Professor David Peimer
The Films of Kubrick and Tarantino: “Pulp Fiction,” Magnificent Myths, Daring Dreams, and Capturing a Culture

Professor David Peimer | The Films of Kubrick and Tarantino: “Pulp Fiction,” Magnificent Myths, Daring Dreams, and Capturing a Culture | 03.16.24

Visuals displayed throughout the presentation.

- Okay, so today, going to dive into Mr. Kubrick and Mr. Tarantino, two of the really true greats, for me, of filmmaking, you know, of the last 50, 60 years. Pardon me. I’m going to go into more depth and detail with Kubrick and just look a little bit at Tarantino. Because I think Kubrick is really the brilliant, master artist. Tarantino, I think is superb, and especially with a couple of the films that he’s made, which are, I think, take filmmaking to a whole new level. Kubrick, I would suggest has got a deeper sense of his vision of life, society, not only American myths, but you know, the contemporary world we all inhabit. And as an artist, as a film artist. I’m going to look at quite a few of the films and show a couple of, you know, quite a few clips from the films, the various films, especially Kubrick. And yeah, I thought about it… Because I’ve gone into quite a bit of detail over the last few Saturdays with only one or two films or plays, et cetera.

So, this will be a bit more like a snapshot, you know, overview, if you like, of these two, who I think have made a remarkable and fascinating contribution to film and enriching our cultural lives, I think, for sure. Okay, I’m not going to go into their lives much. I’ve done it with Kubrick already in a previous talk, and Tarantino… Well, I’m sure people know the essence, you know, enough of his life. So, just one thing that I would mention that I’m going to look at is the idea, which I think runs through both, of Kubrick, obviously, being Jewish. And for me, there’s such a sense of, a vision of the outsider to American culture and to the contemporary culture of the world. Pardon me. And I think Tarantino also. Because, not by chance, that he can really try and tap into an essence or a part of perhaps a Jewish adventure story, psyche, you know, the story of revenge, if you like, or a fable, almost a fairytale, I guess, like in “Inglorious Bastards”.

And that he would choose it, you know, of “Inglorious Bastards”, the group of Jewish American soldiers, you know, out there with Brad Pitt and getting revenge on a whole lot of Nazis, you know, during the movie. And a fascinating way into looking at that whole topic. And I don’t think it’s stretching a point. Kubrick more, Tarantino a bit less, but both coming from very much an outsider perception of their society and our times. And I think, in Kubrick’s case, I would suggest definitely comes from the outsider Jewish perspective much more. Okay, I think, just a little bit about, you know, their lives. Obviously, Tarantino spent an enormous amount of time working in a video store. His knowledge of film was extraordinary, watching so many. When he didn’t “Inglorious Bastards”, for example, he told Diane Kruger, who plays the main female character in the film, you know, he told her to watch at least 20 movies of female characters that he wanted her to try and capture, not just the costume and the hat and the hair, but the personalities, the character, the way of expressing it in occupied France of the times.

So, the amount of enormous research and thought, he had 800 pages. you know, he thought it was going to be a mini series, like “Band of Brothers”, perhaps, you know, Spielberg’s idea, but then was persuaded to cut it to just one film. So, you know, the amount of hard work is the bottom line, although I’m going to look mainly at “Pulp Fiction”. And then, with Kubrick, well, it’s legendary, and he would spend two or three years research, reading script, so much work on the development, and then only get to shooting the movies. Okay, so I’m going to just start first, if we can please, Hannah. And this is one of the great scenes from “Inglorious Basterds”, which is, you know, the final scene where, or close to the final scene, where all the high-ranking Nazis, and even Hitler is there, and Goebbels, and then, you know, they’re up in the box watching the film, and down all a whole bunch of hierarching Germans and their wives, and so on, for this opening of, you know, Goebbels’ latest piece of nauseating propaganda.

And it’s the face of vengeance, where the Shosanna character, of course, is a young child who escapes the murderous intent of the Colonel Hans Landa, the Christopher Waltz’s character, where she escapes and she comes back, anyway, she’s making it. And then, the final one, where we see the image, which is almost, I guess, the visual climax of the film. Okay, so that’s the context. And it’s a film about, you know, some German soldier who’s able to kill 140, you know, GIs in, you know… So, it’s obviously, you know, propaganda nonsense. But let’s just watch this little clip. Thanks, Hannah.

[Clip plays]

• Who wants to send a message to Germany?

• I have a message for Germany that you’re all going to die. And I want you deep into the face of the Jew who is going to do it. My name is Shosanna Dreyfus, and this is the face of Jews.

[Clip ends]

• Okay, thanks. We can hold that there. Thanks. Thanks, Hannah. So, I wanted to show this first, because I think it’s so iconic and it’s such a powerful image close to the end of the film, “Inglorious Basterds”, you know, this group of, a bit like the Dirty Dozen, but you know, this group of GIs who are all Jewish, go with the Brad Pitt character in order to kill as many Nazi Germans as possible in the war, and it’s done in this heightened, satirical, dark comedy, but with a serious undertone. And that scene is the scene of, obviously, very heightened and exaggerated sense of adventure that Shosanna, who was a young girl, who just escapes being slaughtered with her family in the very first scene on the farm in France. She escapes, the rest are killed by the SS.

So then, this is, of course, not only hers, but you know, she’s speaking full vengeance as a whole. It’s such a powerful image that we don’t expect. We don’t have a clue that it’s coming. And I think it’s Tarantino, you know, imagining, perhaps in 1944, perhaps it could be a moment of complete revenge. So, you know, as he says, some people can see it as a fable, some people can see it as a fairytale story of wishful hope, et cetera, but it’s a little thing for him, starting the film, a kind of a what if? What if they did? ‘Cause, you know, just on the edge of reality, you know, the leadership might have got together with the opening of a new movie of Goebbels’. They might’ve all been there.

You know, what if it just might’ve been possible for a group of Jewish GI commandos to come in and do that. So anyway, I find it fascinating, because he’s trying to take on such a huge topic and such an emotively powerful topic of, for me, the most terrifying and horrific and cruel moment in human history, you know, with all of that in the war and trying to find some way to deal with it. And it’s just on that fine line between satire and serious, which I think is, it’s a masterful achievement to pull it off. And that image of that cigarettes, you know, just suddenly slowing down as Shosanna’s assistant flicks it, you know, in order to set the whole thing alight, and the way he set up that coming after you see Hitler and Goebbels laughing, and you know, all the rest of it. It’s all in a very heightened style of satire, of course, for a very dark comedy, which I think he is partly so brilliantly known for, as we look at with “Pulp Fiction”.

Moving on to “Pulp”, ‘cause I’m going to do just “Pulp Fiction” of Tarantino’s, and then go onto Kubrick. So, in “Pulp Fiction”, first of all, we have the brilliance of the title, obviously the music. He has innovated so much with that film, Tarantino, you know, different storylines happening, and you’re following three or four main stories, at least, probably another five actually, four or five main stories you’re following all the time of the different characters, the Travolta character, Uma Thurman, Bruce Willis, et cetera, and how it’s interwoven so superbly. But the real intelligence, I think, behind it is the main idea in the film and the style, the aesthetic, and the intelligence, the main idea is summed up in a scene that the Travolta character says when he takes the Uma Thurman one to Jack Slim’s Rabbit restaurant, and just before they do the dance scene, and she says, “So, what do you think of this place?” And he says, “Well, it’s like a wax museum with a pulse.”

And that one line captures so much. It’s Andy Warhol, it’s Tarantino, it’s the perception of how history and the founding values, the collective fictions and founding values of a society, the true values can become kitch, they can become pulp fiction, literally. They can all become, if you like, cartoonized, in a way. So, the line between fake and truth, the line between what’s believably real and what isn’t is so blurred, which, of course, in our times is just talked about all the time, you know, and he’s making this before the end of the last century. So, he’s almost, you know, having an instinctive premonition, in a way. But it’s that sense of, you know, everything’s up to be sold, every value, every idea, anything can be marketed, anything can be advertised, becomes advertising, you know, in the way that so much of the news has become entertainment or that fine line between entertainment and let’s call it, so-called hardcore news, how the entertainment impulse has taken over so much of society, you know, the performative impulse, the entertainment impulse, how to be a showman, how to entertain, how to not just, you know, inspire or even just have charisma. It’s how to have charisma as a showman.

That’s the importance. And it doesn’t matter almost what one is showing or what one is doing. It could be anything. I’m not only talking about politics. It could be many things. But the ability to combine these qualities becomes what we would loosely call the celebrity in our times, whatever field they come from, sports, politics, culture, film, art, entertainment, whatever. It’s that ability to combine showmanship with entertainment that is able to grab our attention, which is all about the image of persona. And so, the reality of who the person is, authentically, in a way, either goes out the window, or more kindly, is partially shipwrecked and lands on a new island called entertaining showman to hold our attention, Because in the attention economy. It’s an attention technology.

The internet, everything so much, TikTok, all of those things, you know, can hold our attention for more than two or three seconds or not. And you know, what’s going to hold it? So, it’s got to become more and more entertaining, showman, showwoman, anything. You know, traditional categories start to break and become porous, to put it mildly, and they start to bleed into all the other ideas of performative showman entertaining, and that becomes what we might call charisma today, how you can do it for the camera. Whatever that camera is doing on the internet or in a film, wherever. So, I think he understands it so well, Tarantino, and it’s so clear, in “Pulp Fiction”. That’s where it starts. It really starts with Andy Warhol, you know, and what he’s doing with, saying, you know, “Well, Campbell soup can be art. Take a Mona Lisa or a Duchamp, put a moustache on it,” you know, or take the images of Marilyn Monroe, do all sorts of different versions of it in colour and other things, like Andy Warhol’s.

It’s saying, “Every value can become kitch.” That’s the key. Therefore, history and individual life can become represented as kitch and consume and taken in as kitch, which is a fascinating shift in contemporary mindset to what people want and what people… 'Cause I would never be so naive as just to portion so-called blame in inverted commas to anybody. This is because the society wants it. You know, humans want it. They want to have it and experience it for whatever whole lot of different reasons we can speculate, okay? So, with Tarantino, we sense there is a danger. We sense we’re tasting forbidden fruit in the same way we do when these persona individuals, I’ll call them, the entertaining showman, all that, they grab our attention in the attention economy of our times.

So, it’s an experience that he understands it. Violence is that. Leadership is that. Even taking drugs, like in “Pulp Fiction”, you know, all of it becomes pulp and possible fiction. The title is superb. Okay, ultimately, history, individual human, and the founding values of a society can become pulp and fiction kitch in these ways, the profound meaning of kitch. Okay, so we’re going to look at the first one from “Pulp Fiction”, please. And this image is of the two gangsters, Travolta and Samuel L. Jackson, and they’re driving to do the hit and kill a couple of the young guys who have been stealing drugs from the big boss and not giving the money to the boss. So, they’ve come, obviously, to do the kill, but this is just them in the car talking. These are two gangster characters pretty different to the usual. Okay, if we can play it, please?

[Clip plays]

• So, tell me again about the hash, brother.

• Okay, what you want to know?

• It’s legal to buy, right?

• That’s legal, brother, 100% legal. You just can’t walk into a restaurant, roll a joint, and start puffing away. I mean, they want you to smoke in your home or certain designated places.

• And also in a hash bar?

• Yeah, it breaks down like this, okay? It’s legal to buy it. It’s legal to own it. And if you’re the proprietor of a hash bar, it’s legal to sell it. It’s illegal to carry it, but that doesn’t matter 'Cause get a load of this, all right? If you get stopped by a cop in Amsterdam, it’s illegal for them to search you. I mean, that’s the ride that cops in Amsterdam don’t have.

• Oh, man, I’m going. That’s all there is to it. I’m about to go.

• Oh, baby, you think it the most.

• But you know what the funniest thing about Europe is?

• What?

• It’s the little differences.

• I mean, they got the same shit over there that they got here, but it’s just, there, it’s a little different.

• Exactly.

• All right, well, you can walk into a movie theatre in Amsterdam and buy a beer. And I don’t mean just like a little paper cup, I’m talking about a glass of beer. And in Paris, you can buy a beer in McDonald’s. Do you know what they call a Quarter Pounder with cheese in Paris?

• They don’t call it a Quarter Pounder with cheese?

• I mean, they got the metric system. They don’t know what the fuck a Quarter Pounder burger is.

• And what do they call it? They call it the Royale with cheese.

• Royale with cheese?

• That’s right.

• What do they call it a Big Mac.

• A Big Mac’s a Big Mac, but they call it Le Big Mac.

• A le Big Mac. What do they call a Whopper?

• I don’t know. I didn’t go into Burger King.

[Clip ends]

• Okay if we can hold it there. Thank you. So, if you can freeze it, thanks. So, what I love about this, this is the opening of, it’s close to the opening of the movie, and it’s these two gangsters, but they’re just talking about living in France, what is a Big Mac called, Royale with cheese, and you know, playing with ideas of French culture and American. You know, it’s playful. It’s light. But within a minute, they’re going to be in an apartment and they’re going to, you know, kill a couple of young guys dead, basically, in order to get the money back, and you know, the special case. It’s part of Tarantino’s brilliance that he could disassociate us from the stereotype of gangster and the philosophising, which is like, we would expect in another kind of comedy movie, in a way. So, it’s putting two genres together in the writing of the script and the creation of these characters, which it’s just a wonderful, fresh, innovative approach, you know, and breaks the stereotype.

Well, how do gangsters talk? How do, whoever… They can be religious people that talk. How do leaders talk? How do postmen talk? How does an astronaut talk? You know, all of the stereotypes get broken in a very short scene. And what he does all the time with writing, which is why I think his writing is so good, is that he brings back, well, of course, everybody is complex. Why can’t two gangsters talk about what they call a Big Mac in France, or other things, anything, you know? It’s not just an attempt to humanise, it’s an attempt to stretch stereotypes within the style of comedy, and comedy usually needs stereotype, where you would just stick with, okay, stereotype of gangster, you know, two dimensional. So, I wanted to share that, because obviously, he’s opening, obviously, he’s setting it up so it’s calm, relaxing, and fun, you know, before we get to the killing. But he does it all the time. And I think he has really influenced so much of screenwriting since.

You know, you get it in theatre and other things, where characters can talk about X, even though they have a social persona, the doctor, the gangster, the mafia guy, the nurse, the professor, whatever, which is all part of the social stereotype image. It can be made a little bit more interesting and complex. Okay, can we show the next one please? And this is when Travolta character, the gangster, arrives at the restaurant, Jack Rabbit Slims. And you’ll see, with Uma Thurman’s character, she’s the wife of the big boss, and you’ll see all the iconic images of American culture. There’s Ed Sullivan image, there’s a Marilyn Monroe, there’s Buddy Holly, there’s Elvis, all set up as pulp fiction, as iconic images which are being, you know, playfully satirised in the restaurant that they go to. Okay, if we can show it, please? [Clip plays]

• The fuck is this place?

• This is Jack Rabbit Slims. An Elvis man should love it.

• Come on, man. Let’s go get a steak.

• You can get a steak here, Daddio. Don’t be a…

• Oh, after you, kitty cat.

• There’s a reservation under Wallace.

• Wallace?

• We reserved a car.

• Oh, a car.

• Why don’t you sit over there in the Chrysler?

♪ To get a soda pop ♪ ♪ Throw a nickel in the jukebox, then we start to rock ♪ ♪ My school gal baby, going to tell ya some news ♪ ♪ You sure look good in them baby-doll shoes ♪ ♪ Well, it’s a-one, two, a-pull off my shoes ♪ ♪ Three, four, get out on the floor ♪ ♪ Five, six, come get your kicks ♪ ♪ Down on the corner of Lincoln and a-forty-six ♪ ♪ I’ve been a-waitin’ in school all day long ♪ ♪ A-waitin’ on the bell to ring so I could go home ♪ ♪ Throw my books on the table, pick up the telephone ♪ ♪ “Hello, baby, let’s get somethin’ goin’” ♪ ♪ Headin’ down to the drugstore to get a soda pop ♪ ♪ Throw a nickel in the jukebox, then we start to rock ♪ ♪ My school gal baby, going to tell ya some news ♪ ♪ You sure look good in them baby-doll shoes ♪ ♪ Well, it’s a-one, two, a-pull off my shoes ♪ ♪ Three, four, get out on the floor ♪ ♪ Five, six, come get your kicks ♪ ♪ Down on the corner of Lincoln and a-forty-six ♪ ♪ You got to move, start rockin’ baby ♪ ♪ A rockin’, rockin’ baby ♪ ♪ Going to rock all night, rock all night ♪ ♪ Just wait ‘n’ see` ♪

[Clip ends]

• So, it’s not just a play on the ‘50s, but it’s going into a restaurant where all the different cubicles have different iconic images. There’s the Marilyn Monroe. Some of them are waiters, waitresses. Buddy Holly comes later. The Elvis one, obviously, you know, and Ed Sullivan. There are so many, where the icons have become physical embodiments, you know, through the actors of kitch. They’re not just dressed like, you know, any old sort of waiter or waitress. And he’s doing it intentionally. And this is the scene where it begins with, once they sit and start ordering milkshakes, and so on, where he talks about, you know… And she says, “What do you think of this restaurant?” And he says, “Well, it’s like a wax museum with a pulse.”

And that to me, that phrase, is Tarantino’s comments on a lot of his vision of America, contemporary, the West society. You know, it’s a wax museum, but it’s got a pulse. It does have an electric energy inside it, and it’s beating, no question, but it’s replaying old images. But what he’s also doing is adding in that quality, I mentioned, the showman, and so on, the entertainer. And the next clip is the dance with Travolta and Uma Thurman. They go up for a sort of a competition up on the dance floor in the restaurant, and we all know Travolta from “Grease”, “Saturday Night Fever”. You know, he was such a hero or cult image in the '70s through dancing and through his dance and his younger persona. And here, Tarantino and Travolta are purposely playfully satirising themselves.

So, they even have become personas to satirise themselves in it. He said I had to cast Travolta. There was only one. 'Cause he was such a celebrity icon in the '70s based on those earlier movies and as a dancer. So, even that is played with here. Uma Thurman’s haircut, of course, Cleopatra, the whole image, you know. He’s constantly playing with mythical folklore. Everything becomes myth. Everything becomes folklore. Everything becomes pulp or fiction, or kitch even, you know, what once was at some kind of other value. Okay, you can show it, please.

[Clip plays]

• Ladies and gentlemen. Now, the moment you’ve all been waiting for, the world famous Jack Rabbit Slims twist contest. This is where one lucky couple will win this handsome trophy that Marilyn here is holding. Now, who will be our first contestants?

• Right here. Want to dance?

• No, no, no.

• No, no, no. I do believe Marcellus, my husband, your boss, told you to take me out and do whatever I wanted. Now, I want to dance, I want to win. I want that trophy so dance good.

• All right.

• Now, let’s meet our first contestants here this evening.

• Young lady, what’s your name?

• Mrs. Mia Wallace.

• And how about your fellow here?

• Vincent Vega.

• All right, let’s see what you can do. Take it away.

♪ It was a teenage wedding, ♪ ♪ And the old folks wished them well ♪ ♪ You could see that Pierre did truly ♪ ♪ Love the mademoiselle ♪ ♪ And now the young monsieur ♪ ♪ And madame have rung the chapel bell ♪ ♪ “C'est la vie”, say the old folks ♪ ♪ It goes to show you never can tell ♪ ♪ They furnished off an apartment ♪ ♪ With a two room Roebuck sale ♪ ♪ The coolerator was crammed with ♪ ♪ TV dinners and ginger ale ♪ ♪ But when Pierre found work, ♪ ♪ The little money comin’ worked out well ♪ ♪ “C'est la vie”, say the old folks ♪ ♪ It goes to show you never can tell ♪ ♪ They had a hi-fi phono, boy, did they let it blast ♪ ♪ Seven hundred little records, all rock, rhythm and jazz ♪ ♪ But when the sun went down ♪ ♪ The rapid tempo of the music fell ♪ ♪ “C'est la vie”, say the old folks ♪ ♪ It goes to show you never can tell ♪

[Clip ends]

• Okay, you can hold it there, please. Thanks, Hannah. So, I wanted to show this, because not only, you know, Travolta could still get the moves and the vibe, but also, you know, what he’s doing, in all of this way of playing with the myths of the culture and the iconic myths of the culture, of they making themselves, with the Cleopatra and you know, the reference to him, of course, as, you know, that super fit, fantastic characters in “Grease” and “Saturday Night Fever”, et cetera, from the ‘70s. So, it’s how persona gets invented and reinvented and incorporating, you know, iconic images from the past, and they can so often become kitch or they walk the fine line between kitch and being believed and lived. And that’s what’s so fascinating in what Tarantino does all the time.

Do they become pulp fiction? Do the beliefs, the values, the history, the icons, do they become that, open to be just transformed in that Andy Warhol way? Or, are they capable of evolving in another way? It’s a question that he throws up, and I don’t think the violence that he uses… I mean, he’s often been accused of the violence being gratuitous and sensationalist, but I think if one sees it in the same way, it’s exaggerated so much that it’s so drawn into it, the violence, because it’s exaggerated so much, and yet has some shock moments. But it’s all about trying to be satirical, again, by bringing, even violence can be shown as kitch. You know, even that can be shown as not just gratuitous or sensational, but it takes on an element of predictability. So, moviemakers constantly finding different ways to show it, which is an interesting, and perhaps terrifying, thought when it’s related to true violence that one may experience.

Okay, so we’re going to move on from “Pulp Fiction” and go on to Mr. Kubrick, for me, the great outsider, a visionary filmmaker. And of course, the opening, iconic, brilliant moment in “2001: A Space Odyssey”, where we have all the chimps and how they throw the bone, you’ll see, which then becomes the spaceship, one of the greatest openings I’ve ever seen in a film. Obviously, the film that defined a generation or an era and just took filmmaking to another whole level entirely. That leap of imagination from these chimps to spaceship, you know, human evolution, all so many themes are inside it and how powerful he plays with it. Okay, if we can show it please. Our ancestors. The great images. The bone becomes the spaceship, and there’s the earth. So, if we can freeze it there please, Hannah. Thank you.

So, for me, one of the great openings of any film ever made and how it’s absolutely classic Kubrick, and it works in the juxtaposition of bestial, animal aggression and cruelty, you know, of the chimps and the cut bones and bashing, killing, and then, you know, success, power. Throw the bone, and the bone becomes this beautiful spaceship, gliding with beautiful music through the heavens, through the stars, and a beautiful vision of there’s the planet Earth. So, from the cruelty to the beauty, from the beastiality to the magnificence, from minimal human achievement to magnificent human achievement, all of these paradoxes literally within a minute and a half of film time. Now, it’s an extraordinary achievement for me, and that, to me, is so deep in Kubrick’s vision of society and life. Everything has its opposite. All light has its dark shadow. All dark has its light.

Not only the great Leonard Cohen line, there’s a crack, you know, in everything where the light gets in. But it’s always both. It’s the paradox. And for me, it is, of course, a very Jewish way of thinking, going way back to ancient times, for me. It’s also a contemporary, intelligent way of thinking, I would suggest. But we can never forget those ancient times. And of course, Kubrick saying, “Well, we’ve advanced technologically brilliantly, the brain, mind, remarkable, extraordinary,” you know? “What a piece of work is, man, Shakespeare, the greatness, the creativity, and the destructiveness.” And those two impulses, for me, it seems go all the way through. It’s the paradox of human life, the paradox of human society, and we have to give both equal weight all the time. And beware if we give one too much and one too little, because we can become a little bit, you know, seduced by illusion perhaps, or delusion.

And I think that’s what is so deep inside this brilliant, artistic vision of, for me, one of the great, great filmmakers of all time, Kubrick. An unforgettable opening scene. Can one imagine seeing this for the first time in film, and it’s that surreal juxtaposition, 'cause it is a surrealist moment, and yet it burns into imagination like nothing else, precisely because it is so paradoxical and surrealist. Okay, I want to show the next clip. It’s going to be from “The Shining”, based on Stephen King’s novel, as we all know, with Jack Nicholson and Shelley Duvall, the main characters, where, you know, the two go up to this very isolated hotel out in the mountains, and Jack Nicholson’s character, he’s going to write his great novel and she will look after everything in the hotel. They’ll be the sort of caretakers during the harsh, freezing, snowy winter. And she slowly discovers he is going absolutely nuts, mad, psychotic. And I want to show this one scene with the axe, but it’s juxtaposed with where Kubrick got it from, which is a film made in the '20s, and we’re going to show both at the same time. Okay, if we can show it, please.

[Clip plays]

• What should be done with him?

• I don’t know.

• I don’t think that’s true. I think you have some very definite ideas about what should be done with Danny, and I’d like to know what they are.

• Well, I’m serious. Maybe he should be taken to a doctor.

• You think maybe he should be taken to a doctor?

• Yes.

• Mom, there’s blood!

• Stop it!

• Wendy, I’m home.

[Clip ends]

• Okay, let’s hold it there, please. So, I wanted to show this, as one of my really superb lecturers said all those years ago when I was a student, “Well, David, originality is lack of information.” We can see the influence from the 1921 movie on Kubrick, and these guys have studied, you know, they know their film history inside out, and history of much else, inside out and backwards, and can see the influences all the time, which I celebrate because everybody builds on the previous artists. But what’s fascinating for me here is that sense of the axe. You know, Kubrick did it, he filmed it with the camera moving at the same speed and semi-circular motion as the axe, and the developing sense of madness that we start to see in the family relationship, you know, the mother, the father, and the little child.

Okay, the next one I want to show before talking more is the typing scene, where the Shelly Duvall character, the wife, discovers what the novelist writer, Jack Nicholson character, has meant to be type working on, which is his new great, great American novel. And she discovers for the first time what the madness really is and what he’s really been doing at the typewriter. Okay, if we can show it, please. Okay, if we can hold that there please. Thanks. So, this, for me, is… I’ll never forget first seeing this film all those years ago, as I’m sure many have seen it. This was the moment that gave me the biggest chills, you know, that spine-tingling feel down your spine, you know? This was the moment that was far more terrifying than so many others, and it struck me how interesting of Kubrick and how brilliant that the discovery of psychotic madness in a partner, in a loved one, it could be a brother or sister, a cousin, an uncle, an aunt.

It could be a somebody very close that we love, and you know, spend so much time with, but we don’t have a clue, and suddenly, we discover they’ve gone nuts. They’re actually crazy. They’re actually, to use the language, psychotic. They’re actually not just neurotic. They’ve gone way beyond it. You know, and what he’s written, he’s meant to be writing the great novel. That’s why they’ve come to the hotel up in the snowy mountains to spend a few months so he can write every day, eight, nine hours a day, and this is what it is, hundreds of pages of that one phrase. It strikes me that the moment of the other person discovering is the moment of terror, is the moment of fear, because we discover it through the Shelley Duvall. We are as naive about it and see it for the first time, and it makes us think of everybody we know. Could they go like this? Couldn’t they? What’s that fine, thin line between madness and sanity?

The other thing that struck me as interesting is that the violence in “The Shining” is, obviously, all there and scary, you know, when later it goes on the labyrinth with the child and with with him and her, you know, and others. But I think the profound insight of Kubrick is actually that madness, like this, in the true sense of that word, psychosis, is more terrifying in… Psychosis in somebody we know so well and love, have cared for, spent so long together, the discovery of that in the other person, not through physical, medical change, but through a psychological change, that that discovery of that kind of madness is actually more terrifying almost than anything else, more terrifying than violence itself. And Hannah and I were having an interesting chat earlier, and I’m indebted to her for some lovely thoughts, that this madness, this psychosis, this discovery is actually more terrifying. So, you know, Kubrick is throwing up the question for us: well, what is the deepest in human nature? Is it discovery of psychosis, madness in somebody we love so close, we’ve lived with for many, many years? Is it the extreme violence in others? Is it war? Is it horror? Is it something else? Is it, you know, disability, disease? Is it the absolute horror and terror of rape? So many things.

What is the extreme, going back to the image of the chimpanzees, you know, bashing somebody with a bone? What is the most terrifyingly scary thing? If there is one thing, I think Kubrick is alluding to an artistic choice here and throwing out a fascinating debate for us, you know? Okay, we can go onto the next one, please. And this is one of the great classic images. I’m not going to do it much to show the one from “Dr. Strangelove”, looked at it the other week in quite a bit of detail, where Peter Sellers plays three characters in it, just for those of you perhaps weren’t there. Quick recap. You know, a general goes insane, and he orders a nuclear strike on America. And then, the president of both of the Soviet Union, Cold War times, President of Soviet Union, President of America discover, and all the generals are getting together in the war room, and all of that. And Peter Sellers plays the Wernher von Braun character, you know, telling them of a way out, which is, well, let the whole world blow itself to smithereens, and all the leaders of the military and the administration can all get together and live in bunkers underground for years, have as much sex as they want, procreate and create the next generation, coming from the Wernher-von-Braun-influenced “Dr. Strangelove,” Peter Sellers. Okay, if we can show it, please.

[Clip plays]

• I would guess that a dwelling space for several hundred thousand of our people could easily be provided.

• Well, I would hate to have to decide who stays up and who goes down.

• That would not be necessary. Mr. President. It could easily be accomplished with a computer, and the computer could be set and programmed to accept factors from youth, yes, sexual fertility, intelligence, and the cross-section of necessary skills. Of course, it would be absolutely vital that our top government and military men be included to foster and impart the required principles of leadership and tradition. Actually, they would lead religiously, hey? There would be much time and little to do, but with the proper breeding techniques and the ratio of, say, 10 females to each male, I would guess that they could then work their way back to the present gross national product within, say, 20 years.

• But look, here, doctor, wouldn’t this nucleus of survivors be so grief-stricken and anguished that they, well, envy the dead and not want to go on living?

• Excuse me. Well, sir, when when they go down into the mine, everyone will still be alive. There will be no shocking memories, and the prevailing emotion will be one of nostalgia for those left behind, combined with a spirit of bold curiosity for the adventure ahead. Ha!

• Okay, if we can hold this here. Thank you. And if we can go straight into the next one, and this goes to the end of the film, from this moment here to the next. You can show the next clip, please. Thank you.

• We must not allow a mineshaft gap, sir!

• That is the plan.

♪ We’ll meet again ♪ ♪ Don’t know where ♪ ♪ Don’t know when ♪ ♪ But I know we’ll meet again some sunny day ♪ ♪ Keep smiling through ♪ ♪ Just like you always do ♪ ♪ 'Til the blue skies drive the dark clouds far away ♪

[Clip ends]

• Okay, if we can hold it there, please. Thank you. So, obviously, ending up with a Vera Lynn song, you know, from 1943 in the war, and which Spike Milligan, actually, suggested to Peter Sellers, who suggested it to Kubrick. So, I wanted to show this, because you know, this is his real great satire, his real great, dark comedy, which I spoke about a couple of weeks ago. So, I’m not going to go into that detail. But just to mention the linking together of the German, the Nazi, but in that savagely satirical way of the Peter Seller’s character and the arm, but he ends it with mein fuhrer and that salute, and then, immediately, into the bomb going off and the horror. You can imagine the whole world blowing up. And of course, let’s remember the soldiers, the military men and the politicians in the war room, they don’t ever talk about phoning their family, their wives, their children. That isn’t even mentioned in the previous scene, when they make the decision to annihilate everybody.

It’s just what they can get for themselves, you know, 10 women to 1 man. That’s it, you know, to save their own skin. So, there’s that. And then, this contrast between the beautiful Vera Lynn song at the end, “We’ll Meet Again”, and it shows it almost in a beautifully grotesque way, the image of the bomb exploding, and we know, you know, it’s over. That’s it. Life’s gone. The earth, you know, almost everyone on the planet will be history. It’s that paradox, again, of Kubrick. The beautiful and the ultimate extreme, cruel, the bomb, and the beauty of the way of showing it. Lesser filmmakers would choose other music. He chooses that. And it’s constantly unsettling, but in an intriguing and fascinating way, I would suggest, because of that combination of a strange beauty with extreme cruelty, in this case, including a black humour, a dark comedy satire with selfishness, together with, you know, this idea of making us almost laugh, not belly laugh, but laugh at a grotesque image in a comic way of Peter Sellers being the scientist, the von Braun Nazi character.

Okay, I want to show the last one, will be “Barry Lyndon”, which is one of the most beautiful films that I think one can imagine. Kubrick spoke about it quite a lot towards the end of his life and a lot of others as being one of the ones they really remembered, because it’s very different. It’s, you know, based on Thackeray’s novel, and basically, its an adventure story, like so much of that era’s novels, an adventure story, rags to riches almost, and then how it changes. But you know, a young boy goes out to make his way in the world, to make his fame and fortune, to discover, you know, 19th century. You know, it goes out into the world to try and see. On the one hand, adventure story, but what he does magnificently is he charts this adventure journey, adventure story of the young boy becoming a man, so it’s a coming-of-age film, boy’s own adventure stuff, but with it is the stunning beauty of how every image on film is almost like a painting of the period. And it’s an extraordinary artistic achievement, in my opinion, visually. Okay, if we can show the next one, please. Okay, thanks. You can hold that. Okay, thank you.

So, what I feel here is, I wanted to just show the sheer beauty of his visual sensibility, and it’s an not only the adventure of Barry Lyndon who goes from, you know, the small village, you know, tries to make it, and he makes it in the big city, big towns, and the military, he goes through, business and many things of the world, you know, and he goes through the strings and arrows of fortune and misfortune, you know. It’s a classic sort of adventure story of those times. But it’s a visual feast, it’s a visual adventure watching this film. And he takes us into another whole world of visual adventure in celebrating the art itself of film and the beauty of what film can actually achieve by transporting us into a world, which is… You know, it’s like walking through a museum of stunning art and art paintings with the sound. And inside it is, of course, you know, a fairly classic adventure story of the times. So, he’s such a varied artist, Kubrick, always with that, for me, Jewish outsider perspective. You can see different worlds, different societies. From the '50s, the atomic bomb, the terror, the fear, to the psychosis and madness, you know, of a small family stuck in the mountains in a small hotel looking after it, to something like this, the visual feast, to “Full Metal Jacket”, you know, about the military and military training, and then in the war.

And of course, “Eyes Wide Shut”, you know, marriage, infidelity, all these things, and fantasy and dream. He’s able to try to walk so many different themes between fantasy and real, all of these things, which I think makes an extraordinary range as an artist. And I know I’m sounding maybe over exuberant and over celebratory, but it’s rare one comes across one of the true greats, in this case, of film. And I think, you know, worthy of celebration for all we can easily critique, and there many things one can critique. I’ll be accused of being over enthusiastic or over celebratory. Okay, so we’re going to hold onto that. Thank you. Going on to very different topic, which I’ll do with Ollie next week. We’ll have a fascinating debate. Okay, so thank you. And going to go onto the questions.

Q&A and Comments

Romaine, thank you.

Q: Are they both, Tarantino and Kubrick, embrace violence? A: Well, I think it’s a really interesting question. Tarantino, of course, has been accused of sensationalising violence, but I think, for me, because it’s so exaggerated, it has a reality, but it’s also a kitch. And that gives us a distancing quality, don’t get as emotionally hooked into it as we would in a strictly realist film. You know, also, maybe I’m in film and theatre too much, so I can imagine exactly how much fake blood, where the blood pouches are inside the shirts, inside the jackets, you know, how they press little buttons so they can all explode at the same time. You know, I’m so inside that, you know, and how you create fake blood, and you know, all that. So, maybe I’m coming too much from being inside the profession, but I don’t think it’s sensationalised for that reason in Tarantino. In Kubrick, I think he does walk that fine line between fantasy and reality. What is real, what is fantasy? What’s a bit mad and what isn’t? And that gives the violence, the edge, in Kubrick when he shows moments of violence, not only in “The Shining”, but everywhere else. There can be madness or psychosis and also violence. It usually goes with it in a way. But because it’s combined so often in Kubrick, it has a whole different edge and interpretation to it, for me.

Irv, could not deal with outrageous alternative history on the topic. I think some history should not be altered, something deniers do. Oh, that’s very, very interesting, Irv. Yeah, and that’s a fascinating argument, and I agree entirely. You see, the unfortunate thing, I suppose, for me, is that deniers are going to artists, writers, movies, films that are going to change what was so original. You know, if we think back 150 years, how do we represent the Civil War? How do we represent, you know, so many other things 150 years ago? I’m talking about just war now. I’m not talking about the Holocaust, the Shoah. How do we imagine it will be represented in the next 100 years as we go along? I think we need to be aware of how history and portrayals of historical events and moments shift and change, and we have to find some way each time to take it on. I suppose different generations, you know, you get 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 generations away from the original event, and it’s terrifying. I agree with you, Irv. It’s a very scary thought. And it goes back to, I suppose, you know, the sort of pure authentic versus the altered interpretation debate, you know, which is a big debate, but it will happen anyway I think. Because that is what happens with historical events, terrifyingly so, with the Shoah. So, I agree with you on the one hand. On the other hand, I think, it’s inevitable. If we imagine 100, 150 years from now, even 80, 70 years, you know, how these things will be… Even the worst event in human history, not only Jewish history, but the in human history, how will that be represented? You know, we have to try to imagine, I think.

Okay, I think the network was a of news as entertainment. Yeah, I think it is partly, but it was becoming that already, I think. So, technology was moving in a way, and whoever the individuals are who sussed it and jumped onto that bandwagon, the bandwagon was moving anyway, I think. I agree with you. Rita, loved the bear Jew character. Exactly. He was that highly-decorated soldier. I think he was going to… Exactly. I mean, it’s such a wonderful character, and it’s so well written and acted, without a doubt. Sandy, I saw the stick, not a spaceship, but a weapon. Oh, that’s the stick. Yeah, that’s the bone that he’s using to bash with and a stunning transition, yeah. And it becomes a weapon. You’re absolutely right. It is a weapon. And then, the weapon becomes the spaceship, which can be seen as a weapon in another way, but also has the beauty of the music, the image, and the space. Irv, the spaceship is really a weapons platform, wanted to show how the weapon has morphed. Yeah, that is part of it. That is the destructive side of it, from the bone to the spaceship. Both are weapons. But also, there’s a certain remarkable achievement in human creativity and endeavour to be able to make a spaceship.

Q: Lawrence, can you comment on the comparative use of the N word by Kubrick and Tarantino? A: Kubrick always uses a slur, but not as an alternative to brother. Yeah, I agree with you. And Tarantino has been mixed. It’s a big debate between being heavily criticised, heavily, in Tarantino, by using it so much. And is it just gratuitous and indulgent compared to Kubrick? And what’s interesting is that so many Black American actors, writers, came out in support of Tarantino, and said, “Well, first of all, it captures part of reality, at the times, of course. And secondly, it’s part of the culture, you know.” It’s a big debate. I don’t think there’s a right or wrong. And at times, it does really irritate me, and I think it’s gratuitous, and I think it’s maddening, you know, and it’s unnecessary. And is he just being, you know, trying to be extra cool with it, or purposely uncool, you know? But I think it’s also before our contemporary times, in a way. So, it has a different meaning, in that sense, but no one can condone it out of context. Always, the question is in context. In the context, does it enhance the artwork or not? If not, it’s utterly disgusting and gratuitous. Lawrence, in Tarantino, it’s not.

Okay, Lorna, two filmmakers look a bit alike in the opening shot. Yeah, they can do. I mean, the influence is huge. Okay, Rita, thank you. Very kind. Alice, and the violence is stylized. Yes, the violence is stylized, to a large degree, in both, especially in Kubrick. You know, the violence, and even the way, the “Barry Lyndon”, it’s so aesthetic, which is stylized, slow motion. It’s stylized in certain ways. And when you do that, you create a different effect on the audience, without a doubt. Okay, Nina, thank you. Oh, from Tel Aviv. Shabbat Shalom. Hope you well. I just spoke to my sister and the whole family in Jerusalem last night for hours, actually.

Q: Hiro, why did you ignore “Clockwork Orange”? A: I know one of the most striking and influential… You know, only one answer, lack of time, you know? I wanted to show brief glimpses of a few, but of course, “Clockwork Orange”, one of the great classics as well. Absolutely. The artists that create every film. You can write, you know, books about it. We can debate. We can discuss so much about each one. The mark of a great artist with great intellectual and artistic richness. Ralph, I attended a human subjects research conference, “Clockwork Orange”, illustration of unacceptable research performed, even by a government entity. Yeah, well, you know, for me, well, that’s fascinating, you know? “Clockwork Orange” still does create a bit of a provocative response I guess, but so do the others. “Eyes Wide Shut” certainly did, and others, and Tarantino at times as well.

Sonny, the beginning of “Barbie” paying homage to “2001”. Absolutely, Sonny. His originality merely a lack of information, as my lecturer once said all those years ago. Cynthia, I remember our shocking “Clockwork Orange” was. Yeah, growing up, I know. It’s absolutely, but it’s the mindset behind it, not just the physical violence acted out. And when you see those chimps, you know, bashing each other with the bones, that’s so deep in Kubrick. I think that sense of aggression, cruelty, and violence runs through all his work, together with the remarkable achievements of creativity, beauty, you know, and imagination that are celebrated in his work, the paradox, again. Thomas, you missed my comment about “Paths of Glory”. I wish I could have included that and others. I love “Paths of Glory”. I think it’s so well written as well, and the debate between the Kirk Douglas character and the general. I mean, it’s brilliant “Spartacus”. You know, there’s just too many. So, thank you very much, everybody.

Next week will be very different. Ollie and I will have a fascinating discussion on, what is the secret of Jewish survival? Okay, so hope you well and take care. Thank you so much, Hannah, and have a great rest of the weekend, everybody.