RAISE EVERY VOICE, THEN BE SILENT

Writings from Director / Designer A. Sjogren

Hunger Games

Thoughts on Kubrick PART 2: A World of Unfulfilled Desires 

Eighty years ago, directors could make films on the generally accepted basis that the moral concepts of right and wrong existed, and that if one thing was right, the opposite was wrong.  There was, in a sense, an unwritten code that stated that at least by the end of the film, villainy must be punished and virtue be given reward.  But obviously this changed as modern / post-modern ideas were distilled down into various forums, socially and academically.  As these ideas percolated down to the pedestrian level, the former moral concepts were questioned and examined less and less, and man came to be viewed as being caught between decisions made out of reflex, and those made out of subconscious Freudian desires.  Since World War II, philosophically the moral concepts have mostly disappeared.  Words like choice, volition, and purpose were replaced by chance, determined, and alienation, and film directors were quick to mirror these ideas in their stories and portrayals of humanity. 

_

If we are to look at the myriad of ambitions and desires that a character typical to a film of Kubrick’s might possess, we see a very full and vivid spectrum, ranging from the endearing and honest to the sick and the deranged.  In the pursuit of fulfillment, we see how the costs and labors are often overwhelming, pushing characters to a breaking point that may very well destroy everything - their environment; their constructs; themselves.  All this would suggest that there is a vital piece missing in human life; in the complex tapestry of existence there is an undeniable riff.   Desires are laid out, right before their eyes, frequently, and just out of reach.  No one is immune.  It is within this harsh environment that the stories play out as each strive towards a dream; a unfulfilled desire.

Upon viewing Kubrick’s Lolita again, it seems that he (Kubrick) is much more interested in the mechanisms or inner workings of Mason’s controversial desires, and how they are playing out, than if this man is wrong to feel or behave in such a way.  What may seem like “evil” or “horrific” behavior from Mason can now be deemed a mystery or complexity, ready to be studied and portrayed through a lens of social fascination.  I doubt that Kubrick would endorse such a lifestyle of pedophilia, but in this story we are entering such a world where this stands as the deepest desire and answer to fulfillment.  In such a world of thought, self affirmation or self authentication becomes an end in itself, and the very concept of a social contract can now be thrown out the window.  We are introduced to Mason as the distinguished european gentleman, sensitive; intelligent; highly educated.  This is even more strongly emphasized by the stark contrast between Mason and Winters.  Her plastic nature of the artificial; the commercialized; a personality that has been collected from scraps of media and pop magazines…A true “vulgarity” to the likes of Mason.  But whether you find Winters vapid, annoying, or perhaps oddly charming, we have two characters that slowly reveal their true selves as they interact with one another.  Mason is portrayed in this elitist way to reveal a point:  Anyone, no matter their age, education, or social status is vulnerable to desires that may never be fulfilled.  And the aforementioned societal advantages, like wealth, charm or intelligence, will not help you.      

In Lolita, it is Mason’s desires of lust and fulfillment that are eventually what destroys him, and it doesn’t matter how reasonable or educated he was or thought he was.  He still finds himself susceptible to the insanity, contradiction and the paradox of it all, just as anyone else.  Being wealthy; intelligent; well connected - None of these things could protect him from these desires.  And I think Kubrick recognized it as the great equalizer.  I have just recently been viewing some of the older Marx brothers films, and although the comparison between Grotcho and Kubrick may seem strange, I think they are both approaching something in a similar way.  The Marx brothers would use their shenanigans to bring people down a notch - to bring higher people more down on the level of the lower.  I think Kubrick sees these desires as doing the same thing:  They can humiliate, and reach across social status.  And I think that appeals to him, just like Grotcho enjoyed seeing people that are a little too full of themselves, and a little too smug in their own satisfaction being humbled.  I would not be at all surprised if Kubrick modeled Mason after certain individuals that he may have seen, deal with, or had to put up with in his own life.

If we are all susceptible to these desires and they cannot be escaped or fulfilled as Kubrick may be suggesting, are his films at their core only artful nihilistic propaganda?  Or is he in reality deeply concerned about the issues of morality that are presented along side these desires?  Does God enter the picture?  “If you didn’t believe in God, I think I’d kill myself” says Winters as she contemplates her situation in Lolita.  At the very end of her culturally adolescent rope, here is a declaration of the divine that seems to be rooted in great desperation and resentment.  If she represents the antithesis of Mason here, the optimistic theist, than she is a fool.  A naive character that is clutching at life rather than carrying it gracefully through understanding or maturity.  There seems to be no higher power here or absolute truth for the Kubrick character and we hit a snag.  With this denial comes the elimination of any grounds of morality and eventually normality.  Yet they still must live in a real world and they still have to account for their inner desires as man, and of course the consequences of them.  Obviously this creates a kind of split, where man is either seen as determined chemically and psychologically (which prohibits us from making any moral judgments towards Mason’s character, because that would mean him to be a piece of machinery, open to manipulation) or he is fated to be “free” and master of his own world, because he is of course, the center of it.

In my opinion, we can live comfortably with neither of these alternatives.  Because of what man intrinsically is in the real world and in himself, a state of tension is created that often leads to despair, and as we see with Mason, leads to self destruction.  Samuel Beckett asks “How am I, an a-temporal being imprisoned in time and space, to escape from my imprisonment when I know that outside time and space lies nothing and that I, in the ultimate depths of my reality, am nothing also?”  The alienation and unfulfillment that precedes such a plight cannot be dealt with for long.  And so the modern Kubrick character answers in the only way possible:  Whatever is, is right.  Whatever desires that occur are to be pursued fully, no matter the effect or consequence because experience is the only “currency” left for self-affirmation or meaning.  Even if it means fornication with a young teenage girl…Mason here oscillates wildly between lustful romanticism and desperation as he struggles to control the object (Lolita) of his desire.  It is a selfish display that becomes more and more vile as the film progresses.  Fettered by suspicions and jealousy, his will to control plays a huge part in his eventual breaking point, and the tighter he holds on, the more Lolita retaliates with her own tactics of control and manipulation.         

         
Another element of Lolita is the demonstration of power shifting that takes place as each individual character seeks to fulfill their own desires.  Because they are all conflicting, there can never be a healthy equilibrium or order, and the fulfillment of one characters desire usually results in the destruction of another.  Between the four main characters, each at one time or another has control and power over the rest and we see Kubrick laying everything out as a strategic game, sometimes quite literally.  We are barely 20 minutes into the film, before we see Mason “playing” Winters, foreshadowing their tempestuous relationship.  She doesn’t seem to have a chance.   

In Lolita, I think Kubrick offers plenty of information and insight into the characters present situations, but offers no solution to their needs or desires.  Sellers’ abundant success has led him to such extreme boredom, that he takes on little “projects” like role playing for the sake of his own amusement.  He is never satisfied and suffers from a lack of identity and purpose in life.  Winters desires a kind of fulfillment with the opposite sex which may not actually exist, even in the most happy of marriages.  Her friends provide no support here, as they too seek constant change or “swapping” under the guise of liberation and open-mindedness.  But if there is character that is most understandably the product of her environment, it is Lolita herself.  She has been without a proper father figure, for perhaps the most important time of her development, and it is no surprise the way she is attracted to older men.  Her room is filled with pinups and images of male icons and celebrities, including Sellers character who would have obviously left a commanding impression on her, after even the slightest gesture of attention.  Her desires have a great deal to do with love and attention, which she is starved for, but lacks a healthy source of fulfillment.  Her desires have led her to be the master of manipulation; over the pubescent hipsters and jocks at her school to the seasoned likes of Mason and Sellers.  And at times her power over them is absolute.  The breakfast scene is a perfect example of this, as she feeds him like a dog or household pet as a “reward” for his un-swaying loyalty.  In some ways, Mason (the one who is supposed to be the superior intellect here) is unknowingly one step behind her the entire film, despite her seemingly typical and innocent nature.  

   

There would seem to be no neutrality in film - the visceral nature of the medium demands a response from the mind of the viewer.  And there will never be neutrality in the response either.  I think he’s always looked as his movies as explorations:  Sometimes he’s been more serious about somethings that he’s explored than others, but obviously there is a great deal of humor and innuendo in Lolita.  Straight from the film:  “…the symbolism isn’t too heavy handed is it?”  I don’t think socially or politically he’s ever been pretentious enough to think he’s got to change the world either.  I think it reflects in a profound way his understanding of the human condition, which contributes to his humor - it’s a mess…it’s an indecipherable mess.  And whether we want to treat it comedically, or seriously, it’s just a different way of exploring the mess…an artful way of exploring the stories that reveal how we all have something missing.  Many regard certain topics of his films, like pedophilia or nuclear catastrophe (Dr. Strangelove) to be off limits, but there must always be a forum for exploration, regardless of content.       

Experience Machines  

The perplexity of our life experiences has shaped and formed who we are in ways that can never be fully understood or explained.  There is a mystery about life, and I think this is very important to remember when presented with ideas of simulated perpetual “happiness.”  In film, one of the important modes that a viewer must choose to enter into is described as the “suspension of disbelief.”  This state of mind involves a tuning out of reality so that one can fully embrace the false realities of a particular story, environment or universe. This embrace is important and perhaps completely necessary to the effectiveness of the movie, the craft, and the art of filmmaking, as the viewer is then granted vicarious “access” to the experiences of those we follow on screen.  The “Experience Machine” concept of the late Harvard University philosopher Robert Nozick is very similar, in that we enter into a pre-composed, edited, and formulaic environment.  The fact that viewers of film and television are still present in reality does not matter here:  our emotions have left us for the fantasy and therefore our experience is very real indeed.  If this were not the case, people would never watch anything at all; art and storytelling would just be another random collection of images and sounds. 

But let’s think about the word suspension itself:  it has many negative and undesirable connotations; imprisonment; being held captive or held against ones will.  We always know that to suspend our minds is to invite the false or the unreal,  but as we see with the success of film and tv culture, people chose to do this all the time;  living farther and farther away from their own lives in favor of another, or at least the idea of another.  But I don’t think even the most neurotic devotee would believe that everything can be experienced through media or that somethings aren’t better if they could only be experienced in reality.  I think the problem here is that we are presented with a scenario that fails to question itself and its ability to truly deliver this perfect existence.  I’m reminded of the times in which I am faced with troubling circumstances or challenges but feel neither sad nor discouraged.  Instead I feel peace and joy, unexplainably and without reason or relation to my situation.  Because I learn very little from the “pleasures” that are around me at all times.  It is rather in the mystery; the spiritual;  the holistic where I begin to grasp a deeper experience and reality of this life.  And even if we could access such advanced technology and stimuli, how could we ever even begin to design such a program that would offer such transcendental possibilities? 

An undeserved trust: Responsibility, Neurology and Desensitization  

As a filmmaker, I would hope that I would engage and execute my craft with a certain degree of responsibility, always being sensitive to both moral and social issues.  I have always been primarily, a visual artist, concerned with studying form, design, light and movement, but it’s no secret that film is a formidable power in delivering messages and changing minds.  And just like we show discernment in who we spend time with, what we choose to read, or what we call entertainment, the same discernment must be observed in the realm of film.  To begin, I have a very simple question:  Are there some films that are bad for us?  The issue of desensitization, violence, sex, and all the distortions and perversion of, is certainly not a new issue.  It seems there is far more concern and study being done about video games sporting this kind of content, and how it effects the development of prepubescent boys, but I am not going to focus on that form of entertainment or demographic here.  I am more concerned about the “mature, well adjusted” filmgoer that claims to be unaffected and unscathed by modern cinema’s shock and over-saturation, and how is it that they have arrived at this numb state of mental perception.  I wish to discover how desensitization works on a mental and cognitive level, and if this is really something to be concerned about. 

Perhaps these distortions, themes, and misrepresentations have been present in film for decades, in fact I’m sure of it.  But drawing the line and making the connection is where the trail becomes cold.  Is something as seemingly innocent as a James Bond film from the 60’s with it’s sultry women and relentless innuendo contributing to greater social issues; perhaps in the form of degradation or violence towards women? 

I think one of the biggest problems at the heart of it all is also the film industries biggest advantage:  We regard movie theaters and the craft itself as a harmless or innocent domain, where once inside, we can excuse, accept or dismiss any objectionable content as mere entertainment.  There is an undeserved trust that has formed between the filmmaker and the audience, and rarely do we see a real lesson that materializes, or guidance to a greater understanding of how we should respond or feel towards the extreme imagery we have just seen.  We have traded in the substance for the flash and no one seems to be questioning whether the trade was worth it.   

This environment also lends itself to a direct parallel within something called desensitization therapy.  Upon researching this topic, I learned about the process called systematic desensitization:  it is “a therapeutic intervention that reduces the learned link between anxiety and objects or situations that are typically fear-producing.”  Usually aimed towards individuals suffering from extreme phobias that often interfere with day to day activities, this method of therapy aims to “substitute”  traumatic responses with feelings of relaxation, enabling subjects to ignore or deal with troubling situations.  The process begins with a sort of exploration of ones own muscle tensions:  The patient is asked to tighten and then release various muscles in the body, while making specific mental catalogues of the contrast between tension and relaxation.  Quite simply, the patient learns how to relax ones own body.  After a patient has mastered this, he or she will develop along with the therapist an “anxiety hierarchy.”  This is a series of images, stimuli, or media designed to trigger or simulate that particular patients fears or anxieties.  The hierarchy obviously begins with tamer content that will not be an overt challenge for the patient to experience; as the content intensifies, the therapist walks through the relaxation techniques at each stage, ensuring the patient is relaxed as they proceed.  In the process, victims can actually be taught to experience relaxation in the face of previous trauma.  Now compare this again with our movie going experience:  We come with our dates; our friends; we recline and relax and we eat.  We are there in leisure, ready to experience anything but the traumatic.  And since the process of systematic desensitization has been successful for many patients, it makes perfect sense that our own senses are dulled to anything and everything that might be presented to us in cinema. 

What makes me more concerned in todays American culture is the advent and success of films being categorized as “brutality-core” or “torture-porn.”  It is these disturbing genres that not only depict graphic violence and torture, but dwell on it for prolonged scenes, forcing the viewer to either turn away or to revel in the inhumane happenings.  Films like Hostel and Saw revolve around elaborate scenes of suffering, rape and torture that often end in the most gruesome of displays and images.  Without prominent character arcs or story lines, the actual “narrative” that seems to be all but absent here, is merely a device to link the scenes of brutality together.  Convincing exposure studies have been documented as far back as 1973;  more recently by psychologists  Charles R. Mullin and Daniel Linz, who published the paper  “Desensitization and Re-sensitization to Violence Against Women: Effects of Exposure to Sexually Violent Films on Judgments of Domestic Violence Victims.”  Most of these studies were similar in nature, and involved exposing individuals to  violent content and then gaging their emotive responses before and afterward.  In all of the studies conducted, people responded as less sympathetic, all with diminished feelings of concern, or the ability to empathize.        

Like the anxiety hierarchy found in systematic desensitization techniques, we have the MPAA rating system which, in a similar way, eases us into more and more potentially disturbing or damaging content.  But is the tag of “R” really taken seriously anymore?  We as a culture are progressively exposing new generations of children to these “mature” films at an increasingly younger age, and I know of less and less parents concerned by this phenomenon.  No longer is the MPAA a force of any influence; this responsibility must be adopted by those raising these new generations - and I think this needs to happen by example.  We can all remember a time in our past, somewhere in our pre-teens, where we were exposed to something that shocked us; something that jolted the reality of our human condition into us, far too soon and far too quickly.  I think this shared remembrance speaks to a greater reality of the sanctity of life and that of our broken condition…which will always require compassion and humanitarianism if things are to progress (socially, politically, empathetically)  If you don’t agree that there is a greater need for these things among our culture, than I feel there is little that I can say to convince you.  We all feel a need for change, and yet why do we spend our leisure time with content that will deaden our awareness to these realities?  The whole entertainment world where these issues seem to exist is both paradoxical and hypocritical at the same time:  I am reminded of the death penalty here…We will unquestionably condemn an individual to death if he is found guilty of the atrocities depicted in the most popular of films, and yet it remains socially acceptable to enjoy these same acts as long as they remain in the context of a hollywood film.  What we find acceptable to think, gradually becomes something we can be entertained by…And anything that entertains us, certainly has a greater chance of being something we will find acceptable to do.   

So it would seem this desensitization is unquestionably taking place but how do we respond?  How do we demonstrate social responsibility towards these issues? 

I don’t think trying to get rid of shocking or violent content is any solution here - We cannot move backwards or regain our raw or original sensitivity to things, but perhaps we can reclaim that which belongs to our intellect…To greater understand the implications and affects of such content and how it could be used to challenge us to have deeper understandings of our human condition…rather than distort or devalue our perception.  The beauty in life is omnipresent, but for many it is easily blurred or forgotten. Therefore the way we translate its language must be found in ever new contexts. Not only do we as artists possess a tendency towards the creative, but are bound by a dire responsibility to it. This discipline of film is an art; it is a seduction; it is a language of God. And the hints of beauty and visions of future that have been entrusted to us must be channeled with the greatest of circumspection. Not always cheerful or sublime, great stories have been told across the entire spectrum of human experience. Many are sorrowful. But they were stories that needed to be told. With so many of the tragic pictures, voices, and events that are taking place, even as I write this, at this moment in time, there are new stories waiting to be told. That is where we as artists must take our place, as those who would author the story masterfully, as those who would reveal life in all its color, whether it reveals pain or splendor, darkness or light. Truth, in all its confounding perplexity, is what we’re aiming at.   

Thoughts on Kubrick PART 1: Nietzsche, 2001, and the Medium 

Kubrick’s attraction to Nietzsche’s “superman” is deeply rooted in feelings of discontentment, and further expresses the themes and ideas of my last post: All major characters in a Kubrick film have desires that are unfulfilled and are trying to break free from one existence to another; to a higher plain of being or existence. If we look at the closing section of Nordern’s (Playboy) interview, it is obvious that he sees and understands the countless shortcomings and brokenness of this world and how few have found or created the “light” that he deems vital for any purpose of existence.

While many directors and filmmakers seek in the dual themes of sex and violence an answer to man’s deepest longings and desires, some (including Kubrick) have recognized that the answer, whatever it may be, will play out on the religious or spiritual field or dimension. A select few, such as say, Ingmar Bergman, have been both explicit and profound in their approach. But others touch it more tangentially. Some even try to make a religion out of hopes and dreams, casting a misguided bet that in the future their search and exploration will conclude in a kind of perfect state; an answer to it all.

In 2001, Kubrick casts his vision forward, showing us glimpses of technological wonders, and beyond these, an existence that will literally soar beyond the stars. But in many ways such attempts to establish such a faith in the future based on presage are nothing more than a revival of romanticism. And this neo-romanticism is “philosophically a crusade to glorify man’s existence; psychologically…the desire to make intolerable life tolerable.” Kubrick clearly states the condition that he sees to be bleak and confounding; a life victim to “terrifying insignificance.” A life that seemingly has no direction; no place to go forward to, and it is with the medium of cinema that he tries to, at least for two hours and 19 minutes, transport us away from this bleakness.

I think he sees this progression as not just a whimsical desire but a bare necessity if we are to exist, or continue to exist as sentient beings. In light, or rather the darkness of this view, we must be given or attach ourselves to something which provides a means of navigation; a hope; a deterrent to the empty void that would threaten all hope of finding a true purpose in what we do with our time. This idea always reminds me of Fitzgerald’s novel The Great Gatsby which concludes with these words: “Gatsby believed in the green light, the orgiastic future that year by year recedes before us. It eluded us then, but that’s no matter - tomorrow we will run faster, stretch our arms farther… . And one fine morning - so we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.” (Fitzgerald) Here is the quintessential romantic ideal: Complete trust is placed in the validity of a unique, personal insight in which a subjective vision becomes gospel; unquestioned and uncontested. This is the future that Nietzsche paints for us with defiance and a will to decimate any last flaws that have hindered mankind from their true potential; from stifling religious automation to the desire for holistic ideals outside ones true self: “Therefore, the man or superman in whom the instinct reaches perfection will unconsciously steer clear of all the things which harass and batter mankind today exhausting self-denials as well as exhausting passions. Whatever seems likely to benefit him, he will do; whatever seems likely to injure him he will avoid. When he is in doubt, he will dare and accept defeat or victory with equal calm. His attitude, in brief, will be that of a being who faces life as he finds it, defiantly and unafraid…” (Mencken)

Nietzsche speaks of the “will’s joy”, a result of the creative process which grants (the superhuman) the means to “overcome himself”, or man in his weaker state. And eventually alleviate suffering as he progresses past the former, inferior persona. As we watch 2001, we see this playing out in past (the dawn of man and the appearance of tools or technology) , present (the space stations and the HAL 9000) and future (the transcendent star-child) tenses as the mysterious black monolith, an icon of pure, negative space, ushers in each new chapter of development. While he sees the path on which we must embark It doesn’t seem that Nietzsche, or Kubrick for that matter, has a clear understanding of what it would look like to begin that journey of transformation. And can we wholly buy into his future in good faith in the light of our current state and the blunt narcissism that underlines much of his philosophy? “All that suffers says, “I want heirs; I want children, I do not want myself.” (Nietzsche) Is this experience or leap solitary? “He (the superman) owes nothing to the other people there, and that he knows nothing whatever of existence beyond the grave. Therefore, it will be his effort to attain the highest possible measure of satisfaction for the only unmistakable and genuinely healthy instinct within him : the yearning to live to attain power to meet and overcome the influences which would weaken or destroy him. ” Keep yourselves up, my brethren,” (Mencken / Nietzsche)

At some point or another, in looking at the works of Kubrick and how Nietzsche influenced Space Odyssey, we are going to be faced with contradictions and visual and aural experiences that can at best, be only substitutes of the holistic; of the spiritual existence promised to the super-beings. Let me explain: Film is an incredibly powerful medium, but it cannot expand the human experience to supersede that of an evolutionary jump that is suggested by Nietzsche. This of course, is obvious. So what is the aim of the film 2001? And does the medium of film have anything to offer to this concept? Kubrick has admitted in the interview that this is meant to be a mostly visual / aural experience, as it has relatively little dialogue throughout the piece. If he is trying to give us a taste of what such an evolutionary jump would be like, what permits him to have any authority on such an experience or to believe that he could translate it to film? Perhaps if he simply eluded to the idea through a different cinematic technique that this was the next phase, it could be more legitimate. But he has already stated that this is an experience more for the senses, and the end segment that exhibits these concepts is no small part of the film. What he tries to accomplish here is impossible.

Kubrick seems to be divided between a fascination of advancing technology and its possibilities for human experience, and the stellar bound perfectionism that is eminent and necessary for survival according to Nietzche. In the interview, Kubrick continually affirms his faith in new and expansive experiences (from mental to sexual) that future technology will undoubtedly facilitate. Whether or not these technological advances are simply forerunners for the coming evolutionary leap, is impossible to say. Perhaps Kubrick was excited by these technological possibilities as it could relate to a new form or medium of filmmaking: A kind of brain wiring or tapping, which could give each viewer sensations of a transcendental or hallucinatory nature. But this kind of experience could usher in as many dangers as it could revelations. Fact could be easily confused with fantasy, inducing a trance like effect, break down moral defenses and loosen the viewers hold on reality. This is very similar to the ideas presented by Robert Nozick and his experience machine idea, as presented in his book Anarchy, State, and Utopia. The idea that such a state of perpetual bliss or experience could be delivered via technology is an absurdity. The confounding perplexity of our life experiences has shaped and formed who we are in ways that can never be fully understood or explained. There is a mystery about life, and I think this is very important to remember when presented with such an idea of simulated perpetual “happiness.” In film, one of the important modes that a viewer must choose to enter into is described as the “suspension of disbelief.” This state of mind involves a tuning out of reality so that one can fully embrace the false realities of a particular story, environment or universe. This embrace is important and perhaps completely necessary to the effectiveness of the movie, and the craft, and the art of filmmaking, as the viewer is then granted vicarious “access” to the experiences of those we follow on screen. This “machine” concept is very similar, in that we enter into a pre-composed, edited, and formulaic environment. The fact that viewers of film and television are still present in reality does not matter here: our emotions have left us for the fantasy and therefore our experience is very real indeed.

The closing scenes of 2001 are indeed transporting - If this were not the case, people would never watch anything at all; art and storytelling would just be another random collection of images and sounds. But many of these images are also abstract, eliciting many different kinds of reactions from different people. If Kubrick had succeeded, the experience of this finale would be universal. Instead the imagery seems dated; without purity or consistency of message, left to the unpredictability of cinephilia to reach one person to the next.

Let’s also think about the word suspension (of disbelief) itself: it has many negative and undesirable connotations; imprisonment; held captive or held against ones will. We always know that to suspend our minds is to invite the false or the unreal, but as we see with the success of film and tv culture, people chose to do this all the time; living farther and farther away from their own lives in favor of another, or at least the idea of another. But I don’t think even the most neurotic devotee would believe that everything can be experienced through media or that somethings aren’t better if they could only be experienced in reality. I think the problem here is that we are presented with a scenario that fails to question itself and its ability to truly deliver this perfect existence. I’m reminded of the times in which I am faced with troubling circumstances or challenges but feel neither sad nor discouraged. Instead I feel peace and joy, unexplainably and without reason or relation to my situation. Because I learn very little from the “pleasures” that are around me at all times. It is rather in the mystery; the spiritual; the holistic where I begin to grasp a deeper experience and reality of this life. And even if we could access such advanced technology and stimuli, how could we ever even begin to design such a program that would offer such transcendental possibilities?

At least for 2001, it is a piece that gives us images we are invited to immerse ourselves in; to be taken for a psychotropic ride. On the other hand, a film of his like Clockwork Orange could violently invade and penetrate, planting the most sinister suggestions and designs deep within our consciousness. The dangers would be obvious: Unless the viewer’s mind is free consciously to be used as a sieve or a grid, then there is no way he can understand what is true and what is not. Nor can he know whether the world he is experiencing is real or not. In fact, he cannot even know whether he himself exists or not. If these or similar developments come to pass, then not only will there need to be a definition of what constitutes entertainment in the cinema, but we will have to question whether film is an art form truly defining man in his human condition. Humanity - that is the starting point from which all directors must operate…Another reason that depicting this higher plain becomes a kind of oxymoron: A new set of senses would be required, beyond the five know to humanity. So is 2001 a science fiction film, or an exploration of seeking godhood?

In the end Space Odyssey’s exploration of a higher existence is mere escapism. The ideas of philosopher George Berkeley’s ideas about self generative thoughts, emotions and worlds (i.e. existence) come to mind: Theories of time warping, telekinesis, teleportation and any other radical concept usually reserved for the realms of science fiction, all can incorporate powers of the mind…And if our existence is self contained within that mental sphere, it seems to follow that we could manipulate this experience in ways that would seem impossible out in the “real world”…Or at least the one that we claim to know and understand. Again, like a dream, which is always kinetic, where we experience constant movement, change, and alteration, these same things should be part of everything else if Berkeley is correct. And yet to travel across the world in a blink of an eye; to shift matter and energy at will, or to fly unbound by gravity or physics, as we so often do in our dream world, seems to be limited to that world, and to that world only. To simplify some of this, we seem to be in a very complex system where much seems to be out of our control. If all of our joys and hurts, passions and struggles, come from within, our minds have done a remarkable job that is both profound and perplexing. But Nietzche suggests that all of the aforementioned shortcomings will be dissolved during this “step up” and that we will have volition over these sufferings that have been with us forever. The idea of a network of minds somehow existing together is a bit more cohesive I think, but this still calls for a designer, a regulator, or a higher power to set this system in motion, which obviously Nietzsche dismisses… He seems to want to destroy anything outside himself, but an integral part of being human is to desire a connectivity to something or someone else, outside ourselves. And everything we know seems to point to this very important connection.