http://www.collativelearning.com/mybb_1401/Upload/ Fri, 10 Sep 2010 02:58:59 -0500 MyBB http://www.collativelearning.com/mybb_1401/Upload/showthread.php?tid=451 Thu, 09 Sep 2010 06:02:46 -0500 http://www.collativelearning.com/mybb_1401/Upload/showthread.php?tid=451 http://www.collativelearning.com/mybb_1401/Upload/showthread.php?tid=450 Thu, 09 Sep 2010 00:29:17 -0500 http://www.collativelearning.com/mybb_1401/Upload/showthread.php?tid=450
I'm also starting to notice some more symbolism. One in particular during the ending duel scene (sorry if the image is big, it's the only one I could find):



I notice two things in this shot: The pyramid symbol as well as the two cross symbols beneath. I really wonder the significance of this shot.

I've already noted in the FMJ thread about the film's possible relations to Full Metal Jacket:

-Barry was, at one point in the film a soldier.

-while he was a soldier, he engaged in a fist fight between an older, chubbier man, which mirrors a scene in which someone fights Pyle with big Q-tips (I have no clue what those are called)

-during the same scene, the two fighters are surrounded by red tires, which vaguely resembles the red coats worn by the soldiers surrounding the two fighters.

-Also, the FMJ soldiers are gathered around the red tires, making it very similar to BL's scene.

I'd like to hear any other observations on the film, if there are any. I'd like to point out that Barry Lyndon feels like a road map for Kubrick's other movies. This is the only film in which it literally shows the father abusing the son, and also the only film which directly explains the son trying to kill the father. That's really all I have for now. Any thing to say about the film or the themes of the film?]]>
I'm also starting to notice some more symbolism. One in particular during the ending duel scene (sorry if the image is big, it's the only one I could find):



I notice two things in this shot: The pyramid symbol as well as the two cross symbols beneath. I really wonder the significance of this shot.

I've already noted in the FMJ thread about the film's possible relations to Full Metal Jacket:

-Barry was, at one point in the film a soldier.

-while he was a soldier, he engaged in a fist fight between an older, chubbier man, which mirrors a scene in which someone fights Pyle with big Q-tips (I have no clue what those are called)

-during the same scene, the two fighters are surrounded by red tires, which vaguely resembles the red coats worn by the soldiers surrounding the two fighters.

-Also, the FMJ soldiers are gathered around the red tires, making it very similar to BL's scene.

I'd like to hear any other observations on the film, if there are any. I'd like to point out that Barry Lyndon feels like a road map for Kubrick's other movies. This is the only film in which it literally shows the father abusing the son, and also the only film which directly explains the son trying to kill the father. That's really all I have for now. Any thing to say about the film or the themes of the film?]]> http://www.collativelearning.com/mybb_1401/Upload/showthread.php?tid=449 Sun, 05 Sep 2010 21:41:22 -0500 http://www.collativelearning.com/mybb_1401/Upload/showthread.php?tid=449
No Spoilers Please ]]>
No Spoilers Please ]]> http://www.collativelearning.com/mybb_1401/Upload/showthread.php?tid=448 Mon, 23 Aug 2010 22:18:54 -0500 http://www.collativelearning.com/mybb_1401/Upload/showthread.php?tid=448 He also directed a short anime, Paranoia Agent, that is worth of an analysis that I might just do one day.
His filmography :
Perfect Blue, Millenium Actress, Tokyo Godfathers, Paprika.
And apparantely he just died today, RIP.]]> He also directed a short anime, Paranoia Agent, that is worth of an analysis that I might just do one day.
His filmography :
Perfect Blue, Millenium Actress, Tokyo Godfathers, Paprika.
And apparantely he just died today, RIP.]]> http://www.collativelearning.com/mybb_1401/Upload/showthread.php?tid=447 Fri, 20 Aug 2010 14:24:54 -0500 http://www.collativelearning.com/mybb_1401/Upload/showthread.php?tid=447
I have been interested in the tricks and techniques used by the advertising agencies for a long time. I had some free time lately and i set up a website which breaks down some of the sneaky practices they use.If your interested here is the link
http://subliminaltricksinads.webeden.co.uk/

I deal with old cigarrete ads but im sure the techniques they use can be employed on any product.Its a rough draft,Ill add some facts figures and quotes from famous people later to beef it up and make it seem like I know what Im talking about.

Warning. Its the first website i have set up and i dont even have a facebook account so its a complete amature project,Im learning how to use the site as I go along so maybe focus on the content and not the design.

Im not sure if you can leave a comment on the site yet so if you take a look and want to make a comment hit me back here.Good bad or indifferent.maybe everthing I talk about is obvious.

Thanks.
treefrog]]>
I have been interested in the tricks and techniques used by the advertising agencies for a long time. I had some free time lately and i set up a website which breaks down some of the sneaky practices they use.If your interested here is the link
http://subliminaltricksinads.webeden.co.uk/

I deal with old cigarrete ads but im sure the techniques they use can be employed on any product.Its a rough draft,Ill add some facts figures and quotes from famous people later to beef it up and make it seem like I know what Im talking about.

Warning. Its the first website i have set up and i dont even have a facebook account so its a complete amature project,Im learning how to use the site as I go along so maybe focus on the content and not the design.

Im not sure if you can leave a comment on the site yet so if you take a look and want to make a comment hit me back here.Good bad or indifferent.maybe everthing I talk about is obvious.

Thanks.
treefrog]]> http://www.collativelearning.com/mybb_1401/Upload/showthread.php?tid=446 Fri, 20 Aug 2010 03:43:13 -0500 http://www.collativelearning.com/mybb_1401/Upload/showthread.php?tid=446
What I find funny though, is the insane amount of time traveling paradoxes, or even the amount of logical problems with the depiction of time travel. Ironically, Bill And Ted is the most accurate depiction of time travel I've ever seen. It just simply makes more sense:

1.If you were to go back in time to give yourself something, you would find it the first time around. (shown in Bill And Ted's)

2.No matter what you do, you still AGE normally (the clock is always ticking... don't forget to set your watch!).

I actually got so fascinated with Time Travel that I actually dedicated an entire short story to the subject. It borrowed elements from other time travel movies, as well as some "Kubrickean" elements. It's funny though, because the entire point of my time travel story was to take OUT the logical problems with time travel, and, for the most part, I actually got pretty accurate!

For example, money from our time would be useless in a previous time, and everything you do in the past will alter the timeline, ultimately making you unable to return to your own existence. If you were to be stuck in the past, you wouldn't exist, and if you were to go back, what if you just happen to have a brother in this timeline? You never grew up with a brother, and so this brother CAN'T be your brother, but an alternate version of you's brother. What if in this time line, you never went back in time? Then there are two of you!

But enough about that. Does anybody else know of some good time travel movies/books that they've seen/read that seems to accurately depict what time travel WOULD be like?

I know that Primer has a pretty good depiction, and that film just blows my mind. People call it the next "2001", and it was filmed on a budget of 7,000 dollars!

I actually hope to be able to publish some sort of thing on time travel, like maybe a movie or something, but until then, I would really like to hear about some other time travel works. P.S., Primer is kind of relatively unknown, but if you haven't seen it, I say you should go see it immediately!]]>
What I find funny though, is the insane amount of time traveling paradoxes, or even the amount of logical problems with the depiction of time travel. Ironically, Bill And Ted is the most accurate depiction of time travel I've ever seen. It just simply makes more sense:

1.If you were to go back in time to give yourself something, you would find it the first time around. (shown in Bill And Ted's)

2.No matter what you do, you still AGE normally (the clock is always ticking... don't forget to set your watch!).

I actually got so fascinated with Time Travel that I actually dedicated an entire short story to the subject. It borrowed elements from other time travel movies, as well as some "Kubrickean" elements. It's funny though, because the entire point of my time travel story was to take OUT the logical problems with time travel, and, for the most part, I actually got pretty accurate!

For example, money from our time would be useless in a previous time, and everything you do in the past will alter the timeline, ultimately making you unable to return to your own existence. If you were to be stuck in the past, you wouldn't exist, and if you were to go back, what if you just happen to have a brother in this timeline? You never grew up with a brother, and so this brother CAN'T be your brother, but an alternate version of you's brother. What if in this time line, you never went back in time? Then there are two of you!

But enough about that. Does anybody else know of some good time travel movies/books that they've seen/read that seems to accurately depict what time travel WOULD be like?

I know that Primer has a pretty good depiction, and that film just blows my mind. People call it the next "2001", and it was filmed on a budget of 7,000 dollars!

I actually hope to be able to publish some sort of thing on time travel, like maybe a movie or something, but until then, I would really like to hear about some other time travel works. P.S., Primer is kind of relatively unknown, but if you haven't seen it, I say you should go see it immediately!]]> http://www.collativelearning.com/mybb_1401/Upload/showthread.php?tid=445 Wed, 18 Aug 2010 23:21:34 -0500 http://www.collativelearning.com/mybb_1401/Upload/showthread.php?tid=445 http://www.collativelearning.com/mybb_1401/Upload/showthread.php?tid=444 Mon, 16 Aug 2010 04:07:54 -0500 http://www.collativelearning.com/mybb_1401/Upload/showthread.php?tid=444
I find the concept really hard to follow. It feels like Kubrick or Lynch wrote the lyrics. Here's a link to the lyrics:

http://www.darklyrics.com/lyrics/opeth/g...eries.html

I did notice many significant things that may help in figuring out the story, because the album's story seems to be very layered, as well as not arranged chronologically. Here are some things that I noticed:

Forests are mentioned a bit, seemingly as a place of fleeing

The Mire is a prominent theme, being what seems like the place where he kills his mother.

Satan plays a role, being the seemingly main subject of The Grand Conjuration, and mentioned slyly in other songs, such as Ghost of Perdition.

Hounds play a significant role, being mentioned in The Baying of the Hounds, as well as Reverie/Harlequin forest.

There is no clear narrator. It seems to switch between perspectives and subjects without any knowledge of who is being mentioned. For example, sometimes it says "I ____", sometimes it says "You ____", and sometimes it says "he ____". So it's very hard to decipher who is speaking, and who they are speaking about.

I've been able to make out a few characters:

Son
Mother
Satan
Possible other person?

But other than this, I'm very lost. What I make of the plot of the story is this:

The son has a sick mother, and satan is slowly trying to pull her away. The sick mother does some sort of thing that makes her fall to satan's grasp. He notices this evil in his mother, and feels that he must kill her.

I think that she is an adulterer of some sort. It's a stretch, but in "Baying of the Hounds", there's a lyric from The Baying of the Hounds that supports some sort of selfishness on her end, as well as murder:

"Drown in the deep mire
With past desires
Beneath the mire
Drown desire now with you"

A mire is a bog, or a muddy body of water, something similar. He's drowning her in the mire with all of her desires.

Another HUGE supporter of this idea is immediately after the last quote:

"The tainted lips of the stranger
Resting upon hers"

and The Baying of the Hounds ends with this line:

"And now they are calling me
Louder by the minute
The baying of the hounds
Calling me back to my home"

The start and end of the song mention the hounds, but the rest is a series of tangents. Are these hounds of the devil, or more like police dogs, as if a manhunt? The most important thing to remember is that, just like Kubrick films, these lyrics can be taken literally or symbolically/metaphorically.

And at some point, the character submits to the devil?

Understanding Opeth is interesting, because they seem to be one of few musicians who not only expresses musical emotion, but also shows deconstructed narrative and poetic/artistic obscurantism, using lyrics that show much imagery and somewhat surrealism, but at the same time, contain unifying themes that lead to the possibility of a true plot behind the initially empty words.

I hate to look too much into something, but I seriously would put Opeth's lyrics into the same category of Kubrick, because both are geniuses at their craft, but also add a sense of underlying meanings and ideas. That, and they both try to leave an uncertainty as to what they intended. They both leave a lot of room for interpretation.]]>
I find the concept really hard to follow. It feels like Kubrick or Lynch wrote the lyrics. Here's a link to the lyrics:

http://www.darklyrics.com/lyrics/opeth/g...eries.html

I did notice many significant things that may help in figuring out the story, because the album's story seems to be very layered, as well as not arranged chronologically. Here are some things that I noticed:

Forests are mentioned a bit, seemingly as a place of fleeing

The Mire is a prominent theme, being what seems like the place where he kills his mother.

Satan plays a role, being the seemingly main subject of The Grand Conjuration, and mentioned slyly in other songs, such as Ghost of Perdition.

Hounds play a significant role, being mentioned in The Baying of the Hounds, as well as Reverie/Harlequin forest.

There is no clear narrator. It seems to switch between perspectives and subjects without any knowledge of who is being mentioned. For example, sometimes it says "I ____", sometimes it says "You ____", and sometimes it says "he ____". So it's very hard to decipher who is speaking, and who they are speaking about.

I've been able to make out a few characters:

Son
Mother
Satan
Possible other person?

But other than this, I'm very lost. What I make of the plot of the story is this:

The son has a sick mother, and satan is slowly trying to pull her away. The sick mother does some sort of thing that makes her fall to satan's grasp. He notices this evil in his mother, and feels that he must kill her.

I think that she is an adulterer of some sort. It's a stretch, but in "Baying of the Hounds", there's a lyric from The Baying of the Hounds that supports some sort of selfishness on her end, as well as murder:

"Drown in the deep mire
With past desires
Beneath the mire
Drown desire now with you"

A mire is a bog, or a muddy body of water, something similar. He's drowning her in the mire with all of her desires.

Another HUGE supporter of this idea is immediately after the last quote:

"The tainted lips of the stranger
Resting upon hers"

and The Baying of the Hounds ends with this line:

"And now they are calling me
Louder by the minute
The baying of the hounds
Calling me back to my home"

The start and end of the song mention the hounds, but the rest is a series of tangents. Are these hounds of the devil, or more like police dogs, as if a manhunt? The most important thing to remember is that, just like Kubrick films, these lyrics can be taken literally or symbolically/metaphorically.

And at some point, the character submits to the devil?

Understanding Opeth is interesting, because they seem to be one of few musicians who not only expresses musical emotion, but also shows deconstructed narrative and poetic/artistic obscurantism, using lyrics that show much imagery and somewhat surrealism, but at the same time, contain unifying themes that lead to the possibility of a true plot behind the initially empty words.

I hate to look too much into something, but I seriously would put Opeth's lyrics into the same category of Kubrick, because both are geniuses at their craft, but also add a sense of underlying meanings and ideas. That, and they both try to leave an uncertainty as to what they intended. They both leave a lot of room for interpretation.]]> http://www.collativelearning.com/mybb_1401/Upload/showthread.php?tid=443 Sun, 15 Aug 2010 20:26:41 -0500 http://www.collativelearning.com/mybb_1401/Upload/showthread.php?tid=443
The language - There is an array of obscenities spouted by Regan and others throughout the film. As Rob points out Burke uses the word 'cunting hun' and the 'possessed' Regan says 'Do you know what she did, your cunting daughter?' The only other use of the word in the script is from the doctor, Regan advises him to 'keep my fingers away from her goddam cunt'. I think this scene is suspicious as we don't actually witness this during the medical procedure and also, why would the doctor have reason to be touching Regan in that region. Regan seems frustrated and agitated but up until this point of the movie in her descent, it doesnt follow that she would have used such language at this point. The doctors behavior to me seems suspicious, maybe he fabricated his apparent advice from Regan in order to persuade her mother that incoming changes in behavior be attributed to mental disorder. The scene where Regan is with the nurse and is moving weirdly around the room appears like she is disorientated, maybe she has been induced with something for her not to resist incoming sexual abuse from the Doctor? Unfortunately the mother is busy reading a magazine and is not scene with Regan during any of these minor medical examinations. I also find it suspicious after the scene where the doctors are attempting to convince Chris to place Regan in an asylum, where she would certainly be more likely to experience sexual molestation.

The scene where the Doctors are called to the house earlier in the psychotic behavior has the following double meaning text,
PSYCHIATRIST
Is there someone inside you?
REGAN
Sometimes.

There are many other things in the movie that suggest that Regan was being molested, particularly the Mother's complete lack of knowledge about who is in Regan's company and the amount of people in her room. I think maybe the directing could be suggesting that various characters in the film are involved in some sort of ring, which Regan is at the mercy of.

Finally I did a search on the internet, 'The Exorcist sexual abuse' and to my surprise the only relevant link were in reference to Rob's work.

Thumbs up to Rob]]>
The language - There is an array of obscenities spouted by Regan and others throughout the film. As Rob points out Burke uses the word 'cunting hun' and the 'possessed' Regan says 'Do you know what she did, your cunting daughter?' The only other use of the word in the script is from the doctor, Regan advises him to 'keep my fingers away from her goddam cunt'. I think this scene is suspicious as we don't actually witness this during the medical procedure and also, why would the doctor have reason to be touching Regan in that region. Regan seems frustrated and agitated but up until this point of the movie in her descent, it doesnt follow that she would have used such language at this point. The doctors behavior to me seems suspicious, maybe he fabricated his apparent advice from Regan in order to persuade her mother that incoming changes in behavior be attributed to mental disorder. The scene where Regan is with the nurse and is moving weirdly around the room appears like she is disorientated, maybe she has been induced with something for her not to resist incoming sexual abuse from the Doctor? Unfortunately the mother is busy reading a magazine and is not scene with Regan during any of these minor medical examinations. I also find it suspicious after the scene where the doctors are attempting to convince Chris to place Regan in an asylum, where she would certainly be more likely to experience sexual molestation.

The scene where the Doctors are called to the house earlier in the psychotic behavior has the following double meaning text,
PSYCHIATRIST
Is there someone inside you?
REGAN
Sometimes.

There are many other things in the movie that suggest that Regan was being molested, particularly the Mother's complete lack of knowledge about who is in Regan's company and the amount of people in her room. I think maybe the directing could be suggesting that various characters in the film are involved in some sort of ring, which Regan is at the mercy of.

Finally I did a search on the internet, 'The Exorcist sexual abuse' and to my surprise the only relevant link were in reference to Rob's work.

Thumbs up to Rob]]> http://www.collativelearning.com/mybb_1401/Upload/showthread.php?tid=442 Sat, 14 Aug 2010 02:15:45 -0500 http://www.collativelearning.com/mybb_1401/Upload/showthread.php?tid=442
Eraserhead is my brother's favorite movie, and it's in my top ten (number 6, I have a steady number order for my favorites)

Oh, and if you haven't seen the movie, SPOILERS.

I have only seen it twice, but I was paying a good amount of attention both times, and seem to find a lot of symbolism and unexplained phenomena that remind me much of Kubrick's work, such as The Shining.

I read somewhere that there are three prominent themes to the film:

1.Death
2.Sex
3.Dreams/Nightmares

The link was

http://classic-horror.com/reviews/eraserhead_1977

I think that the reviewer has a point. I think that the entire film is an inversion on reality and how we see it.

First of all, by "inversion", I'm implying a few things. I'm implying that he inverts the dreams into harsh realities. For example, the lady in the radiator vanishes at one point, and Henry gets his head removed by something inside his neck, at which point his child takes over the empty space.

It seems to be suggesting, through a possible dream sequence, that the lady in the radiator is his "safe place". It's his hopes and dreams. Then, when his head is removed, it is showing his dreams crushed by the harsh reality of his child. The entire sequence never determines dream or reality, which is why it's surrealism, but it's a double inversion, because it's a dream, showing a harsh reality crushing a dream (in the sense of a hope).

I think that the entire film definitely revolves around sex and dreams. The man in the moon could have STDs, and maybe that's why he looks so weird. I don't know, just a thought.

I also think that Henry may be a representation of a child. His dialogue is very childish, and his goals and actions throughout the movie are childish as well. It's apparent that he wants love, or at least comfort, but he is not willing to accept the consequences. The lady in the radiator could represent his ultimate comfort in life, and we see that the people who he's been with throughout the movie have done nothing but make him feel less comfortable. More evidence of him being a child is when he sees his neighbor, and it shows a shot of him with his head replaced by his child's. His dream as a "child" is love and comfort, and the harsh realities of sex, children, and consequences for his actions are what ultimately bring about the deterioration of the movie (the film slowly becomes more and more surreal until you can't tell what's going on anymore by the end).

I think I might have to write some things down next time I watch it, because I'm already starting to forget. Any thing else of importance? I honestly think that Lynch is the next director to Kubrick in terms of symbolism, bizarre/subliminal narrative storytelling, and even direction.

Any thoughts on the movie?]]>
Eraserhead is my brother's favorite movie, and it's in my top ten (number 6, I have a steady number order for my favorites)

Oh, and if you haven't seen the movie, SPOILERS.

I have only seen it twice, but I was paying a good amount of attention both times, and seem to find a lot of symbolism and unexplained phenomena that remind me much of Kubrick's work, such as The Shining.

I read somewhere that there are three prominent themes to the film:

1.Death
2.Sex
3.Dreams/Nightmares

The link was

http://classic-horror.com/reviews/eraserhead_1977

I think that the reviewer has a point. I think that the entire film is an inversion on reality and how we see it.

First of all, by "inversion", I'm implying a few things. I'm implying that he inverts the dreams into harsh realities. For example, the lady in the radiator vanishes at one point, and Henry gets his head removed by something inside his neck, at which point his child takes over the empty space.

It seems to be suggesting, through a possible dream sequence, that the lady in the radiator is his "safe place". It's his hopes and dreams. Then, when his head is removed, it is showing his dreams crushed by the harsh reality of his child. The entire sequence never determines dream or reality, which is why it's surrealism, but it's a double inversion, because it's a dream, showing a harsh reality crushing a dream (in the sense of a hope).

I think that the entire film definitely revolves around sex and dreams. The man in the moon could have STDs, and maybe that's why he looks so weird. I don't know, just a thought.

I also think that Henry may be a representation of a child. His dialogue is very childish, and his goals and actions throughout the movie are childish as well. It's apparent that he wants love, or at least comfort, but he is not willing to accept the consequences. The lady in the radiator could represent his ultimate comfort in life, and we see that the people who he's been with throughout the movie have done nothing but make him feel less comfortable. More evidence of him being a child is when he sees his neighbor, and it shows a shot of him with his head replaced by his child's. His dream as a "child" is love and comfort, and the harsh realities of sex, children, and consequences for his actions are what ultimately bring about the deterioration of the movie (the film slowly becomes more and more surreal until you can't tell what's going on anymore by the end).

I think I might have to write some things down next time I watch it, because I'm already starting to forget. Any thing else of importance? I honestly think that Lynch is the next director to Kubrick in terms of symbolism, bizarre/subliminal narrative storytelling, and even direction.

Any thoughts on the movie?]]> http://www.collativelearning.com/mybb_1401/Upload/showthread.php?tid=441 Fri, 13 Aug 2010 07:04:49 -0500 http://www.collativelearning.com/mybb_1401/Upload/showthread.php?tid=441
In the old forum I posted a question asking about your earlier Enneagram studies. What kind of system did you study? There are a few on the market now as far as I know. First, its the old esoteric one by Gurdjieff and company and then the more new personality type thing.

Back in the days I was very interested in the Gurdjieff system and found a lot of things to ponder (and observe).

Thanks for the site,

cheers Per]]>
In the old forum I posted a question asking about your earlier Enneagram studies. What kind of system did you study? There are a few on the market now as far as I know. First, its the old esoteric one by Gurdjieff and company and then the more new personality type thing.

Back in the days I was very interested in the Gurdjieff system and found a lot of things to ponder (and observe).

Thanks for the site,

cheers Per]]> http://www.collativelearning.com/mybb_1401/Upload/showthread.php?tid=440 Tue, 10 Aug 2010 22:16:57 -0500 http://www.collativelearning.com/mybb_1401/Upload/showthread.php?tid=440
Anyway, I think I noticed something that no one has remarked on before (or at least I have not seen) in Kubrick's The Shining.

We hear Danny scream a certain scream more than once in the film. The first time (really the second - I will get to that shortly) we hear him with this particular scream is at 1:19:35 (based on the Region 1 Widescreen DVD) when Danny is "asleep" in his room, and Jack turns against Wendy for her notion that they should leave the Hotel to take care of Danny:


The second time (really the third) we hear the scream is when Wendy is trying to talk to Danny, but is only able to communicate with Tony. The scream connotes Danny's psyche turned away, trying to escape from the trauma that is all around him (1:33:36) "Danny can't wake up Ms. Torrance":


But before both those scenes, Kubrick has actually snuck in the sound of Danny screaming to make the audience feel uneasy with the horror about to unfold, even if they are not aware of it. He allows us to shine, to come to know something that has not happened yet. (at 0:02:47) It only sounds ever so slightly different than Danny's scream...


What do you guys think?]]>
Anyway, I think I noticed something that no one has remarked on before (or at least I have not seen) in Kubrick's The Shining.

We hear Danny scream a certain scream more than once in the film. The first time (really the second - I will get to that shortly) we hear him with this particular scream is at 1:19:35 (based on the Region 1 Widescreen DVD) when Danny is "asleep" in his room, and Jack turns against Wendy for her notion that they should leave the Hotel to take care of Danny:


The second time (really the third) we hear the scream is when Wendy is trying to talk to Danny, but is only able to communicate with Tony. The scream connotes Danny's psyche turned away, trying to escape from the trauma that is all around him (1:33:36) "Danny can't wake up Ms. Torrance":


But before both those scenes, Kubrick has actually snuck in the sound of Danny screaming to make the audience feel uneasy with the horror about to unfold, even if they are not aware of it. He allows us to shine, to come to know something that has not happened yet. (at 0:02:47) It only sounds ever so slightly different than Danny's scream...


What do you guys think?]]> http://www.collativelearning.com/mybb_1401/Upload/showthread.php?tid=439 Tue, 10 Aug 2010 00:27:26 -0500 http://www.collativelearning.com/mybb_1401/Upload/showthread.php?tid=439
The chess theme is present in the set of the lounge outside of Howard Johnson's. The floor is white and divided by long black parallel lines that extend away and up around the wheel of the station. The ceiling is also white divided into squares. Red chairs and round white cocktail tables are arranged around the scene resembling a chess game in progress. It would be interesting to know if the arrangement has any connection to a real chess match. As Dr. Floyd walks through on his way to the videophone, he passes the spot where the conversation with Dr. Smyslov will take place though none of the characters for that scene are yet present.

Immediately after the videophone call with his daughter, Kubrick's real life daughter further breaking down the cinema screen barrier, Dr. Floyd walks back through the lounge and meets his friend, two other women, and Dr. Smyslov. Smyslov as we know from this site is a famous Russian chess master. Relinquishing his seat to Dr. Floyd, Dr. Smyslov takes a seat from a nearby table and moves it diagonally to his new position in the scene. Moving his Queen or Bishop, perhaps? On the table are three “clear” drinks and one amber color (a Russian drinking whiskey?) also suggesting chess pieces. Dr. Smyslov, in an odd move, points to his drink, the whiskey, which is now in front of Dr. Floyd. He slowly drags it by the napkin toward him, not only to bring it within reach of his new position but move it away from the other “pieces” on the table. Is this a defensive move?

I've always liked this scene for it's tension and found it full of meaning, having made the connection between this scene and the altercation between the apes at the watering hole in The Dawn Of Man early in my personal journey with this film. In looking at it again after reading the brilliant study on this site, made a discovery. I took inventory of all the chairs in the scene, both before Floyd calls home and after, and if my accounting is correct, there is an extra chair present during this modern watering hole scene, the one occupied by the lady in the blue dress with the red collar. This chair seems to have magically appeared since not enough time has elapsed for an attendant to have fetched a chair for her, and Dr. Smyslov probably would have taken one from another table anyway when they arrived, just as he did for Dr. Floyd.

In the context of the Monolith as Movie Screen metaphor, this woman in the magic chair represents us, the audience. From her perspective, Dr. Floyd and the other characters on either side form the three walls of the stage. She has little interaction with the other characters, though just before Floyd's entrance she asks a question of Dr. Smyslov in Russian, who looks at his watch and responds. Did she ask for the time, or when the show (or chess match) was going to start?

I think the sign of a good film is one that holds your interest for more than one viewing. A great film gives you something new every time you watch it, year after year. 2:ASO (is that the right shorthand?), is a great film.]]>
The chess theme is present in the set of the lounge outside of Howard Johnson's. The floor is white and divided by long black parallel lines that extend away and up around the wheel of the station. The ceiling is also white divided into squares. Red chairs and round white cocktail tables are arranged around the scene resembling a chess game in progress. It would be interesting to know if the arrangement has any connection to a real chess match. As Dr. Floyd walks through on his way to the videophone, he passes the spot where the conversation with Dr. Smyslov will take place though none of the characters for that scene are yet present.

Immediately after the videophone call with his daughter, Kubrick's real life daughter further breaking down the cinema screen barrier, Dr. Floyd walks back through the lounge and meets his friend, two other women, and Dr. Smyslov. Smyslov as we know from this site is a famous Russian chess master. Relinquishing his seat to Dr. Floyd, Dr. Smyslov takes a seat from a nearby table and moves it diagonally to his new position in the scene. Moving his Queen or Bishop, perhaps? On the table are three “clear” drinks and one amber color (a Russian drinking whiskey?) also suggesting chess pieces. Dr. Smyslov, in an odd move, points to his drink, the whiskey, which is now in front of Dr. Floyd. He slowly drags it by the napkin toward him, not only to bring it within reach of his new position but move it away from the other “pieces” on the table. Is this a defensive move?

I've always liked this scene for it's tension and found it full of meaning, having made the connection between this scene and the altercation between the apes at the watering hole in The Dawn Of Man early in my personal journey with this film. In looking at it again after reading the brilliant study on this site, made a discovery. I took inventory of all the chairs in the scene, both before Floyd calls home and after, and if my accounting is correct, there is an extra chair present during this modern watering hole scene, the one occupied by the lady in the blue dress with the red collar. This chair seems to have magically appeared since not enough time has elapsed for an attendant to have fetched a chair for her, and Dr. Smyslov probably would have taken one from another table anyway when they arrived, just as he did for Dr. Floyd.

In the context of the Monolith as Movie Screen metaphor, this woman in the magic chair represents us, the audience. From her perspective, Dr. Floyd and the other characters on either side form the three walls of the stage. She has little interaction with the other characters, though just before Floyd's entrance she asks a question of Dr. Smyslov in Russian, who looks at his watch and responds. Did she ask for the time, or when the show (or chess match) was going to start?

I think the sign of a good film is one that holds your interest for more than one viewing. A great film gives you something new every time you watch it, year after year. 2:ASO (is that the right shorthand?), is a great film.]]> http://www.collativelearning.com/mybb_1401/Upload/showthread.php?tid=438 Thu, 05 Aug 2010 14:08:55 -0500 http://www.collativelearning.com/mybb_1401/Upload/showthread.php?tid=438
Kubrick in black

Enigma

Kubrick dressed in black is definitely an outside parallel. The easiest things
to assume are the apes and the monolith. But is that really all he could be?
Because I think that the all black represents something else.

It represents HAL9000. Just as HAL was the all-seeing eye aboard the
discovery, Kubrick is the all seeing eye as the "God" of the movie, as well as the all seeing eye during the production of the movie, being in total control, and watching over everything. HAL9000 plays chess in the film, and Kubrick was well known to play chess. HAL9000's purpose is to maintain psychological control over his crew, and Kubrick would win at chess to make sure that the actors didn't disagree with Kubrick's vision. There are many factors to consider, but I think it seems fairly obvious that Kubrick IS HAL. That's why HAL looks like the monolith, but I'm going to go into that in more detail later.

What else makes me sure that Kubrick is HAL? The ending sequence. I think it's safe to say that the ending is a symbolic retelling of other parts of the film. I think that the ending sequence is one last mindgame. It's Bowman Vs. Kubrick. He touches the monolith (although we do not actually see this, as it's shown from the 3d perspective) and becomes reborn. In the discovery sequence, Bowman is reborn, but never touches a monolith. HAL resembles a monolith, and I notice that Bowman never had to actually touch a monolith in any point in the movie. So I think that the "rotating 90 degrees" thing also works in the sense of the way you think. I think Bowman saw things through different eyes (and thus, the eye shots in the end make more sense) and was able to defeat HAL because of it. Then, at the end of the film, HAL is now replaced with Kubrick, who is pretty much locking him up in some other "dimension", and the final scene is the final chess game. Either Bowman figures out how everything works and becomes enlightened, or he dies. It seems that he slowly figures out that he is watching himself from the outside. At first, I don't think he quite grasped the concept, but by the end, he was completely aware.

Now that that's out of the way, I'd like to discuss the monolith as the
screen. The monolith at the beginning could be saying that we are looking
straight into the doorway into the movie. I would like to expand on that concept:

I once saw an interpretation about 2001 that claimed that the monolith isn't only AN enigma, but it IS enigma. It resembles all that is obscure and
perplexing. So this would explain a LOT about the film, at least to me. The
beginning? We are looking straight at the monolith, as if we are staring into
enigma itself, as if suggesting that the film itself is an enigma. It's saying
that the film has obscure meanings and it's our job to find them out. And the purpose of the monolith is to enlighten, so that's why we are shown the film. We have entered 2001, and our job in order to "leave" it is to figure out what it all means.

But what else is an enigma? Oh ya, Kubrick!

Kubrick was definitely an enigma because he never was a public person. He
slipped past the sensors (and "censors", for that matter, except with ACO) and could easily be seen as a monolith. His dressing in all black was a metaphor for his stance as an enigma, at least that's what I think. This is why he also resembles HAL, and why HAL resembles the monolith. HAL is really an enigma as well. Throughout the movie, it's difficult to say anything about HAL, because he presents himself as both a nice, human-like being, and a cold, machine-like being. This contrast creates questions. HAL is a riddle, Kubrick is a riddle, the monolith is a riddle, and 2001 is a riddle. In order to solve the riddle, you have to turn your head 90 degrees, and see things through new eyes. That's just what I think. It's also fair to assume that the "external symbols" and "multiple meaning in one symbol" could easily apply together.]]>
Kubrick in black

Enigma

Kubrick dressed in black is definitely an outside parallel. The easiest things
to assume are the apes and the monolith. But is that really all he could be?
Because I think that the all black represents something else.

It represents HAL9000. Just as HAL was the all-seeing eye aboard the
discovery, Kubrick is the all seeing eye as the "God" of the movie, as well as the all seeing eye during the production of the movie, being in total control, and watching over everything. HAL9000 plays chess in the film, and Kubrick was well known to play chess. HAL9000's purpose is to maintain psychological control over his crew, and Kubrick would win at chess to make sure that the actors didn't disagree with Kubrick's vision. There are many factors to consider, but I think it seems fairly obvious that Kubrick IS HAL. That's why HAL looks like the monolith, but I'm going to go into that in more detail later.

What else makes me sure that Kubrick is HAL? The ending sequence. I think it's safe to say that the ending is a symbolic retelling of other parts of the film. I think that the ending sequence is one last mindgame. It's Bowman Vs. Kubrick. He touches the monolith (although we do not actually see this, as it's shown from the 3d perspective) and becomes reborn. In the discovery sequence, Bowman is reborn, but never touches a monolith. HAL resembles a monolith, and I notice that Bowman never had to actually touch a monolith in any point in the movie. So I think that the "rotating 90 degrees" thing also works in the sense of the way you think. I think Bowman saw things through different eyes (and thus, the eye shots in the end make more sense) and was able to defeat HAL because of it. Then, at the end of the film, HAL is now replaced with Kubrick, who is pretty much locking him up in some other "dimension", and the final scene is the final chess game. Either Bowman figures out how everything works and becomes enlightened, or he dies. It seems that he slowly figures out that he is watching himself from the outside. At first, I don't think he quite grasped the concept, but by the end, he was completely aware.

Now that that's out of the way, I'd like to discuss the monolith as the
screen. The monolith at the beginning could be saying that we are looking
straight into the doorway into the movie. I would like to expand on that concept:

I once saw an interpretation about 2001 that claimed that the monolith isn't only AN enigma, but it IS enigma. It resembles all that is obscure and
perplexing. So this would explain a LOT about the film, at least to me. The
beginning? We are looking straight at the monolith, as if we are staring into
enigma itself, as if suggesting that the film itself is an enigma. It's saying
that the film has obscure meanings and it's our job to find them out. And the purpose of the monolith is to enlighten, so that's why we are shown the film. We have entered 2001, and our job in order to "leave" it is to figure out what it all means.

But what else is an enigma? Oh ya, Kubrick!

Kubrick was definitely an enigma because he never was a public person. He
slipped past the sensors (and "censors", for that matter, except with ACO) and could easily be seen as a monolith. His dressing in all black was a metaphor for his stance as an enigma, at least that's what I think. This is why he also resembles HAL, and why HAL resembles the monolith. HAL is really an enigma as well. Throughout the movie, it's difficult to say anything about HAL, because he presents himself as both a nice, human-like being, and a cold, machine-like being. This contrast creates questions. HAL is a riddle, Kubrick is a riddle, the monolith is a riddle, and 2001 is a riddle. In order to solve the riddle, you have to turn your head 90 degrees, and see things through new eyes. That's just what I think. It's also fair to assume that the "external symbols" and "multiple meaning in one symbol" could easily apply together.]]> http://www.collativelearning.com/mybb_1401/Upload/showthread.php?tid=437 Tue, 03 Aug 2010 16:44:59 -0500 http://www.collativelearning.com/mybb_1401/Upload/showthread.php?tid=437 http://www.confusedmatthew.com/2001%3A-A...dyssey.php

I'm sorry to bring this up, but I just think that something needs to be said. Confused Matthew reviews movies usually that he doesn't like, and is confused as to why it's been praised or why it was made, and so forth. His 2001 review claims that the film is an "anti-film", and that it is "about nothing".

He pretty much goes scene for scene "criticizing" the film, and I wanted to hear some reactions to it. My reaction?

Well, I do agree with two parts of the review:

The first is that he mentions that Kubrick is ahead of our time in terms of direction and cinematography.

And the second is that the entire HAL9000 sequence is incredible.

But the rest of what he says in the review seems to be ignorant, hypocritical, and disrespectful. For example, he says that he is going to review the film ONLY in terms of the film itself, regardless of what anybody says and regardless of Kubrick's reputation. He calls it "objective". Then, he abuses an Arthur C. Clarke quote on the movie and uses it to claim that the film is meant to be about nothing, and anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong. First of all, Clarke himself said that the film is about evolution. Secondly, he is using outside sources, which negates his "objective" review. And finally, he was never being "objective" in the first place. He claims no deep meaning in the film because we are never explained anything. I suggest you watch the review, because you could literally go line by line and make a valid counterpoint. I like Confused Matthew, but this review is one of the worst reviews I've ever seen, and I find it appropriate to share it with a group of people that could make decent counter-arguments.]]> http://www.confusedmatthew.com/2001%3A-A...dyssey.php

I'm sorry to bring this up, but I just think that something needs to be said. Confused Matthew reviews movies usually that he doesn't like, and is confused as to why it's been praised or why it was made, and so forth. His 2001 review claims that the film is an "anti-film", and that it is "about nothing".

He pretty much goes scene for scene "criticizing" the film, and I wanted to hear some reactions to it. My reaction?

Well, I do agree with two parts of the review:

The first is that he mentions that Kubrick is ahead of our time in terms of direction and cinematography.

And the second is that the entire HAL9000 sequence is incredible.

But the rest of what he says in the review seems to be ignorant, hypocritical, and disrespectful. For example, he says that he is going to review the film ONLY in terms of the film itself, regardless of what anybody says and regardless of Kubrick's reputation. He calls it "objective". Then, he abuses an Arthur C. Clarke quote on the movie and uses it to claim that the film is meant to be about nothing, and anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong. First of all, Clarke himself said that the film is about evolution. Secondly, he is using outside sources, which negates his "objective" review. And finally, he was never being "objective" in the first place. He claims no deep meaning in the film because we are never explained anything. I suggest you watch the review, because you could literally go line by line and make a valid counterpoint. I like Confused Matthew, but this review is one of the worst reviews I've ever seen, and I find it appropriate to share it with a group of people that could make decent counter-arguments.]]> http://www.collativelearning.com/mybb_1401/Upload/showthread.php?tid=436 Mon, 02 Aug 2010 12:21:35 -0500 http://www.collativelearning.com/mybb_1401/Upload/showthread.php?tid=436 Coens are going to make a sequel for the first time in their life
This is highly unusual from an independent anti-hollywood director.
I guess we can classify Coens as half Hollywood half Indipendant.

Anyway what do you think about this?
Read the basic plot here.]]> Coens are going to make a sequel for the first time in their life
This is highly unusual from an independent anti-hollywood director.
I guess we can classify Coens as half Hollywood half Indipendant.

Anyway what do you think about this?
Read the basic plot here.]]> http://www.collativelearning.com/mybb_1401/Upload/showthread.php?tid=435 Sun, 01 Aug 2010 22:46:17 -0500 http://www.collativelearning.com/mybb_1401/Upload/showthread.php?tid=435
Lady Gaga's Telephone analysis: http://vigilantcitizen.com/?p=3423

Lady Gaga's Alejandro: http://vigilantcitizen.com/?p=3979 (At the very least watch the American Idol video. I mean seriously, an angel with its wings on fire and bleeding? On American Idol? Being watch by millions?)

Of course I'm no expert on the occult or the inner workings of the entertainment industry, so I take these with a bucket of salt. Interesting none the less.

Any thoughts (or music videos that you think have a hidden meaning)

Final Note (Kubrick Connection): I find it notable that Vigilant Citizen points out that Disney movies were used for Project Monarch (a supposed sub project of MK Ultra). If Kubrick was indeed referring to MK Ultra in Clockwork Orange (although the 1962 book may have used the term ultra-violence first), that would mean he would have known about MK Ultra in advance in some form (CO was released in 1971 and the MKU Project was publicly known in 1975). If he also knew about Monarch then that would give the Disney and Mickey Mouse references a whole new meaning in Full Metal Jacket. A very very VERY long shot.]]>
Lady Gaga's Telephone analysis: http://vigilantcitizen.com/?p=3423

Lady Gaga's Alejandro: http://vigilantcitizen.com/?p=3979 (At the very least watch the American Idol video. I mean seriously, an angel with its wings on fire and bleeding? On American Idol? Being watch by millions?)

Of course I'm no expert on the occult or the inner workings of the entertainment industry, so I take these with a bucket of salt. Interesting none the less.

Any thoughts (or music videos that you think have a hidden meaning)

Final Note (Kubrick Connection): I find it notable that Vigilant Citizen points out that Disney movies were used for Project Monarch (a supposed sub project of MK Ultra). If Kubrick was indeed referring to MK Ultra in Clockwork Orange (although the 1962 book may have used the term ultra-violence first), that would mean he would have known about MK Ultra in advance in some form (CO was released in 1971 and the MKU Project was publicly known in 1975). If he also knew about Monarch then that would give the Disney and Mickey Mouse references a whole new meaning in Full Metal Jacket. A very very VERY long shot.]]> http://www.collativelearning.com/mybb_1401/Upload/showthread.php?tid=434 Sun, 01 Aug 2010 04:15:23 -0500 http://www.collativelearning.com/mybb_1401/Upload/showthread.php?tid=434
I might be stating the obvious, kubrick films are relentless you have to be very rational and skeptical.]]>
I might be stating the obvious, kubrick films are relentless you have to be very rational and skeptical.]]> http://www.collativelearning.com/mybb_1401/Upload/showthread.php?tid=433 Sat, 31 Jul 2010 09:31:50 -0500 http://www.collativelearning.com/mybb_1401/Upload/showthread.php?tid=433
I've started watching Coen brothers films and I have found lots of their symbols and I've became quite familiar with their absurd style and use of symbols.
Since you're focusing on Stanley Kubrick and I understand you want to work on them more since you have became familiar with his style, I was wondering if you let me work on some of their movies and analyse them while you're working on Stanley Kubrik.

I've already started working on Barton Fink and found some quite interesting interpretations on my first watch.I'll finish my first draft of the article and will send it to you by next 2 months.

I know you already said you welcome all articles sent to your email and you will consider them for puting on your site but since you put Barton Fink on your analysis list I wanted to ask if you could put Barton-Fink-analysis-project aside while I'm working on it.This way I'm sure you will not analyse it while I'm working on it and it could save some of your time.

in the last column I would like to thank you for sharing your interesting Shining analysis with us, that article changed my view of Kubrick and made me interested in analysing of subliminal stories behind movies.
I was interested in doing so but not for movies, only for books.
Thanks

Looking forward to your answer
and sorry if my English is bad, it's not my first language.]]>
I've started watching Coen brothers films and I have found lots of their symbols and I've became quite familiar with their absurd style and use of symbols.
Since you're focusing on Stanley Kubrick and I understand you want to work on them more since you have became familiar with his style, I was wondering if you let me work on some of their movies and analyse them while you're working on Stanley Kubrik.

I've already started working on Barton Fink and found some quite interesting interpretations on my first watch.I'll finish my first draft of the article and will send it to you by next 2 months.

I know you already said you welcome all articles sent to your email and you will consider them for puting on your site but since you put Barton Fink on your analysis list I wanted to ask if you could put Barton-Fink-analysis-project aside while I'm working on it.This way I'm sure you will not analyse it while I'm working on it and it could save some of your time.

in the last column I would like to thank you for sharing your interesting Shining analysis with us, that article changed my view of Kubrick and made me interested in analysing of subliminal stories behind movies.
I was interested in doing so but not for movies, only for books.
Thanks

Looking forward to your answer
and sorry if my English is bad, it's not my first language.]]> http://www.collativelearning.com/mybb_1401/Upload/showthread.php?tid=432 Fri, 30 Jul 2010 23:14:17 -0500 http://www.collativelearning.com/mybb_1401/Upload/showthread.php?tid=432 Do you think it would help the site expand if the site would start hosting articles depicting film analysis by other people? I have made a few film analysis for my class and the idea came to me that you could use the site to host other peoples analysis with credit and all the other details.
A problem that could be evident is the smear attacks that robag has been having troubles with. They could use the other person's analysis to attack him, but this was just an idea I'm just giving out there.]]> Do you think it would help the site expand if the site would start hosting articles depicting film analysis by other people? I have made a few film analysis for my class and the idea came to me that you could use the site to host other peoples analysis with credit and all the other details.
A problem that could be evident is the smear attacks that robag has been having troubles with. They could use the other person's analysis to attack him, but this was just an idea I'm just giving out there.]]>