Gardenfarm

There has been some speculative analyses of continuity and subtler elements of Kubrick's films on the internet in the last few years.

In the Discovery One portion of 2001 you are in some of the most iconic shots side by side with patterns of intricately arranged lights, prop computer consoles with dozens of light-up buttons. Not to mention the set of inside HAL's brain, his processor core, where similarly the viewer is bombarded with shapes and patterns and numbers in the set design.

So my question is; did you ever notice that special attention was paid by Kubrick to the patterns of the lights and electronic set-components when framing those shots? Were they set purely aesthetically, for instance, or was there some logic to them, or particularity about how they should be.

The same could be said about the HAL's brain set. Was there was any significant attention paid to how the key turns would release memory units? There is an incongruity at one point when you turn the key for one terminal and another comes out.

Context: http://imgur.com/a/T1Zom

---

Sorry if this is too crackpot, but Kubrick was a fan of the book The Code Breakers which is like the bible of cryptography and I've always wondered if there was some 'deliberately buried' aspects to his films.

When the Coen Brothers answer any interview questions about ambiguity and deeper meanings in their films, they're worse than ambiguous, they don't exactly derail the question but answer at the most physical and technical level, shaking off meaning questions entirely despite that their movies are overwhelmed with references to deeper philosophical, psychological, and literary ideas. -- In a way this is also the magic of their movies, the audience is usually made pretty definitely aware of the physical details of what's happening, but as for the tormenting wash of philosophical/psychological loose ends there are no solid answers, besides the solid details as they appear and provoke.

My question for you is: in reverse engineering the Coen filmography to try to find your own Coen-formula, to what extent do you try to emulate their particular style of ambiguity and at what point do you feel that all the alluded elements of your own story begin to benefit from their ambiguous premiers and placements?

Are the Coens tricksters, are you a trickster, how do you emulate or own their style of trickery?

In terms of your successful Coen approximation, how did you feel about your Season 2 UFO reveal after seeing 'Hail Caesar!'s submarine scene? It's almost like you studied the Coens and out-Coened the Coens.

Only a little more.

How do you feel when you watch yourself in 2001? It's some of the most effective filmmaking that your face is basically dictating the audiences reaction for a lot of the ending of the film, it becomes kind of a nonverbal first-person experience where we all identify as you. That must be especially weird when it actually is you.

Not to mention the recursion of you watching yourself looking at yourself in the ending set of the movie.