Inside the Making of The Beatles’ Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Heart’s Club Band, Rock’s Great Concept Album

The Bea­t­les’ Sgt. Pepper’s Lone­ly Heart’s Club Band may or may not still be the “great­est rock album of all time,” but—as the pre­sen­ter in the doc­u­men­tary above remarks—it most cer­tain­ly is “an extra­or­di­nary mir­ror of its age.” The album also marks sev­er­al great leaps for­ward in stu­dio record­ing tech­niques and pop song­writ­ing, as well as pro­duc­tion time and cost. Sgt. Pepper’s took five months to make and cost 40,000 pounds. By con­trast, the first Bea­t­les album, Please Please Me, was record­ed live in a sin­gle day for a cost of about 400 pounds.

The band decid­ed to make such invest­ments in the stu­dio after becom­ing fed up with con­stant tour­ing. In addi­tion to the gru­el­ing sched­ule, John Lennon had alien­at­ed many of the band’s reli­gious Amer­i­can fans with the flip­pant “more pop­u­lar than Jesus” remark. And in the Philip­pines, they failed to turn up for an event put on by Fer­di­nand Mar­cos, offend­ing both the dic­ta­tor and his wife; they “bare­ly escaped with their lives,” we’re told above. Fur­ther­more, ampli­fi­ca­tion tech­nol­o­gy being what it was at the time, there was no pos­si­bil­i­ty of the band’s sound on stage com­pet­ing with the vol­ume of scream­ing fans in the sta­di­um crowds, and they found them­selves near­ly drowned out at every show.

They retreat­ed somewhat—Harrison to India to work with Ravi Shankar, Lennon to Spain to work with film­mak­er Richard Lester—until they were ral­lied by Paul McCart­ney, whom Ringo calls “the worka­holic” of the band. Hav­ing firm­ly decid­ed to leave the road behind for good, says McCart­ney, they “very much felt that it could be done bet­ter from a record than from any­where else,” that “the record could go on tour.” Record­ing began on Novem­ber 24, 1966 with “Straw­ber­ry Fields For­ev­er,” a track that didn’t even appear on the album, but on its fol­low-up, Mag­i­cal Mys­tery Tour.

We’re treat­ed in the doc­u­men­tary to the orig­i­nal record­ing of the song, with com­men­tary from George Mar­tin, who explains that record­ing tech­nol­o­gy at the time was “in a prim­i­tive state,” only just enter­ing the mul­ti­track stage. Lim­it­ed to four tracks at a time, engi­neers could not sep­a­rate each instru­ment onto its own indi­vid­ual track as they do today but were forced to com­bine them. This lim­i­ta­tion forced musi­cians and pro­duc­ers to make firm deci­sions about arrange­ments and com­mit to them with a kind of dis­ci­pline that has gone by the way­side with the ease and con­ve­nience of dig­i­tal tech­nol­o­gy. Mar­tin talks at length about the mak­ing of each of the songs on the album, patient­ly explain­ing how they came to sound the way they do.

As a musi­cian and occa­sion­al engi­neer myself, I find that the heart of the doc­u­men­tary is these moments with Mar­tin as he plays back the record­ings, track by track, enthu­si­as­ti­cal­ly recount­ing the pro­duc­tion process. But there’s much more here to inspire fans, includ­ing inter­views with the clas­si­cal musi­cians who played on the album, sto­ries from Paul, George, and Ringo about the writ­ing and devel­op­ment of the songs, and even an inter­view with reclu­sive Beach Boy and stu­dio wiz­ard Bri­an Wil­son about his Pet Sounds, an exper­i­men­tal pre­cur­sor and inspi­ra­tion for Sgt. Pepper’s. We do not hear much about that famous album cov­er, but you can read all about it here.

For Paul McCart­ney, “the big dif­fer­ence” Sgt. Pepper’s made was that pre­vi­ous­ly “peo­ple played it a bit safe in pop­u­lar music.” The Bea­t­les “sud­den­ly real­ized you didn’t have to.” Over the next few months, they cob­bled togeth­er their per­son­al influ­ences into a glo­ri­ous pas­tiche of rock, pop, bal­ladeer­ing, vaude­vil­lian show tunes, psy­che­del­ic stu­dio exper­i­men­ta­tion, tele­vi­sion adver­tis­ing jin­gles, and Indi­an and sym­phon­ic music—creating the world’s first con­cept album. Noth­ing like it had ever been heard before, and it may not be too much of a stretch to say that near­ly every pop record since owes some debt, how­ev­er small, to Sgt. Pepper’s, whether by way of the song­writ­ing, the con­cep­tu­al inge­nu­ity, or the stu­dio exper­i­men­ta­tion. To see the influ­ence the album had on a hand­ful of pop­u­lar Eng­lish musi­cians forty years lat­er, watch the BBC tele­vi­sion spe­cial above, pro­duced in hon­or of the album’s for­ti­eth anniver­sary and fea­tur­ing bands like Travis, the Mag­ic Num­bers, and the Kaiser Chiefs cov­er­ing the album in its entire­ty.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

The Straw­ber­ry Fields For­ev­er Demos: The Mak­ing of a Bea­t­les Clas­sic (1966)

The Bea­t­les: Unplugged Col­lects Acoustic Demos of White Album Songs (1968)

The Mak­ing (and Remak­ing) of the Beach Boys’ Pet Sounds, Arguably the Great­est Rock Album of All Time

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness

How Paul Thomas Anderson Dropped Out of NYU Film School in 2 Days; Studied Literature with David Foster Wallace

See­ing how the ever-more-dis­tinc­tive cin­e­ma of Paul Thomas Ander­son has devel­oped from his fea­ture debut Hard Eight to his new Thomas Pyn­chon adap­ta­tion Inher­ent Vice, you have to won­der how he learned his craft. Boo­gie NightsMag­no­liaPunch-Drunk LoveThe Mas­ter: ambi­tious pic­tures like these, artis­ti­cal­ly unusu­al and heav­i­ly ref­er­en­tial but also sur­pris­ing­ly pop­u­lar, make you sense an unschooled film­mak­er behind the cam­era (a path to film­mak­ing great­ness best exem­pli­fied by Quentin Taran­ti­no).

But Ander­son did­n’t get this far entire­ly with­out high­er edu­ca­tion: let the record show that he did spend two semes­ters at Emer­son Col­lege — a brief peri­od, but one in which he took an Eng­lish class from none oth­er than David Fos­ter Wal­lace. “It was the first teacher I fell in love with,” he told Marc Maron in an inter­view on Maron’s pod­cast WTF . “I’d nev­er found any­body else like that at any of the oth­er schools I’d been to.” Ander­son even called Wal­lace, a pro­fes­sor “gen­er­ous with his phone num­ber,” to dis­cuss “a cou­ple crazy ideas” on a paper he was writ­ing about Don DeLil­lo’s White Noise at “mid­night the night before it was due.”

(At The Paris Review, Dan Piepen­bring has more on the inter­sec­tion of Ander­son­’s life and Wal­lace’s, includ­ing the lat­ter’s opin­ions on the for­mer’s movies: “he was a fan of Boo­gie Nights, which he told a friend was ‘exact­ly the sto­ry’ he’d want­ed to write. He was less jazzed about Mag­no­lia, though, which he found pre­ten­tious, hol­low, and ‘100% grad­school­ish in a bad way.‘”)

Ander­son also enrolled at New York Uni­ver­si­ty’s film school, but rather than stay­ing only two semes­ters, he stayed only two days. In the clip up top, from an inter­view with crit­ic Elvis Mitchell, Ander­son recounts the whole of his NYU expe­ri­ence. His first instruc­tor announced, “If any­one is here to write Ter­mi­na­tor 2, get out.” And so Ander­son thought, “What if I do want to write Ter­mi­na­tor 2? Ter­mi­na­tor 2’s a pret­ty awe­some movie.” (An assess­ment, inci­den­tal­ly, from which Wal­lace’s great­ly dif­fers.) When he turned in a page from a David Mamet script for his first assign­ment and his unsus­pect­ing teacher gave it a C+, Ander­son knew he had to leave. Liv­ing off of the tuition NYU returned to him, he got to work on a short film of his own.

“My film­mak­ing edu­ca­tion con­sist­ed of find­ing out what film­mak­ers I liked were watch­ing, then see­ing those films,” he told the Los Ange­les Times. “I learned the tech­ni­cal stuff from books and mag­a­zines, and with the new tech­nol­o­gy you can watch entire movies accom­pa­nied by audio com­men­tary from the direc­tor. You can learn more from John Sturges’ audio track on the Bad Day at Black Rock laserdisc than you can in 20 years of film school.” He said that just a few years after leav­ing NYU, when he hit it big with Boo­gie Nights — a film whose high­ly enter­tain­ing DVD com­men­tary from Ander­son him­self pro­vides anoth­er few years’ worth of film school at least.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

David Fos­ter Wallace’s Syl­labus for His 2008 Cre­ative Non­fic­tion Course: Includes Read­ing List & Foot­notes

David Fos­ter Wallace’s 1994 Syl­labus: How to Teach Seri­ous Lit­er­a­ture with Light­weight Books

Wern­er Herzog’s Rogue Film School: Apply & Learn the Art of Gueril­la Film­mak­ing & Lock-Pick­ing

Col­in Mar­shall hosts and pro­duces Note­book on Cities and Cul­ture as well as the video series The City in Cin­e­ma and writes essays on cities, lan­guage, Asia, and men’s style. He’s at work on a book about Los Ange­les, A Los Ange­les Primer. Fol­low him on Twit­ter at @colinmarshall or on Face­book.

7 Tips from Edgar Allan Poe on How to Write Vivid Stories and Poems

Paul_Gustave_Dore_Raven14

There may be no more a macabre­ly misog­y­nis­tic sen­tence in Eng­lish lit­er­a­ture than Edgar Allan Poe’s con­tention that “the death… of a beau­ti­ful woman” is “unques­tion­ably the most poet­i­cal top­ic in the world.” (His per­haps iron­ic obser­va­tion prompt­ed Sylvia Plath to write, over a hun­dred years lat­er, “The woman is per­fect­ed / Her dead / Body wears the smile of accom­plish­ment.”) The sen­tence comes from Poe’s 1846 essay “The Phi­los­o­phy of Com­po­si­tion,” and if this work were only known for its lit­er­ary fetishiza­tion of what Elis­a­beth Bron­fen calls “an aes­thet­i­cal­ly pleas­ing corpse”—marking deep anx­i­eties about both “female sex­u­al­i­ty and decay”—then it would indeed still be of inter­est to fem­i­nists and aca­d­e­mics, though not per­haps to the aver­age read­er.

But Poe has much more to say that does not involve a romance with dead women. The essay deliv­ers on its title’s promise. It is here that we find Poe’s famous the­o­ry of what good lit­er­a­ture is and does, achiev­ing what he calls “uni­ty of effect.” This lit­er­ary “total­i­ty” results from a col­lec­tion of essen­tial ele­ments that the author deems indis­pens­able in “con­struct­ing a sto­ry,” whether in poet­ry or prose, that pro­duces a “vivid effect.”

To illus­trate what he means, Poe walks us through an analy­sis of his own work, “The Raven.” We are to take for grant­ed as read­ers that “The Raven” achieves its desired effect. Poe has no mis­giv­ings about that. But how does it do so? Against com­mon­place ideas that writ­ers “com­pose by a species of fine frenzy—an ecsta­t­ic intu­ition,” Poe has not “the least dif­fi­cul­ty in recall­ing to mind the pro­gres­sive steps of any of my compositions”—steps he con­sid­ers almost “math­e­mat­i­cal.” Nor does he con­sid­er it a “breach of deco­rum” to pull aside the cur­tain and reveal his tricks. Below, in con­densed form, we have list­ed the major points of Poe’s essay, cov­er­ing the ele­ments he con­sid­ers most nec­es­sary to “effec­tive” lit­er­ary com­po­si­tion.

  1. Know the end­ing in advance, before you begin writ­ing.

“Noth­ing is more clear,” writes Poe, “than that every plot, worth the name, must be elab­o­rat­ed to its dénoue­ment before any thing be attempt­ed with the pen.” Once writ­ing com­mences, the author must keep the end­ing “con­stant­ly in view” in order to “give a plot its indis­pens­able air of con­se­quence” and inevitabil­i­ty.

  1. Keep it short—the “sin­gle sit­ting” rule.

Poe con­tends that “if any lit­er­ary work is too long to be read at one sit­ting, we must be con­tent to dis­pense with the immense­ly impor­tant effect deriv­able from uni­ty of impres­sion.” Force the read­er to take a break, and “the affairs of the world inter­fere” and break the spell. This “lim­it of a sin­gle sit­ting” admits of excep­tions, of course. It must—or the nov­el would be dis­qual­i­fied as lit­er­a­ture. Poe cites Robin­son Cru­soe as one exam­ple of a work of art “demand­ing of no uni­ty.” But the sin­gle sit­ting rule applies to all poems, and for this rea­son, he writes, Milton’s Par­adise Lost fails to achieve a sus­tained effect.

  1. Decide on the desired effect.

The author must decide in advance “the choice of impres­sion” he or she wish­es to leave on the read­er. Poe assumes here a tremen­dous amount about the abil­i­ty of authors to manip­u­late read­ers’ emo­tions. He even has the audac­i­ty to claim that the design of the “The Raven” ren­dered the work “uni­ver­sal­ly appre­cia­ble.” It may be so, but per­haps it does not uni­ver­sal­ly inspire an appre­ci­a­tion of Beau­ty that “excites the sen­si­tive soul to tears”—Poe’s desired effect for the poem.

  1. Choose the tone of the work.

Poe claims the high­est ground for his work, though it is debat­able whether he was entire­ly seri­ous. As “Beau­ty is the sole legit­i­mate province of the poem” in gen­er­al, and “The Raven” in par­tic­u­lar, “Melan­choly is thus the most legit­i­mate of all poet­i­cal tones.” What­ev­er tone one choos­es, how­ev­er, the tech­nique Poe employs, and rec­om­mends, like­ly applies. It is that of the “refrain”—a repeat­ed “key-note” in word, phrase, or image that sus­tains the mood. In “The Raven,” the word “Nev­er­more” per­forms this func­tion, a word Poe chose for its pho­net­ic as much as for its con­cep­tu­al qual­i­ties.

Poe claims that his choice of the Raven to deliv­er this refrain arose from a desire to rec­on­cile the unthink­ing “monot­o­ny of the exer­cise” with the rea­son­ing capa­bil­i­ties of a human char­ac­ter. He at first con­sid­ered putting the word in the beak of a par­rot, then set­tled on a Raven—“the bird of ill omen”—in keep­ing with the melan­choly tone.

  1. Deter­mine the theme and char­ac­ter­i­za­tion of the work.

Here Poe makes his claim about “the death of a beau­ti­ful woman,” and adds, “the lips best suit­ed for such top­ic are those of a bereaved lover.” He choos­es these par­tic­u­lars to rep­re­sent his theme—“the most melan­choly,” Death. Con­trary to the meth­ods of many a writer, Poe moves from the abstract to the con­crete, choos­ing char­ac­ters as mouth­pieces of ideas.

  1. Estab­lish the cli­max.

In “The Raven,” Poe says, he “had now to com­bine the two ideas, of a lover lament­ing his deceased mis­tress and a Raven con­tin­u­ous­ly repeat­ing the word ‘Nev­er­more.’” In bring­ing them togeth­er, he com­posed the third-to-last stan­za first, allow­ing it to deter­mine the “rhythm, the metre, and the length and gen­er­al arrange­ment” of the remain­der of the poem. As in the plan­ning stage, Poe rec­om­mends that the writ­ing “have its beginning—at the end.”

  1. Deter­mine the set­ting.

Though this aspect of any work seems the obvi­ous place to start, Poe holds it to the end, after he has already decid­ed why he wants to place cer­tain char­ac­ters in place, say­ing cer­tain things. Only when he has clar­i­fied his pur­pose and broad­ly sketched in advance how he intends to acheive it does he decide “to place the lover in his cham­ber… rich­ly fur­nished.” Arriv­ing at these details last does not mean, how­ev­er, that they are after­thoughts, but that they are suggested—or inevitably fol­low from—the work that comes before. In the case of “The Raven,” Poe tells us that in order to car­ry out his lit­er­ary scheme, “a close cir­cum­scrip­tion of space is absolute­ly nec­es­sary to the effect of insu­lat­ed inci­dent.”

Through­out his analy­sis, Poe con­tin­ues to stress—with the high degree of rep­e­ti­tion he favors in all of his writing—that he keeps “orig­i­nal­i­ty always in view.” But orig­i­nal­i­ty, for Poe, is not “a mat­ter, as some sup­pose, of impulse or intu­ition.” Instead, he writes, it “demands in its attain­ment less of inven­tion than nega­tion.” In oth­er words, Poe rec­om­mends that the writer make full use of famil­iar con­ven­tions and forms, but vary­ing, com­bin­ing, and adapt­ing them to suit the pur­pose of the work and make them his or her own.

Though some of Poe’s dis­cus­sion of tech­nique relates specif­i­cal­ly to poet­ry, as his own prose fic­tion tes­ti­fies, these steps can equal­ly apply to the art of the short sto­ry. And though he insists that depic­tions of Beau­ty and Death—or the melan­choly beau­ty of death—mark the high­est of lit­er­ary aims, one could cer­tain­ly adapt his for­mu­la to less obses­sive­ly mor­bid themes as well.

Relat­ed Con­tents:

Gus­tave Doré’s Splen­did Illus­tra­tions of Edgar Allan Poe’s “The Raven” (1884)

Edgar Allan Poe’s “The Raven,” Read by Christo­pher Walken, Vin­cent Price, and Christo­pher Lee

H.P. Love­craft Gives Five Tips for Writ­ing a Hor­ror Sto­ry, or Any Piece of “Weird Fic­tion”

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness

David Sedaris Spends 3–8 Hours Per Day Picking Up Trash in the UK; Testifies on the Litter Problem

Humorist David Sedaris has become some­thing of a local hero in his adopt­ed home of West Sus­sex, Eng­land. And for fair­ly unex­pect­ed rea­sons. Repulsed by the lit­ter prob­lem in Eng­land, Sedaris began spend­ing 3–8 hours each day pick­ing up trash along the side of var­i­ous roads. Day in, day out. Fast for­ward a few years, and the local com­mu­ni­ty hon­ored Sedaris by nam­ing a garbage truck after him — “Pig Pen Sedaris.” And now we have him tes­ti­fy­ing before the MPs on the Com­mu­ni­ties and Local Gov­ern­ment Com­mit­tee. If you like C‑SPAN, you will love these 2+ hours of video.

via metafil­ter

Fol­low us on Face­book, Twit­ter and Google Plus and share intel­li­gent media with your friends. Or bet­ter yet, sign up for our dai­ly email and get a dai­ly dose of Open Cul­ture in your inbox.

Patti Smith and David Lynch Talk About the Source of Their Ideas & Creative Inspiration


Where do artis­tic ideas come from?

The col­lec­tive uncon­scious?

Cheesy cov­ers of 50s pop tunes?

The ghost of Jer­ry Gar­cia?

Per­haps rather than try­ing to iden­ti­fy the source, we should work toward being open to inspi­ra­tion in what­ev­er guise it presents itself.  It’s an approach that cer­tain­ly seems to be work­ing for Pat­ti Smith and David Lynch, aka the God­moth­er of Punk and Jim­my Stew­art from Mars, both a shock­ing­ly youth­ful 69.

One of the most excit­ing things about their recent seg­ment for the BBC’s News­night “Encoun­ters” series is watch­ing how appre­cia­tive these vet­er­ans are of each other’s process.

“I want a copy of what you just said,” Smith gasps, after Lynch likens the begin­nings of a cre­ative process to being in pos­ses­sion of a sin­gle, intrigu­ing puz­zle piece, know­ing that a com­plet­ed ver­sion exists in the adja­cent room.

Lynch, a long­time advo­cate of tran­scen­den­tal med­i­ta­tion, smiles benign­ly as Smith wax­es poet­ic about the for­ma­tion of her ideas.

As artists, they’re com­mit­ted to peek­ing beneath the veneer. “What’s more hor­ri­fy­ing than nor­mal­cy?” Smith asks.

It does seem impor­tant to note how both of these long­time prac­ti­tion­ers men­tion jot­ting their ideas down imme­di­ate­ly fol­low­ing the muse’s vis­it.

Also what I wouldn’t give for a ring­tone of Lynch say­ing, “I want to talk to you about Pussy Riot,” as sin­cere­ly and earnest­ly as Mr. Rogers!

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Pat­ti Smith Doc­u­men­tary Dream of Life Beau­ti­ful­ly Cap­tures the Author’s Life and Long Career (2008)

David Lynch Explains How Med­i­ta­tion Enhances Our Cre­ativ­i­ty

David Lynch Lists His Favorite Films & Direc­tors, Includ­ing Felli­ni, Wilder, Tati & Hitch­cock

Ayun Hal­l­i­day is an author, home­school­er, and Chief Pri­ma­tol­o­gist of the East Vil­lage Inky zine. Fol­low her @AyunHalliday

Neil deGrasse Tyson Ponders the Big Question “Does the Universe Have a Purpose” in a Simple Animation

The Tem­ple­ton Foun­da­tion asked some heavy-hit­ter thinkers to answer the ques­tion, “Does the Uni­verse Have a Pur­pose”. Some said “Yes” and “Cer­tain­ly.” Oth­ers con­clud­ed “Unlike­ly” and “No.” Neil deGrasse Tyson — astro­physi­cist, direc­tor of the Hay­den Plan­e­tar­i­um, and pop­u­lar­iz­er of sci­ence — gave an answer that falls tech­ni­cal­ly in the “Not Cer­tain” camp.

Above, you can watch a video where Tyson reads his answer aloud, and the mak­ers of Minute Physics pro­vide the rudi­men­ta­ry ani­ma­tion. One thing astro­physi­cists have is a knack for putting things into a deep­er con­text, often mak­ing “big” human ques­tions look remark­ably small (if not some­what absurd). Carl Sagan did it remark­ably well in his famous ‘The Pale Blue Dot’ speech. And Tyson picks up right where Sagan left off.

We still live in a world where, despite Coper­ni­cus, we think the world revolves essen­tial­ly around us. And, to the extent that that’s true, some will find Tyson’s data points dis­ori­ent­ing. Oth­ers might won­der whether we should angst so much about the ques­tions we peren­ni­al­ly ask in the first place. I guess I am kind of there today.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Neil deGrasse Tyson Lists 8 (Free) Books Every Intel­li­gent Per­son Should Read

Carl Sagan’s Under­grad Read­ing List: 40 Essen­tial Texts for a Well-Round­ed Thinker

Carl Sagan Writes a Let­ter to 17-Year-Old Neil deGrasse Tyson (1975)

Free Online Astron­o­my Cours­es, part of our larg­er col­lec­tion, 1,700 Free Online Cours­es from Top Uni­ver­si­ties

by | Permalink | Make a Comment ( 8 ) |

The Long-Lost Illustrated Production Stills from the Set of Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey

2001 1

Remem­ber court­room sketch artists? The mere fact that they did what they did cap­tured my imag­i­na­tion as a kid, rep­re­sent­ing as it seemed one of the few remain­ing ves­tiges of an old­er, more askew Amer­i­ca, one bound by few­er yet stricter rules and all the more fas­ci­nat­ing a com­po­nent of his­to­ry for it. These draw­ings of the shoot of Stan­ley Kubrick­’s 2001: A Space Odyssey remind me of court­room sketch­es, albeit on some styl­is­tic lev­els more than oth­ers. And inter­est­ing­ly, just as court reporters once had to use sketch artists because of the sup­posed dis­tur­bance cam­eras would cause in the court­room, these draw­ings result from the pur­suit of some­thing less trou­ble­some to a set than a reg­u­lar still pho­tog­ra­ph­er.

2001 2

From 2001 onwards, Kubrick cre­at­ed illus­trat­ed pro­duc­tion stills of what hap­pened on his set, rather than hav­ing a pho­tog­ra­ph­er take noisy and dis­tract­ing pho­tographs. The illus­tra­tions, doc­u­ment­ing for the media what hap­pened in front of the cam­era as well as behind it, would then be sent out in press kits to pub­li­ca­tions and oth­er media out­lets that could pro­mote the film.

2001 3

Enter, in 1966, Eng­lish mag­a­zine illus­tra­tor Bri­an Sanders (now per­haps best known for the pas­tich­es of that decade he’s done for Mad Men), hired to turn up to the 2001 shoot and qui­et­ly draw what he saw. None of these images, how­ev­er — or the rest of those fea­tured at Kubrick­o­nia — appeared any­where until the actu­al year 2001, when The Inde­pen­dent’s mag­a­zine used them in an arti­cle. Cinephiles now and again wish for the return of illus­trat­ed movie posters, and some­times we do occa­sion­al­ly see a new one, but look­ing at what Sanders came up with for 2001, I can’t help but pon­der the still-unre­al­ized poten­tial of the illus­trat­ed pro­duc­tion still. You can see more illus­tra­tions — once lost and now found — here.

kubrick illustrated still

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Howard Johnson’s Presents a Children’s Menu Fea­tur­ing Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey Gets a Brand New Trail­er to Cel­e­brate Its Dig­i­tal Re-Release

1966 Film Explores the Mak­ing of Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey (and Our High-Tech Future)

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

Col­in Mar­shall hosts and pro­duces Note­book on Cities and Cul­ture as well as the video series The City in Cin­e­ma and writes essays on cities, lan­guage, Asia, and men’s style. He’s at work on a book about Los Ange­les, A Los Ange­les Primer. Fol­low him on Twit­ter at @colinmarshall or on Face­book.

A Look Inside Charlie Hebdo, Their Creative Process & the Making of a Fateful Cartoon

A week ago, Char­lie Heb­do was any­thing but a house­hold name. On Wednes­day, after the appalling ter­ror­ist attacks in Paris, all of that changed.

We all now have Char­lie Heb­do on the tip of our tongues. We’ve seen sam­ples of their satir­i­cal car­toons. And we’ve read about the news out­lets too afraid to print them. But what do we still know about Char­lie Heb­do — about the actu­al car­toon­ists who made the news­pa­per tick, their satir­i­cal ambi­tions and their cre­ative process? Not very much.

The short doc­u­men­tary above, filmed at Char­lie Heb­do in 2006 by Jerôme Lam­bert and Philippe Picard, helps fill in some of these blanks. The clip shows sev­er­al of the car­toon­ists and edi­tors mur­dered ear­li­er this week —  Jean Cabut (aka Cabu), Bernard Verl­hac (aka Tig­nous) and Georges Wolin­s­ki — mak­ing a fate­ful deci­sion: Would they put a satir­i­cal image of Muham­mad on the cov­er of their news­pa­per?

The Char­lie Heb­do car­toon­ists turned “provo­ca­tion and bad taste” (to use Lam­bert and Picard’s words) into a par­tic­u­lar­ly French form of polit­i­cal satire. As the French trans­la­tor Arthur Gold­ham­mer explained it ear­li­er this week, “There is an old Parisian tra­di­tion of cheeky humour that respects noth­ing and no one,” which goes back to the French Rev­o­lu­tion. “It’s an anar­chic pop­ulist form of obscen­i­ty that aims to cut down any­thing that would erect itself as ven­er­a­ble, sacred or pow­er­ful,” and it is direct­ed against “author­i­ty in gen­er­al, against hier­ar­chy and against the pre­sump­tion that any indi­vid­ual or group has exclu­sive pos­ses­sion of the truth.” That tra­di­tion will con­tin­ue next week when Char­lie Heb­do and its sur­viv­ing staff plan to pub­lish one mil­lion copies of their next edi­tion.

The video above, put online by The New York Times, is cou­pled with a short op-ed by Lam­bert and Picard. You can read it here.

Fol­low us on Face­book, Twit­ter and Google Plus and share intel­li­gent media with your friends. Or bet­ter yet, sign up for our dai­ly email and get a dai­ly dose of Open Cul­ture in your inbox.

by | Permalink | Make a Comment ( 1 ) |

« Go BackMore in this category... »
Quantcast