Faulkner, Kubrick and Nietzsche

    At first glance, a comparison between William Faulkner and Stanley Kubrick appears to be a stretch, at best. They are two artists operating in different time periods and in decidedly different mediums. Both produced works that were misunderstood at the time of its premiere, only to be later revered as classics. Both produced works that were labeled as too complicated, or pretentious. Both were, for at least at one point in their careers, considered to be “moralists” – Wyndham Lewis, a prominent painter/author/satirist criticized Faulkner in his book Men Without Art, published in 1934, with a chapter dedicated to Faulkner entitled “The Moralist with a Corn-Cob” (a reference to his  novel Sanctuary which has a female character raped with a corn-cob pipe), and Kubrick was labeled a moralist by numerous film critics after the release of “Eyes Wide Shut” in 1999. These men were not moralists, but could be characterized as humanists, and it can be sen how both were heavily influenced by the works of Friedrich Nietzsche. It also can be said (and has been) that the true subject of many of Faulkner’s novels and Kubricks films is not in fact the travails of the characters, but instead the nature of humanity seen through the actions of these characters. While neither can truly be considered moralists, they both do interact with the subject of morality and the way that it intersects with the lives of its characters, as well as on a broader spectrum in terms of human nature. Faulkner and Kubrick, in their respective works Absalom, Absalom!, and “Eyes Wide Shut” come to the conclusion that modern man is unable to progress past the moral state in which he currently exists, as defined by Nietzsche in his collection of essays On the Genealogy of Morality.
    *To re-cap the plot of “Eyes Wide Shut” for those who have not seen it (the plot to Kubrick’s films are often relatively unimportant, especially in this particular one), Dr. Bill (Tom Cruise) finds out his wife (Nicole Kidman) has an affair and ends up walking the streets of Manhattan and having one unintentionally sexually charged encounter (without actually engaging in any form of sex or adultery) after another culminating with his crashing of a large, secret mansion party where a ritualistic orgy with masks is taking place. Dr. Bill is an uninvited guest here and makes his presence as an outsider known, and gets kicked out, but remains unharmed due to the self-sacrifice of a masked woman who is part of the ceremony. He continues on his surreal journey, finds out that the woman who sacrificed died of an overdose later that night, then is given a brief run-down of the plot of the movie by a wealthy client of his named Ziegler, who also reveals he was at the orgy, and that it was thrown by other wealthy elites, then returns home to his wife. The next day he confesses what happened the night before and suggests everything could have been avoided if he had only been more attentive/loving to his wife.
    The comparison between Absalom, Absalom! and “Eyes Wide Shut” starts with the scene at the mansion where Dr. Bill encounters this utterly foreign world where everyone is sexually uninhibited and the rules of normal society do not apply. As Ziegler points out in a crucial scene at the end of the film, the rules are created and dictated by the members of the secretive, wealthy few. The introduction to this world, and its “rules” is the crux of the film. Similarly, the introduction of Henry Sutpen to the underground society in New Orleans where black women are “bred”, essentially, by a group of white men for their own sexual desires, is crucial to his denial of Charles Bon as husband/brother-in-law/vicarious lover, which is where most of the mystery of the novel stems from. It is important, then, to understand where each of the parties involved in these two scenes lie along the lines of morality generated by Nietzsche in On the Genealogy of Morals.
    In his first essay “Good and Evil, Good and Bad”, Nietzsche outlines the two predominant modes of morality that exist: noble morality and slave morality. The introduction to the text by Keith Andall-Pearson succinctly states that “Western morality has historically been a struggle between elements that derive from a basic form of valuation derived from ‘masters’ and one derived from ‘slaves’.” (Andall-Pearson, xxi) Morality of the ‘master’ or ‘nobles’, as Nietzsche will refer to it, derives from strength and domination. While discussing his research into the etymology of the words ‘good’ and ‘bad’, he notes that “Instead it has been ‘the good’ themselves, meaning the noble, the mighty, the high-placed and the high-minded, who saw and judged themselves and their actions as good, I mean first- rate, in contrast to everything lowly, low-minded, common and plebeian.” (Nietzsche 11) Here is seen that the elite control the definition and align themselves with ‘good’ in contrast to lower classes, who are ‘bad.’ However, Nietzsche then goes on to state that ““The Masters” are deposed; the morality of the common people has triumphed.” (Nietzsche 19) He links this back to the Israelites and the emergence of Christianity (which gave salvation to the poor) as the original triumph of the slave morality over the noble morality, and this victory created the way that good and bad are perceived today, as well as the reason why most people are bound to this “slave morality”.  Nietzsche continues to define the differences between slave and noble morality: “Whereas all noble morality grows out of a triumphant saying ‘yes’ to itself, slave morality says ‘no’ on principle to everything that is ‘outside’, ‘other’, ‘non-self ’: and this ‘no’ is its creative deed.” (Nietzsche 20) It can be seen then, how embracing the uninhibited is indicative of this noble morality and how self-denial can be  aligned with the slave morality.
    The wealthy elite of “Eyes Wide Shut”, who are represented as anonymous but for Ziegler, align themselves with this noble morality. The elite in “Eyes Wide Shut” are allowed to engage themselves in behavior that the common people are prohibited from. Sex is at the forefront, and indulgence is necessary. The lavishness and exuberance of the mansion party/orgy/ceremony is the “triumphant yes” of the noble elite. They are putting their power and wealth and sexual appetite on display. The secretive society Charles Bon subscribes to, and to a degree Jason Compson (for he is the one re-telling Bon’s bringing of Henry to the “brothel) are the ones from Absalom, Absalom! who align themselves with this noble morality. It can also be said that Thomas Sutpen is included here as well. In an essay entitled “Is Bill Supposed to Cheat?”, Alex Jack argues that the opposition to the slave morality wold be “a new self-made morality that values independence, individuality, and the pursuit of one’s own human-emotional sex drive over the collective.” Even though this was written about “Eyes Wide Shut” this perfectly encapsulates the morality of both Charles Bon and Thomas Sutpen. Jack does not mention the “noble morality”, but it applies here directly: Sutpen skirts the conventional rules of society to seize his mansion from the wilderness and take a wife who will secure his place, saying “yes” to himself in his determination to use his indomitable will to get what he wants. He is justified in his own actions because he makes the rules. Charles Bon also displays this “noble morality.” His own sex-drive is at the forefront of his inclusion in this underground society that breeds these women. He fully embraces this morality when describing the society: “We-the thousand, the white men-made them, created and produced them; we even made the laws which declare that one eighth of a specified kind of blood shall outweigh seven eighths of another kind.” (AA 91)  These men who engage this “noble morality” are the creators and authors of this society as well as the rules which define the rest of society. Their actions are “good” in their mind and in this type of morality because they (the noble, the aristocratic) are associated with it.  Charles Bon’s morals are also on display when he comes to realize that Judith is most likely his half-sister and he still wants to marry her. Clearly, self-interest and sexual desire are at the forefront of his thinking. This echoes the sentiment Ziegler puts forth to Dr. Bill at the end of “Eyes Wide Shut”. Those who favor this morality (the wealthy elite, or those who aspire to be the wealthy elite) are the ones who get to define what is good and bad, and the good hinges on themselves and their own sexual appetite. Bon (through Jason Compson) later says that “Because though men, white men, created her, God did not stop it….a principle apt docile and instinct with strange and ancient curious pleasures of the flesh (which is all: there is nothing else)” (AA 92) The prevalence of sex at the forefront of life and the subordinance of God to man further shows how Charles Bon engages this “noble morality” and justifies it. Of course, Faulkner and Kubrick seek to make a statement about “noble morality.” This morality is representative in both works of a progression of humanity – a higher plane of intellectual and spiritual existence. It is the embracing of the individual and the pursuit of self-centered goals. This progression of human nature, however, is not to come now, according to Faulkner and Kubrick. Charles Bon is shot down by Henry, and Sutpen is torn down by Wash Jones. Dr. Bill is unable to participate in the sexual depravity going on at the mansion party and returns to his wife more engaged in the “slave morality” than ever. Man is not able, therefore, to move past the current moral state and progress to a new plane of morality, one that is heavily influenced by the ideals of the previous dominating mode of morality (“noble morality”).
    The “slave morality” is seen to be victorious in both of these works, as it was for Israel when it re-defined valuations and morals for the common people (according to Nietzsche). This victory can also be seen as a failure for man to progress from the “slave morality”. Henry Sutpen, Quentin Compson and Dr. Bill are the embodiment of this failure on behalf of mankind. When Henry is first introduced to this world with different values and emphasis on sexuality/self-interest, he is thrown into a pit of confusion. Faulkner writes, “…so into a place which to his puritan’s provincial mind all of morality was upside down and all of honor perished – a place created for and by voluptuousness, the abashless and unabashed senses…” (AA 91) His vision of morality is literally inverted and he is simply unable to accept it. This society is not the only thing that leads to his murder of Bon, but the moral atmosphere behind it is the driving force. Bon’s morals, including the fact that he is willing to marry his half-sister, are what drives Henry to commit murder and therefore vanquish any hope of succeeding to a different moral plane. It is interesting to note that Henry is able to step out of the “imagined revenge” that Nietzsche talks about when referencing the slave morality and actually commit physical harm to the representative of the noble morality. Faulkner is decisive in his commentary that man cannot progress this way. Quentin Compson is seen in The Sound and The Fury to be unable to grasp this concept of a morality different than the one taught to him in the South. His struggle, however, ends with his suicide. Kubrick similarly denies Dr. Bill the same progression. The whole movie Dr. Bill is denying sexual advances and when he finally appears to give in at the orgy, he stops himself right before he commits the act. He retreats back to his comfortable morality of self-denial for the sake of the greater entity (in this case, his marriage). The individual is not where importance is placed, but rather what must be told “no” and denied what it may want. In this way Jason Compson is part of the slave morality as well. Jason is seduced by the idea of Charles Bon, the free-thinking, sexually progressive badass, but cannot bring himself to commit to the actions himself: he is only able to fantasize about the actions of someone else.
    It is not the inability of man to progress to this existence, because the options for their characters are there- it is instead an unwillingness. Henry and Quentin are unwilling to engage in this individualistic and sexually indulgent moral code and lash out in violence, against another and against himself. Dr. Bill is confronted with this progression and is unwilling to consummate (literally and figuratively) his induction into the lifestyle. In an interview with the New York Times in 1968, after the release of “2001: A Space Odyssey”, Kubrick stated that “…my view is that man will probably remain more or less in the state he is in now…Somebody said man is the missing link between primitive apes and civilized human beings…We are…needing some sort of transfiguration into  a higher form of life. Man is really in a very unstable condition.” This unstable condition is something that Faulkner, Kubrick and Nietzsche have all aspired to seek out in their respective works, and it is clear that Kubrick and Faulkner don’t see it changing anytime soon.