Speaker 1: Oh gee is folks, it's showtime. People say good money
Speaker 1: to see this movie.
Speaker 2: When they go out to a theater, they want clod
Speaker 2: sodas pop popcorn in No monsters in the Projection Booths.
Speaker 3: Everyone for tend podcasting isn't boring.
Speaker 4: Got it off?
Speaker 3: Hey, folks, welcome to a special episode of The Projection Booth.
Speaker 3: I'm your host Mike White. On this episode, it is
Speaker 3: the return of d Harlan Wilson. He is while he's
Speaker 3: an author. We've talked with him a few times before,
Speaker 3: I think at least twice before, and he's back for
Speaker 3: a third time and we are talking about Strangelove Country,
Speaker 3: science fiction, filmosophy, and the Cabrician consciousness. It's a heavy title,
Speaker 3: it's a great book. Had a great time talking with
Speaker 3: mister Wilson, and I hope you enjoyed this interview. Karland,
Speaker 3: tell me how did Strangeloft County come about?
Speaker 1: I initially conceived of it. I was looking for a
Speaker 1: new book project to do about jeez. It's probably during
Speaker 1: COVID and I had put out a book on Minority
Speaker 1: Report the film through Liverpool University Press's Constellation series, which
Speaker 1: I think I was in limbo for a bit, but
Speaker 1: they're starting to get it going again. There was a
Speaker 1: lot of administrative overhaul there. At any rate, they came
Speaker 1: out with a new series call I Think It's just
Speaker 1: Stanley Kubrick Studies. And I saw that and it was new,
Speaker 1: and I'm always looking for kind of new series in
Speaker 1: my field to write for, and I've long wanted to
Speaker 1: do a book on Kubrick, so that was the spark.
Speaker 1: The content of the book came about thereafter. A lot
Speaker 1: of it is about out I read Kubrick's futurist cinema
Speaker 1: through the lens of desire, simply put, and theoretically speaking,
Speaker 1: desire accounting for a little bit of avant garde film
Speaker 1: studies and theory. And I don't know, it just kind
Speaker 1: of came together and I wrote it for this series.
Speaker 1: Usually with books of this nature, takes about anywhere from
Speaker 1: six to twelve months for research and then the same
Speaker 1: for writing. But it actually didn't work out with Liverpool
Speaker 1: University Press. I took certain creative liberties. You've read it.
Speaker 1: It's a work of scholarship formatted like a formal work
Speaker 1: of scholarship, but I do take some novelistic lines of
Speaker 1: flight let's say it, and they didn't like that. Personally.
Speaker 1: I think archival research is wonderful, but I can't sist still,
Speaker 1: and it's just not for me. And Kubrickians, especially Kubrickan scholars,
Speaker 1: tend to be very fond of our chival research, and
Speaker 1: I think they wanted more of that from me, and
Speaker 1: mine was pretty much the opposite of that, much more structuralist,
Speaker 1: let's say so. It was a little tense there for
Speaker 1: a while, and then eventually we went our separate ways.
Speaker 1: It's fine. I still I'm the reviews editor for the
Speaker 1: journal Extrapolation, which is published by Liverpool University Press. Everything
Speaker 1: it's cool. But I ended up publishing it with Stalking
Speaker 1: Horse Press, which is they published one of my books
Speaker 1: prior to that, called The Psychotic Doctor Schreber, a few
Speaker 1: years before. I think it was two tenty seventeen, and
Speaker 1: that was the right fit. They understood exactly what I
Speaker 1: was doing, and geez, it took about a week turnaround
Speaker 1: once I figured out where to place it. But again,
Speaker 1: it was kind of tense at the time. I was
Speaker 1: a little angry, but then I took a step back
Speaker 1: and realized it was the right thing to do. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's how it came about.
Speaker 3: It's a fascinating approach to it, and I really appreciate
Speaker 3: the approach that you took that it wasn't just so
Speaker 3: cut and dry that it actually is personal while being
Speaker 3: scholarly at the same time. And that's a fine hind
Speaker 3: to walk.
Speaker 1: It is, absolutely I really love walking that line, and
Speaker 1: I have not always done it well. I keep saying
Speaker 1: this about this book, and you're always supposed to say
Speaker 1: that the latest thing is the best. I really do
Speaker 1: think this book came together in a way that nothing
Speaker 1: I've written beforehand did, especially in the way that you've
Speaker 1: put it in terms of my sort of scholarly voice
Speaker 1: and purview, coupled with my personal connection to Koprick and
Speaker 1: the various creative kind of things that I do on it. Basically,
Speaker 1: just to say, the creative lines of Flight basically take
Speaker 1: the form of me making Strange Love into a character
Speaker 1: that kind of haunts all of the films that I discuss.
Speaker 1: I start with Strange Love and then go to two
Speaker 1: thousand and one o'clock or Orange, and then finally Ai,
Speaker 1: which Kubrick didn't make, of course, but was involved with
Speaker 1: for years collaborating with Spielberg. It's not as if there's dialogue,
Speaker 1: for instance, as in a novel, but it's not something
Speaker 1: you find in traditional scholarly work.
Speaker 3: I just appreciate that it's not even in a typical format.
Speaker 3: It looks more like it's paperback book. And so when
Speaker 3: I approached it, I was approaching it as more a
Speaker 3: work of fiction. But then it's not just that it's
Speaker 3: so much more the fiction. It really fits into more
Speaker 3: of the scholarly shape. But I like the actual shape
Speaker 3: of the book is more approachable, I suppose, and much
Speaker 3: easier to read. I have to say, the most scholarly
Speaker 3: books that I have, which I am almost in danger
Speaker 3: of letting them fall in my face as I'm reading
Speaker 3: and I'll break my nose kind of thing.
Speaker 1: I'm really happy you said that, because that is something
Speaker 1: aspire for. And that was you know, I've long written
Speaker 1: fiction and nonfiction, dating back to when I became a professor.
Speaker 1: Before that, and the scholarly work that I'd done for
Speaker 1: years was more jargony and more like academy ease and
Speaker 1: all of that. You think years, I've really made an
Speaker 1: effort to make it more readable and expand the audience
Speaker 1: from just sort of specialists in the field.
Speaker 3: Well, I really appreciate that approach. I think things like
Speaker 3: and I'm trying to remember the gentleman who wrote about
Speaker 3: Tarkovsky's Stalker from a much more personal point of view.
Speaker 3: I mean the works of Kayla Janice with how she
Speaker 3: approaches feminist film scholarship and really injects her own personal
Speaker 3: take on things as well. It just fits into that,
Speaker 3: and I'm really kind of hoping that we move more
Speaker 3: towards that, or at least have that as an available
Speaker 3: option for scholarly works to also involve the personal, because
Speaker 3: it's the old personal is the political kind of thing.
Speaker 3: It's like, yes, this actually makes a big difference totally.
Speaker 1: Yes, I'm working on a book on link Ladders of
Speaker 1: Scanner Darkly Now, another Philip case Dick related book that's
Speaker 1: much bigger on his on life writing about Philip K. Dick,
Speaker 1: the biographies and memoirs, And I'm doing I shoot straighter
Speaker 1: than I do in Strange Love Country. It's more formally scholarly,
Speaker 1: but I like to think I'm maintaining that more colloquial voice.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and it's interesting that you just approach Kubrick from
Speaker 3: the science fiction point of view, because whenever I talk
Speaker 3: about Kubrick's like he was invested in so many different genres,
Speaker 3: but science fiction is a thread that goes through so
Speaker 3: many of his works, and I just found that to
Speaker 3: be really smart that you approach it because it's those
Speaker 3: three films. For at first, Blush could not be more
Speaker 3: different or for films. Sorry, I forget about AI. And
Speaker 3: the AI chapter was probably surprisingly the chapter that I
Speaker 3: fell in love with the most, just because I was
Speaker 3: not aware of the Spielberg Kubrick differences and who brought
Speaker 3: what to which party, and then of course your take
Speaker 3: on everything. I was just like, oh, this is really nice,
Speaker 3: because most of the time I just read capsule reviews
Speaker 3: or very simplistic stuff. But I was like, this is
Speaker 3: finally as in depth as I'm looking for with these works.
Speaker 1: When I saw AI, I was like, oh, okay, here's here.
Speaker 1: Like Rouge City, for instance, clearly that's Kubrick, right, whereas
Speaker 1: the family dynamics, which is Spielberg's kind of big thing,
Speaker 1: family riffs and so forth, that wasn't the case at all.
Speaker 1: It was the inverse of that. Rouge City was Spielberg,
Speaker 1: the family stuff was Kubrick. Which was really interesting to me.
Speaker 1: And there's a couple of books that go into One
Speaker 1: of them was by Julian Rice. The name escapes me,
Speaker 1: but he talks about all of those dynamics. It was fascinating.
Speaker 1: That's another reason I love this book and loved writing
Speaker 1: it is I learned so much writing about this. So
Speaker 1: there's a lot of scholarship out there, and I've read,
Speaker 1: obviously before this book, a lot of that scholarship. But
Speaker 1: like we were talking about earlier, I'm always looking to
Speaker 1: do something not crazy new, but just a little bit
Speaker 1: new and original. And Nah, it just worked out. And
Speaker 1: I should add two that cinema is such that it
Speaker 1: kind of fits together like a puzzle, or at least
Speaker 1: that's what I found when I was looking at those
Speaker 1: futurist films and then thinking about them in terms of
Speaker 1: his entire oof. It really does fit together like an equation.
Speaker 1: It's like geometry. I was talking to Johnsdale and he said,
Speaker 1: it's like music, you know, it's like kind of reading
Speaker 1: music too. It all fits together. So that made it
Speaker 1: easier for me to apply my theory to it and
Speaker 1: discuss it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, when we were talking about a clockwork orange on
Speaker 3: the show. Years ago, somebody had posited, what if what's
Speaker 3: going on on Earth is a clockwork orange, what's going
Speaker 3: on up in space is two thousand and one a
Speaker 3: space odyssey, And I thought, okay, yeah, that's possible. I
Speaker 3: don't know if the world that has your Alexis is
Speaker 3: also the world that has these satellites out there, but yeah,
Speaker 3: I can kind of see that. And then when you
Speaker 3: take the classical music to bring your point in, as
Speaker 3: far as the music fitting together, it's like, yeah, here's
Speaker 3: the electronic version, the Windy Carlos version down here on Earth,
Speaker 3: and then here's the Recard Strauss up in space, where
Speaker 3: it's like the pure version of it.
Speaker 1: And i'd add I use the phrase called chessboard precision
Speaker 1: and prevision, which goes hand in hand with that too.
Speaker 1: And Kubrick, if I recall, was a pretty good chess
Speaker 1: player and play often all the time. Yeah. Incidentally, I
Speaker 1: seem to be kind of drawn to these figures. We
Speaker 1: talked about my book on Gigi Ballard several years ago.
Speaker 1: His collective life work is similar. It's similarly geometric and
Speaker 1: musical and kind of mathematical the way it fits together.
Speaker 1: So I think moving forward, I just need to keep
Speaker 1: finding these guys who make it easier for me to
Speaker 1: write about them.
Speaker 3: Well, yeah, I don't want to jump too far ahead,
Speaker 3: but you're talking about your Minority report. I was like, well, there,
Speaker 3: you've got your Spielberg you were just talking about in Ai.
Speaker 3: You've got your Billip k Dick, who you're going to
Speaker 3: be working on more.
Speaker 4: Now.
Speaker 3: I'm just like, wow, Yeah, all this stuff just kind
Speaker 3: of pays to play with each other. I love it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I was thinking about that before we start talking tonight.
Speaker 1: All these let's see Ballard. Yeah, let's just take Ballard, Dick,
Speaker 1: and Kubrick. They're all cut from the same cloth. They
Speaker 1: deal with a lot of the same themes, but at
Speaker 1: the same time are quite different as are. I discovered
Speaker 1: their fans and scholars. Dick Ians, Ballardians, and Kubricians are
Speaker 1: all very distinctive, but all quite different and intriguing in
Speaker 1: different ways. Yeah, and that's important to me to kind
Speaker 1: of tap into that community when writing these books and
Speaker 1: try to get a sense of the pulse helps my
Speaker 1: own carrying out of the material.
Speaker 3: You mentioned that you learned a lot while you were
Speaker 3: writing this book, and I'm curious what were some of
Speaker 3: the things that you've learned.
Speaker 1: So primarily I should mention two this book called Filmosophy
Speaker 1: by Daniel Brampton, very obscure book. The main thing I
Speaker 1: learned to answer your question is how the philosophy he
Speaker 1: developed in Filmosophy, which is a filmful a new I
Speaker 1: think it's subtitled Manifesto is in the subtitle, I can't
Speaker 1: remember what it is, but it's a manifesto for rethinking film.
Speaker 1: So I had read it befour years ago. I think
Speaker 1: I've even reviewed it for a journal, but then I
Speaker 1: kind of lost track of it. And Daniel Frampton is
Speaker 1: as far as I know. Have you ever heard of
Speaker 1: him or no, Sophie, I think he was a filmmaker,
Speaker 1: maybe still is. He only wrote that one book and
Speaker 1: then disappeared. It was published by Wallflower Press in two
Speaker 1: thousand and seven. I think Wallflower Press is out of England,
Speaker 1: and I believe he is British. But it was such
Speaker 1: a cool book and mostly really strong. But there's some
Speaker 1: wacky things in that book that didn't resonate with me.
Speaker 1: But I didn't really understand it until, like a lot
Speaker 1: of stuff, until I started writing about it, and not
Speaker 1: just writing about it, but applying it to text. In
Speaker 1: this case Kubrick, that's when I really discover things. The
Speaker 1: theory in the book essentially belongs to him. In a nutshell,
Speaker 1: what he argues is that cinema, individual films, and in
Speaker 1: Kubrick's case and many filmmakers' cases, their entire filmographies form
Speaker 1: what he calls a filmmind portmanteau of film and mind
Speaker 1: in film studies. Looking at cinema as a brain has
Speaker 1: long been under discussion. To lose it was big on that,
Speaker 1: but it predates to lose anyway. He's kind of writing
Speaker 1: that out later on. And the short of it is
Speaker 1: that cinema functions as a kind of external brain, an
Speaker 1: entity separate from the directors, the actors, everybody who's making it,
Speaker 1: but especially the filmmaker him or herself. So this film mind,
Speaker 1: it belongs to the film, that film, or any film,
Speaker 1: let's relegate it to Kubrick. There is a collective Kubrickian
Speaker 1: film that is kind of I don't know if I
Speaker 1: want to say sentient or even alive, but it is
Speaker 1: an operative thing, let's say. And it enabled me, first
Speaker 1: and foremost to distance ideas about Kubrick from the films themselves,
Speaker 1: because often I mentioned this in some depth in the introduction,
Speaker 1: Kubrick's been attacked for racism, misogyny, what are some of
Speaker 1: the other ones? Sexism, Yeah, sexism, all the bad things,
Speaker 1: and rightly so in some cases. But he's also been
Speaker 1: called an an amoralist and an I guess an immoralist
Speaker 1: for lack of it. And you can defend all of
Speaker 1: those with evidence from the films. By applying this filmosophy
Speaker 1: to it, it enabled me to push that aside essentially
Speaker 1: and focus on how I thought. In any case, the
Speaker 1: films were working as these science fiction apparatuses that spoke
Speaker 1: to the project of cinema at large, as well as
Speaker 1: Kubrick's futurist cinema and his entire as well as you know,
Speaker 1: the individual films themselves.
Speaker 3: As you're talking, I'm thinking of myself, where are all
Speaker 3: the black people? And I can think of James Earl Jones.
Speaker 3: That's about it with these four particular films. I mean,
Speaker 3: there's no Dick Hiloran in this one. You know, there's
Speaker 3: no talk of the N word going on. But yeah,
Speaker 3: very relegated and even so much trying to think with
Speaker 3: these I mean women are just so sexualized in Clockwork.
Speaker 3: Orange are barely present in two thousand and one, and
Speaker 3: I would say pretty barely present in Strange Love as well.
Speaker 3: It's so weird because there are such sexualized objects when
Speaker 3: it comes to Clockwork, But then AI get that weird
Speaker 3: mother thing going on. So yeah, but yeah, really so
Speaker 3: much the story of men with these films.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, and there's several art threads that kind of run
Speaker 1: throughout this. Another one that I haven't mentioned yet is
Speaker 1: how Kubrick's futurist cinema brings together a critique of masculinity,
Speaker 1: of techno masculinity. I basically say, masculinity under the auspices
Speaker 1: of technological power, let's say, which to some degree accounts
Speaker 1: for a lack of or you could argue accounts for
Speaker 1: the lack of women who are definitely marginalized throughout in
Speaker 1: addition to people of color, Like two thousand and one,
Speaker 1: that's a problem. There's no black people in that. I mean,
Speaker 1: give me a break, among others. That's what the future
Speaker 1: looks like. I'm not sure, but go back to Doctor Strangelove,
Speaker 1: and I mentioned this in the chapter where I cover
Speaker 1: that film. Scott George C. Buck Turgitson's secretary. I make
Speaker 1: an argument that she's maybe the strongest female character in
Speaker 1: his entire at least in the future of cinema. Now
Speaker 1: I'm thinking of Barry Lindon and stuff like that, and
Speaker 1: then actually Nicole Kidman Eyewride Shut is actually the source
Speaker 1: of power in that. And I would argue that in
Speaker 1: The Shining Wendy is she's the powerful one. It doesn't
Speaker 1: seem like it. She seems out of control most of
Speaker 1: the film, but she's the one who lives in the end.
Speaker 1: She's the one who gets away. Jack is the man baby,
Speaker 1: he's the drunk, he's the little boy. He's totally out
Speaker 1: of control. And well, there are traces, of course of
Speaker 1: female power throughout his filmography. But I argue that Miss
Speaker 1: Scott is the way that she's framed, the tone of
Speaker 1: her voice, which I think. I use the word orotund
Speaker 1: for her voice, which is good.
Speaker 3: I thought about that.
Speaker 1: I consternated over the right adjective for that for a while.
Speaker 1: But you know, she's probably in a two minutes and
Speaker 1: makes just in that two minutes all those other monkey
Speaker 1: boys look stupid and silly, which they definitely are. So
Speaker 1: I think I argue that really what Kubrick's doing, or
Speaker 1: at least what Kubrick's film mind is doing, is breaking
Speaker 1: masculinity over the calls again and again, satirizing it and
Speaker 1: really pointing out how horrible mena it's the white men.
Speaker 3: Gosh yah, you think of the sterling Hayden character and
Speaker 3: just that what he lost in direction once and he
Speaker 3: lost his mind after that. Yeah, it had to be
Speaker 3: the floor i'be been the ones and the phallus, of
Speaker 3: course is.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's so prominent as a symbolically imagistically in
Speaker 1: that film, but it runs throughout everything every film somebody
Speaker 1: always talking to recently. You could read that film as
Speaker 1: I do, in terms of the fallust, but you could
Speaker 1: also read it in the opposite terms every film, if
Speaker 1: only by absence or marginalization of women. You know, you
Speaker 1: could read the Monolith, for instance, in two thousand and one,
Speaker 1: is a big dick or a big womb, and you
Speaker 1: could expand that to the whole of his filmography. It's
Speaker 1: all right there, And that's anyway, one of the reasons
Speaker 1: that he's so he's so good. I can't imagine that Kuper,
Speaker 1: you know, sat back one day and was like hmm.
Speaker 1: This is what I'm gonna do with my entire body
Speaker 1: of work. But it's ultimately a reflection that film Mind
Speaker 1: of course, which I perceive is separate, is really a
Speaker 1: reflection of coup. It's mind, of course, and boy, it's
Speaker 1: fascinating spectacular.
Speaker 3: Does that film mind have a subconscious because I imagine
Speaker 3: that's where all these connections go.
Speaker 1: That's what it's all about. Yes, I am reading what
Speaker 1: I think. I mean, I employed a little bit of
Speaker 1: psychoanalytics stuff, but I'm reading it as an unconscious representation
Speaker 1: of It's highly on Eric and dream like too, all
Speaker 1: of his films, even mostly subtly. Eyes Wide Shuts a
Speaker 1: great example, because it's something, okay, well this could happen.
Speaker 1: There's nothing, there's nothing crazy that happens there. But at
Speaker 1: the same time, you know, the whole thing is very
Speaker 1: much like a dream and of course based on Yes,
Speaker 1: which means dream story right in German. So yes, for sure.
Speaker 1: And I'm usually quite interested in the unconscious. You can
Speaker 1: do anything with the unconscious, just say anything and figure
Speaker 1: it out. Nothing set in stone. Everything's kind of fluid
Speaker 1: and in motion, and it's a great sort of place
Speaker 1: base to theorize and have intellectual fun.
Speaker 3: No, it is completely fun. And that's the thing that
Speaker 3: I enjoy this so much, because now we've got my
Speaker 3: mind reeling about clockbook ords and I'm just like, oh, yeah,
Speaker 3: the big fallis that Alex uses to attack that woman,
Speaker 3: or the weird relationship between the muscleman and the try
Speaker 3: the wine guy, you know, or.
Speaker 1: Just they're just walking penises, right, there's completely bowlers are
Speaker 1: the head of the penis and yeah.
Speaker 3: And then Alex with his cane and everything. I mean, yeah,
Speaker 3: it's a penis with a walking stick.
Speaker 1: Yeah, from seeing it a million times, Like the first
Speaker 1: novel that I wrote was a sequel to it, ridiculously
Speaker 1: called I Alex, in which it never published, thankfully, and
Speaker 1: I even included like half of it was written in
Speaker 1: nadsat that language. Well, even today, I can't believe I
Speaker 1: think I say this in the book Kubrick. It was
Speaker 1: an insane act to try to make Burgess's novel into
Speaker 1: that film. I don't even know how that entered as mine,
Speaker 1: let alone how he imaginatively rendered it on the screen.
Speaker 1: Like the drugs didn't wear outfits like that in the novel.
Speaker 1: That's not how they were described that's really his vision,
Speaker 1: and it's so in the language, which is so dense.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's wonderful. I love it, but it's so
Speaker 1: dense and playful, like who would read that and think
Speaker 1: make a movie out of this? It's correct, like making
Speaker 1: a movie out of Joyce's Finnegan's Wake or something. Although
Speaker 1: that's prays up been made no seas, yes, a couple
Speaker 1: of times, but not betting it's way Clockwork Orang's Remains
Speaker 1: just blows me away every time. One thing I found
Speaker 1: just talking to Kubrick Folk there is a personal there's
Speaker 1: some figures, there's you keep your sort of personal investment
Speaker 1: in it distance, but with Gubricians there's a pretty consistent
Speaker 1: investment of the personal into their writing. How did you
Speaker 1: come to Koban? Were you young so later?
Speaker 3: Yeah? Probably pretty young. I remember watching The Shining when
Speaker 3: I was way too young to see it, and we
Speaker 3: definitely watched a lot of Clock or Orange again, way
Speaker 3: too young. I was in high school at the time,
Speaker 3: so it really wasn't until you know, seeing things like
Speaker 3: the killing and being like oh okay, and I know
Speaker 3: I definitely saw two thousand and one, probably even before
Speaker 3: the killing, So yeah, a lot of these films I
Speaker 3: was familiar with before I really got into film scholarship.
Speaker 3: But yeah, it goes together so naturally, and I completely
Speaker 3: agree with I think that's probably worth some of the
Speaker 3: adverse reactions to something like A Room two thirty seven,
Speaker 3: because that whole movie is about personal connections to shining
Speaker 3: and just you know. Even I remember the one woman
Speaker 3: talking about how our child had drawn a drawing that
Speaker 3: had a guy with his head split open and said,
Speaker 3: I have a splitting headache. And she's like, oh, and
Speaker 3: that reminded me of the image of you know, Deulbart
Speaker 3: Grady or whatever with his head cut out. And I
Speaker 3: was like, that's valid. You know, it's your bringing your
Speaker 3: personal to this stuff. So I feel that it's a
Speaker 3: very natural marriage to bring the personal to the.
Speaker 1: And yeah, I really enjoyed that film. By the way,
Speaker 1: I guess it's no different than what I'm doing in
Speaker 1: my book. I mean, that's what that's his reading, And
Speaker 1: it was fun to watch. I liked it. But like
Speaker 1: I remember seeing two thousand and one, for instance, for
Speaker 1: the first time, and I wasn't that young. It was
Speaker 1: in my twenties early twenties. I didn't know what was
Speaker 1: going on in that fucking film. And it was only
Speaker 1: after I read the book Clark's novel that I realized,
Speaker 1: oh wow, this is pretty cool, and you know, Kubrick
Speaker 1: worked on it with him, and it had all you know.
Speaker 1: It was like a codebreaker for the film for me anyway,
Speaker 1: and it really enabled me to see the film in
Speaker 1: a new light in a way that A Clockwork Orange
Speaker 1: did but not I never I actually never read story.
Speaker 1: I don't think that AI was based on super Toys
Speaker 1: Last All Summer. Yeah, but actually the A Clockwork Orange
Speaker 1: and two thousand and one, with their novels from which
Speaker 1: they're adapted, they speak to each other in a way
Speaker 1: that other core because I think, except for two films
Speaker 1: are not mistake any based all of his novel or story.
Speaker 1: But those two in particular really have a relationship with
Speaker 1: their source and deviate from the source and interesting ways.
Speaker 1: That makes for good discussion.
Speaker 3: Yeah, And that's what I always love to do, is
Speaker 3: to go back to the source text and start to
Speaker 3: see how things have changed throughout and how that subconscious
Speaker 3: or even just the ego will speak to something and say, okay,
Speaker 3: now we need to make this change. Now, we need
Speaker 3: to make that change, and then you start to also
Speaker 3: see those themes that are brought to it just by
Speaker 3: the different people that are involved, or just that Kubrick film. Mind,
Speaker 3: I love that concept. By the way, I definitely won't
Speaker 3: be rereading and then also probably bringing that to some
Speaker 3: other films as well.
Speaker 1: I don't think anybody's applied. I read pretty extensively in
Speaker 1: film studies, but not as much in last year or two.
Speaker 1: But I've never seen Brampton's filmosophy apply to anything, so
Speaker 1: that was kind of new too, And earlier I said
Speaker 1: I don't agree with everything in that, at least in
Speaker 1: terms of it being functional mode of theory. One thing,
Speaker 1: if I remember correctly, he was interested in is it
Speaker 1: had to do with feelings and sort of applying motions
Speaker 1: and using emotions and feelings in a kind of theoretical
Speaker 1: or critical way. I'm not conveying that properly, but something
Speaker 1: like that, and that didn't really resonate with me, but
Speaker 1: the general theory did, and now that I did it,
Speaker 1: I see it everywhere. You can apply it to any film,
Speaker 1: but some films are more receptive to it, let's say,
Speaker 1: than others. Films made by filmmakers like Kubrick, who are
Speaker 1: a highly intelligent and super attentive to. What I say
Speaker 1: in the book is style is a way of seeing.
Speaker 3: So we've got the Minority report Book to look forward
Speaker 3: to for MEO, do you ever go it on that?
Speaker 1: No? No, that one's already out. That came out, okay,
Speaker 1: two thousand and two.
Speaker 3: Oh okay. For some reason I thought that that was
Speaker 3: the late I'm sorry if I'm misunderstood.
Speaker 1: No, the one coming up is it's not a Scanner
Speaker 1: Darkly Richard Ladders of Scanner Darkly for University of Texas
Speaker 1: Press's relatively new series. It's called twenty first Century Film Essentials.
Speaker 1: And then the other one is the sprawling book on Philip.
Speaker 1: It's called the Auto slash Biographies of Philip K. Dick
Speaker 1: Infinite Regressions. I'm under contract with me for that, and
Speaker 1: that's a study of all of his early biographical texts,
Speaker 1: biographies that have been written about him, three memoirs written
Speaker 1: about him by two of his wives and a friend
Speaker 1: of his, as well as creative work like Ekad inspired
Speaker 1: stories and comic books. No one just came off called
Speaker 1: Ben Benjamin that I'm reading, which is pretty cool based
Speaker 1: on his life and then Dixon in autobiographical fiction, which
Speaker 1: came after he had that kind of visionary experience in
Speaker 1: the early seventies. I mentioned this in the kup Brick book.
Speaker 1: When I do a book, I really immerse myself in
Speaker 1: the content, try to kind of become that content as
Speaker 1: much as I can't. I've been more or less relegated
Speaker 1: to teaching online, so I'm in my condo a lot.
Speaker 1: I have a lot of time to write, and I
Speaker 1: kind of treat it as an actor, back to a
Speaker 1: lot of years when I was younger, and I get
Speaker 1: into character, you know, and write it out. So I've
Speaker 1: been more in character with Philip K. Dick and Rich
Speaker 1: lank Ladder in the last year than Kubrick. But that's
Speaker 1: what I'm gonna do.
Speaker 3: Yes, I remember that there was supposed to be a
Speaker 3: film called The Owl and Dlight. I think it was called,
Speaker 3: with Paul Giamatti playing Philip K. Dick, and I wonder
Speaker 3: if that script is out there floating around someplace.
Speaker 1: I don't know about the script. I'm a co host
Speaker 1: on a podcast called that I started being coaxed about
Speaker 1: two years ago, called Dickhead's Podcast Nice and they would
Speaker 1: know the other two guys on the show would know
Speaker 1: better than me. The Owl in Daylight would have been
Speaker 1: the next novel that vote after, or he died before
Speaker 1: he could write it, But if I'm not mistaken, he
Speaker 1: had an outline for it, and then his ex wife, Tessa,
Speaker 1: who also wrote, and she's still alive, probably in her
Speaker 1: eighties now. I actually interviewed her for one of my
Speaker 1: books and she wrote the on Daylight. Now, I'm pretty
Speaker 1: sure it was based on that outline. So I wonder
Speaker 1: whatever script's circling around, if that's based on her book,
Speaker 1: or somebody just went with the idea in the Owl
Speaker 1: of Daylight or what do you know?
Speaker 3: I do not know. I remember it was supposed to
Speaker 3: be about Dick, so it might have been about the
Speaker 3: writing of that. I'm not sure what it was, but
Speaker 3: I just thought the idea of Paul Giamatti as Philip K. Dick, Yeah,
Speaker 3: please sign me up.
Speaker 1: You' a big dickhead. He is a proud dickhead. Yeah.
Speaker 1: One of my cos David Agronoff is I think he's
Speaker 1: getting him on the show if you interviewed him. You've
Speaker 1: interviewed quite a few people.
Speaker 3: No, I would love to talk to Giamatti, and especially
Speaker 3: he was in a pilot that never got picked up.
Speaker 3: He was playing Hoke Moseley, the Charles Williford character that
Speaker 3: was in The Miami Blues, played by Fred Ward. And
Speaker 3: then I was excited for like a revival of Hoke
Speaker 3: Moseley and it would have been a whole series, but
Speaker 3: fortunately it didn't happen. Now I got to do show
Speaker 3: I got to listen to. So thank you. I appreciate it,
Speaker 3: and thank you for your time. This was great. I
Speaker 3: always love talking with you so much, and I love
Speaker 3: this new book and I'm excited to help spread the
Speaker 3: word about it because I think more people need to
Speaker 3: read this.
Speaker 1: Well, thanks, I appreciate it.
Speaker 3: Is there a good place for people to keep up
Speaker 3: on your work?
Speaker 1: Just my website, dear on Wilson dot com and probably Instagram.
Speaker 1: I'm mostly on promoting on Instagram and Facebook, but I'm
Speaker 1: the editor in chief of Antieedpist Press as well, so
Speaker 1: I promote myself absolutely, but I have always been kind
Speaker 1: of uncomfortable with it, and I much prefer promoting other people,
Speaker 1: so I try to do quite a bit of that.
Speaker 1: But yeah, that's where I am.
Speaker 3: Thank you so much. Sir, this is so great catching
Speaker 3: up with you.
Speaker 1: Thank you Mike.
Speaker 5: The times when my crimes the sea almost start forgiver.
Speaker 4: I give it.
Speaker 5: To sin because you had to make this li liver.
Speaker 6: But when you think I'm any nun, when you see her,
Speaker 6: I'll take more than another river.
Speaker 4: May get off.
Speaker 5: I'll thank yous, My.
Speaker 2: Strange, strange eyes and streams of strange, Oh my love,
Speaker 2: double strange.
Speaker 5: We get it to me, We take the pain. I
Speaker 5: will get to the gain and again, and.
Speaker 4: We need to turn it.
Speaker 5: The days were a straight and they appeared to be posile.
Speaker 4: I preach my indid.
Speaker 5: To see speaking sidelines and practice one. I preach I'm
Speaker 5: not trying to say on my way.
Speaker 6: I'm always willing to learn. When you've got something to teach,
Speaker 6: a time I'll make on fin you return it.
Speaker 5: I'll say it again, pain pain, who you recerted?
Speaker 7: I'll say it, game pain, pain, who you incerted? I'll
Speaker 7: say it, game pain, pain, who you incerted?
Speaker 5: I won't save anything.
Speaker 2: Stream job spring ties and streams the strange job that
Speaker 2: soundon the strange us job where you get it to
Speaker 2: re screen jobs spring ties and strange.
Speaker 5: The strange job that sound the strange job where.
Speaker 4: You get it.
Speaker 2: Some stream jobs spring ties and streams, U string job
Speaker 2: that sound.
Speaker 5: Strange job, Green min.
Speaker 4: It's me the the you know, the the you know
Speaker 4: then you okay, then it's
Speaker 5: The thea