The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters - November 14, 2024


PREVIEW： The Career of Stanley Kubrick： Part III


Episode Stats

Length

43 minutes

Words per Minute

166.18517

Word Count

7,152

Sentence Count

330


Summary

In this episode of The Extra Secret, Cursed, Josh and Chloe discuss Stanley Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange and Barry Lyndon, two of the director's most famous works. They discuss Kubrick's failed projects: A Clockwork and Barry, and why this episode is cursed.


Transcript

00:00:00.440 Hello and welcome to the extra-secret, cursed third episode of our look into the life and works of Stanley Kubrick.
00:00:09.700 I'm joined today by our friend and guest, Chloe, at Proper Horror Show,
00:00:14.560 and Josh has returned again for this third episode where we're going to be discussing Clockwork Orange,
00:00:21.060 some of Kubrick's failed projects that he was trying to do between Clockwork Orange and what turned into Barry Lyndon,
00:00:27.280 which was Napoleon, and then we're going to be discussing Barry Lyndon in this episode.
00:00:31.120 If you are wondering why we seem somewhat high tension, why this episode is cursed,
00:00:36.880 and also why it is that this episode has taken so bloody long to come out,
00:00:40.960 well, this is the third time that we're recording it.
00:00:43.900 The second time today, the first time the audio was corrupted,
00:00:48.420 the second time we ran out of disk space, and now we're recording finally,
00:00:52.660 but there is a rogue and invincible fly in the studio.
00:00:56.440 I've genuinely shocked it twice, squashed it once, and it's still flying around.
00:01:02.500 I don't understand how it's even possible.
00:01:04.520 This fly has been designed by Miyazaki himself, and we're on the fourth phase.
00:01:08.840 This is kind of like Sword Slane Isshin in Sekiro,
00:01:12.160 so we can only hope that I can get a lightning counter on it at some point
00:01:15.800 and finally finish it off with a death blow.
00:01:18.200 But until then, if it flies about, you'll have to put up with it,
00:01:22.300 the same as we're putting up with it, I have a weapon with me, just in case.
00:01:26.720 But we will make do, as we shall.
00:01:30.440 So, let's start with the discussion of A Clockwork Orange again.
00:01:36.000 Endless reshoots.
00:01:37.200 Endless reshoots.
00:01:37.520 It's exactly what Stanley would have wanted.
00:01:39.420 Exactly.
00:01:40.100 Stanley Kubrick has been in charge of this production from beyond the grave,
00:01:43.820 and we simply did not know.
00:01:45.540 It's just that good.
00:01:48.540 It's quite romantic, really.
00:01:50.360 So, speaking of things that are crass, disgusting, violent,
00:01:57.040 filled with petty rage and envy.
00:01:59.360 Hello.
00:02:00.740 Enough about Josh.
00:02:02.160 Let's talk about A Clockwork Orange.
00:02:04.920 Yeah, quite the contrast to 2001, eh?
00:02:07.240 Yes, this was the follow-up film he did to what many would consider his magnum opus as 2001.
00:02:14.280 The magisterial sci-fi space opera Mind F, as that film was,
00:02:20.580 because a lot of people still don't understand what the hell was going on at the end of that film,
00:02:26.560 but we understand, because we know what it would have been like if we hadn't had breakfast this morning.
00:02:33.220 Unlike many.
00:02:34.820 And A Clockwork Orange is quite the tonal and subject 180 from 2001.
00:02:42.520 So, what inspired that?
00:02:44.900 What was the creative process like?
00:02:46.760 And then we'll all give our thoughts on the film and the meaning and themes that it presents.
00:02:51.560 Well, my suspicion is Stanley was riding a bit high from the success of 2001.
00:02:56.800 You know, it had been a big success for him.
00:02:59.740 It got him the acclaim.
00:03:01.420 It brought in sort of critical approval, mostly,
00:03:04.320 as well as the groundlings who came in to watch it whilst totally high.
00:03:10.200 And he had designed the publicity to make that happen.
00:03:13.780 But that had been a big studio project,
00:03:15.880 basically designed so that he could fill this new ultra-wide screen that studios wanted films for.
00:03:22.680 So, a bit of business savvy there.
00:03:24.720 It does seem, from what I've read in this book here, that you've lent me.
00:03:28.800 I've not read the whole book, but I've read a decent enough chunk of it now.
00:03:32.220 It's a visual analysis of the work of Stanley Kubrick.
00:03:35.720 And the author says that he'd known Stanley Kubrick since the 1950s
00:03:39.580 and had visited him during that time period in about 1959.
00:03:43.940 Went to Kubrick's home and found that the place was full of Japanese sci-fi films.
00:03:47.900 And so, it seems that he had been trying to study some of the cutting-edge special effects techniques
00:03:54.320 so that he could make a sci-fi film for 10 years up to the point where he got to make 2001.
00:03:59.660 So, like many of his ideas, this had been gestating in his mind for a long time.
00:04:04.300 And, of course, with 2001, the way that he writes and produces is
00:04:08.700 all of his films are based on a book.
00:04:11.220 And he simply teamed up with a sci-fi author to write a book that he would base the film on.
00:04:16.400 But the film ended up coming out first.
00:04:18.540 So, there's quite a rarity for Kubrick.
00:04:20.980 Well, yeah, he engineered the situation, yes.
00:04:25.120 Yeah, I mean, this is a similar case, as you will not be surprised to hear.
00:04:28.720 He found the book already written.
00:04:30.420 Although, interestingly, in this one, he felt he had a much freer hand
00:04:33.740 and didn't need the author as much.
00:04:35.340 So, obviously, Arthur C. Clarke had been brought in to assist greatly
00:04:39.420 with the screenplay for 2001.
00:04:42.240 In this one, and I've forgotten his name,
00:04:45.820 Anthony Burgess.
00:04:47.600 Thank you so much.
00:04:48.400 Anthony Burgess.
00:04:49.120 Who he left a little bit in the lurch in the aftermath of this film,
00:04:52.660 from what I remember.
00:04:53.820 Oh, yes.
00:04:54.340 Oh, we will cover that, because there are some fantastic shenanigans there.
00:04:58.960 Burgess was kept a little more out of the loop, as you say,
00:05:01.560 and Kubrick was a lot more hands-on.
00:05:03.440 But it would probably surprise people who are thinking of Kubrick
00:05:06.260 as the totalitarian, controlling perfectionist,
00:05:10.680 that he was quite loose with the script.
00:05:12.660 This is one of his early cases of basically scripting as he goes,
00:05:17.720 just taking pages out of the book and say,
00:05:19.920 yeah, we'll do this.
00:05:21.840 He adds a little bit in.
00:05:23.040 He adds a scene where Alex is first inducted into the prison.
00:05:26.600 That is entirely Stanley Kubrick's doing.
00:05:28.860 But otherwise, he was sort of writing as he went.
00:05:31.260 And I think the reason he went for this is feeding off that savvy
00:05:35.940 that he had when he went for Lolita.
00:05:38.460 I think he wanted something that was controversial,
00:05:41.600 would get attention,
00:05:42.640 but that he could hang some really interesting ideas off.
00:05:47.020 Yes, certainly.
00:05:47.800 And you can tell that there's a lot of improvisation within the film,
00:05:51.240 and that he used that in the production.
00:05:53.380 Because very, very famously, early on during the scenes of ultraviolence
00:05:58.840 that make up the first third or so of the film,
00:06:01.300 there's the rape scene where during the home invasion,
00:06:04.860 Alex and his droogs are about to rape a woman
00:06:06.880 while they're beating her husband,
00:06:08.600 and he starts to sing Singing in the Rain,
00:06:11.000 which, as far as I'm aware, quite famously,
00:06:13.520 was an improvisation by Malcolm McDowell on set at the time
00:06:17.140 because they were going through takes of it,
00:06:18.660 and Kubrick felt that it was just missing a little bit of something.
00:06:21.320 Three days of rehearsals because something was not quite right.
00:06:24.960 Maybe there's a fly, I don't know.
00:06:26.080 There needed to be something theatrical about it
00:06:28.580 because certainly the first portion of the film is very theatrical,
00:06:33.780 intentionally so one of the big set-piece fights,
00:06:36.400 and it is set in an abandoned theatre.
00:06:38.780 I'm glad you highlighted that, yeah.
00:06:41.180 And so he ends up singing that as he's going along as an improvisation,
00:06:46.080 and Stanley Kubrick very, very quickly rushes,
00:06:48.040 when he realises it's perfect, to buy the rights to the song
00:06:50.860 so that he can use it.
00:06:52.240 And then it's later incorporated into the film when they return,
00:06:55.480 when Alex returns to the home,
00:06:57.280 and he's caught humming the song,
00:06:58.840 and it brings back the writer.
00:07:00.740 What's the writer's character name?
00:07:02.880 He's named in the film as...
00:07:04.940 Frank, isn't it?
00:07:06.140 Mr. Alexander.
00:07:07.440 So Frank Alexander.
00:07:08.220 Yeah, they keep calling him Frank later on in the film.
00:07:11.040 So Frank catches him singing it,
00:07:13.600 and it brings to mind,
00:07:14.600 and it causes him to remember that
00:07:16.500 this isn't just that criminal who's been released from prison.
00:07:19.740 He's the man who raped my wife and caused her to die,
00:07:22.680 and crippled me as well.
00:07:25.000 So he clearly took a very, very improvisational tact with this,
00:07:30.680 if that's something that he re-incorporated into the plot later as well.
00:07:35.700 Yeah, and then brings it back to the end credits as well,
00:07:38.200 as a key part of the message of this film.
00:07:40.040 A very jolly end to the film.
00:07:43.260 It's a great ending.
00:07:44.880 I think we should love it.
00:07:45.960 It's just this great contrast to kind of utopian planning,
00:07:51.040 which I think is a carryover from 2001,
00:07:53.900 that your best laid plans,
00:07:56.360 your most fantastic systems,
00:07:59.240 most genius designed schematics will fail.
00:08:03.620 You know, and I think that's a thread, yeah,
00:08:06.340 through 2001, through A Clockwork Orange,
00:08:09.360 also Barry Lyndon to an extent.
00:08:12.440 I can see that, yeah.
00:08:14.320 So shall we retread familiar territory that we covered
00:08:17.760 in the cursed second recording,
00:08:21.520 talking about...
00:08:22.720 They're all cursed.
00:08:23.440 Let's not count this one out either.
00:08:26.380 So one of the things I remember saying is that
00:08:29.680 in that first 40 minutes,
00:08:32.500 it seems to me to be trying to suggest
00:08:35.620 that there's an innate relationship between sex and violence.
00:08:39.040 And then following on from that,
00:08:41.540 you see some commentary on politicians.
00:08:44.220 You've got the gentleman who encourages Alex
00:08:48.160 to take part in the Ludovico technique,
00:08:50.900 who seems to represent the more right-wing faction.
00:08:53.960 And then you've got the writer, Mr. Alexander,
00:08:57.340 representing the liberals and his friends.
00:08:59.800 And they're both using Alex to their own ends,
00:09:02.720 basically to assume totalitarian power.
00:09:05.340 And it seems to my mind that the ideology is secondary to power,
00:09:10.020 as you rightfully pointed out.
00:09:13.300 And Kubrick's trying to point out that people will use crime
00:09:17.560 as a political football, if you will,
00:09:19.340 and that they don't actually care about the victims of crime
00:09:22.580 or the perpetrators.
00:09:23.600 They're just out for themselves.
00:09:25.920 That seems to be pretty explicit throughout the whole film.
00:09:29.880 Yeah.
00:09:30.300 And this might come about a bit dated by the time people see this,
00:09:35.840 but in a shocking amount of relevance,
00:09:38.620 what Mr. Alexander does to Alex,
00:09:43.020 basically torturing him, driving him insane,
00:09:45.320 so he jumps out of the window himself,
00:09:46.900 the minister puts Mr. Alexander in prison for that.
00:09:52.540 And he's able to do that because he's basically used
00:09:56.220 the Ludovico technique and other measures
00:09:58.320 to clear the prisons of people
00:10:00.740 so there's room for political prisoners.
00:10:03.320 Yes, that's one line that is thrown in there,
00:10:06.000 but I think is very important to characterise
00:10:08.120 what this particular state is and what it's doing.
00:10:13.120 It is concerned about crime on the streets,
00:10:16.060 but purely for pragmatic and image purposes,
00:10:20.620 what it really wants to do is punish its political enemies.
00:10:24.020 Yeah, absolutely.
00:10:25.320 Absolutely.
00:10:25.880 Well, it's a self-interested state.
00:10:27.960 Yeah.
00:10:28.240 As they all are.
00:10:29.320 You came in very quickly with basically a libertarian reading of it,
00:10:32.760 which I think Stanley supports quite merrily.
00:10:36.480 Maybe that's it.
00:10:37.240 He's tight-lipped about things,
00:10:39.160 but I think he basically sees through the bluster
00:10:42.940 and like, you know, certain academics like,
00:10:47.900 gosh, Adam Curtis, expert and Indian wife rejecter,
00:10:54.060 Neema Parvini would say it's the ideology is always secondary to power.
00:10:58.200 It's just a cover up for what power already wants to do.
00:11:01.500 If you're struggling, guys, I'm very sorry.
00:11:03.640 I've lost my voice for this recording.
00:11:05.540 We did say it was cursed.
00:11:07.160 You're going to have to power through.
00:11:08.380 But my reading of it was basically that, as Harry pointed out,
00:11:14.380 the droogs were in the same milk bar as some media executives and the singer.
00:11:21.520 They're all rubbing shoulders.
00:11:23.140 They are.
00:11:24.060 They're on different classes,
00:11:27.040 but morally speaking, they all occupy the same level.
00:11:31.180 And I think what Kubrick's trying to get at here is,
00:11:34.100 be it street gangs that are using violence to extort people of their money
00:11:40.420 and, you know, rape people, basically.
00:11:43.580 It's a very similar thing to what the government does.
00:11:45.800 They're a gang that takes what they want using violence.
00:11:50.140 And there's not really that much difference between the two.
00:11:52.600 And they're natural allies.
00:11:54.060 And I think that actually we do see that in reality.
00:11:56.920 You look at, say, particularly South America,
00:11:59.500 politicians and the cartels are, you know,
00:12:03.780 without one, the other can't exist.
00:12:05.740 They're so reliant on one another
00:12:07.100 that they are inextricably bound
00:12:11.900 and therefore they rely on each other.
00:12:15.080 And we see that as well with the two droogs joining the police,
00:12:19.480 as I can't remember who pointed that one out.
00:12:22.240 I think that was me again.
00:12:23.440 Yeah, so Alex has his group of three droogs who follow him about.
00:12:27.160 Now, after the first portion of the film,
00:12:28.840 I think the one that looks youngest kind of vanishes from the film.
00:12:31.940 So he might be dead.
00:12:33.140 He might be in prison.
00:12:33.960 He might have just gone back to school.
00:12:35.560 You don't know because they're all very, very young of school age.
00:12:38.580 But by the time he's out of prison,
00:12:40.280 the two who were the most traitorous to him
00:12:42.860 have managed to join the police and end up victimizing him themselves.
00:12:46.940 And I think there's something interesting
00:12:48.560 in the first portion of the film as well
00:12:50.820 that we didn't get onto in the first attempt at this discussion,
00:12:54.400 which was, as I pointed out,
00:12:57.160 there's obviously the very theatrical part of it
00:12:59.520 where the music that scores the majority of the film
00:13:02.780 is classical music.
00:13:04.560 But it's very distorted,
00:13:08.080 very uncanny sounding classical music
00:13:11.120 because it's all played on very strange sounding synthesizers
00:13:14.180 that make it sound more like wacky children's music
00:13:18.080 than it does like a full classical orchestra.
00:13:21.360 And I think that's a big theme through the beginning of the film
00:13:24.340 and later on as well,
00:13:26.540 which alongside a lot of the phallic imagery,
00:13:29.600 which is suggesting an innate connection between sex and violence,
00:13:33.020 there's this imagery to suggest a corruption
00:13:35.740 of the pure and the good and the innocent.
00:13:38.920 So when they're at the bar at the beginning of the film,
00:13:40.820 what are they drinking that is laced with drugs
00:13:43.960 that they use to get them excited
00:13:45.680 and get them riled up so that they can go and commit violence?
00:13:47.840 It's milk, which is typically considered a good drink
00:13:52.820 for children, growing children.
00:13:54.980 When they're in the theatre,
00:13:56.420 the abandoned theatre fighting with Billy boys,
00:13:59.000 the theatre is a place that's supposed to be grand,
00:14:01.300 extravagant, where you experience art and music,
00:14:04.760 whereas it's completely abandoned, destroyed.
00:14:07.820 There's an attempted rape going on.
00:14:10.400 It's the scene instead of for a grand play
00:14:12.860 for petty street violence.
00:14:14.620 So one thing that I think is interesting
00:14:17.140 about the music aspect of it
00:14:18.700 is when Alex goes to the record shop,
00:14:21.840 what do you see other than the soundtrack to 2001 placed there?
00:14:26.080 You see Pink Floyd albums?
00:14:27.580 Yeah, you see Animals by Pink Floyd.
00:14:30.800 You see The Magical Mystery Tour by The Beatles.
00:14:34.540 You see After the Gold Rush by Neil Young.
00:14:38.420 These are all sort of an era of music,
00:14:42.200 and I think that actually this sort of very childish iteration
00:14:46.180 of classical music,
00:14:48.640 I thought it contrasted quite nicely with the violence.
00:14:53.660 It's almost juvenile and revelling in it.
00:14:56.480 It's almost suggesting
00:14:57.500 almost like a psychotic aspect to it.
00:15:01.340 And I think that perhaps Kubrick is suggesting
00:15:03.380 that this nice, innocent, almost pure music
00:15:11.460 that comes from the 60s
00:15:12.500 that could perhaps be epitomised by that Beatles album
00:15:16.060 that he's got on display
00:15:17.380 because it's very juvenile, happy and cheerful.
00:15:22.120 But at the same time, you could draw another parallel
00:15:24.480 between the fact that, yeah, it's happy, juvenile, cheerful,
00:15:27.660 but also was made by people who were completely laced with drugs
00:15:31.380 the entire time that they were making it.
00:15:33.840 Well, yeah, he's basically pointing out the corruption of it.
00:15:37.120 I got that little jab there, by the way.
00:15:39.680 Not lost on it.
00:15:40.740 Great band, by the way.
00:15:42.240 I like The Beatles.
00:15:43.040 I wasn't insulting The Beatles,
00:15:44.300 but they were massively high on drugs.
00:15:47.460 Well, on the early 60s,
00:15:49.720 it was methamphetamine that they were high on,
00:15:51.540 and the late 60s, it was weed and LSD.
00:15:54.680 Great combo.
00:15:55.180 But, yeah, I think that what Kubrick's trying to point out here
00:15:58.880 is the strange hypocrisy going on here,
00:16:03.460 in a very subtle way, I think.
00:16:04.880 This is one thing that I picked up on either so slightly.
00:16:07.660 Personally, I think it's more about how this society
00:16:10.160 that has sprung up, that he's depicting in this world,
00:16:13.460 this dystopia,
00:16:14.680 is completely corruptive of everything that it touches,
00:16:18.060 because even Alex himself, he's still at school.
00:16:21.560 He's very clearly a child, and he acts like a child.
00:16:25.180 A lot of the time.
00:16:26.160 But at the same time,
00:16:27.360 he's conducting these reprehensible acts of ultra-violence.
00:16:31.080 And when we talk about how Alex is manipulated
00:16:33.540 and used throughout the film,
00:16:35.700 it can make him seem like more of a sympathetic character
00:16:38.980 than he is.
00:16:40.080 And I'm sure that many have tried to accuse Kubrick
00:16:41.880 of excusing Alex's crimes with that latter half of the film.
00:16:46.040 Now, Alex is still a reprehensible and unforgivable human being.
00:16:50.180 The problem is that he's also human
00:16:52.640 in that he has some positive and admirable qualities as well,
00:16:57.340 things that we can relate to him of,
00:16:59.040 like his love of classical music and Beethoven in particular,
00:17:02.660 and his vital and youthful energy that he projects
00:17:08.480 even through his violent and evil acts
00:17:11.360 is something that, along with his negative side,
00:17:15.980 is stripped of him by the Ludovico technique
00:17:18.940 in the middle of the film.
00:17:20.680 So even though, yes,
00:17:22.880 you have made the streets marginally safer
00:17:25.580 by taking him off them,
00:17:26.760 you've also stripped this world and this society
00:17:29.580 of some of the beautiful and divine things
00:17:33.100 that human beings are capable of.
00:17:35.660 I think Kubrick would want Agnesi,
00:17:40.320 he would want you to be very aware of Alex as a child.
00:17:44.120 You know, he cast Malcolm McDowell,
00:17:45.880 who'd really been only known for the film If,
00:17:50.200 where he was a schoolchild.
00:17:52.980 You know, he'd got big attention for that,
00:17:54.740 so Kubrick would want that association in your mind.
00:17:58.500 And I think there's plenty there to support
00:18:01.680 what you're talking about in terms of people being corrupted,
00:18:03.960 and I almost wonder if Kubrick's sort of ahead of the game
00:18:07.240 in sort of pointing the finger at boomers.
00:18:09.800 Like, Alex's parents are absolutely,
00:18:13.780 like, the mother is hilarious.
00:18:15.580 They're absent.
00:18:16.520 There's a scene early on in the film
00:18:18.600 when they're planning the heist on the cat lady's house,
00:18:22.280 where they're in a bar, and there's a woman serving at the bar.
00:18:26.140 I think his mother says earlier on
00:18:29.820 that she works in the factory or something,
00:18:32.600 but there's a woman serving drinks in there
00:18:35.280 who has the exact same purple hair as her
00:18:37.480 and the exact same style
00:18:38.720 and is wearing the same style of clothes.
00:18:40.720 To the point where I almost got confused for a moment
00:18:42.440 because I was going, wait, is that Alex's mother
00:18:44.280 serving drinks in this pub?
00:18:46.360 And if so, is it just that she doesn't see Alex
00:18:49.620 or does she not notice Alex?
00:18:51.200 Because I don't think that Stanley Kubrick
00:18:52.880 would make the decision to have such similar clothes.
00:18:56.560 And the character that's also focused on
00:18:59.000 for the beginning part of that scene,
00:19:00.700 you follow her in a tracking shot
00:19:02.480 going through the pub
00:19:03.720 until the camera decides to fixate on Alex instead.
00:19:07.340 So it's either suggesting that that is Alex's mum
00:19:09.820 and she's either too oblivious or uncaring to say anything.
00:19:13.300 Or as a kind of stand-in for his mother
00:19:16.540 to say the same thing,
00:19:17.760 which is this is going on in plain sight
00:19:20.160 for all of the adults to see,
00:19:21.700 but it's being ignored
00:19:22.840 as kind of like a microcosm of society.
00:19:25.800 Well, the adults do absolutely ignore it.
00:19:28.380 They're too afraid, really, to stand up to Alex.
00:19:31.060 So they know what's going on.
00:19:32.200 So that could be in there.
00:19:33.320 I've got to say that's a detail I hadn't picked up on.
00:19:35.520 I only picked up on my most recent watch through of it.
00:19:38.540 So they're in there, you point out,
00:19:40.500 they're drinking milk,
00:19:41.620 which is normally wholesome.
00:19:42.680 Obviously, they're drinking it directly from the breast.
00:19:45.660 Yeah, again, another childish part of it.
00:19:48.120 So showing that corruption,
00:19:49.280 showing it from there, from the parents as well.
00:19:53.500 I suppose another thing I wanted to touch on
00:19:57.000 is the fact that we do have that extreme 40 minutes,
00:20:00.480 but that is to make sure you can't excuse what Alex does.
00:20:05.000 You aren't left with any wiggle room.
00:20:06.740 You're shown everything to know exactly who he is.
00:20:10.340 And you have to have that in mind
00:20:12.520 when you then approach the question of
00:20:14.200 how do you deal with someone like Alex?
00:20:17.820 You know, someone who's got that high appreciation
00:20:20.200 but is not a total grug.
00:20:23.520 But also, you can't expect to trust him in society
00:20:28.760 when he's already committed the violence
00:20:31.760 and the crimes that he has.
00:20:33.500 One of my takeaways from the failure
00:20:36.660 of the Ludovico technique in the film
00:20:38.340 is that Kubrick is trying to suggest
00:20:40.400 that perhaps some people can't be rehabilitated.
00:20:43.840 And I do agree with that.
00:20:45.380 Well, by the end of the film,
00:20:46.460 the whole point is that they have reversed
00:20:47.980 the Ludovico technique.
00:20:49.220 They've gone and tinkered in his brain
00:20:50.680 and he's back to normal.
00:20:52.740 And then he's incorporated into the government.
00:20:54.780 So they have returned him
00:20:56.680 to his primal, feral, violent state.
00:21:00.700 And then they've gone,
00:21:01.480 you're going to make an excellent bureaucrat.
00:21:04.540 But I also think that he's clearly
00:21:08.240 got a few more screws loose than before as well
00:21:11.300 because of the nature of the images
00:21:13.300 that are appearing in his head
00:21:14.380 were even more unhinged than before.
00:21:16.280 Maybe even made him worse.
00:21:17.960 I mean, possibly because he's on the other...
00:21:20.640 He knows at this point how the state
00:21:23.260 can use its own violence.
00:21:25.860 And he knows that if he's part of the state
00:21:28.320 that all of a sudden,
00:21:29.640 well, I can get to do that from now on.
00:21:31.500 If he behaves himself to a point
00:21:34.320 and works his way up,
00:21:36.160 and it seemed like the minister
00:21:37.340 was very, very eager to carry on
00:21:39.820 working with him past that point.
00:21:41.500 Because again, the minister has already
00:21:43.020 taken Alex's street troops
00:21:44.920 and put them in positions of power
00:21:47.120 and authority in society as police officers.
00:21:49.140 So what's he going to do with Alex
00:21:51.160 promoting him even higher than that?
00:21:53.360 He's probably going to make
00:21:54.440 an excellent politician, sad to say.
00:21:56.740 We should also highlight again
00:21:58.480 in that scene of the demonstration
00:22:01.160 of the Ludovico technique success,
00:22:04.360 we got another perfect example
00:22:06.620 of how the violence outside of power
00:22:11.780 and the violence within power
00:22:13.300 are kind of interchangeable.
00:22:14.660 You know, the battle with Billy Boy's Nazi gang
00:22:17.660 happens within the theatre,
00:22:19.820 literally under a proscenium arc,
00:22:22.260 and Alex's demonstration
00:22:23.440 is on a theatrical stage.
00:22:26.160 You know, it's all support
00:22:28.320 But it's interesting
00:22:30.000 because the theatrical stage
00:22:31.360 is made to look a bit more
00:22:32.880 like a cinema screen.
00:22:34.280 So is Stanley Kubrick saying something
00:22:36.120 about the use of imagery
00:22:37.860 that people are being fed
00:22:39.420 when they go to the cinema
00:22:40.900 or when they watch television
00:22:42.280 as a subtle means of mind control
00:22:45.180 and social engineering.
00:22:46.580 Because certainly by that point
00:22:48.440 of the 1970s,
00:22:50.800 television and film
00:22:51.800 has already begun to swing that way.
00:22:54.000 I mean, you mentioned Adam Curtis.
00:22:55.200 A lot of his documentaries
00:22:56.180 talk about how by the 50s and 60s,
00:22:59.940 government social engineers
00:23:01.060 had already begun to do this.
00:23:02.200 And Peter Hitchens talks about it
00:23:03.560 in The Abolition of Britain,
00:23:05.900 that the government had an agreement
00:23:07.540 in Britain in the 1970s
00:23:09.760 with the soap operas
00:23:10.780 to present particular storylines
00:23:14.140 to try and push public opinion
00:23:15.840 in one way.
00:23:17.680 So if anything,
00:23:18.480 I would say what you said
00:23:19.460 was that the Ludovico technique
00:23:21.900 was a failure.
00:23:23.640 It was actually a grand success
00:23:25.560 because it did exactly
00:23:26.420 what it was supposed to do.
00:23:27.100 Well, it was a failure
00:23:27.360 to rehabilitate a criminal,
00:23:29.280 but it is not necessarily
00:23:30.700 the purpose
00:23:31.280 in that they're trying
00:23:32.260 to use Alex and the technique
00:23:34.180 for political ends.
00:23:35.980 Well, yes,
00:23:37.380 but if you're going
00:23:38.100 from the pure pragmatic sense
00:23:40.040 of we're not rehabilitating him,
00:23:41.740 we're just brute force
00:23:42.840 preventing him
00:23:43.720 from committing crimes again,
00:23:45.680 it's a success.
00:23:46.600 It's more of a media firestorm
00:23:48.720 that comes after he tries
00:23:49.600 to kill himself.
00:23:51.320 So I would say Kubrick is saying,
00:23:53.780 listen,
00:23:54.420 these social engineering techniques
00:23:55.960 are terrifyingly effective
00:23:58.740 for a lot of what they're trying
00:24:00.780 to put into your mind
00:24:01.840 and the kind of effect
00:24:03.320 that they will have on you.
00:24:04.460 I mean,
00:24:06.060 to support that,
00:24:08.720 right,
00:24:09.280 so there's kind of an adage
00:24:11.980 that sci-fi isn't about the future,
00:24:14.020 it's about the present
00:24:15.280 via an allegory.
00:24:16.900 And there's a fair amount
00:24:17.680 to talk about in 2001
00:24:19.280 about how it's commenting
00:24:20.360 on what was happening at the time.
00:24:21.980 Obviously,
00:24:22.480 Strangelove was doing
00:24:23.440 current events via satire,
00:24:25.860 but Clockwork Orange,
00:24:26.980 I think,
00:24:27.300 is really in that tradition.
00:24:30.320 Stanley Kubrick isn't doing
00:24:31.560 about a scary future dystopia.
00:24:33.480 He's talking about Britain
00:24:35.060 and America
00:24:35.700 and what they're already doing.
00:24:37.740 The fact that he's,
00:24:39.300 for his sets,
00:24:40.400 I don't know if we've said it
00:24:41.320 in this version of the recording,
00:24:42.900 maybe we already did,
00:24:44.080 sorry.
00:24:45.600 But he could take his failed
00:24:48.220 Soviet-inspired,
00:24:50.320 grand socialist UK
00:24:52.980 failed architecture projects
00:24:56.220 and just,
00:24:57.260 he didn't need to build them.
00:24:58.380 He just had them in London already.
00:25:00.180 He went to a place
00:25:01.120 called Thamesmead
00:25:02.140 and this was already
00:25:04.420 the massive tower block
00:25:05.920 meant to house people,
00:25:07.940 you know,
00:25:08.120 the grand system
00:25:09.000 for accommodating citizens
00:25:10.620 that had already turned
00:25:12.520 into a total shithole.
00:25:14.340 He just found it
00:25:15.460 and filmed there.
00:25:16.620 Had Milton Keynes
00:25:17.740 been built by this point?
00:25:18.980 Because Milton Keynes
00:25:19.940 is the perfect example
00:25:22.280 of a socialist government,
00:25:24.820 necessitated new town
00:25:28.600 for new British people
00:25:30.160 where it was supposed to be
00:25:31.760 a socialist idea
00:25:33.140 of a community
00:25:33.860 where everything
00:25:34.520 is perfectly ordered,
00:25:36.340 perfectly metered out
00:25:37.560 where you've got the town
00:25:38.680 spread into particular blocks
00:25:40.640 and ordered very,
00:25:41.740 very rationally
00:25:42.520 which has actually
00:25:44.180 flipped the opposite way
00:25:45.440 and is now just a place
00:25:46.660 where big brand consumer stores
00:25:49.060 hawk their wares
00:25:50.580 and nobody spends any time
00:25:52.360 with anybody
00:25:53.020 because it's the perfect
00:25:53.900 drivable city
00:25:54.800 so you get no foot traffic
00:25:57.060 so nobody speaks
00:25:58.400 to each other
00:25:58.960 and everybody is
00:25:59.920 completely atomised
00:26:00.880 and isolated
00:26:01.440 from one another.
00:26:02.820 So there's a lot
00:26:03.820 of examples
00:26:04.460 of government planning
00:26:05.660 of the 60s and 70s
00:26:07.660 going in that direction.
00:26:09.220 So you're right,
00:26:09.620 Kubrick was,
00:26:10.740 I mean,
00:26:11.020 he was living in Britain
00:26:11.820 by this point.
00:26:12.640 He was living
00:26:13.020 in a manor estate,
00:26:15.440 was it,
00:26:15.680 near London?
00:26:16.320 So at this time
00:26:17.160 he had moved
00:26:18.240 to Abbotsmead
00:26:19.240 which was a lovely
00:26:20.680 sort of closer place.
00:26:21.660 He would,
00:26:22.700 in 1980,
00:26:24.060 he would relocate
00:26:25.020 to an even more remote place
00:26:27.360 with greater privacy barriers
00:26:29.720 via massive hedges.
00:26:31.160 A man after my own heart.
00:26:32.860 Oh, it's wonderful.
00:26:34.000 It's wonderful.
00:26:34.500 He just made,
00:26:34.980 he just made Abbotsmead
00:26:36.300 his domain.
00:26:38.280 Luckily,
00:26:38.920 Christiane,
00:26:39.520 his wife,
00:26:40.020 was strong-willed enough
00:26:41.260 to say,
00:26:41.600 no, Stanley,
00:26:42.400 you cannot take over
00:26:43.180 the entire house.
00:26:45.000 But, you know,
00:26:46.180 he,
00:26:46.540 he worked ridiculous hours.
00:26:48.520 He wanted to be there
00:26:49.300 for his family as well
00:26:50.240 so it made sense
00:26:50.980 that he just cuts out
00:26:51.880 any travelling
00:26:52.480 that he doesn't have to do
00:26:53.740 and lets him do
00:26:54.900 as much from home
00:26:55.780 as possible.
00:26:56.500 That will become
00:26:57.200 important in my reading
00:26:58.700 of Eyes Wide Shut.
00:26:59.880 Ooh.
00:27:00.600 A bit of foreshadowing.
00:27:02.200 Ooh.
00:27:02.980 I'm looking forward to that.
00:27:03.660 Yeah, I'm looking forward to that.
00:27:05.160 To carry on.
00:27:06.420 I was,
00:27:06.760 I was just going to finish
00:27:08.240 and say that,
00:27:08.780 yeah,
00:27:09.100 so Stanley Kubrick
00:27:09.900 in that situation,
00:27:11.620 all he really needed to do
00:27:13.160 was travel outside
00:27:14.160 of his little
00:27:15.040 hidey hole
00:27:16.340 that he had made
00:27:16.940 for himself
00:27:17.480 and see what Britain
00:27:18.680 was looking like
00:27:19.700 at the time
00:27:20.220 for inspiration,
00:27:21.360 for the aesthetics.
00:27:22.380 Oh, totally.
00:27:23.580 And you'd already
00:27:24.280 had works like
00:27:25.100 J.G. Ballard's
00:27:26.080 High Rise
00:27:26.600 which were way
00:27:27.940 ahead of the game
00:27:28.580 and just basically
00:27:29.880 charting how
00:27:31.000 a massive complex
00:27:32.440 like a High Rise
00:27:33.240 would turn people
00:27:34.180 into savages.
00:27:35.560 I've seen
00:27:36.120 Ben Wheatley's
00:27:37.440 2015 film adaptation
00:27:39.000 of that
00:27:39.560 which is
00:27:40.380 interesting.
00:27:42.420 Book is better.
00:27:43.180 Book is better.
00:27:43.880 And that's...
00:27:44.540 You should watch
00:27:45.040 Kill List though.
00:27:46.220 You should absolutely
00:27:47.120 watch Kill List.
00:27:48.280 Very Kubrickian.
00:27:49.680 Yes, I agree there.
00:27:50.760 And, you know,
00:27:53.380 that's even without
00:27:54.180 the complexity
00:27:54.880 of only putting
00:27:55.980 English people
00:27:57.140 in the high rises.
00:27:59.020 But, as we're saying,
00:28:01.040 Stanley's talking
00:28:01.660 about that aspect
00:28:02.460 of failed planning.
00:28:04.380 But I think
00:28:04.860 he is an extremely
00:28:06.240 well-read man.
00:28:07.220 Like, we've come
00:28:07.640 across that so much.
00:28:08.760 How much research
00:28:09.840 he does before
00:28:10.480 he goes for something.
00:28:12.540 He absolutely knew
00:28:14.020 about a lot
00:28:14.880 going on at that time
00:28:15.960 to make sure
00:28:16.960 messages were
00:28:18.080 conveyed to the public
00:28:19.100 via the soaps,
00:28:21.080 via films.
00:28:22.660 Eddie Benet's
00:28:23.320 already had a number
00:28:24.260 of published works
00:28:25.160 explaining exactly
00:28:26.380 step-by-step
00:28:27.160 how to do that.
00:28:28.680 Oh, yeah.
00:28:29.220 And you'll know,
00:28:29.920 like, put this
00:28:30.860 in your movie.
00:28:31.740 Put this small thing
00:28:33.100 in your movie.
00:28:34.620 It won't affect
00:28:35.320 your plot,
00:28:35.840 but we just need
00:28:36.480 people to be aware
00:28:37.520 of this.
00:28:37.980 We need to see
00:28:38.540 women smoking,
00:28:39.560 for example.
00:28:41.100 We need...
00:28:42.620 Or...
00:28:43.300 Oh, let's jump
00:28:44.200 forward a few decades.
00:28:45.260 In the 80s,
00:28:46.180 enjoy your black
00:28:48.220 best friend
00:28:48.900 in every single
00:28:50.740 summer blockbuster.
00:28:53.440 It's just that kind
00:28:54.580 of pair up
00:28:55.180 that's just put in there.
00:28:56.020 Or by the 80s as well.
00:28:56.500 Women can be
00:28:57.320 action heroes too now
00:28:58.800 when you get to
00:28:59.420 Aliens.
00:29:00.200 Yeah, yeah.
00:29:00.720 And the Terminator
00:29:02.000 franchise as well.
00:29:02.680 79, wasn't it?
00:29:03.840 Yeah.
00:29:04.500 Going into it.
00:29:05.380 Best one.
00:29:06.180 Alien, but in Alien
00:29:07.380 she's more
00:29:08.240 necessitated by circumstance.
00:29:11.300 And that's a horror film
00:29:12.900 as well,
00:29:13.300 so it's kind of more
00:29:13.920 like a trope
00:29:14.580 of the last girl.
00:29:16.080 Whereas when you get
00:29:17.060 to Aliens,
00:29:18.220 she is badass
00:29:19.900 James Cameron
00:29:21.140 action hero
00:29:22.040 and she's got
00:29:22.560 the mech suit
00:29:23.280 at the end
00:29:23.740 when she's fighting
00:29:24.260 the alien queen.
00:29:25.460 At least it makes
00:29:26.040 a bit more sense
00:29:26.800 because Aliens
00:29:27.580 is a good film.
00:29:28.420 Well, they knew
00:29:29.420 better how to do it
00:29:30.500 back then.
00:29:31.320 This is...
00:29:32.200 You know,
00:29:32.720 I say,
00:29:33.260 I say,
00:29:33.840 how do we do it?
00:29:34.580 And they say,
00:29:35.020 we can't do it now.
00:29:36.100 We don't know how.
00:29:38.800 So, yeah.
00:29:40.880 Stanley, I think,
00:29:41.780 is very clearly talking.
00:29:43.540 The Ludovico technique
00:29:44.780 isn't some terrifying
00:29:46.220 feature thing.
00:29:47.580 It's happening now.
00:29:48.480 Like, he's probably aware of...
00:29:50.100 And I know this sounds CIA,
00:29:51.680 but CIA operations...
00:29:53.480 Sorry,
00:29:53.800 it sounds tinfoil.
00:29:55.100 Well, this wasn't even
00:29:55.940 something...
00:29:56.620 It was happening.
00:29:57.380 The Ludovico technique
00:29:58.420 basically was something
00:29:59.540 that had already been
00:30:00.280 going on since the 50s.
00:30:01.520 Anyway,
00:30:01.880 in my research
00:30:03.140 for another video series,
00:30:05.100 when you look at
00:30:05.820 the asylums
00:30:06.700 that people were put into
00:30:09.120 of deviant sexuality
00:30:10.860 and they were exposed to...
00:30:13.220 I'm sure Josh probably
00:30:14.020 knows about this,
00:30:14.520 aversion therapy
00:30:15.480 where they were fed
00:30:16.640 particular drug cocktails
00:30:17.980 to induce nausea in them
00:30:19.500 while they're being...
00:30:19.960 So, it's a real...
00:30:21.080 The Ludovico technique
00:30:22.400 is a real thing,
00:30:23.240 yeah, as you're saying.
00:30:24.480 They're subject
00:30:25.480 to particular stimuli
00:30:26.560 while being made
00:30:27.520 to feel terribly nauseous
00:30:29.420 and actually vomiting
00:30:30.980 and defecating
00:30:32.500 all over themselves
00:30:33.380 in the hopes
00:30:34.540 that it would produce
00:30:36.060 those same effects
00:30:37.200 if they experienced
00:30:38.240 that stimuli
00:30:38.900 out in the world.
00:30:39.840 So, say somebody's gay,
00:30:41.480 you want to make it
00:30:42.640 so if they have
00:30:43.380 any sexual attraction
00:30:44.220 to other men
00:30:44.960 out in the world
00:30:46.140 that they also feel
00:30:47.160 nauseous and sick
00:30:48.680 like they're going to die
00:30:49.720 so they don't engage
00:30:50.960 in that kind of behaviour.
00:30:52.300 That had been going on
00:30:53.140 in asylums in America
00:30:54.420 at least since the 50s
00:30:55.960 and even had been happening
00:30:57.500 in England as well.
00:30:59.140 I found some examples
00:30:59.960 where it happened
00:31:00.520 in a hospital in Chester.
00:31:02.320 Well, the understanding
00:31:03.100 is that it's conditioning
00:31:04.380 and of course
00:31:04.920 behavioural psychology
00:31:06.020 sort of kicked off
00:31:07.660 in the 40s
00:31:09.980 and 50s really
00:31:11.040 the post-war
00:31:12.440 if you will
00:31:13.140 but by the 1960s
00:31:15.320 you had the cognitive
00:31:16.000 revolution as well
00:31:16.920 and so by the 70s
00:31:19.860 there were already
00:31:20.300 lots of criticisms
00:31:21.740 of behaviourism
00:31:23.440 and so Kubrick
00:31:24.600 would have seen
00:31:25.220 a plethora of them
00:31:26.660 because it was
00:31:28.260 sort of the in thing
00:31:29.480 to insult
00:31:30.960 the behaviourist
00:31:31.940 understanding
00:31:32.580 of human psychology
00:31:34.200 so you could have
00:31:35.100 a reading of it
00:31:35.800 whereby Kubrick
00:31:37.320 is siding with
00:31:38.080 this new approach
00:31:39.720 of shaping humanity
00:31:41.840 perhaps
00:31:42.160 but I don't think
00:31:42.820 that's necessarily
00:31:43.740 what's going on.
00:31:44.480 I think what he's
00:31:45.480 doing is showing
00:31:46.580 the inhuman brutality
00:31:48.480 of it
00:31:49.200 because it does
00:31:50.200 raise the question
00:31:51.120 of are these scientists
00:31:54.660 just because they
00:31:55.680 dress it up
00:31:56.420 in a veneer
00:31:57.060 of respectability
00:31:57.920 because they've got
00:31:58.500 their white lab coats on
00:32:00.320 are they any less brutal
00:32:02.520 than Alex is
00:32:04.140 they've just abstracted
00:32:05.660 the violence out
00:32:06.700 a few steps
00:32:08.080 whereas Alex does it
00:32:09.340 in person
00:32:10.320 and beats people
00:32:11.880 to death
00:32:12.460 they force people
00:32:14.660 into a feeling
00:32:15.540 of constant
00:32:17.540 half death
00:32:18.540 to the point
00:32:18.980 where they feel
00:32:19.460 they need to kill
00:32:20.060 themselves.
00:32:20.680 Well they're
00:32:21.220 torturing him
00:32:21.940 fundamentally
00:32:22.500 aren't they
00:32:23.040 and just because
00:32:25.080 their ends are
00:32:25.900 supposedly to
00:32:26.780 rehabilitate a criminal
00:32:28.100 you could even argue
00:32:29.540 that that's even
00:32:30.580 as much antisocial
00:32:32.620 as anything else
00:32:33.900 because of course
00:32:34.720 I quite like
00:32:37.400 I'm not sure
00:32:38.280 if he's a prison warden
00:32:39.420 or he's basically
00:32:40.560 he argues
00:32:41.840 that the point
00:32:42.960 I think he might be
00:32:44.000 the priest maybe
00:32:45.440 not the priest
00:32:46.560 the guy who's running
00:32:48.000 the prison
00:32:48.460 he's just like
00:32:49.040 yeah punishment
00:32:49.560 should be
00:32:50.680 for punishment's sake
00:32:52.540 that you get it
00:32:53.640 because you deserve it
00:32:54.660 which is true
00:32:55.100 I must say as well
00:32:56.560 just on the point of him
00:32:57.900 Kubrick's films
00:32:59.820 there's a few modes
00:33:01.640 of Kubrick's films
00:33:02.800 and some of them
00:33:03.580 drift into
00:33:04.800 overt
00:33:05.900 over the top
00:33:06.720 satire
00:33:07.480 and this is definitely
00:33:08.800 one of them
00:33:09.680 because when you get
00:33:11.020 to that character
00:33:11.980 he feels like
00:33:12.980 he's straight out
00:33:13.760 of a python film
00:33:14.720 oh as in the actual
00:33:15.900 prison warden
00:33:17.040 rather than the governor
00:33:18.180 but the two
00:33:19.540 certainly interact
00:33:20.560 with one another
00:33:21.100 don't they
00:33:21.480 oh yeah
00:33:21.760 I got them mixed up
00:33:23.220 who you were referring to
00:33:24.420 but the prison warden
00:33:25.880 who screams and shouts
00:33:27.160 at the top of his voice
00:33:28.360 in the most
00:33:29.960 aggressive way possible
00:33:31.320 he felt straight
00:33:32.540 it felt like
00:33:33.280 John Cleese
00:33:33.820 should have been
00:33:34.280 playing him
00:33:34.820 I very much got that
00:33:36.300 and I actually
00:33:37.280 pointed it out
00:33:38.160 as I was watching it
00:33:39.440 and also
00:33:40.000 did you notice
00:33:41.400 that it's obviously
00:33:42.700 trying to be very martial
00:33:44.060 and then you see
00:33:44.820 Alex has a red
00:33:46.080 armband on
00:33:47.020 I did notice
00:33:47.580 when they were singing
00:33:48.320 through their hymns
00:33:49.320 very very clear
00:33:50.860 in the frame
00:33:51.460 I wasn't entirely sure
00:33:54.580 what Kubrick was trying
00:33:55.380 to get at there
00:33:56.280 so I don't know
00:33:58.000 whether either of you
00:33:58.840 have an explanation
00:33:59.700 for why
00:34:00.360 bringing in
00:34:01.940 the Nazi aspect
00:34:03.140 I think he was using
00:34:04.540 very clear
00:34:06.020 and familiar
00:34:06.720 imagery
00:34:07.680 that we
00:34:08.780 already by that point
00:34:10.340 associated with
00:34:11.880 authoritarian
00:34:12.760 top down
00:34:13.640 totalitarian governments
00:34:14.760 to draw that
00:34:15.960 to draw that
00:34:17.120 comparison
00:34:17.620 from the audience
00:34:18.340 I think that's
00:34:19.300 what he was doing
00:34:19.880 there
00:34:20.100 but at the same time
00:34:22.620 the government
00:34:23.840 presents to him
00:34:25.680 images of the
00:34:26.640 Nazi regime
00:34:27.640 whilst they're
00:34:28.760 torturing him
00:34:29.660 to draw some kind
00:34:31.300 of negative
00:34:32.240 emotional reaction
00:34:33.360 from them
00:34:34.000 so interestingly
00:34:35.000 enough
00:34:35.440 we are shown
00:34:36.520 that this regime
00:34:37.620 totalitarian
00:34:39.160 authoritarian
00:34:40.000 as it may be
00:34:40.980 is explicitly
00:34:42.040 anti-fascist
00:34:43.000 as well
00:34:43.420 so perhaps
00:34:44.720 he's drawing
00:34:45.420 a comparison
00:34:46.120 saying
00:34:46.560 well
00:34:47.500 really
00:34:48.420 they're both
00:34:49.020 just using
00:34:49.820 imagery of their
00:34:51.060 enemies
00:34:51.660 to make you
00:34:52.660 hate their
00:34:53.000 enemies
00:34:53.360 while there's
00:34:54.340 more that
00:34:55.020 connects them
00:34:55.660 than separates
00:34:56.280 them
00:34:56.580 I can see
00:34:57.620 that yeah
00:34:58.100 yeah
00:34:59.620 I was going
00:35:00.580 to raise that
00:35:01.180 as well
00:35:01.440 the use
00:35:02.140 of World War
00:35:02.740 Two footage
00:35:03.420 to condition
00:35:04.380 behaviour
00:35:04.920 I think
00:35:05.380 is an
00:35:06.920 indicator
00:35:07.440 of I guess
00:35:08.560 the cynicism
00:35:09.300 of the regime
00:35:10.100 again
00:35:10.800 what's interesting
00:35:12.000 as well
00:35:12.440 is Kubrick
00:35:13.000 being Jewish
00:35:14.560 using that
00:35:15.520 I read a
00:35:16.260 really interesting
00:35:17.040 anecdote
00:35:17.560 from this
00:35:19.000 where at the
00:35:20.020 end when he's
00:35:20.640 the author's
00:35:21.300 talking about
00:35:21.760 his personal
00:35:22.260 experience
00:35:22.940 with Kubrick
00:35:24.460 he said
00:35:25.280 that around
00:35:26.860 the time
00:35:27.540 of Doctor
00:35:28.500 Strangelove
00:35:29.220 Albert Speer
00:35:30.280 had been
00:35:31.500 released from
00:35:32.200 prison
00:35:32.520 and also
00:35:33.080 had released
00:35:33.640 his memoirs
00:35:34.520 inside the
00:35:35.220 Third Reich
00:35:35.840 and so he
00:35:36.720 recommended Kubrick
00:35:37.860 read them
00:35:38.540 so that he
00:35:39.440 would be able
00:35:40.000 to get an
00:35:40.460 idea of the
00:35:41.680 kind of
00:35:41.960 political dynamics
00:35:42.960 that go on
00:35:43.760 within these
00:35:44.380 regimes and
00:35:45.140 these administrations
00:35:46.380 and he even
00:35:48.060 suggested that
00:35:49.120 Albert Speer
00:35:49.840 maybe be brought
00:35:50.760 onto the film
00:35:51.620 as a set
00:35:53.680 designer
00:35:54.160 and apparently
00:35:55.600 Kubrick was
00:35:56.660 actually really
00:35:57.260 into the idea
00:35:58.120 but thought that
00:35:59.040 he would be too
00:35:59.580 expensive
00:36:00.080 so decided
00:36:00.940 against it
00:36:01.600 so that's the
00:36:03.220 only reason
00:36:04.000 that Kubrick
00:36:04.980 didn't have
00:36:05.460 Albert Speer
00:36:06.700 the architect
00:36:08.020 and later
00:36:08.940 head of munitions
00:36:10.640 for the Third
00:36:11.540 Reich
00:36:12.020 on the set
00:36:13.400 of Doctor
00:36:13.740 Strangelove
00:36:14.540 well you know
00:36:15.900 Ken Adams
00:36:16.520 who did the
00:36:17.260 set design
00:36:17.840 for Strangelove
00:36:18.760 it's basically
00:36:19.920 stormed off
00:36:20.760 no that's
00:36:22.020 unfair
00:36:22.280 dropped out
00:36:23.860 of Barry
00:36:24.260 Lyndon
00:36:24.640 basically
00:36:25.080 had a bit
00:36:25.540 of a breakdown
00:36:26.200 so that
00:36:28.000 opportunity
00:36:28.540 was there
00:36:29.220 it was there
00:36:30.020 we could have
00:36:30.820 had the legendary
00:36:31.860 Kubrick
00:36:32.660 Speer
00:36:33.380 collaboration
00:36:34.360 but it was
00:36:36.120 just too
00:36:36.700 expensive
00:36:37.220 it was just
00:36:37.860 it was just
00:36:38.640 being a bit
00:36:39.200 too penny
00:36:40.300 pinching
00:36:41.120 ironically
00:36:41.680 enough
00:36:42.160 there's a
00:36:44.020 wonderful poetry
00:36:45.040 to that
00:36:45.580 anecdote
00:36:46.080 isn't there
00:36:46.600 there really
00:36:47.460 you know
00:36:47.920 I was going
00:36:48.300 to add to
00:36:48.700 that while
00:36:49.200 we're talking
00:36:49.660 in that area
00:36:50.340 in oh
00:36:52.380 gosh
00:36:52.880 hang on
00:36:53.900 oh no
00:36:54.240 that was
00:36:54.500 1976
00:36:55.340 okay
00:36:56.020 he was
00:36:57.960 considering
00:36:58.740 a film
00:37:00.000 set around
00:37:01.320 a filmmaker
00:37:02.720 working for
00:37:03.680 Goebbels
00:37:04.180 really
00:37:05.480 yeah
00:37:05.980 well I mean
00:37:06.360 there were
00:37:06.580 a few
00:37:07.080 because obviously
00:37:07.720 he was head
00:37:08.020 of propaganda
00:37:08.720 so there is
00:37:09.680 that
00:37:09.960 he wanted
00:37:11.000 to make
00:37:11.460 that film
00:37:11.860 that was
00:37:12.220 his way
00:37:12.700 into covering
00:37:13.260 World War II
00:37:13.880 for a while
00:37:14.360 he was thinking
00:37:14.740 can I do
00:37:15.220 this
00:37:15.560 and then
00:37:16.380 it's really
00:37:17.080 interesting
00:37:17.580 that he
00:37:18.860 sort of
00:37:19.260 skips from
00:37:19.780 around that
00:37:20.800 time
00:37:21.360 that I
00:37:21.920 can't be
00:37:22.380 certain
00:37:22.780 from my
00:37:23.520 research
00:37:23.940 that he
00:37:25.340 may have
00:37:26.120 you know
00:37:26.580 gone from
00:37:27.720 that to
00:37:28.240 Clockwork
00:37:28.740 Orange
00:37:29.040 or from
00:37:29.580 Clockwork
00:37:30.000 Orange
00:37:30.300 to that
00:37:30.840 I mean
00:37:31.220 given
00:37:32.220 from Doctor
00:37:32.900 Stranger
00:37:33.300 we
00:37:33.680 I don't
00:37:34.580 feel he's
00:37:35.120 partisan
00:37:35.560 he sees
00:37:37.460 shenanigans
00:37:38.040 in the US
00:37:38.660 shenanigans
00:37:39.280 with the
00:37:39.760 Soviets
00:37:40.060 I think
00:37:41.240 I think
00:37:42.020 there is
00:37:42.380 probably
00:37:42.860 as Josh
00:37:43.420 is suggesting
00:37:44.040 something
00:37:44.500 of a more
00:37:45.260 principled
00:37:46.600 obviously he
00:37:47.800 kept his
00:37:48.200 political views
00:37:49.000 close to his
00:37:49.660 chest
00:37:49.960 but there is
00:37:50.380 something
00:37:50.640 potentially
00:37:51.300 a more
00:37:51.720 principled
00:37:52.300 libertarian
00:37:53.440 style outlook
00:37:54.220 where he's
00:37:54.740 just seeing
00:37:55.460 these
00:37:55.960 states
00:37:57.040 each as
00:37:57.700 monolithic
00:37:58.540 sources of
00:37:59.300 power
00:37:59.680 that are
00:38:00.300 in for
00:38:00.980 power
00:38:01.260 for its
00:38:01.640 own
00:38:01.880 sake
00:38:02.280 rather than
00:38:03.640 being driven
00:38:04.260 purely by
00:38:05.240 ideology
00:38:05.880 as you
00:38:06.340 mentioned
00:38:06.600 the ideology
00:38:07.560 comes second
00:38:08.440 so I
00:38:09.240 think he
00:38:09.680 is able
00:38:10.120 to
00:38:10.540 distance
00:38:11.580 himself
00:38:12.200 somewhat
00:38:12.760 when he's
00:38:13.460 examining
00:38:13.840 these subjects
00:38:14.480 in his
00:38:14.820 films
00:38:15.140 yeah
00:38:16.040 if you
00:38:16.540 read
00:38:16.880 if you
00:38:18.320 read
00:38:18.580 say
00:38:18.820 Michael
00:38:19.260 Michael
00:38:20.220 Hare's
00:38:20.760 book
00:38:21.060 which is
00:38:21.640 just
00:38:21.820 effectively
00:38:22.520 a
00:38:23.020 reprint
00:38:23.860 of a
00:38:24.340 sort of
00:38:26.880 what's the
00:38:27.260 word I'm
00:38:27.520 looking for
00:38:27.920 a memorial
00:38:28.540 article
00:38:29.280 about
00:38:30.200 Kubrick
00:38:30.640 for
00:38:30.960 Bloomsbury
00:38:31.580 I may be
00:38:33.200 getting that
00:38:33.600 wrong
00:38:33.840 the book
00:38:34.580 is just
00:38:34.860 called
00:38:35.080 Kubrick
00:38:35.520 it's very
00:38:35.960 short
00:38:36.340 it's about
00:38:36.780 70 pages
00:38:37.580 or
00:38:38.520 Nathan
00:38:40.500 Abrams
00:38:41.220 and
00:38:41.940 Colker's
00:38:43.060 Kubrick
00:38:43.580 and Odyssey
00:38:44.180 you will
00:38:45.680 get a
00:38:46.100 vision of
00:38:47.060 Kubrick
00:38:47.700 that's
00:38:48.380 sort of
00:38:48.880 intensely
00:38:49.420 Jewish
00:38:49.860 and very
00:38:50.480 identified
00:38:51.140 with being
00:38:51.800 Jewish
00:38:52.200 that doesn't
00:38:53.860 show up
00:38:54.260 in any
00:38:54.660 of the
00:38:54.900 other
00:38:55.060 books
00:38:55.540 I
00:38:55.980 also
00:38:56.580 really
00:38:57.100 do not
00:38:57.760 get that
00:38:58.180 impression
00:38:58.600 from his
00:38:59.120 films
00:38:59.500 like I've
00:39:00.460 specifically
00:39:00.940 paid attention
00:39:01.680 to it
00:39:02.420 and
00:39:02.820 re-watching
00:39:04.160 it all
00:39:04.440 recently
00:39:04.880 and I've
00:39:05.720 just not
00:39:06.080 really seen
00:39:06.600 very much
00:39:07.100 of it
00:39:07.400 I hear
00:39:08.500 about it
00:39:09.040 in his
00:39:09.500 views on
00:39:10.000 contracts
00:39:10.560 but other
00:39:10.960 than that
00:39:11.540 I don't
00:39:13.700 really see
00:39:14.200 it that
00:39:14.480 much
00:39:14.840 perhaps it
00:39:16.440 did come
00:39:16.800 across more
00:39:17.480 in his
00:39:17.780 interpersonal
00:39:18.400 dealings
00:39:19.920 with people
00:39:20.400 just because
00:39:20.940 of course
00:39:21.340 in the same
00:39:22.860 way that
00:39:23.220 there's a
00:39:23.560 typical
00:39:23.900 Anglo
00:39:24.400 style of
00:39:25.080 behaviour
00:39:25.420 there is
00:39:25.860 a typical
00:39:26.300 more
00:39:27.020 Jewish
00:39:27.360 style
00:39:27.780 of behaviour
00:39:28.300 in the
00:39:28.640 way that
00:39:28.960 they talk
00:39:29.540 to one
00:39:29.840 another
00:39:30.100 and talk
00:39:30.440 to other
00:39:30.680 people
00:39:30.980 I mean
00:39:31.200 you just
00:39:31.460 watch
00:39:31.660 Seinfeld
00:39:32.260 and you
00:39:32.880 get a
00:39:33.140 good
00:39:33.260 example
00:39:33.640 of that
00:39:34.120 Curb Your
00:39:34.460 Enthusiasm
00:39:35.020 is great
00:39:35.400 for that
00:39:35.700 as well
00:39:35.980 Larry David
00:39:36.960 puts it
00:39:37.780 front and
00:39:38.180 centre
00:39:38.500 and it
00:39:39.540 allows
00:39:41.000 Gentiles to
00:39:43.180 be able to
00:39:43.440 talk about
00:39:43.920 it as well
00:39:44.300 in doing
00:39:44.960 so
00:39:45.280 I think
00:39:46.800 with Kubrick's
00:39:47.400 films the
00:39:47.660 only one
00:39:48.220 that I get
00:39:48.600 any sort
00:39:49.060 of overt
00:39:49.900 you could
00:39:51.040 say
00:39:51.360 Jewish
00:39:52.240 themes
00:39:52.760 coming
00:39:53.100 through
00:39:53.460 is in
00:39:54.160 Spartacus
00:39:54.920 and that's
00:39:55.360 mainly
00:39:55.880 because
00:39:56.320 of the
00:39:57.000 fact that
00:39:58.900 it was
00:39:59.060 mainly
00:39:59.500 being
00:40:00.100 coordinated
00:40:00.740 by Kirk
00:40:01.540 Douglas
00:40:01.880 who was
00:40:02.760 doing it
00:40:03.160 for his
00:40:03.460 own
00:40:03.640 personal
00:40:04.200 communist
00:40:04.980 reasons
00:40:05.500 as we
00:40:05.820 discussed
00:40:06.260 in our
00:40:06.640 first
00:40:07.200 discussion
00:40:07.740 on Kubrick
00:40:08.320 yeah
00:40:08.580 absolutely
00:40:09.560 so I
00:40:10.240 think
00:40:10.580 trying to
00:40:11.560 remember
00:40:11.800 how we
00:40:12.060 got onto
00:40:12.480 this
00:40:12.680 tangent
00:40:13.060 but
00:40:13.900 I think
00:40:15.700 that vision
00:40:16.480 of him
00:40:16.820 as committed
00:40:17.440 to that
00:40:17.900 as being
00:40:18.240 partisan
00:40:18.780 to that
00:40:19.300 as well
00:40:19.680 I feel
00:40:20.140 is more
00:40:20.640 the author's
00:40:22.680 obsessions
00:40:23.240 than Kubrick's
00:40:24.740 because
00:40:25.040 he was not
00:40:26.140 obviously
00:40:26.700 partisan
00:40:27.220 politically
00:40:27.760 he was not
00:40:28.460 obviously
00:40:28.940 partisan
00:40:29.500 in where
00:40:30.320 he chose
00:40:30.760 to live
00:40:31.320 and
00:40:32.440 he just
00:40:34.060 seems like
00:40:34.500 a guy
00:40:34.720 who really
00:40:35.220 is on
00:40:35.840 his own
00:40:36.580 he's a
00:40:37.540 very
00:40:37.740 individualistic
00:40:39.040 person
00:40:39.520 obviously
00:40:39.920 he's
00:40:40.240 family oriented
00:40:41.660 and that
00:40:42.080 isn't
00:40:42.800 separate
00:40:43.240 to being
00:40:43.680 individualistic
00:40:44.780 but he
00:40:45.100 seems to
00:40:45.900 just one
00:40:48.000 of the
00:40:48.240 themes
00:40:48.480 that I
00:40:48.760 see running
00:40:49.240 through
00:40:49.500 his
00:40:49.800 films
00:40:50.560 is that
00:40:51.740 he
00:40:52.160 doesn't
00:40:52.980 seem
00:40:53.380 married
00:40:53.820 to any
00:40:54.520 one
00:40:54.860 group
00:40:55.200 of
00:40:55.440 people
00:40:55.820 he tries
00:40:56.620 to
00:40:57.280 follow
00:40:58.640 first
00:40:59.140 principles
00:40:59.740 as we've
00:41:01.040 been
00:41:01.240 alluding
00:41:01.620 to
00:41:01.860 previously
00:41:02.620 I think
00:41:04.460 if there
00:41:05.540 is one
00:41:06.040 overriding
00:41:07.060 theme
00:41:07.520 that comes
00:41:08.040 through
00:41:08.340 quite a
00:41:08.800 few
00:41:08.960 of his
00:41:09.180 films
00:41:09.500 it's
00:41:10.440 probably
00:41:10.800 some
00:41:11.220 of his
00:41:11.540 anti-war
00:41:12.680 themes
00:41:13.160 that come
00:41:14.160 from
00:41:14.480 Pats of
00:41:15.200 Glory
00:41:15.680 even
00:41:16.340 Spartacus
00:41:16.860 has a
00:41:17.120 bit of
00:41:17.400 them
00:41:17.580 Doctor
00:41:17.840 Strangelove
00:41:18.620 Full Metal
00:41:19.400 Jacket
00:41:19.960 that's
00:41:21.020 probably
00:41:21.680 the
00:41:22.340 one
00:41:23.240 primary
00:41:24.440 theme
00:41:24.900 that's
00:41:25.220 a big
00:41:25.720 through
00:41:25.980 line
00:41:26.200 through
00:41:26.360 his
00:41:26.500 career
00:41:26.860 but
00:41:28.300 that doesn't
00:41:28.980 have to
00:41:29.300 be
00:41:29.440 partisan
00:41:29.860 that can
00:41:31.560 just be
00:41:32.040 a
00:41:32.320 first
00:41:32.840 principle
00:41:33.200 kind of
00:41:33.500 thing
00:41:33.640 the
00:41:34.020 interesting
00:41:34.300 thing
00:41:34.520 with
00:41:34.640 Nathan
00:41:34.920 Abrams
00:41:35.380 as well
00:41:35.820 you bring
00:41:37.320 him up
00:41:37.800 is that
00:41:39.120 of course
00:41:39.760 he's going
00:41:40.200 to be the
00:41:40.560 one to
00:41:40.860 try and
00:41:41.300 put that
00:41:41.860 on him
00:41:42.240 in the
00:41:42.460 same way
00:41:42.840 that that
00:41:43.200 essay
00:41:43.640 that I
00:41:44.160 referenced
00:41:44.480 when we
00:41:44.740 spoke about
00:41:45.160 2001
00:41:45.760 tried to
00:41:46.760 make
00:41:47.080 Hal
00:41:47.600 about the
00:41:48.240 Holocaust
00:41:48.560 which was
00:41:49.280 an
00:41:49.960 incredible
00:41:50.700 reach
00:41:51.380 also
00:41:52.060 the
00:41:52.620 empty
00:41:53.040 space
00:41:53.660 the
00:41:53.960 blackness
00:41:54.520 of
00:41:54.700 space
00:41:55.240 apparently
00:41:56.260 featuring
00:41:57.060 in a
00:41:57.400 film about
00:41:57.920 travelling
00:41:58.300 through
00:41:58.560 space
00:41:59.020 featuring
00:41:59.460 long
00:42:00.080 shots
00:42:01.000 of
00:42:01.540 the
00:42:01.940 emptiness
00:42:02.340 of
00:42:02.700 space
00:42:03.120 means
00:42:04.080 you're
00:42:04.360 writing
00:42:04.640 about
00:42:05.000 the
00:42:05.240 Holocaust
00:42:05.700 question
00:42:06.720 mark
00:42:07.100 very
00:42:07.720 strange
00:42:08.340 and very
00:42:08.860 tribal
00:42:09.760 ethnic
00:42:10.200 self-interest
00:42:10.840 kind of view
00:42:11.560 to take
00:42:11.900 on it
00:42:12.160 Abrams
00:42:13.220 seems very
00:42:13.720 similar to
00:42:14.180 that
00:42:14.400 because I've
00:42:15.080 read a little
00:42:15.640 bit of his
00:42:16.080 other work
00:42:16.680 he has an
00:42:17.380 essay that he
00:42:18.780 did for the
00:42:19.300 Jewish
00:42:19.620 Historical
00:42:20.140 Quarterly
00:42:20.800 Review
00:42:21.080 whatever it
00:42:21.560 is
00:42:22.080 a good few
00:42:22.720 years ago
00:42:23.200 now about
00:42:23.780 Jewish
00:42:24.920 overrepresentation
00:42:26.040 and involvement
00:42:26.760 in the
00:42:27.120 porn industry
00:42:27.800 from the
00:42:28.640 beginning
00:42:28.960 is actually
00:42:30.060 a very
00:42:30.400 interesting
00:42:30.860 essay
00:42:31.400 but he
00:42:32.240 seems very
00:42:32.900 obsessed with
00:42:33.820 his own
00:42:34.500 tribal
00:42:35.660 history
00:42:36.480 which is
00:42:37.180 of course
00:42:37.540 he has every
00:42:38.240 right to do
00:42:38.780 but he'll look
00:42:39.580 into something
00:42:40.080 like the
00:42:40.400 porn industry
00:42:40.880 and go
00:42:41.100 hey there are
00:42:41.760 a lot of us
00:42:42.180 here
00:42:42.460 and then he'll
00:42:43.160 go well
00:42:43.540 obviously it was
00:42:44.240 a good thing
00:42:44.720 then
00:42:44.940 so he has a
00:42:47.300 very very
00:42:47.860 self-interested
00:42:48.720 morality
00:42:49.120 which he's
00:42:50.260 trying to put
00:42:51.240 on Kubrick
00:42:51.900 which Kubrick
00:42:52.740 doesn't seem
00:42:53.260 to display
00:42:53.780 if you would
00:42:54.340 like to see
00:42:54.760 the full
00:42:55.140 version of
00:42:55.640 this premium
00:42:56.140 video
00:42:56.560 please head
00:42:57.160 over to
00:42:57.500 lotuseaters.com
00:42:58.480 and subscribe
00:42:59.240 to gain full
00:43:00.000 access to all
00:43:00.940 of our premium
00:43:01.660 content