MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Posted Friday, March 7th, 2014 - 8 Comments »
Be Sociable, Share!

Kubrick’s Selfie

Kubrick // One-Point Perspective from kogonada on Vimeo.

Be Sociable, Share!

8 Comments »

8 Responses to “Kubrick’s Selfie”

  1. leahnz says:
    March 7, 2014 at 4:53 pm

    this is cool, the centre-point perspective gives kubrick’s (particularly earlier) work a unique, hypnotic feel; sadly it seems this type of formal composition is largely lost in the current shaky cinema culture but for a few young meticulous formalists such as the Andersons Wes and PT – here’s hoping dynamic formalism has a resurgence and finds a place in the new culture, it can be so compelling and beautiful.

  2. Spassky says:
    March 7, 2014 at 9:59 pm

    I was hoping to see the selfie with him and his daughter from the shining, but I love rewatching this little collection of clips (I think I have seen it at least 10 times).

    Leahnz: totally agree with the “hypnotic” feel of these compositions. I don’t think I would be able to rewatch this video if it weren’t for the mesmerizing quality of it (cue glass harmonica).

  3. Ray Pride says:
    March 7, 2014 at 10:53 pm

    I expected the shot in the mirror from his LIFE days, cropped hair, calmly burning eyes.

  4. Spassky says:
    March 8, 2014 at 12:12 am

    ah, yeah, that one came to mind too.

  6. leahnz says:
    March 8, 2014 at 1:32 am

    i don’t get the ‘selfie’ reference, but i thought maybe i was just being thick. does DP maybe mean the centre-point perspective is Kubrick’s sight, his actual pov/ perspective as the one-point, Kubrick’s ‘self’ the way he sees it, ie his selfie (since it’s clearly not a selfie in the expected sense), or does that even make sense…i don’t know that might not stand up to closer scrutiny.

    anyway tangentially related to kubrick’s mesmerizing symmetry, to try to make a story short: i had a design professor who was obsessed with geometric forms in nature and the idea that we, being animals sprung from the natural world, have a natural aesthetic affinity for the geometric and symmetrical designs found so profusely in nature, in flora and fauna and natural structures from jellyfish and sea shells/corals/sand dollars to flower blooms, honeycomb and snowflakes, rainbows and spider webs, from basic microscopic life forms to galaxies and our own DNA helixes, geometric forms (particularly circular and spiral design structures) abound and we tend to see beauty and order in their symmetry and form – which we then of course attempt to emulate and celebrate, and then appreciate, our own art because, that’s what we do — and this has always brought to mind Kubrick with his symmetry and geometric compositions and shapes within his frames, he must have thought this type of form really compelling and dynamic or he probably wouldn’t have done it so often and painstakingly well, it really draws you in and focuses the eye the way nothing else quite can when done well.

  7. David Poland says:
    March 8, 2014 at 10:12 am

    It was a blurry reference to the idea of self-portrait now and a signature in years past, Leah.

    The artist holds the camera on themselves when they turn it on others… or the set… the same as a person trying to find the thing they see and love in themselves does when they are taking that “selfie” today. No? The difference is between the amateur and the professional, but the reflection is similar.

  8. leahnz says:
    March 8, 2014 at 2:19 pm

    yeah, sure…that’s fairly esoteric reasoning for titling a centre-point Kubrick montage a ‘selfie’ though, so i no longer feel like a thickie for not guessing the reference, whew

The Hot Blog

Comments Most Recent Archives

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon