The current conundrum facing our analysis of the 2001 cue is the fact that while we can account for the function of the cue, which through its application of the eternal return represents various manifestations of becom-ing, we do not have a solid footing on which to analyze the meaning of these cues as they relate individually to the mise-en-scène. However, Nietzsche via Deleuze can be of great assistance to us through the concept of active and reactive forces. Deleuze draws his concept of active/reactive forces directly from Nietzsche’s Will to Power. The concept was seminal to Nietzsche’s reeval-uation of the idea of being and it enabled him to re-imagine the very process of being as “the distinction between active and reactive forces” (Spinks 7). By virtue of this, becoming is made an active process in which each force is related to each other force, with the distinction that some forces are active and some are reactive. What is key here is the distinction that all forces are related, but do not necessarily perform the same function. What defines them is “the relative difference in their quality of power” (Spinks 7).
Thus, the relationship between the three instances of the 2001 cue can be understood as different and yet related to each other. What is different is not the cue, i.e., the musical affect or compositional syntax, but rather the manner in which the cue engages with, or exerts its force on the mise-en-scène. As Lee Spinks suggests, according to Deleuze: “Forces are dominant, or dominated, depending upon their relative difference in quality. Once the relation has been established the quality of forces — dominant or dominated — produces an active power (that commands the relation) and a reactive power (defined by the relation)” (Spinks 8). This is very valuable to our analysis of the 2001 cue because it allows us to position the cue in two distinct and unique relationships to the image, positionings which will allow us to explain exactly what the cue does when it enters into a relationship with the image.
Let’s examine how.
The first statement of the theme occurs during the title sequence of the film. The image of celestial eclipse and occurrence is massive in its visual grandeur and one is left to question whether the image represents what is already — making the entire film a flashback — or what will be — making the entire film a conventional narrative. What is interesting here is that in spite of its sonic power, the 2001 cue cannot compete with the overwhelming nature 11. Strauss, Kubrick and Nietzsche (Redner) 187
of the image. The grandness of the universe, here represented by the plane-tary concordance on the screen and the collected energy and intelligence pro-jected by the narrative, dwarf the cue, making it seem almost inconsequential by degree. In essence the activity represented by Strauss’ original tone-poem becomes reactive here as it is divorced from its ability to dominate the mise-en-scène. Yet as Spinks suggests, “The remarkable feature of the becoming reactive of active forces is that historically [they] have managed to form the basis of an entire vision of life” (Spinks 8). In essence that is what is happen-ing here, for the cue has in fact become reactive, stripped of its power and ability to dominate, it embodies the same future expectation of becoming which is embodied in the becoming-man in the narrative. The active force of the image has separated the force of the 2001 cue from what it is capable of doing, dominating the filmic universe. It is not that the cue is not soni-cally impressive, but that in reacting to the image it becomes a force which attempts to subvert and overcome rather than to dominate. In essence, the cue here contains the entirety of the narrative in itself by embodying the future: the future becoming of man.
The second use of the cue in the scene with the apes represents a very different engagement between forces. Here the passivity of the apes, the minuteness of the image field, and the static slowness of narrative allow the interpolation of the cue to eventually overwhelm the image, rendering it reac-tive rather than acreac-tive in this case. Therefore, in its second incarnation the 2001 cue dominates the image. Certainly, a portion of this can be explained by the fact that a large segment of this section of the film is presented with-out music, which helps to underscore the barrenness and primitiveness of the early development of the primates. The cue underscores and establishes the reality of the evolutionary change in the apes, a fact which coincides with the arrival of the black monolith. Because of this, we can understand the result of the cue’s interpolation here to be very different from that of the first exam-ple discussed above. Here, the cue allows us to understand the gravitas of the moment. As Spinks suggests, Deleuze’s concept of active force suggests that its “characteristics are dominating, possessing, subjugating, and command-ing” (Spinks 8). That is certainly, the role of the cue in this scene, for it announces that the apes have made an evolutionary advancement which has taken them from the position of the hunted to the hunter. They now take the dominant position in their ecosystem, and as such it is the role of the cue to represent and assert this dominance. Had the cue been introduced earlier its use would have suggested the dominance of nature or of the monolith over the ape’s nature. Its introduction here allows us to read confidently that both the cue and the primates are active forces in their respective worlds.
The third and final instance of the cue comes in the final scene in the
188 V. “ALLTHOSEMOMENTS”
film. After passing through the star-gate, Dave Bowman ends his journey in what appears to be an oddly cold, unwelcoming, and yet comfortable French baroque style bedroom. Here his needs are met as he ages, perhaps more quickly than usual. Indeed, one has the sense that Bowman is not aging but transforming and evolving. He constantly sees himself in his next incarna-tion before he dismisses his former. The final time we see Bowman in a cor-poreal form he is lying in bed as a very old man, seemingly incapable of movement. The black monolith is again present at the foot of his bed and here once again appears to serve a transformative purpose. It is during this sequence that we hear the final instance of the 2001 Theme. Bowman’s body has now been replaced by a fetus in a womblike enclosure and he will subse-quently be reborn as the star-child whose image ends the film. What has hap-pened in this scene? According to Clarke’s book, Bowman is freed from his physical body and is replaced by an intelligent and conscious being which no longer has the physical need for a corporeal body to contain and support it.
As such Bowman has been freed to exist in consciousness and it is this rep-resentation of his transformation that is captured in the film’s final image as the star-child is shown protected in the womb of space.
While not passive, such transformation does not contain the physical intensity of the earlier scene with the primates. As such, the role of the 2001 cue in this case is to represent the active translation of Bowman in time, space, and consciousness. This is very different than the active position of the cue as the representation of physical evolutionary change, expressed in the pre-ceding example. There the cue represented the acquisition of physical prowess and acuity which allowed the apes to dominate their milieu. By virtue of this, the cue represents the savagery of the image and the situation’s dominance.
In this instance however, the cue although active, establishes an intensity which would be impossible to represent visually, the becoming-pure-con-sciousness of the human. This cannot be depicted cinematically without being expressed here by the cue, which we have come to understand as represent-ing recurrence and becomrepresent-ing, a process which is always immanent. The cue, in this third and final instance, allows the significance of this translation of state to be realized visually and as such the image becomes reactive to the activ-ity of the cue.
Conclusion
We began this essay by posing a theoretical and analytical question: how does one discuss a piece of film music that was not composed for the partic-ular bit of the mise-en-scène which it accompanies? Certainly, this is not an 11. Strauss, Kubrick and Nietzsche (Redner) 189
unusual question in film music analysis, especially with the preponderance of appropriated scores in use today. Normal theoretical procedures quickly lead to a dead end, as does the desire to connect the cue to its original philosoph-ical underpinnings.
With this realization we came to the conclusion that current analytical methodologies would not suffice. We decided that what was needed was a type of methodological bridge which would allow us to engage the interaction between the mise-en-scène and the score on a deeper level than previously thought possible. We found this platform in the philosophy of Gilles Deleuze.
Deleuze’s concept of the eternal return which he drew from Nietzsche allowed us to relate Nietzsche’s philosophy to Strauss’ tone-poem and via this through to Kubrick’s mise-en-scène. Yet, this understanding of the various elements of the film as a form of an eternal recurrence did not allow us to do anything other than interrelate the various filmic components in a cohesive fashion, which left us still unable to account for the variations in mise-en-scène in which the cue was employed.
A further level of abstraction was necessary in order to overcome this issue and this was found in the application of Deleuze’s concept of active and reactive force. By approaching the way in which each of the three statements of the theme relate to the mise-en-scène and attempting to discern whether the cue or the image was the dominant active force within the totality of the filmic universe, we were able to understand the role that the cue plays as dif-ferent and distinct in each case. The application of the Deleuzian activity/reac-tivity to this level of abstraction allowed us to view the cue as a distinct musico/filmic entity overcoming the stilted passivity of our earlier attempts.
Throughout this essay we have encountered a series of theoretical road-blocks which would have hampered a traditional film musical analysis of the cue under consideration. Through the application of Deleuzian philosophi-cal concepts we were able to understand the cue as occupying a much deeper relationship to the mise-en-scène than we had a first thought. Instead of being a mere reflection of the mood of the film, the cue has instead been rightly placed as an establisher of meaning, occupying a distinct, rich and produc-tive relationship to the entirety of the filmic universe in each of its incarna-tions.
WORKSCITED
Agel, James. The Making of Kubrick’s 2001. New York: New American Library, 1970.
Chion, Michel. Kubrick’s Cinema Odyssey. London: BFI, 2001.
Conley, Tom. “Space.” The Deleuze Dictionary. Ed. Adrian Parr. New York: Columbia Uni-versity Press, 2005. 257–59.
Deleuze, Gilles. Nietzsche & Philosophy. Trans. Hugh Tomlinson. New York: Columbia University Press, 2006.
190 V. “ALLTHOSEMOMENTS”
Deleuze, Gilles, and Felix Guattari. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia.
Trans. Brian Massumi. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1987.
_____. What Is Philosophy? Trans. Hugh Tomlinson and Graham Burchell. New York:
Columbia University Press, 1994.
Rajchman, John. Constructions. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1998.
Sotirin, Patty. “Becoming-woman.” Gilles Deleuze: Key Concepts. Ed. Charles J. Stivale.
Montreal: McGill-Queens’ University Press, 2005. 98–109.
Spinks, Lee. “Eternal Return.” The Deleuze Dictionary. Ed. Adrian Parr. New York: Colum-bia University Press, 2005. 82–84.
Stagoll, Cliff. “Becoming.” The Deleuze Dictionary. Ed. Adrian Parr. New York: Colum-bia University Press, 2005. 21 –22.
11. Strauss, Kubrick and Nietzsche (Redner) 191