a journalist asked Christiane
if Kubrick would have liked her speaking with the press, she sincerely replied: “No.” Cf.
Urs Jenny, Martin Wolf, op. cit. In addition to that, the Kubricks have implied that, taking
the chance of the publicity campaign of Eyes Wide Shut, had he not died, Kubrick would have
done something to counteract his increasingly peculiar image. We do not know what Kubrick
would have done, but some of those who worked closely with him don’t think he would have
changed a life-long attitude: Cf. Julian Senior quoted in Francesco Alò, Robert Bernocchi,
“Stanley Kubrick: una vita per il cinema”, Caltanet.it, September 2000. Indeed, according to
Michael Herr, Kubrick wanted him to write a “classy piece of P.R.” for Vanity Fair, inclusive of
an interview with him, Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman. Cf. Michael Herr, Kubrick, Picador,
2000, p. 66-68. If the similar pieces that were published to coincide with the opening of
Kubrick’s earlier films –Barry Lyndon in Time magazine, The Shining in Newsweek, Full Metal
Jacket in Newsweek and Rolling Stone– are an indication to what would have followed, it does
seem unlikely that we would have read something radically different: Kubrick consistently
selected those reporters who wrote extensively about the mythology. What we do know is that,
after Kubrick’s death, there is a quick decline in the number of media reports that drew from
the “Crazy” part, perhaps following the maxim that it is inappropriate to speak ill of the dead.
From “boy genius” to “barking loon”: an analysis of Stanley Kubrick’s mythology 239
81 This might be especially true for Kubrick, a director who worked within different genres
and explicitly said he tried not to repeat himself. Cf. Michel Ciment, “Entretien avec
Stanley Kubrick (sur ‘A Clockwork Orange’)”, Positif, n. 139, June 1972, English version in
Kubrick, New York, Faber and Faber, 2001, p. 153.
82 Cf. David Church, op. cit.: “By remaining intensely private and secretive on the fringes of
an industry built upon public exposure, the notion of Kubrick-as-auteur fostered a ‘cult of
personality’ by his very refusal to exploit the limelight occupied more comfortably by other
prominent directors.”
83 To give another example, Anthony Burgess, writer of A Clockwork Orange, was, according to
his biographer, “an author who is at some level engaged in creatively reimagining the history
of his own work.” Most likely, Burgess invented the mythology surrounding his infamous
work: his biographer didn’t find any evidence supporting either the incident upon which A
Clockwork Orange is said to be created (a catharsis for Burgess after his previous wife was
raped and subsequently died –a scene mirrored in the book) or the circumstance of its writing
(a way to provide for his family after Burgess was diagnosed with a brain tumour). Burgess
also constantly reported that the excision of the 21st chapter from his book was made by
his American editor, something that has been contradicted by documents in his archive. Cf.
Andrew Biswell, The Real Life of Anthony Burgess, London, Picador, 2005, p. 247-256.
84 This view was shared also by Warner Bros. publicity people. For example, Julian Senior,
European publicity director, insisted the mythology was “created outside of him and around
of him.” Cf. Paul Hughes, “A Clockwork lemon”, Punch, 5 September 1997, p. 7.
85 Laura Lee, op. cit.
240 Filippo Ulivieri
Filippo Ulivieri
filippo.ulivieri@gmail.com
Abstract
If a general member of the public is asked who Stanley Kubrick was, the answer would likely
feature such expressions: a master technician, an unrelenting perfectionist, a tyrannical boss
for his cast and crew, an obsessive genius, a cryptic auteur, a man progressively alienated from
the physical world, rarely conceding interviews, never seen in public, sitting “in the dark,
surrounded by computers and machines, controlling the Earth. Doctor Mabuse No. 2” –as
Kubrick himself quipped in an interview.
Despite Kubrick’s repeated attempts to counteract the most extreme aspects of such a peculiar
public persona, and despite the new, largely positive insights into his personality and modus
operandi that have been offered by the members of the Kubrick family and his closest collabo-
rators since he died, this mythological image of Stanley Kubrick stuck in the people’s imagi-
nation and is still largely believed.
86 Stanley Kubrick, “Why Sue (“Lolita”) Lyon was guarded as if actress were an atomic secret”,
Lolita Exhibitor’s Campaign Book, MGM, 1962.
87 Ibid.
From “boy genius” to “barking loon”: an analysis of Stanley Kubrick’s mythology 241
Yet, no systematic study has been attempted so far. The mythology has simply gone unques-
tioned, as something that followed and troubled Kubrick, and whose origin are to be placed
somewhere in the media, sometime in the past.
This essay investigates into the Kubrick mythology for the first time, with the aim to explore
the birth and the development of Kubrick’s public persona, to study how and why such a
mythology came to light, where its building blocks were first introduced, and how it changed
throughout the years.
By surveying news stories that have been published in American and English media from
1948, the year of Kubrick’s first interview as a photographer, to 1999, the year the director
died, this essay chronicles Kubrick’s 50-year journey from “boy genius” to “barking loon” and
takes a new look into the role the director played in marketing himself with the audience and
within the film industry.
Keywords
Kubrick, marketing, promotion, interviews, film.
Résumé
Demandez au public qui était Stanley Kubrick, et il vous répondra probablement: un techni-
cien hors-pair, un perfectionniste insatiable, un patron tyrannique pour son entourage et son
équipe, un génie obsessionnel, un auteur cryptique, un homme de plus en plus isolé du monde
réel ne donnant jamais d’interviews, jamais aperçu en public; « sitting in the dark, surrounded
by computers and machines, controlling the Earth. Doctor Mabuse, n°02 », plaisanta Kubrick
lui-même en interview.
Malgré les tentatives répétées de la part du cinéaste d’aller à l’encontre des aspects les plus
excessifs de cette persona si étrange, et malgré les nouveaux commentaires, essentiellement
positifs, quant à sa personnalité et à son modus operandi que fournirent depuis le décès de
Kubrick des membres de sa famille ainsi que ses plus proches collaborateurs, l’image mythique
de Stanley Kubrick endure dans l’imaginaire collectif et continue à être partagée par le plus
grand nombre.
Aucune analyse systématique n’a néanmoins été entreprise jusqu’à maintenant. Cette mytho-
logie reste, sans remise en cause, perçue telle une chose qui a suivi et dérangé Kubrick et dont
les origines sont à chercher du côté des médias, à un moment indécis.
Cet article interroge pour la première fois la mythologie Kubrick, dans le but d’explorer la
naissance et le développement de la persona du cinéaste afin de comprendre comment et
pourquoi elle vit le jour, comment elle se construisit et évolua à travers les ans.
A travers l’étude des articles publiés dans les médias américains et britanniques depuis 1948,
année de la première interview de Kubrick (alors photographe) et jusqu’à 1999, l’année de
son décès, cette étude recense 50 ans de perception du cinéaste, de ses débuts en tant « boy
genius » à son statut de « barking loon », et réévalue le rôle du réalisateur lui-même dans le
façonnement de son image auprès du public et de l’industrie cinématographique.
Mots-clés
Kubrick, marketing, promotion, interviews, film.
242 Filippo Ulivieri
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE
Filippo Ulivieri is a writer and teacher of film theory. He is the leading expert in Kubrick’s
cinema in Italy: his features on the director’s career have appeared in several international news-
papers and magazines. He is author of the biography of Emilio D’Alessandro, Stanley Kubrick
and Me (Arcade, 2016) and co-scenarist of Alex Infascelli’s documentary S is for Stanley
(2015).
Numéros parus
Numéro 1 Varia
Numéro 2 Aux marges de l’humain
Études réunies par Jean-Paul Engélibert
Numéro 3 Narration et lien social
Études réunies par Brice Chamouleau
et Anne-Laure Rebreyend
Hors série L’estrangement
Retour sur un thème
de Carlo Ginzurg
Études réunies par Sandro Landi
Numéro 4 Éducation et humanisme
Études réunies par Nicole Pelletier
et Dominique Picco
ESSAIS
dédiés à la mémoire
Études réunies par Hélène Camarade
Hors série Création, créolisation, créativité
Études réunies par Hélène Crombet
Numéro 7 Normes communiquées, normes communicantes
Logiques médiatiques et travail idéologique
Études réunies par Laetitia Biscarrat
et Clément Dussarps
Numéro 8 Erreur et création
Études réunies par Myriam Metayer
et François Trahais
Numéro 9 Résister entre les lignes
Arts et langages dissidents dans les pays
hispanophones au XXe siècle
Études réunies par Fanny Blin
et Lucie Dudreuil
Numéro 10 Faire-valoir et seconds couteaux
Sidekicks and Underlings
Études réunies par Nathalie Jaëck et Jean-Paul Gabilliet
Hors série Usages critiques de Montaigne
Études réunies par Philippe Dessan et Véronique Ferrer
Numéro 11 Fictions de l’identité
Études réunies par Magali Fourgnaud
Numéro 12 Textes et contextes : entre autonomie et dépendance
Études réunies par Maria Caterina Manes Gallo
Numéro 13 Écologie et Humanités
Études réunies par Fabien Colombo, Nestor Engone Elloué
et Bertrand Guest
Hors série Stanley kubrick. Nouveaux horizons
Études réunies par Vincent Jaunas et Jean-François Baillon
9 791097 024048