Showing posts with label Stanley Kubrick. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Stanley Kubrick. Show all posts

Monday, July 18, 2011

Welcome to my breakdown

Looking at some famous movie-breakdowns and engaging in some general acting-out on this steamy Monday in the south.

I have helpfully catalogued some of my favorite nervous breakdowns in films.

Comments welcome, and feel free to link your own personal favorite personality-disintegrations on celluloid!

~*~

All alcoholics love this scene ... did he drink or not? Is a phantom bottle of bourbon as damaging as a real one?

Aside: I just love how Stephen King works in references to Maine in everything he does.



~*~

I have written about Roman Polanski's Repulsion before, and how great it is, despite my various "issues" with it (see link).

Here we see that Catherine Deneuve has totally lost her shit, and is afraid of a drippy faucet. As a result, big male hands start coming out of the walls... JESUS H CHRIST! If you are a woman, do not watch this at night, alone at home. (triggers and so on)



~*~

Unfortunately, embedding is disabled for this clip (as well as all of the others) of Charles Foster Kane's famous flip-out when Susan finally departs... but check those famous mirrors at 3:27... everybody stole from Orson Welles. I know most of the lines of the movie by heart.

~*~

In John Ford's The Searchers, Nietzsche's idea that in hunting monsters we must take care not to become monsters ourselves, is given a very good once-over. Although most Hollywood Westerns of the day were morally righteous and fairly unambiguous, this one sure isn't, and consequently didn't make a lot of money at the time. No one wanted to see John Wayne freak out, even in his controlled, macho fashion. It was UNBECOMING. And it is therefore vindication that the movie is now a classic. John Wayne's hyper-masculine cowboys (and impersonal characterizations) have not dated as well as his heartfelt, complex and true performance in the role of Ethan... which BTW, is also the name of one of John Wayne's sons.

Things to look for: 1) Racist or not, when they zoom in on young Lucy's face (19-20 seconds in) and she looks terrified and screams? I have never seen the fear of rape communicated so clearly and realistically in a film. (I realize it is supposed to be much worse than garden-variety rape by white men, but I still think the whole scene is primal.) As a young woman, it scared me to death. 2) Natalie Wood's sister Lana plays young Natalie as a girl, which accounts for the strong resemblance. 3) Notice the first part of this clip closely matches up with Mary McDonnell's childhood trauma in "Dances With Wolves"--wherein she is instructed to run away when the house is attacked by Pawnee. 4) Also notice at 2:33, the similarity to Luke Skywalker's home being destroyed; the scene is almost exactly the same. Both #3 and #4 are deliberate homages to the film. 5) Scene @ 4:45-- me and Mr Daisy sometimes say, "Put an Amen to it!"--when the situation requires. 6) When John Wayne desecrates the Indian corpse? (7:30) Viewers suddenly realize this isn't the John Wayne we're accustomed to.

It also shows us that he is becoming (or has become) the monster Nietzsche warned us about. A strongly subversive film, for its day.



~*~

I can't pick just one scene in The Conversation... so I hereby offer the trailer. If you have never seen this amazing movie, you need to rent it ASAP. Gene Hackman's finest hour, Coppola's mesmerizing genius; this is movie-making at its most wonderful. Hackman perfectly embodies an emotionally-repressed surveillance expert with a guilty Catholic conscience. Too great for words, and more pertinent than ever, in our cameras-everywhere age.

Stuff to look for: 1) Harrison Ford at 2:12; he has maybe 3 lines in the whole movie. 2) Teri Garr's scene was cut for first release, then put back in for DVD. As much as I love Teri Garr, the film is much stronger without her scene. Harry is a loner, and it is far more effective to think of him as not having a girlfriend, or anything approximating one. His infatuation with Cindy Williams also makes more sense if he is alone.



~*~

And the all-time greatest: "Here is someone who stood up."

I know ALL of the lines of Taxi Driver by heart. Every one. I enjoy injecting them into various conversations without people knowing who/what I am quoting.

But every now and then, someone says, "Travis!"

Nothing much to say about Travis... you either understand him or you don't.



Today's blog post title comes courtesy of Alice Cooper.

Tuesday, November 9, 2010

Can you imagine how *I* feel about it, Dmitri?

You know how we've always talked about the possibility of something going wrong with the Bomb? The Bomb, Dmitri... The hydrogen bomb!... Well now, what happened is... ahm... one of our base commanders, he had a sort of... well, he went a little funny in the head... you know... just a little... funny. And, ah... he went and did a silly thing... Well, I'll tell you what he did. He ordered his planes... to attack your country... Ah... Well, let me finish, Dmitri... Let me finish, Dmitri... Well listen, how do you think I feel about it?... Can you imagine how I feel about it, Dmitri?... Why do you think I'm calling you? Just to say hello?... Of course I like to speak to you!... Of course I like to say hello!... Not now, but anytime, Dmitri. I'm just calling up to tell you something terrible has happened... It's a friendly call. Of course it's a friendly call... Listen, if it wasn't friendly... you probably wouldn't have even got it... They will not reach their targets for at least another hour... I am... I am positive, Dmitri... Listen, I've been all over this with your ambassador. It is not a trick... Well, I'll tell you. We'd like to give your air staff a complete run-down on the targets, the flight plans, and the defensive systems of the planes... Yes! I mean i-i-i-if we're unable to recall the planes, then... I'd say that, ah... well, ah... we're just gonna have to help you destroy them, Dmitri... I know they're our boys... All right, well listen now. Who should we call?... Who should we call, Dmitri? The... wha-whe, the People... you, sorry, you faded away there... The People's Central Air Defense Headquarters... Where is that, Dmitri?... In Omsk... Right... Yes... Oh, you'll call them first, will you?... Uh-huh... Listen, do you happen to have the phone number on you, Dmitri?... Whe-ah, what? I see, just ask for Omsk information... Ah-ah-eh-uhm-hm... I'm sorry, too, Dmitri... I'm very sorry... All right, you're sorrier than I am, but I am as sorry as well... I am as sorry as you are, Dmitri! Don't say that you're more sorry than I am, because I'm capable of being just as sorry as you are... So we're both sorry, all right?... All right.

~*~

Don't miss Dr Strangelove on Turner Classic Movies tonight. (Above dialogue by Terry Southern, whom I coincidentally mentioned here at DEAD AIR a few days ago.)

In Stanley Kubrick's now-classic anti-war film, the amazing Peter Sellers plays three different roles (with three different accents). He was so great, lots of people who never check movie credits do not even realize the three roles are played by same person. (Captain Mandrake, President Merkin Muffley, Dr Strangelove) Many British actors find it nearly impossible to deliver a realistic-sounding flat-US-Midwestern accent (by contrast, southern accents are "fun" to do), but Sellers could do anything. His placid President is just perfect.

Slim Pickens, Sterling Hayden and George C. Scott are also terrific. The movie largely defies description, and every peacenik should see it multiple times! (And everyone else too, of course.)

~*~

I am still deliberating over last week's election (Dr Strangelove is perfect accompaniment), and sorting through all the post-mortems, teeth-gnashing and hand-wringing.

Some links I found especially pertinent and interesting:

Terrance at Republic of T has an in-depth four-part series titled The GOP’s Pyrrhic Victory: Why It Won’t Work. (I certainly hope he's right!) Read em all!

Check out Glenn Greenwald's The self-absorption of America's ruling class. And as Greenwald notes (see link), my Senator (and not the one you expect!) is now itching to start a war with Iran. (Saints preserve us.)

By way of fabulous Onyx Lynx (blows kisses!), I found Glenn W. Smith's post, rationally titled Why the Fear and Loathing? Excellent question.

Amanda Marcotte spins the election for the Guardian and I am not convinced. She seems to think the conservative Tea Party women did not do so well... apparently she hasn't visited South Carolina lately. If you had informed me even two years ago, that South Carolina would have a Woman of Color as governor in my lifetime? I'd have laughed at you.

This IS a sea change in politics, and the more liberals try to deny this, the longer the Tea Party will reign.

WAKE UP EVERYBODY, no more sleeping in bed.

Thursday, August 6, 2009

Lunar Eclipse last night makes us act weirdly today

Left: photo by NASA


There was a scantily-reported lunar eclipse last night, which the moon-watchers already wrote off as no big thing. Ha! Of course it is. Twitter is already down, for example. That'll teach people to underestimate the moon!

Oddly, I noticed the lunar event on my Hindu calendar; it wasn't noted on any of my "Western" calendars...

The penumbral eclipse occurred at 13 degrees of Aquarius at 8:55pm EDT. From A Pakistan News:


This is a unique lunar eclipse in that it’s the third lunar eclipse of the season, and second this summer.

For horoscope and astrology lovers, this rare occurrence will bring out the Aquarian influences in your life.

This full moon lunar eclipse brings the sun’s rays shining in its home sign of Leo ruling matters of creativity, children, playfulness, leisurely activities, and love affairs; while the Moon will occupy Aquarius, the sign known for its futuristic take on life, humanity, science, knowledge, and social groups.

While it’s possible that no major event may occur during this special time, your sensitivities are heightened as some lingering events may come to a close…quite unexpectedly.
The Twitter junkies are already flooding Facebook and will probably bring it down too. I admit, I hate being without my regular tweets from Turner Classic Movies and the New York Times, as well as my extremely cool droogs. Phooey...

But it is obvious to me, Twitter was all messed up by the moon. Yes, you cynical atheists and rationalists can sneer at me, but I KNOW what's up.

~*~

I am currently attempting a low-level detox, using THIS product (there's the commercial, Dr Lindsey!) and some very basic alfalfa, peppermint and dandelion-root tea. (Yes, the bathroom is my friend!) I am hoping to refocus my diet and get back to my former benchmark of 50% raw foods, which always makes me feel physically fantastic. I'd like to go higher (75% raw is my goal), but I never quite manage it. I end up lapsing and eating cheese tortellinis and potato samosas in extremis. Humans are not meant to forage indefinitely, or else we would be orangutans. Right?

When I do manage to transition to predominantly raw foods, I feel like the not-humans at the Dawn of Time in 2001: A Space Odyssey, gibbering and squabbling over the watering-hole: Gimme.

I feel "hungry" -- even when I'm technically not hungry. Perhaps (wo)man was not meant to live by weeds alone?

It's embarrassing to admit it, but the least little cooked thing grabs my attention and suddenly looks scrumptious, even boring combinations of lima beans and kale. Are we MEANT to eat cooked food? (And WHERE are the radical atheist evolutionists when I need to ask them a dietary question?)

I think the problem is--the standard American starchy diet leaves us filling "full" most of the time. This is not a normal state of affairs. When we start eating foods that are quickly digested, it feels strange, like hunger. But the stomach is MEANT to be empty sometimes; it's just that Americans have forgotten how to live that way.

One raw food that readily quells fake-hunger, almost-hunger and real hunger: nuts. (Are we supposed to be living on nuts and berries after all?) Also, chia seeds and pepitas. I love them all, of course (with the exception of meat, I haven't met any foods I truly dislike), but I do feel a bit like an orangutan or one of Stanley Kubrick's early not-humans: Get away from my cashews, now! (I foraged for them, go find your own!)

By contrast, when I go back to eating trash? I am very generous, here, have some Cheetos! Nah, go on, take the whole bag! (((preens at my own generosity)))

I figure this is some sort of evolutionary adaptation, since we have Cheetos in abundance.

Thursday, March 20, 2008

Arthur C. Clarke 1917-2008

At the beginning of The City and the Stars (1956), Alvin and his friends are on some type of outrageous adventure. They have just escaped the Cave of the White Worm and are winding through underground labyrinths. Then, next thing you know---what? The dream--is it a dream?--is over. But not before Alvin suggests they climb the Crystal Mountain. Why not?

Alystra, his love, is upset with him:

"Oh, Alvin!" she lamented, as she looked down at him from the wall in which she had apparently materialised. "It was such an exciting adventure! Why did you have to spoil it?"
Alvin's friend Callistron also shows up, to pile on. Callistron is similarly pissed:
"Now listen, Alvin," began Callistron. "This is the third time you've interrupted a saga. You broke the sequence yesterday, by wanting to climb out of the Valley of Rainbows. And the day before you upset everything by trying to get back to the Origin in that time-track we were exploring. If you don't keep the rules, you'll have to go by yourself."
And with that, we were hooked. Particularly those of us who didn't keep the rules and were always trying to climb out of the Valley of Rainbows. We UNDERSTOOD Alvin, instinctively. And we followed Alvin across the planet Diaspar and into deep space, where we grappled with the concepts of destiny, religion, mind, God, the future of humanity... all the major philosophical concepts packed into a dazzling story of space exploration and the upheaval of old civilizations.

Yes, said the book, this is for YOU, you nonconformist Alvins out there. I know who you are.

We knew who he was too, and upon hearing that Arthur C. Clarke had passed, I cried the way I've cried for relatives who had given me precious gifts of love and time; I felt he had done this for me. His work said to us: Here is the universe, go! CLIMB THE CRYSTAL MOUNTAIN!

The New York Times writes:
The author of almost 100 books, Mr. Clarke was an ardent promoter of the idea that humanity’s destiny lay beyond the confines of Earth. It was a vision served most vividly by “2001: A Space Odyssey,” the classic 1968 science-fiction film he created with the director Stanley Kubrick and the novel of the same title that he wrote as part of the project.

His work was also prophetic: his detailed forecast of telecommunications satellites in 1945 came more than a decade before the first orbital rocket flight.

Other early advocates of a space program argued that it would pay for itself by jump-starting new technology. Mr. Clarke set his sights higher. Borrowing a phrase from William James, he suggested that exploring the solar system could serve as the “moral equivalent of war,” giving an outlet to energies that might otherwise lead to nuclear holocaust.

Mr. Clarke’s influence on public attitudes toward space was acknowledged by American astronauts and Russian cosmonauts, by scientists like the astronomer Carl Sagan and by movie and television producers. Gene Roddenberry credited Mr. Clarke’s writings with giving him courage to pursue his “Star Trek” project in the face of indifference, even ridicule, from television executives.
Left: photo from Reuters, 2002.

It is fitting that Arthur C. Clarke left his mark in space itself.

In 1945, he wrote a hugely influential technical paper, published in the British journal Wireless World:
[The paper included] a series of diagrams and equations showing that “space stations” parked in a circular orbit roughly 22,240 miles above the equator would exactly match the Earth’s rotation period of 24 hours. In such an orbit, a satellite would remain above the same spot on the ground, providing a “stationary” target for transmitted signals, which could then be retransmitted to wide swaths of territory below. This so-called geostationary orbit has been officially designated the Clarke Orbit by the International Astronomical Union.

Decades later, Mr. Clarke called his Wireless World paper “the most important thing I ever wrote.” In a wry piece entitled, “A Short Pre-History of Comsats, Or: How I Lost a Billion Dollars in My Spare Time,” he claimed that a lawyer had dissuaded him from applying for a patent. The lawyer, he said, thought the notion of relaying signals from space was too far-fetched to be taken seriously.
And on this Maundy Thursday, let me say that I've always found it amazing that an atheist could write so movingly about religious faith and spiritual awe, as Clarke did in his short story The Star (1955):
Religion, and in particular religious faith, are central themes in ‘‘The Star.’’ The narrative is the interior monologue of the central character, a Jesuit astrophysicist. He is aboard a starship on a mission to investigate the causes of a supernova in a distant galaxy. He and the rest of the crew discover the artifacts of a highly developed civilization, carefully preserved on the only planet that remains in orbit around the supernova. Knowing that all life would be wiped out when their sun flared into a supernova, this race of sentient beings left a record of who they were and what they accomplished. The pictures, sculptures, music, and other relics of a very human-like race doomed to destruction depress the crew and investigating scientists, who are far from their own homes and lonely. What the narrator has learned but not yet communicated to the others is that the supernova that destroyed this civilization was the Star of Bethlehem, which burned brightly in the sky to herald the birth of Jesus Christ. His discovery has caused him to reexamine and to question his own faith.
As so many of us struggle to reconcile tragedy with God's will, Clarke took us seriously and respectfully--because he cared so passionately.

Goodbye dear friend, Sir Arthur Charles Clarke. A piece of heaven deserves to bear your name.

~*~

Entire text of The Star.