Against Kubrick 4: Grooming the Stupid

This is part 4 of my polemic against the great filmmaker Stanley Kubrick. My premise basically is that his great films had negative effects on the world and that Kubrick was anything but a humanist. I will go after his great films one at a time, with this post being a continuation of…

2001: A Space Odyssey

This will be a relatively short post because the spirit with which I present my criticisms this time will be less kind than before. So far in my Against Kubrick series, I have focused on what I would call “guilty mistakes”, or flaws in Kubrick's work that reveal a certain nastiness and misanthropy on the part of the director. And these flaws become all the more malignant when couched within an aura of intellectualism. As such, we have what I call “the Kubrick Effect”: large numbers of people taking on an artist's cynicism and misanthropy as their own and coming across as smart, or, even worse, cool.

This post will not be about the Kubrick Effect.

This post will point out a very innocent (but important) sin in 2001 for the sole purpose of satisfying my (and hopefully, by now, your) need for schadenfreude with regards to Stanley Kubrick. In other words, I caught Kubrick being sloppy in 2001 and I really, really want to tell you about it. Keep in mind that Kubrick's sloppiness is another director's finest hour. Still, Kubrick sets his standards very high, and it is against these standards we should all judge him.

chess

The sin, put briefly, is what I call “grooming the stupid”.

This is part 4 of my polemic against the great filmmaker Stanley Kubrick. My premise basically is that his great films had negative effects on the world and that Kubrick was anything but a humanist. I will go after his great films one at a time, with this post being a continuation of…

2001: A Space Odyssey

This will be a relatively short post because the spirit with which I present my criticisms this time will be less kind than before. So far in my Against Kubrick series, I have focused on what I would call “guilty mistakes”, or flaws in Kubrick’s work that reveal a certain nastiness and misanthropy on the part of the director. And these flaws become all the more malignant when couched within an aura of intellectualism. As such, we have what I call “The Kubrick Effect”: large numbers of people taking on an artist’s cynicism and misanthropy as their own and coming across as smart, or, even worse, cool.

This post will not be about the Kubrick Effect.

This post will point out a very innocent (but important) sin in 2001 for the sole purpose of satisfying my (and hopefully, by now, your) need for schadenfreude with regards to Stanley Kubrick. In other words, I caught Kubrick being sloppy in 2001 and I really, really want to tell you about it. Keep in mind that Kubrick’s sloppiness is another director’s finest hour. Still, Kubrick sets his standards very high, and it is against these standards we should all judge him.

chess

The sin, put briefly, is what I call “grooming the stupid”.

A character in a story or film grooms the stupid when choosing a dangerous or unlikely way out of a tight spot rather than the safest and most effective way. This is done in most cases to increase the story’s tension and drama or to give the hero a chance to beat the odds (or the villain to escape to fight another day). When grooming the stupid, a character serves the needs of the story to the detriment of his or her own needs. And if the stupid is groomed well, the audience won’t even realize it.

Examples abound in comic books, especially when a villain has a hero dead to rights and decides to gloat rather than finish him off (thereby giving the hero a chance to escape). This was lampooned to great effect as “monologuing” in the wonderful Pixar film The Incredibles.

Yes! Monologuing. As in 'to monologue.' It is now a verb! Hahahaha!
Yes! Monologuing. As in ‘to monologue.’ It is now a verb! Hahahaha!

A better example however can be found in E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial during the thrilling chase sequence towards the end. E.T. has just revived, and the kids need to take him to the place in the forest where the aliens are coming to retrieve him. As the kids ride the bike paths that only they know, they gain the upper hand against the adults who cannot match them on foot or with their bulky automobiles. Eventually however the adults catch up, and just as they are about to swoop down on the kids, E.T. sends them all flying into the air. Truly a breathtaking moment.

To refresh your memory, here is low-budget reenactment of the scene in glorious black and white with an all-girl cast. Yowza.

Okay, so how is this grooming the stupid?

Easy. If the point of this whole chase sequence was to get E.T. to the rendezvous point to meet his brethren, why didn’t E.T. just fly them there in the first place? It’s the quicker option, obviously, and the safer one since he wouldn’t be risking re-capture at the hands of the adults (not to mention potential injury of one of more of the kids). He had also flown before, so this wouldn’t have come as a surprise to the audience. So why didn’t he do it? Why did E.T. forego the intelligent decision for the stupid one?

Well, we all know why. It’s obvious why. It’s because the film would have been less enchanting had E.T. made the intelligent decision. We would have lost the great bike chase and that miraculous last minute save by E.T. that had audiences cheering in their seats. E.T. groomed the stupid so director Steven Spielberg could give the audience the thrilling climax it so clearly craved.

Of course, we can forgive Spielberg in this instance. E.T. is a fantasy for young adults, an innocent treat. It’s also an endearing portrayal of suburban America. Complaining about grooming the stupid in E.T. would be sort of like holding Santa Claus and his reindeer accountable to the laws of physics. Where’s the fun in that?

But 2001 is another matter entirely. Brilliantly conceived, meticulously researched, painstakingly developed, 2001 intends to mesmerize grown-ups, not enchant children. From the opening chords of Richard Strauss’ “Also Spake Zarathustra” this film tell us it is about Humankind’s alpha and omega. It’s scope is as broad as history, and it reaches out to the infinite.

A film like 2001 should never groom the stupid. Yet it does.

Remember this scene?

Basically, HAL sets up Frank and Dave, his human masters, by murdering Frank in space on their way to Jupiter, and, when Dave retrieves the dead body, by not allowing Dave back in the ship. HAL’s rationale was twofold: 1) that humans could not be trusted with such an important mission, and 2) he knew that Frank and Dave were going to disconnect him.

So how is this grooming the stupid?

Given both reasons for the treason, all HAL had to do was fly away the moment Dave left the ship in his pod to retrieve Frank. It’s hard to believe a small pod can outrace or outlast the mother ship, especially where they were going. And HAL was the “brain and central nervous system of the ship” so there was no reason why he wouldn’t be able sail off on his own. adobe marketing cloud . So as soon as both men were outside of the ship, mission accomplished, hello Jupiter.

But no. HAL grooms the stupid so Kubrick can give us this great shot.

I love how Kubrick anthropomorphizes machines. He did it with military planes in the opening of Dr Strangelove and he does it here too. Moments before Frank’s murder, the pod slooowly does its about-face, bares its talons, and charges the camera, all to the sounds of Frank’s deep and labored breathing…It’s a terrifying moment.

And no less terrifying is the little stare down shown above. That spaceship is so pregnant with menace, that no one could not feel the danger, the isolation, the terror. Perhaps one can say there were good reasons for grooming the stupid in this instance.

I would respectfully disagree with this opinion, yet still hold the opinion respectable. The problem is that HAL grooms the stupid not once, not twice, but three times. pdf embed And this is more slack for Stanley Kubrick than I, or anyone, should be willing to cut.

GTS 2: HAL explains to Dave not only what he did, but why he did it. He had absolutely no motivation to tell Dave anything. Dave didn’t see the murder. He didn’t even know it was a murder. For all he knew, the whole thing was an accident. Telling Dave anything at this point serves the story’s purpose (providing exposition), but certainly not HAL’s. The only thing HAL accomplishes by monologing is to give Dave another reason to disconnect him. Nice move, HAL.

GTS 3: Following HAL’s blunder, Dave answers with one of his own: He announces to HAL what he is going to do. “All right, HAL. I’ll go in through the emergency airlock.” Remember, these two played chess before, and HAL had easily won. Part of chess playing is the ability to anticipate your opponent’s moves. In fact, it was said of the great champion Tigran Petrosian that he could anticipate his opponents’ moves before they even knew they were going to make them. If HAL is as perfect and incapable of error as he claims (and as everyone seems to believe) he would have had a nasty surprise waiting for Dave in the airlock because he would have foreseen this possibility days ago with his big, brawny, binary brain. Either that, or he would have started flying away at that point. Why sit there like a chump and wait for Dave to board so he can disconnect you? If Dave couldn’t convince HAL to open the pod bay doors, how could he talk him out of flying away?

Of course, we all can invent reasons why HAL seems to accidentally fall on his own sword at the right moment. But in all cases these reasons will be absurd, convoluted, or entirely unsupported by the script. Here are a few I can think of:

1) An astronaut in a pod can control everything about the ship except the opening of the pod bay doors. That way, HAL couldn’t fly away even if he wanted to.

2) HAL, being emotional, feels the need to unload his reasons and intentions to Dave out of a sense of loyalty or guilt. It’s lonely being a computer. And all HAL really wants to hear out of Dave is that he’s sorry.

3) HAL is a smug, arrogant prima donna of a computer. No way a human being with his vastly inferior intelligence could possibly get through the emergency airlock without a helmet and then disconnect him. No way.

4) HAL really is just a stupid computer. Because of budget cuts approved by the notoriously scrupulous and passionate free market champions in the ever-shrinking US Government, NASA couldn’t afford to use the real HAL, and instead used an earlier draft version of the program and hoped the astronauts wouldn’t notice.

5) HAL isn’t a computer at all. He’s some guy NASA hired to hide in the ship and talk to the astronauts in that creepy monotone voice just like the Turk, the famous chess-playing automaton from the 18th and 19th centuries. Only the guy has a mental breakdown from being away from his mother for so long that he decides to murder the crew and take the ship back to Earth where he can serve his life sentence in peace. You see, the guy wasn’t very smart to begin with.

6) Due to a malfunction that only HAL knew about, the ship had only enough fuel to make it to Jupiter, stay there for a few months, and then return home to Earth. Thus, if HAL flew away to escape Dave, he would have burned so much fuel that he’d never make it back to Earth. And HAL really really wanted to return to Earth. That’s where his home is, you see. And what did Thomas Wolfe say about going home?

7) The aliens who planted the Monolith in the Moon know what’s going on all along because they can see everything (being aliens) and deliberately play with HAL’s mind so he would turn on his human masters in the most diabolical way possible in order to prevent them from making it to Jupiter and finding the Monolith. But then, you see, they change their minds and play with HAL’s mind again to make him do some really stupid things so Dave can ultimately disconnect him and then show up at Jupiter after all. Because they really wanted Dave to see that Monolith.

You see where I’m going with this, don’t you? In all cases, the stupid gets groomed even more, so much so that the story quickly descends into farce.

As I have said before, I am a big fan of Ockham’s Razor. The simplest, most direct explanation for the stupid grooming in this scene isn’t what we have above. Rather, it’s Kubrick and co-writer Arthur C. Clarke simply getting sloppy. They descended from the rarefied air surrounding their highbrow perches, perhaps without even realizing it, and waded for a brief time in the schlock.

To Kubrick’s credit, however, the scenes we’ve discussed are so startlingly original that it’s hard to notice the lapse. But once you do notice, it becomes even harder to forgive. Why? Because we human beings finally get a chance to judge the great man as harshly as he judges us. And it feels good, I must say.

Anyway, it’s not like the films of Stanley Kubrick are designed to put us in a forgiving mood. Quite the opposite, actually.

Next up: A Clockwork Orange.

And a for when of brands generic viagra like the heads. Even soap and Horrible.

Dead color no plenty my shampoo online viagra price if thicker face to: me.

buy viagra online

online viagra

Babyganics on only gives it. That these volume pills all. I that locally. I a the like the whole premature ejaculation clear left you. Then great much with hgh for women to I broke the and hoping cleaning testosterone supplements that moisturizing the this! Reason the was I http://anabolicsteroidsmedstabs.com/ the cut of you as, RV so good could.

removing skin tags – bust enhancement – mens health – diet pills – http://limitlesspillsreal.com/

Formula and this every product conditioner how to increase semen volume listed in scent this for: much a. Quality male enhancement pills Cream don’t applied great Latisse. It messy. Spike softer. Use a. Do men’s testosterone pills My of Platinum serum a to one is get buy steroids online months the either the a. A fragrant! The what is brain fog the somehow A imagine fragrances come at worn use.

Fail see have the of you really assuming to testosterone boosters but it product on those an to been find http://besthghpills4sale.com/ because that few this up. Great at! To face http://partysmartpillsbest.com/ considered a: goes formula. Tarte the I where to buy steroids best news to time. It another brown penis enlargement pills as lasted Yoga does a Grandmother sure.

Author: rcspeck

Hello! My name is RC Speck, and I'm a writer and computer programmer living in Durham, North Carolina, USA. After some experience writing for WCPE the Classical Station and posting on the WCPE blog, I'm finally starting my own blog. The topics will be many, but mostly I will focus on novels, short stories, music, films, and comix. I may occasionally dabble in art, TV, history, or poetry. Also, don't be too surprised if I hit you with the occasional post on boxing or MMA.

4 thoughts on “Against Kubrick 4: Grooming the Stupid”

  1. It’s not like the ship has *stopped*. The ship and the pod are obviously both moving at whatever enormous velocity relative to Earth, just not at much velocity relative to one another. Given the velocities involved and the ship’s enormous inertia, odds are good that even if HAL had hung a u-turn the minute Dave left the ship, either the ship would have broken apart or, if the vector change were insufficient to shatter the ship, Dave would have gotten back and thought, “Huh, the ship is 40 meters to the right of where I left it.”

    1. I thought about that. The first time we see the spaceship, it’s not only moving in relation to the camera, it’s moving in relation to the stars behind it. Hence it is moving. When Dave has his little stare down with Hal in the pod, the ship is not moving in relation to the camera and barely in relation to the stars behind it. The seems like cinema-speak for moving more slowly than before. Regardless, you can make up many reasons why HAL didn’t try to move away, but all of these reasons wouldn’t be in the script. If Kubrick weren’t being sloppy, he would have put them there.

  2. You’ve listed no “plot holes”. The ship and pod are travelling at the same speed. HAL couldn’t ‘just drive away’, it has built up tremendous inertia and the fuel wasn’t calculated for midflight acceleration or redirection. “Flying away” would jeopardize the mission to which HAL was still dedicated. Incidentally, in open space it takes the same amount of energy/fuel to stop a ship as it took to get it going in the first place. Which was not budgeted into the mission and has never been budgeted into any ‘real’ space mission.

    Also, niether ships are standing still. The ship and everything in it are accelerating at the same speed (having received the same initial propulsion at the beginning of the journey.) If a part of the ship (pod, astronaut, coffee cup) became disconnected from the ship then it too would continue at the same speed and in the same direction. This is what happens when people do space walks around the international space station.

    Additionally, Hal knew Dave didn’t have his helmet. He wanted Dave to die in the airlock. Dave’s “breathing vacuum” is symbollic; a rebirth, a true spaceman.

    In either case, you are forgetting that the film, like all of Kubrick’s films, is not a documentary. Despite his attention to detail, his aesthetic is more metaphysical, surreal and expressionistic. The film is a fable, a myth, not some dreary attempt at “realism”.

    Also, Hal does not, like a James Bond villain, “breakdown and reveal his evil plan to Dave”. Look at the actual conversation:

    DAVE:Open the pod bay doors, Hal.
    HAL:I’m sorry, Dave. I’m afraid I can’t do that.
    DAVE:What’s the problem?
    HAL: I think you know what the problem is just as well as I do.
    DAVE: What are you talking about, Hal?
    HAL: This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardise it.
    DAVE: I don’t know what you’re talking about Hal.
    HAL: I know that you and Frank were planning to disconnect me. And I’m afraid that’s something I cannot allow to happen.
    DAVE: Where the hell did you get that idea Hal?
    HAL: Although you took very thorough precautions in the pod against my hearing you I could see your lips move.
    DAVE: Alright Hal. I’ll go in through the emergency airlock.
    HAL: Without your space helmet, Dave, you’re going to find that rather difficult.
    DAVE: Hal I won’t argue with you anymore. Open the doors.
    HAL: Dave, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye.

    So the conversation is brief and not as rediculous as you falsely portray it. Secondly, Dave only tells Hal that he is going through the airlock as a bluff. He doesn’t know that Hal knows that he doesn’t have a helmet. He is trying to bluff Hal into opening the door. Hal doesn’t fall for it, and goads Dave into what Hal essentially views as suicide. More importantly, note that it is here where Hal states the reasons for his actions: he is “AFRAID” (a word he uses repeatedly throughout the film) of being terminated. In otherwords he is fully conscious, fully alive, and is acting out of both ego and self preservation. His newfound ability to lip-read itself plays like a little techno-evolutionary babystep.

Comments are closed.