In an era of intensifying globalization and transnational connectivity; the dynamics of cultural production and the very notion of creativity are in transition. Exploring creative practices in various settings; the book does not only call attention to the spread of modernist discourses of creativity; from the colonial era to the current obsession with innovation in neo-liberal capitalist cultural politics; but also to the less visible practices of copying; recycling and reproduction that occur as part and parcel of creative improvization.
2012-01-13 2012-01-13File Name: B01ALMK37G
Review
7 of 17 people found the following review helpful. Nope to KUBRICKS HOPEBy Richard MasloskiThe cover is the best thing going for this book: an iconic photo from "2001" (Kubricks greatest film in my humble opinion.) It is a still from the movie - but a masterful composition (a prime example of Ks photographic origins and eye): Life; Death; Mystery; Beauty; Civilization - all captured in this one film frame. If Kubrick had been born before motion pictures came along; he would most certainly have been a master painter.Anyway; apart from Devin Watsons wonderfully designed cover; Julian Rices book is like many another collection of masturbatory meditations on the meanings of the Masters movies. I like film analysis; but grow distrustful of it when an agenda or grand synthesis or TOE (Theory of Everything) is pushed and crammed and jammed into the readers mind ad infinitum; ad nauseum. As is the case in this book. The subtitle reveals this agenda quite clearly: "Discovering Optimism from 2001 to Eyes Wide Shut." Okay. Kubrick had Hope. But he had alot of other things going on in the films also. And to distill the films simply for these optimistic elements grows quite tedious; quite quickly. In this book; there are certain interesting insights; yes; but many avenues of thought are completely unexplored. (How could someone discuss "The Shining;" for example; and completely ignore any discussion involving Lloyd the Bartender? Or make the mistake in believing that Delbert Grady and Charles Grady are "doubles" rather than script mistakes; as they more probably are. Yes; the Maestro made mistakes in his movies! Jack Torrance tears a page out of his typewriter in getting pissed at Wendys intrusion; yet in the next cut the page is back in the roller. Going back to "Lolita"; in the first scene of Humberts entrance into Quiltys mansion - allegedly empty but for the blanket-hidden Quilty himself - we see a crewman rushing from the scene. Perhaps it is Kubrick himself. Despite the directors legendary perfectionism; he was not perfect: and the first name mix-up of Grady does not denote two separate individuals as Rice believes; but most likely a mistake in scripting.) Anyway - as to "2001" - Rice would have us believe that the monolith-inspired Moonwatcher and Bowman as an old man in a black bathrobe represent human monoliths themselves! It is a stretch. I believe it was more serendipitous than intentional on Kubricks part; if you buy into the notion at all.The book also goes way-too much into the color schemes of the films. Enough is enough! The descriptions of colors are especially irksome in the "Barry Lyndon" chapter. Yawn-inducing; actually. I felt like my head was spinning on a color wheel. Kubricks colors are; of course; vitally important: but Rice gives undue emphasis to the color schemes at the expense of more fruitful insights.There are really no startling discoveries in Rices observations; nothing that a careful viewer of the films wouldnt discover for himself. I found the book to be ultimately boring - and made me want to watch the movies instead. And...I suppose that isnt a bad thing for a book on film to do. It just means that the films way outshine the book.0 of 6 people found the following review helpful. Good issues discussed but i want more.By steveIve read a lot about kubricks movies and ive seen a lot of things discussed that i had not considered much like lloyd the bartender in the shining and color use by kubrick and the meaning of the monolith ans so forth but i would like to see some discussion about the occult in the movies for example alluded to in the shining and in eyes wide shut. I think this is an area that has not been explored but that kubrick was suggesting involves the wealthy and powerful. Now more than ever would be a good time especially with all the exposures and discussions related to the new world order. I think this is an area that needs to be explored.3 of 11 people found the following review helpful. Sleep inducingBy Ms. COver intellectualized pretentious blather. The book hyper-analyzes things Kubrick probably never though about. For instance; Rice describes in detail the every movement and vocal inflection of Nicole Kidman in the Eyes Wide Shut bedroom scene as representative of something deep(I thought it was just bad acting). In 2001; the ape Moonwatcher momentarily becomes erect while smashing the bone weapon; author Rice thinks he is mimicking the monolith because he is black and upright. Lots of name-dropping references to classic literature and philospohy. zzzzzz
