20120221

A Really Big Shew Part 4: The Other Side






In film, a continuity error is a mistake that eludes the careful eye of the director.  Even after watching a scene dozens of times, these errors often go unnoticed for years.


Stanley Kubrick was a perfectionist as a person, as a chess player, and most famously, as a film director.    So why are there so many continuity errors in his film The Shining?  Many of these errors are well documented herehere, and here.


There are many theories as to why such a well known perfectionist allowed so many imperfections in The Shining, and I agree with those theories that contend that these continuity errors are not in fact errors, and should not be considered imperfections.   They are deliberate choices by the director.  I call these deliberate choices chickens.


It has been established that Stanley Kubrick incorporated his understanding of the writings of Marshall McLuhan into 2001: A Space Odyssey, so it is no leap of faith to suggest that Kubrick, the obsessive-compulsive perfectionist, read The Gutenberg Galaxy cover to cover several times.  I believe he knew about the magical chicken that, in only one second of screen time, helped to illuminate the divide between how literate man and non literate man experience film.


The appearance of this chicken can be considered a type of continuity error, an unintentional element that became part of the film without the intention of the filmmaker.  Remember, the literate man literally could not see the chicken, and had to watch the film frame by frame to be convinced that it was there.


But to the non literate man, the chicken was the star of the show.


I believe that Kubrick understood this and began to recognize that his audience was comprised of the "literate" and the "non literate", and started experimenting with a kind of intentional continuity error, a deliberate chicken, that was obvious to some and invisible to others.


Kubrick makes use of the chicken during this scene in 2001: A Space Odyssey:





Let's call those that have little or no knowledge of the game of chess "non literate" and those with a deep knowledge of the game of chess "literate", and assemble an audience of both to watch 2001.  If we were to stop the film at the end of this chess scene, and ask the audience what they saw, we would find the opposite result of the study in Africa.  The "literate" man would mention the chicken, a chicken unnoticed by "non literate" man. 


"To convolute McLuhan, in 2001 the message is the medium."


The general consensus of the "non literate" audience would be that Frank and HAL were killing time on the ship playing a game of chess, a game which Frank loses.


A "literate" audience would have more to say.  They would mention that the game of chess depicted between Frank and HAL does not follow the established rules of chess, a fact unnoticed  and unmentioned by the "non literate" audience.  This is our chicken.


If we believe that HAL’s bluff is an accident, a continuity error, then it does nothing to further the narrative of 2001.
If we believe the bluff is not an accident, and is in fact intentional, the chicken opens the doorway into a mystery, and the narrative of 2001 comes alive.  This hyper-literate chicken in 2001 was no without purpose.  In fact, it convoluted McLuhan’s non-literate chicken.


Kubrick was an above average chess player with a very deep knowledge of the game.  The game depicted is the master game Roesch vs. Schlage from 1910 which is documented and published.     There is a 0% chance that the inaccuracy of the chess game was a continuity error or that it eluded Kubrick.  


In fact, the comprehension of 2001 depends completely on the bluff.  And yet, it is hidden from the majority of the audience.  Why?  If The Shining is loaded with these hidden chickens, how are they important to the comprehension of the film? 






4 comments:

  1. i don't like or really care for any of these movies myself, most I find absolutely boring. I did enjoy 'the Shining' a bit for what it was.

    There are plenty of people on set that are in charge of continuity. I don't remember the titles, but i am sure a little research could pay off. You could probably even find the ones that were "in charge" of continuity in those movies you and some others think are surrounded by conspiracy.

    I have worked close with some of these people on small sets, but never really payed any attention to them on bigger sets. Except maybe the wardrobe people. usually from my experience wardrobe people are women and or what I assume are "gays". they usually have an assistant that takes a Polaroid picture of your or an actor, or extras wardrobe they are wearing in a scene and keep it on file. Once film got damaged on a WB Tv show I was on called 'Young Americans' and they had to re-shoot the scene and without those pictures they would be screwed if they had to have us remember what the hell we were waearing etc....

    There are also people again can't remember the title, that have little notepads and they write down all the placement of objects etc and take pictures (May be something to do with the set Designing Department? again this is where RESEARCH PAYS OFF!!! but hey who wants to do that right? [*TONGUE TUCKED FIRMLY IN MY OWN ASS CHEEK*] This may back up your claim or totally destroy it? but if it's truth you are seeking you may find some.

    I will also add that Assistant Directors are the managers of all the Extras and Actors and they are suppose to remember when and how, where they walk from A to B etc.... But to be honest (unlike the cartoon up there) in a real movie it's an actors responsibility to remember what he or she did in EVERY-TAKE, so it always plays the same from all the different angels...

    Later...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for the comments Quark.

    This post might read like I think Kubrick made intentional changes to continuity in a planned manner, but what I mean to convey is that he wasn't overly concerned by them. They may work to unsettle us an a subconscious manner, but ultimately they challenge us to stop viewing the film from a rigidly "literate" perspective. I hope to clarify this in the next post.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This image from the set of Dr. Strangelove should help add some perspective: http://imageshack.us/f/396/strictcontinuitytx1.jpg/

    ReplyDelete