Biographical approaches – Lawrence Ratna (Monday 15 July 2019)
Dr. Lawrence Ratna (Barnet, Enfield and Haringey Mental Health NHS Trust) is a consultant psychologist working
in mental health. In his research into Psychiatry and the Visual Arts, Dr.
Ratna has investigated Hitchcock and is now interested in neurobiological
approaches to Kubrick.
For more of Dr. Ratna’s research, see his website http://lratna.com/index.html, which focuses on The Shining.[3]
Photo of Dr. Lawrence Ratna taken by Karen Ritzenhoff at the Workshop dinner at Katwij.
Presentation:
Dr. Ratna presented on biographical
approaches. In particular, he explored psychological approaches to Kubrick and
his films.
Dr. Ratna is
interested in Kubrick’s relationship to his mother and father. Both were Jews who
fled Austria in the Nazi period and assimilated themselves into American life.
Once in America, the Kubricks shed much of their Jewish heritage and
assimilated into US culture.
Dr. Ratna argued that Kubrick
refused the role of the child in Jewish migrant families by rejecting his
school education. Aged four he refused to go to school, and his attendance
remained patchy until he began to receive home instruction. Kubrick later
rejected the medical career path that his father had intended for him. Dr. Ratna
suggests that Kubrick’s early behavior showed a great deal of stubbornness and
must have caused significant family tension. He posits that Kubrick had a
troubled relationship with his father (see his remark “Everyone hates doctors”)
and a strong attachment to his mother.
Dr. Ratna also addressed the
theme of childhood in Kubrick’s films. He divided Kubrick’s child characters
into four groups: 1) the sexualized child; 2) the alienated child; 3) the child
who has an idealized closeness to its mother; 4) the neglected child.
Dr. Ratna also addressed Lyons and
Fitzgerald’s diagnosis of Kubrick with Asperger’s (Asperger’s:
Gift or Curse?). Dr. Ratna does not agree with this diagnosis. He rather
suspects Kubrick of Theory of Mind deficits; that is, an inability to
‘mind-read’ and perceive what others are thinking.
For Kubrick was highly concerned
with what people thought about him. He frequently asked this of Emilio (his
driver) and obsessively collected reviews. In his writing and directing,
Kubrick often relied on the input of others. He collaborated on most of his
screenplays, and used audience reactions at initial screenings to create his
final cuts. Unusually, Kubrick screened footage from the set of Full
Metal Jacket to many the actors involved; Dr. Ratna thinks that
this was to gauge their reaction.
Dr. Ratna’s hypothesis
is that Kubrick needed input from others to understand where he needed to go
artistically. He could recognise when he had achieved something he wanted, but
he could not conceive it beforehand. (This is in contrast to Hitchcock, who
knew exactly what he wanted from the beginning.)
Finally, Dr. Ratna analyzed
the cognitive effect of Kubrick’s films. Kubrick’s films are like
puzzles insofar as they refuse a clean resolution. They use ambiguity on
multiple levels, from interpretation to shot composition to music. This has an
effect on the brain of the spectator. The anticipation of an
uncertain reward throws the brain into a special state of arousal, as shown by
MRI scans. [1]
Photo of Dr. Lawrence Ratna taken by Karen Ritzenhoff after his presentation.
Panel:
The group discussion consisted in large part of unpacking Dr.
Ratna’s many ideas from his presentation that morning. We talked further
about Kubrick’s childhood, his conception of adultery and neurobiological
approaches to his films, with a general focus on Eyes Wide Shut.
Dr. Ratna sees 2001: A Space Odyssey as
the last film where Kubrick was able to exchange ideas with his collaborators.
After this, he took total control and was only concerned with checking their
reaction. Kubrick’s checking took on an obsessive quality and he became much
more secretive. His reduced output post-2001 is a
testament to the dangers of too much control.
The group also discussed Kubrick’s
adaptation of Arthur Schnitzler’s Traumnovelle as
a potential insight into his psychology. Kubrick emptied out the psychology of
Schnitzler’s characters, such that we do not know their motivations (this is
also shown in his adaptation of Stephen King’s The Shining). For
example, in Traumnovelle Frindolin
embraces life after his visit to the mortuary; this arc is taken out of Eyes Wide Shut,
but Bill still has a moment of intimacy with Mandy’s corpse. Dr. Ratna sees
this as a misreading of Schnitzler’s novel and evidence for his hypothesis of
Kubrick’s Theory of Mind deficits.
Kubrick’s adaptation is also
suggestive of his attitude towards adultery. Traumnovelle is
not about sexual jealousy, but the idea that women have their own sexual
desires: this is the tone of Albertine’s “If you men only knew.” Similarly,
Bill in Eyes
Wide Shut does not show characteristics of sexual jealousy (anger and
“revenge fucking”); his aimless wandering around New York does not seem
motivated by a fixation on sex. Dr. Ratna hypothesized that Kubrick had a 1960s
attitude towards adultery (that is, women should not have their own sexual
feelings). It is revealing that Kubrick also came to expect total fidelity from
the people he worked with.
The group returned to the theme of
childhood. Lili, Albertine and Frindolin’s daughter, is central to their
reconciliation at the end of Traumnovelle.
Conversely, Helena is neglected during the toyshop scene at the end of Eyes Wide Shut.
To quote Dr. Ratna: “What are they doing? No responsible parent allows their
child to run off down-screen.” Helena’s marginalization might also be
considered in relation to losses of children suffered by Raphael, Kubrick, and
Schnitzler (respectively due to illness, estrangement, and suicide).
The discussion then turned to the
psychology of colour in Eyes Wide Shut.
Blue is generally associated with dreaming and red with waking. Kubrick deploys
these colours in Eyes Wide Shut to
confuse the distinction and create a dream-like state. Kubrick also uses colour
to show the state of Bill and Alice’s marriage. When cold colours are used in
the background and warm colours in front, this creates a comforting atmosphere.
The inverse can be seen in the second bedroom scene in Eyes Wide Shut,
where all warmth is sucked out of the foreground.
Still image of the film Eyes Wide Shut. [2]
Finally, the group considered the
neurobiology of Kubrick’s films. Their ambiguity exploits the brain’s tendency
towards pattern-seeking to trigger neurological processes. Kubrick keeps the
balance between giving us information and cutting it out to capture our
cognitive interest (e.g. combination of tonal and atonal music, flattened
character psychology). His films also work on a cognitive level insofar as they
capture how the human eye sees, rather than how the camera sees. This is shown
in Kubrick’s use of vanishing points and focus on the mouth and eyes. The group
concluded that the neurobiology of Kubrick’s films requires further research
(perhaps with MRI scans!).
Bibliography:
1. Ratna, Lawrence. “Biographical Approaches." 15 July 2019, Leiden.
Bibliography:
1. Ratna, Lawrence. “Biographical Approaches." 15 July 2019, Leiden.
2. Kubrick, Stanley, director. Eyes Wide Shut.
3. “Dr. Lawrence Ratna.” Uri Geller, 26 Apr. 2015, https://www.urigeller.com/dr-lawrence-ratna/.
Article and Bio by :Daisy Baxter.
Images, Captions & Bibliography by: Miguel Mira
The origins of Stanley Kubrick's mother and father are so wrong. This Dr.Lawrence Ratna, did he do his homework. Or is this an error made by the author of this blog? Because it is erroneous considering a lot is known about Stanley Kubrick's parents. Stanley's paternal grandfather came to America somewhere around late 19th century and then sent for his wife after a few years being able to support himself( He also left his first wife) . I can't recall the exact date right now. By the time his son Jacques was borm he had owned a textile business and did well for himself. There is more known about him and his ancestors' life in Galicia in Eastern Europe. And as far as Stanley Kubrick's maternal grandfather is concerned he too an immigrant who came to New York at the turn of 20th century. So your assertion that his parents escaped Nazi Germany is BS because it feeds onto the familiar trope of the innocent Jew (only the wealthy or well connected could buy their way out of Nazi Germany; there were other ways of course) escaping Nazi Germany and coming to USA/Hollywood. Stanley Kubrick was also not of Austro-Hungarian decent from what I have researched but moat likely of what is today Ukrainian Jewish ancestry. This needs more research because I'm not quoting verbatim from any source but mainly from my memory. So I apologise if I'm a little off the mark.
ReplyDeleteEdited:
Delete#1)
The origins of Stanley Kubrick's mother and father are so wrong. This Dr.Lawrence Ratna, has he done his homework? Or is this an error made by the author of this blog? Because it is erroneous considering that a lot is known about Stanley Kubrick's parents. Stanley's paternal grandfather came to America somewhere around late 19th century and then sent for his wife after a few years being able to support himself( He also left his first wife). I can't recall the exact date right now. By the time his son Jacques was born he was already running a few textile selling businesses in New York. There is more information known about him and his ancestors' life in Galicia in Eastern Europe. And as far as Stanley Kubrick's maternal grandfather is concerned he too was an immigrant who came to New York at the turn of 20th century. So your assertion that his parents escaped Nazi Germany is BS because it feeds onto the familiar trope of the innocent Jew (only the wealthy or well connected could buy their way out of Nazi Germany; there were other ways to escape of course) escaping Nazi Germany and coming to the USA/Hollywood. Stanley Kubrick was also not of Austro-Hungarian decent from what I have researched. His ancestors were most likely Jews from what is today known as Ukraine. This needs more research because I'm not quoting verbatim from any source but mainly from my memory. So I apologise if I'm a little off the mark.
#2)
Next, Dr.Ratna says that Stanley rejected the role of the child Jewish of migrants by not going to school aged four and later on rejecting his father's profession. This is simply a case of an American brat being given too much freedom. After all, Stanley was born into a wealthy family. Even his father Jacques changed his name to Jack. The Kubrick family were trying a lot to become as Americanized as possible. It was their way of assimilating. Although Stanley was homeschooled and his father did encouraged him to read from a young age, he was still raised in an American way. Had their parents not been so wealthy he would have been forced to come to terms with reality and would have most like went to school like every other child and most likely would have chosen some respectable and less risky profession like his father. If he were stubborn while his parents were not so wealthy he would have most likely turned out a dropout with few prospects in life.
#3)
It is stated in this article that Hitchcock knew exactly what he wanted from the very beginning while Stanley did not. This is a bad comparison. Because Hitchcock only made on type of film all his career. He was also known to embellish facts and created a mysterious enigma around himself so that the audience would recognize his films like they could recognize John Ford's or Ernst Lubitsch's films. He was simply managing a personal brand. So it is false that he knew exactly what he wanted from the beginning.
#4)
Again, Dr Ratna says that Stanley had a theory of mind deficit which is just theoretical nonsense. He was raised in relative luxury and always got what he wanted by hook or crook. The fact that he got his father to give up his life insurance money says a lot about his character. He was simply used to getting his own way all the time. He grew up in a sort of bubble. So he carried this attitude into his adult life that with enough persistence and emotionally breaking down people he could get people to do anything for him. Like a child does.
#5)
DeleteElsewhere Dr. Ratna say's that Stanley had a 1960s attitude towards adultery. This is wrong on so many levels. I don't understant how a Dr. could conduct such paper thin research. His attitude towards adultery was most defintely a pre-war attitude. It also the attitude of someone who most likely valued commitment and truth in marriage. He most likely took this view by observing his own parents who stayed married all their life until they died, while he himself had two failed marriages by the time he was 28. The second marriage failed because Stanley was definitely very demanding and he worked a lot, but also because his second wife had been unfaithful to him. In short she committed adultery while being married to him. This is a clue as to why he was so taken by the Schnitzler's Traumnovelle. He saw that novel as some sort of truth about the relations between the two sexes. This information is available online, so please make any corrections to what I have written here. Also he definitely wasn't someone who felt that "women shouldn't have their own sexual feelings". This part of the article is wrong on so many levels. In fact for all we know it didn't faze him at all. Why would he be bothered by some random woman having sexual feelings at all? If it didn't directly concern him then he could've cared less. But what he definitely would've wanted was utter and complete devotion in marriage. After all, Eyes Wide Shut is about marriage. So it is wrong and unacceptable for Stanley to commit adultery in marriage. There is nothing wrong with this expectation. In fact, in an age where people in the Anglosphere and other affluent parts of the world have turned marriage into a degenerate joke, it even more telling that Stanley was simply trying to show the truth and he must've felt that Traumnovelle captured this idea very well.
#6)
It also says in the article that Stanley emptied out the psychology of the characters from both Traumnovelle and The Shining. This is again another example of the incompetence of Dr. Ratna to do thorough research. Stanley was first and foremost a filmmaker. Before he ever made a film, he studied Vsevolod Pudovkin's book "Film Technique and Film Acting" which he borrowed from a senior at Look Magazine when he was working there. Even before he ever made a film he knew very well that representing the psychology of characters through dialogue and exposition was a pathetic way to convey information to the audience. Something only mediocre filmmakers did. This was the grave mistake he committed on Fear and Desire and he knew it during screenings for the film. Everything in film is literally visual. Film is surface level. You can only bury meaning in a shot through visual and aural means; but mostly visual. This was one of Stanley Kubrick's Modus Operandi from the day he became a professional filmmaker. So one of the important finding of Pudovkin was that no matter what you want to convey to the audience, you have to translate it into visual means. And a character's inner mind cannot be seen on film except through visual clues and the actor's body language/expressions. Many people who don't like The Shining and Eyes Wide Shut for this reason are essentially film-illiterate. In fact the general mass audience is actually film-illiterate and so a filmmaker like Stanley had to think about making his films as palatable as possible. Stanley was just harnessing the full potential of the film medium and he recognized that the verbose style of a novel has to be converted into a visual style for the screen.