Signature Shots from the Films of Stanley Kubrick: One-Point Perspective

Stan­ley Kubrick­’s fil­mog­ra­phy, a tow­er­ing, mul­ti­fac­eted edi­fice of sheer craft, offers many pat­terns for atten­tive fans to spot.  Some occur with­in a film of his, oth­ers between them; some he and his col­lab­o­ra­tors delib­er­ate­ly includ­ed, while oth­ers sim­ply emerged. The short video embed­ded above spots a pat­tern in Kubrick­’s tech­nique itself. Those unschooled in pho­tog­ra­phy or oth­er types of image com­po­si­tion may feel what the video means to shows them with­out being able to put it into words. All these shots — from films as var­ied as 2001Paths of Glo­ry, Bar­ry Lyn­don, and A Clock­work Orange — use what’s called “one-point per­spec­tive,” which you get when “the paint­ing plate (also known as the pic­ture plane) is par­al­lel to two axes of a rec­ti­lin­ear (or Carte­sian) scene – a scene which is com­posed entire­ly of lin­ear ele­ments that inter­sect only at right angles.” Got that? In oth­er words, all the visu­al lines in these shots appear to con­verge on a sin­gle point, usu­al­ly dead ahead.

Like many of Kubrick­’s sig­na­ture choic­es — see also the Kubrick zoom — using one-point per­spec­tive has its con­tro­ver­sies. One com­menter calls the video “best argu­ment against those who tell me that you should not make sym­met­ric shots.” Anoth­er calls it “a prime exam­ple of how off-putting sym­me­try can be in motion pic­ture pho­tog­ra­phy,” since “you feel like there’s some­thing wrong in every one of these shots,” that “you can’t put your fin­ger on it, but you know things aren’t quite right.” (Giv­en the free-float­ing but thor­ough dread in pic­tures like The Shin­ing, 2001, and A Clock­work Orange, might the shots be per­fect­ly suit­ed to their projects?) Still anoth­er invokes a Kubrick dic­tum that, whether or not it explains any­thing about his one-point per­spec­tives, seems nec­es­sary in any dis­cus­sion of his meth­ods: take the first idea you thought of, then do the exact oppo­site.

The Vimeo account of the video’s cre­ator, a cer­tain kog­o­na­da, also fea­tures com­pi­la­tions of the tech­ni­cal pat­terns found in Quentin Taran­ti­no, Dar­ren Aronof­sky, and Wes Ander­son.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

The Mak­ing of Stan­ley Kubrick’s A Clock­work Orange

James Cameron Revis­its the Mak­ing of Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey

Mak­ing The Shin­ing

Col­in Mar­shall hosts and pro­duces Note­book on Cities and Cul­ture. Fol­low him on Twit­ter at @colinmarshall.

The Story of Ziggy Stardust: How David Bowie Created the Character that Made Him Famous

In 1973, leg­endary direc­tor D.A. Pen­nebak­er decid­ed to film the Lon­don leg of David Bowie’s tour of Britain in sup­port of Aladdin Sane. Lit­tle did Pen­nebak­er know that Bowie, in his most famous incar­na­tion as Zig­gy Star­dust, would announce his retire­ment after the final encore. What Bowie retired, of course, was the Zig­gy persona—fans of that incar­na­tion are indebt­ed to Pen­nebak­er for catch­ing the final act in his film Zig­gy Star­dust and the Spi­ders from Mars.

Pulling footage from Pennebaker’s con­cert film, and a great deal of rare footage, and nar­rat­ed by Jarvis Cock­er, the BBC doc­u­men­tary David Bowie: The Sto­ry of Zig­gy Star­dust (above) does what Pennebaker’s film refused to; it tells a sto­ry, in typ­i­cal TV doc­u­men­tary fash­ion, of the rise of Zig­gy. And it’s not a sto­ry that many fans know. The first part of the film address­es Cocker’s ques­tion: “What made this mys­te­ri­ous extra-ter­res­tri­al one of the most influ­en­tial cul­tur­al icons of the 20th cen­tu­ry?” It turns out, quite a lot went into the mak­ing of Bowie’s 1973 break­through as Zig­gy Star­dust. In fact, says Cock­er, “at that time,” when Bowie emerged as this seem­ing­ly ful­ly-formed char­ac­ter, “we didn’t real­ize that he’d been try­ing to be suc­cess­ful for 10 years.”

Bowie had front­ed a num­ber of deriv­a­tive R&B groups in the ear­ly six­ties under his giv­en name Davy (or Davie) Jones. Since his name invit­ed con­fu­sion with the then-famous Mon­kee, he changed it in 1967 and released his first sin­gle as David Bowie, a creepy nov­el­ty record called The Laugh­ing Gnome, which was includ­ed on his first self-titled album. The album, “a strange mix of musi­cal and pop,” was inspired by light com­ic enter­tain­er Antho­ny New­ley–whose “sur­re­al com­e­dy paved the way for Mon­ty Python”–and it was a fail­ure. But, Cock­er informs us, Bowie was learn­ing from his mis­takes: “Newley’s quirky ver­sa­til­i­ty would inform the the­atri­cal DNA of Zig­gy Star­dust.” Bowie was cast­ing around, try­ing to find a per­sona to suit the latent tal­ent it seemed only he believed in. His long­time drum­mer Woody Wood­mansey says above, “he was going through a tri­al and error peri­od, and there was a lot of error.”

One break­through came when he met dancer Lind­say Kemp, who taught him mime and with whom Bowie toured in a the­ater pro­duc­tion and had an affair. Dur­ing these years of seem­ing fail­ure, Bowie learned all of the skills that he would use to con­struct Zig­gy: dance, mime, stage and tele­vi­sion act­ing, and sex­u­al expres­sion. As Kemp tells it, “he had an enor­mous sex­u­al appetite”—a cen­tral part of Zig­gy, and Bowie’s, pull. Anoth­er break­through came with 1970’s “Space Odd­i­ty, which hit #5 on the UK charts. But the album of the same name did not fare well. Filled with mean­der­ing psych-folk bal­lads more Dono­van than Queen Bitch, Space Odd­i­ty dis­ap­point­ed. Bowie had not yet found his voice, nor his muse, and he would not until he met his first wife Ang­ie, who “made him brave” and helped him put togeth­er his first glam-rock project The Hype, with gui­tarist Mick Ron­son. The hype went nowhere, but Ron­son and Bowie col­lab­o­rat­ed on his next album, The Man Who Sold the World.

Final­ly, says Bowie, after those years of near-obscu­ri­ty, “some­body did come along and grab me by the emp­ty wal­let and said, I’m Tony Defries and I’m going to make you a star.” Defries intro­duced him to Andy Warhol’s New York scene and he became some­thing of a scen­ester him­self, but he was still too shy to ful­ly inhab­it Zig­gy Star­dust, so he used a surrogate—a fash­ion design­er named Fred­die Bur­ret­ti. Bur­ret­ti was to serve as the face, while Bowie wrote and sang the songs. He called the project “Arnold Corns.” Bowie pro­duced the Arnold Corns record with many of the songs that would even­tu­al­ly make it to the Zig­gy Star­dust album—including “Moon­age Daydream”—but they were rudi­men­ta­ry and flat and the project was a fail­ure, though the idea lived on while Bowie wrote and record­ed Hunky Dory with Ron­son, Woody Wood­mansey, and Trevor Bold­er, the line­up of Zig­gy’s future Spi­ders From Mars. Just two weeks after the 1972 wrap of Hunky Dory, the ses­sions for Zig­gy Star­dust and the Spi­ders from Mars began.

Though Bowie seemed to come out of nowhere in the ear­ly 70s as an androg­y­nous young har­bin­ger of rock and roll to come, those ten years he spent work­ing to find the per­fect for­mu­la for fame had made him reflec­tive. A 2002 New York Times review­er of Pen­nebak­er’s film writes that in 1973, Bowie’s, “lyrics often find Mr. Bowie wrestling with the threats of time and aging, as if he were already, at age 26, star­ing decrepi­tude in the face. Mr. Bowie is now 55 and, super­fi­cial­ly at least, seems none the worse for wear.”

Josh Jones is a doc­tor­al can­di­date in Eng­lish at Ford­ham Uni­ver­si­ty and a co-founder and for­mer man­ag­ing edi­tor of Guer­ni­ca / A Mag­a­zine of Arts and Pol­i­tics.

Chuck Jones’ The Dot and the Line Celebrates Geometry & Hard Work: An Oscar-Winning Animation (1965)

The ani­mat­ed short above, The Dot and the Line, direct­ed by the great Chuck Jones and nar­rat­ed by Eng­lish actor Robert Mor­ley, won an Oscar in 1965 for Best Ani­mat­ed Short Film. Based on a book writ­ten by Nor­ton Juster, “The Dot and the Line” tells the sto­ry of a romance between two geo­met­ric shapes—taking the arche­typ­al nar­ra­tive tra­jec­to­ry of boy meets girl, los­es girl, wins girl in the end (find­ing him­self along the way) and inject­ing it with some fas­ci­nat­ing social com­men­tary that still res­onates almost fifty years lat­er. One way of watch­ing “The Dot and the Line” is as a “tri­umph of the nerd” sto­ry, where an anx­ious square (as in “uncool”) Line has to com­pete with a hip­ster beat­nik Squig­gle of a rival for the affec­tions of a flighty Dot.

The Line begins the film “stiff as a stick… dull, con­ven­tion­al and repressed” (as his love inter­est says of him) in con­trast to the groovy Squig­gle and his groovy bebop sound­track. With the pos­si­ble sug­ges­tion that this love trans­gress­es mid-cen­tu­ry racial bound­aries, the Line’s friends dis­ap­prove and tell him to give it up, since “they all look alike any­way.” But the Line per­sists in his fol­ly, indulging in some Wal­ter Mit­ty-like rever­ies of hero­ic endeav­ors that might win over his Dot. Final­ly, using “great self-con­trol,” he man­ages to bend him­self into an angle, then anoth­er, then a series of sim­ple, then very com­plex, shapes, becom­ing, we might assume, some kind of math­e­mat­i­cal wiz. After refin­ing his tal­ents alone, he goes off to show them to Dot, who is “over­whelmed” and delight­ed and who “gig­gles like a school­girl.”

Here the sub­text of the nerd-gets-the-girl sto­ry­line man­i­fests a fair­ly con­ser­v­a­tive cri­tique of the “anar­chy” of the Squig­gle, whom the Dot comes to see as “undis­ci­plined, grace­less, coarse” and oth­er unflat­ter­ing adjec­tives while the line—who pro­claimed to him­self ear­li­er that “free­dom is not a license for chaos”—is “daz­zling, clever, mys­te­ri­ous, ver­sa­tile, light, elo­quent, pro­found, enig­mat­ic, com­plex, and com­pelling.” I can almost imag­ine that George Will had a hand in the writ­ing, which is to say that it’s enor­mous­ly clever, and enor­mous­ly invest­ed in the val­ues of self-con­trol, hard work, and dis­ci­pline, and dis­trust­ful of spon­tane­ity, free play, and gen­er­al groovi­ness. At the end of the film, our Dot and Line go off to live “if not hap­pi­ly ever after, at least rea­son­ably so” in some cozy sub­urb, no doubt. The moral of the sto­ry? “To the vec­tor belong the spoils.”

If you would like to sign up for Open Culture’s free email newslet­ter, please find it here. It’s a great way to see our new posts, all bun­dled in one email, each day.

If you would like to sup­port the mis­sion of Open Cul­ture, con­sid­er mak­ing a dona­tion to our site. It’s hard to rely 100% on ads, and your con­tri­bu­tions will help us con­tin­ue pro­vid­ing the best free cul­tur­al and edu­ca­tion­al mate­ri­als to learn­ers every­where. You can con­tribute through Pay­Pal, Patre­on, and Ven­mo (@openculture). Thanks!

Josh Jones is a doc­tor­al can­di­date in Eng­lish at Ford­ham Uni­ver­si­ty and a co-founder and for­mer man­ag­ing edi­tor of Guer­ni­ca / A Mag­a­zine of Arts and Pol­i­tics.

Le Ballet Mécanique: The Historic Cinematic Collaboration Between Fernand Legér and George Antheil

Film is by nature a col­lab­o­ra­tive medi­um, and cer­tain­ly one of the strangest and most inter­est­ing cin­e­mat­ic col­lab­o­ra­tions of all time has to be the 1924 avant-garde film Bal­let Mécanique, which brought togeth­er the mod­ernist lumi­nar­ies Fer­nand Léger, Ezra Pound, Man Ray and George Antheil.

The glue that actu­al­ly held the whole project togeth­er was an unknown young Amer­i­can film­mak­er named Dud­ley Mur­phy, who was liv­ing in Paris and saw Man Ray’s exper­i­men­tal film Le Retour à la Rai­son when it came out in 1923. Mur­phy was so impressed that he sought Man Ray out and sug­gest­ed they work togeth­er on a project. Mur­phy was a tech­ni­cal­ly skilled and well-equipped cin­e­matog­ra­ph­er with sev­er­al films under his belt, so the offer intrigued Man Ray. He said he would do it as long as Mur­phy agreed to work by the Dadaist prin­ci­ple of spon­ta­neous, irra­tional exper­i­men­ta­tion. Mur­phy agreed, and the two men began film­ing scenes togeth­er

Mur­phy also sought help from the poet Ezra Pound. As Susan B. Del­son doc­u­ments in her book, Dud­ley Mur­phy, Hol­ly­wood Wild Card, Pound wrote a let­ter to his father in 1923, say­ing, “Dud­ley Mur­phy, whom I met in Venice in 1908, he being then eleven, turned up a few days ago. His dad is a painter, he is try­ing to make cin­e­ma into art.” Pound was famous­ly gen­er­ous when it came to help­ing oth­er artists, and he agreed to help Mur­phy and Man Ray. “I knew him as a kind­heart­ed man, always ready to help oth­ers,” Man Ray lat­er said of Pound, yet “dom­i­nat­ing­ly arro­gant where lit­er­a­ture was con­cerned.”

The extent of Pound’s direct involve­ment in the mak­ing of Bal­let Mécanique is an open ques­tion, but it’s gen­er­al­ly believed that he exert­ed some aes­thet­ic influ­ence, par­tic­u­lar­ly in the pris­mat­ic mul­ti­ple image shots that call to mind some of the ear­li­er exper­i­ments of Vor­ti­cism, a move­ment Pound was close­ly con­nect­ed with. “The vor­tex,” Pound once wrote, “is the point of max­i­mum ener­gy. It rep­re­sents, in mechan­ics, the great­est effi­cien­cy. We use the words ‘great­est effi­cien­cy’ in the pre­cise sense–as they would be used in a text book of Mechan­ics.” The title of the film was actu­al­ly tak­en from a 1917 piece by Man Ray’s friend, the Dadaist painter Fran­cis Picabia.

In the fall of 1923 Mur­phy began edit­ing the scenes he had shot with Man Ray, but by then they were run­ning out of mon­ey. Pound sug­gest­ed that his friend the cubist painter Fer­nand Léger might agree to see the project through to com­ple­tion. Man Ray knew of Léger’s dom­i­neer­ing per­son­al­i­ty and want­ed no part of it. He left the project and asked Mur­phy (with whom he was still on friend­ly terms) to make sure his name was left out of the cred­its. Pound also arranged for the wealthy Amer­i­can writer and art patron Natal­ie Bar­ney to com­mis­sion a musi­cal score to accom­pa­ny the film. Pound chose a young Amer­i­can com­pos­er he had met ear­li­er in the year named George Antheil, who lived above Sylvia Beach’s Shake­speare and Com­pa­ny book­store.

Antheil accept­ed the com­mis­sion but went his own way, show­ing no inter­est in even see­ing the film while he was work­ing on the music. “From the out­set,” writes Del­son in her biog­ra­phy of Mur­phy, “the film and the score led remark­ably sep­a­rate lives. In his let­ters to Pound dur­ing this peri­od, Antheil made lit­tle or no men­tion of the film.” Not sur­pris­ing­ly, the film and music did not match. The music was twice as long as the com­plet­ed film. In fact the film would even­tu­al­ly be released with­out the music, and the two have only rarely been exhib­it­ed togeth­er.

Although Antheil even­tu­al­ly com­posed sev­er­al vari­a­tions of his score, the ver­sion he fin­ished in 1924 calls for a bizarre group of mech­a­nis­tic or indus­tri­al-sound­ing instru­ments, includ­ing 16 play­er pianos, sev­en elec­tric bells, three air­plane pro­pellers of vary­ing sizes, and a siren. In his man­i­festo “My Bal­let Mécanique: What it Means,” Antheil describes his accom­plish­ment in words that are per­haps more bizarre than the air­plane pro­pellers and siren:

My Bal­let Mécanique is a new FOURTH DIMENSION of music. My Bal­let Mécanique is the first piece of music that has been com­posed OUT OF and FOR machines, ON EARTH. My Bal­let Mécanique is the first piece of music that has found the best forms and mate­ri­als lying inert in a medi­um that AS A MEDIUM is math­e­mat­i­cal­ly cer­tain of becom­ing the great­est mov­ing fac­tor of the music of future gen­er­a­tions.

Math­e­mat­i­cal­ly cer­tain or not, Antheil’s score did go on to exert con­sid­er­able influ­ence. “The tex­tures and effects in this work are,” accord­ing to musi­cian and schol­ar Mark Fend­er­son, “direct pre­de­ces­sors to those used in the music of John Cage, Ter­ry Riley, Philip Glass and John Adams.” Although the music for Bal­let Mécanique would always remain Antheil’s most famous accom­plish­ment, the film itself was some­thing of a foot­note to Fer­nand Léger’s career.

The film begins and ends with Léger’s play­ful image of a cubist Char­lie Chap­lin, along with shots of Mur­phy’s wife Kather­ine relax­ing in a bucol­ic set­ting.  In between it moves fran­ti­cal­ly from image to image, with indus­tri­al engines, man­nequin parts, kitchen­ware, clock pen­du­lums and shapes of pure abstrac­tion appear­ing and reap­pear­ing with machine-like reg­u­lar­i­ty. In one sequence a wash­er­woman climbs a steep stair­way only to keep reap­pear­ing again, like Sisy­phus, at the bot­tom.

The close-ups of a wom­an’s eyes and lips are of Man Ray’s lover and mod­el, Kiki of Mont­par­nasse. In the orig­i­nal ver­sion of the film, Mur­phy had report­ed­ly includ­ed some erot­ic nude images of Man Ray and Kiki embrac­ing, but Léger had them edit­ed out. As a mat­ter of fact, when the film was released the auto­crat­ic Léger arranged to have Mur­phy edit­ed out of the cred­its, despite the fact that Mur­phy was the one who basi­cal­ly made the film–much of it before Léger was even involved. All sur­viv­ing ver­sions of the film, includ­ing the one above, say sim­ply “un film de Fer­nand Léger.”

The sto­ry behind the mak­ing of Bal­let Mécanique reveals a great deal about the per­son­al­i­ties involved: about Pound’s gen­eros­i­ty, Léger’s ruth­less­ness, Man Ray’s wari­ness, Mur­phy’s naiveté, Antheil’s ego­ma­nia. The film itself, accord­ing to the Cir­cu­lat­ing Film Library Cat­a­logue at the Muse­um of Mod­ern Art, “remains one of the most influ­en­tial exper­i­men­tal works in the his­to­ry of cin­e­ma.”

Le Bal­let Mécanique has been added to our meta col­lec­tion of 500 Free Movies Online. You can find it in the sec­tion that includes Silent films.

Relat­ed con­tent:

Anémic Ciné­ma: Mar­cel Ducham­p’s Whirling Avante-Garde Film

Man Ray and the Ciné­ma Pur: Four Sur­re­al­ist Films from the 1920s

 

Peter Sellers: His Life in Home Movies

Peter Sell­ers was a com­pul­sive home movie mak­er. His house was clut­tered with cam­eras, cables and tape recorders, accord­ing to his first wife Anne Howe, and he liked to bring a cam­era along with him wher­ev­er he went, some­times hand­ing it to a com­pan­ion and clown­ing around in front of the lens.

In 1995, fif­teen years after Sell­er­s’s death, pro­duc­ers from BBC Are­na sort­ed through his exten­sive archive and assem­bled some of the best footage for a film called The Peter Sell­ers Sto­ry. In 2002 they short­ened it into The Peter Sell­ers Sto­ry: As He Filmed It (above), which tells the sto­ry of the come­di­an’s life almost exclu­sive­ly with footage from his own cam­era.

There are glimpses of some notable peo­ple from the actor’s cir­cle, includ­ing Stan­ley Kubrick, Sophia Loren, Lord Snow­don, Princess Mar­garet, Britt Ekland, Blake Edwards, Spike Mil­li­gan and Orson Welles. The audio is pieced togeth­er from vin­tage per­for­mances and inter­views, along with com­men­tary by Sell­er­s’s friends, fam­i­ly and col­leagues. It’s a unique film, offer­ing a per­son­al look at the enig­mat­ic and emo­tion­al­ly trou­bled genius who was able to slip con­fi­dent­ly into an amaz­ing range of personas–often in the same film–but was nev­er sure of his own. As Sell­ers once told an inter­view­er:

I have no per­son­al­i­ty of my own, you see. I could nev­er be a star because of this. I’m a char­ac­ter actor. I could­n’t play Peter Sell­ers the way Cary Grant plays Cary Grant, say–because I have no con­crete image of myself. I look in the mir­ror and what I see is some­one who has nev­er grown up–a crash­ing sen­ti­men­tal­ist who alter­nates between great heights and black depths. You know, it’s a fun­ny thing, but when I’m doing a role I feel it’s the role doing the role, if you know what I mean. When some­one tells me “You were great as so-and-so,” I feel they should be telling this to so-and-so, and when I fin­ish a pic­ture I feel a hor­ri­ble sud­den loss of iden­ti­ty.

The Peter Sell­ers Sto­ry: As He Filmed It will be added to our col­lec­tion of 500 Free Movies Online.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Peter Sell­ers Per­forms The Bea­t­les in Shake­speare­an Mode

Peter Sell­ers Reads The Bea­t­les’ ‘She Loves You’ in Four Voic­es

 

Hollywood by Helicopter, 1958

“This movie is going to be pret­ty obvi­ous.” That’s not the best way to get the view­er’s atten­tion. And the rest of the script, read by Bob Crane, is not much bet­ter: “Hey Kit­ty, look … Kit­ty, you did­n’t look hard enough … See the thing that looks like a build­ing? That’s a build­ing!” Nor is the premise of the film very good: Kit­ty is a novice actress, and, before appear­ing in her first movie, she gets an aer­i­al tour of Hol­ly­wood and its land­marks.

But from a his­tor­i­cal per­spec­tive, this 1950s footage of the Los Ange­les movie indus­try has its intrigu­ing moments. It’s par­tic­u­lar­ly inter­est­ing to see how much space there still was around some of the stu­dios and movie the­aters. Just com­pare the image of Grau­man’s Chi­nese The­ater on Hol­ly­wood Boule­vard tak­en from the film with a Google Earth shot from today:

By pro­fes­sion, Matthias Rasch­er teach­es Eng­lish and His­to­ry at a High School in north­ern Bavaria, Ger­many. In his free time he scours the web for good links and posts the best finds on Twit­ter.

The Crimson Permanent Assurance: Monty Python’s Comic Fantasy of Revolt Against the Corporations

In art, cer­tain themes are ever­green. They nev­er go out of date. Among them are love, death, and the intrin­si­cal­ly dehu­man­iz­ing nature of cor­po­ra­tions.

In 1983 Mon­ty Python tapped into one of the Great Themes with their short film The Crim­son Per­ma­nent Assur­ance. It tells the sto­ry of a group of elder­ly accoun­tants, “strained under the oppres­sive yoke of their new cor­po­rate man­age­ment,” who rise up against The Very Big Cor­po­ra­tion of Amer­i­ca and set sail on the high seas of inter­na­tion­al finance as a maraud­ing band of pirates.

The film was orig­i­nal­ly con­ceived by direc­tor Ter­ry Gilliam as an ani­mat­ed sequence for inclu­sion in Mon­ty Python’s The Mean­ing of Life, but as the idea grew he talked the group into let­ting him devel­op it into a live-action film. The Crim­son Per­ma­nent Assur­ance was even­tu­al­ly shown both on its own and as a pro­logue to The Mean­ing of Life. The title was inspired by the 1952 Burt Lan­cast­er adven­ture film The Crim­son Pirate. The cast is made up most­ly of unknown actors, but if you watch close­ly you’ll catch a glimpse of most of the Python mem­bers. Gilliam and Michael Palin have cameo roles as win­dow wash­ers, and Eric Idle, Ter­ry Jones and Gra­ham Chap­man appear very briefly at the begin­ning of the board­room scene.

The Crim­son Per­ma­nent Assur­ance is a delight­ful lit­tle film–and just as rel­e­vant now as ever, a reminder of the utter absur­di­ty of the claim that “cor­po­ra­tions are peo­ple too.”

You will find The Crim­son Per­ma­nent Assur­ance added to our col­lec­tion of 500 Free Movies Online.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Ter­ry Gilliam: The Dif­fer­ence Between Kubrick (Great Film­mak­er) and Spiel­berg (Less So)

The Best Ani­mat­ed Films of All Time, Accord­ing to Ter­ry Gilliam

Ter­ry Gilliam (Mon­ty Python) Shows You How to Make Your Own Cutout Ani­ma­tion

Jim Henson’s Animated Film, Limbo, the Organized Mind, Presented by Johnny Carson (1974)

Not hav­ing grown up dur­ing the Mup­pets’ first and high­est wave of pop­u­lar­i­ty, I’ve always won­dered how some­thing like The Mup­pet Show could pos­si­bly have attained such main­stream cul­tur­al pri­ma­cy. A friend of mine who did spend his child­hood watch­ing pup­peteer Jim Hen­son’s array of crea­tures do their thing on nation­al tele­vi­sion offers a sim­ple expla­na­tion: “It was the sev­en­ties.” Though Hen­son began his pup­petry career twen­ty years before The Mup­pet Show’s 1974 pilot episode, his dis­tinc­tive­ly earnest yet pre­scient­ly post-psy­che­del­ic vision seemed made for that decade. Amer­i­ca respond­ed by ele­vat­ing his work into the zeit­geist, and not just the stuff prop­er­ly involv­ing Mup­pets. Above, you can watch a 1974 clip from The Tonight Show fea­tur­ing a short per­for­mance from Hen­son and fel­low Mup­peteer Dave Goelz called Lim­bo, the Orga­nized Mind.

Hen­son and Goelz treat John­ny Car­son and the Tonight Show audi­ence to a jour­ney through the brain, as an abstract­ed, hand-oper­at­ed face nar­rates the pas­sage through organ­ic struc­tures like his medul­la oblon­ga­ta, and cere­brum, and the seats of things less defin­able, like thoughts of his fam­i­ly, thoughts of his ene­mies, his “extra-spe­cial sec­tion of good thoughts,” his evil thoughts, and his fears. The score comes from elec­tron­ic com­po­si­tion pio­neer Ray­mond Scott, whose 1964 album Sooth­ing Sounds for Baby has won great respect among enthu­si­asts of ambi­ent music. Watch­ing Lim­bo, the Orga­nized Mind in 2012 brings one obvi­ous lament to mind: why don’t they make such delight­ful­ly eccen­tric and artis­tic tele­vi­sion any­more? But of course they do make it, in stranger and less pre­dictable ways than even Hen­son did, but main­ly in the count­less frag­ment­ed, com­par­a­tive­ly mar­gin­al venues of mod­ern media. Lim­bo aired on a show that half the peo­ple you knew would have seen. It was the sev­en­ties.

Relat­ed con­tent:

Jim Henson’s Vio­lent Wilkins Cof­fee Com­mer­cials (1957–1961)

Jim Henson’s Zany 1963 Robot Film Uncov­ered by AT&T: Watch Online

Jim Hen­son’s Short, Oscar-Nom­i­nat­ed Film (1965)

Col­in Mar­shall hosts and pro­duces Note­book on Cities and Cul­ture. Fol­low him on Twit­ter at @colinmarshall.

« Go BackMore in this category... »
Quantcast