 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
Reviewed this last night on a friends DVD. This was after I had shared with him the Weidner essay kindly provided by Audiophilander.Seems Weidner is pretty much on to this one. The real story here is the story of the monolith. And transformation (alchemy). Humans are shown as pretty small and soulless.
Seems to me, though, that all of Kubrick's movies show people as being somehow victims of their fate or of outside forces. Maybe not Spartacus? Paths of Glory? Dunno. Never saw Paths and Spartacus was a long time ago.
It would be interesting to know how Kubrick really felt about the subject of this movie. Did he believe that we're lost without outside intervention, as in aliens, God, etc?
Anyone know why Kubrick left the US in the 60s and never returned?
Follow Ups:
the term in not misused.
A visual treat on a par w/ "L'Atalante," meaning it is "pure" film, which can be enjoyed solely as a visual experience.
But it is so much more.
The early creatures crouching in the cave, huddling their young, as the leopard stalked above.
The loss of innocence: the strike of the bone weapon.
The use of music.
The still non-pareil Fx.
The incredible verisimilitude of the space ships and zero gravity.
The death scenes in space, and the gradual killing of Hal.
This film was made when ethology was a "hot" new field, and no question was more discussed than," from whence sprang human intra-species violence?" Kubrick has made not only a visually arresting work, but one that manages, w/out the use of talking heads babbling endlessly (the death knell of so many French movies), to "discuss" critical questions, including the how and why of Man's existence.
I've probably seen this one more than 6 times over the years. My criterion for a classic is how many times I want to see the same film again. Damned few match this one.
Is the movie a success? Just look at the replys to this post about a movie 35 years old!
Yes. The years have not diminished its relevance or impact. A true classic.And to think there is still some controversy surrounding it? What more of a recommendation could be given?
While all of my friends did like this movie, I never like it more I despite it it is shallow and boring..maybe if you are under LSD.......
Nothing compares to Barry L.
a poor man's "Tom Jones," to which it is inferior in pretty much everything, except cinematography.
Ryan O'Neal was, perhaps, the greatest single casting mistake of Kubrick's career.
Still, one cannot escape the fact that the movie lacks pace and is boring as hell. When a book lags, one can turn the pages faster. Unfortunately, a viewer is at the director's mercy.
Or the guy who took for woman the beautiful Vivian ?
If anything it would be the rich man film but in fact they do not compare..yours is erratic at best, mine is pure genius...save the to realistic intellectual ( but unavoidable ) end.
Ryan was just a puppet and as such..did not played any kind of...role.( if you see what I mean )
For me it is a feast.
Your analogy with books is not valid...if you have an remote....
C'mon, to use it is to destroy the director's vision...his rhythm, pace, style. Either it stands originally as made or not.
(Tom Jones? Good one!)
It was just an analogy...I suppose when you read a book and scroll down the pafes as you say you destroy the writer´s vision too...
And many have a problem imagining out there. I suppose they might find it boring and shallow. Wish I could remember Blaise Pascal's quote about the loneliness of space. To that one could add the awesomeness of it, the spectacle of it. And the shock that comes with the realization, that we are not alone is this vastness of energy and blazing movement. And Kubrick presented this mostly visually.Now I'm not criticizing you personally. I fully understand the appeal of the more "humanistic" of Kubrick's movies. It's really a different strokes thing. And 2001 IS definitely about the religious impulse, awe, if you will. Perhaps that's a big one to get over for some people. We know, Kubrick was an atheist, at least I've seen that written.
BTW, Barry didn't fare very well against fate or destiny after all, did he?
In fact I firmly believe that it is the LACK in one´s imagination that led to the liking of this film.
We are not alone...hum...that may be your view...and an LSD film will certainly not be an absolute proof...pas vrai, mec ?
Of course, I am not critising yourself personally...why should I ?
Pascal was one of the few you can call" integre "in my eyes....and I will rebuy his " pensées " for the X time..as his book should never leave´s one side even his physical% experiment prooves are not all true today anymore...
Barry L. has the fate that every one of us has sooner or later...if you like it or not....
How long can you got an happy end? How long can you take it ?
Stanley K. darkness was sculpt in his genes. So was his films.
if you come upon Pascal on this. Something about being scared of the vast spaces. I've had a hint of this while viewing some videos of real space and some astronomical photos. We are the speck upon a speck, hurtling through the limitless void. One random asteroid, etc. could wipe us out in an eyeblink.
I will. But Pascal is very reassuring...Metaphysic....think of Alban Berg´s Wozzeck...it makes you dizzy....but that is the reality, we are ...lost in space...every thing´s moving...pursuing a plan whose future is unknow to us....it is like a small death in our life time...
Let´s drink.....
Patrick, I'd like to share a drink or two with you. Where would be a good rendezvous? And when? I'll buy.
hehe..any time you are around...I´ll buy.
Around where? France, right? City?
Germany, Frankfurt.
Or Montpellier ( beautiful ) in October....
It is the Kubrrick's film at the other extreme of the 2001. One can view it as many times as one wishes, always be troubled by new thoughts and impressions.As the film offering a unique and seamless combination of a story, music, visual art, acting, character interplay and development, mood - both incredibly sad and joyfull, bredth and multitude of underlying flows, this work is simply unmatched in the history of movie making.
That is why I always put it on my however-short list of best films.
n
.
n
nt
BTW, the critics and readers of Positif, one of the most authoritative film journals in Europe and beyond, voted this film the best of the last 50 years. Cahiers du Cinema orgasmed liked gangbuster over it, as did the Italian Cinema& Film in several essays (No. 708- Winter-Spring 1969). The cinematography was unanimously considered to be groundbreaking, so much so that Spielberg can't seem to be able to break free from its spell.Regards,
og=================
What did Kubrick have to say about what 2001 "means"?[The following is excerpted from a PLAYBOY interview with Kubrick]
PLAYBOY: Much of the controversy surrounding 2001 deals with the
meaning of the metaphysical symbols that abound in the film -- the
polished black monoliths, the orbital conjunction of Earth, Moon and
sun at each stage of the monoliths' intervention in human destiny, the
stunning final kaleidoscopic maelstrom of time and space that engulfs
the surviving astronaut and sets the stage for his rebirth as a "star-
child" drifting toward Earth in a translucent placenta. One critic even
called 2001 "the first Nietzschean film," contending that its essential
theme is Nietzsche's concept of man's evolution from ape to human to
superman. What was the metaphysical message of 2001?
KUBRICK: It's not a message that I ever intend to convey in words. 2001
is a nonverbal experience; out of two hours and 19 minutes of film,
there are only a little less than 40 minutes of dialog. I tried to
create a visual experience, one that bypasses verbalized pigeonholing
and directly penetrates the subconscious with an emotional and
philosophic content. To convolute McLuhan, in 2001 the message is the
medium. I intended the film to be an intensely subjective experience
that reaches the viewer at an inner level of consciousness, just as
music does; to "explain" a Beethoven symphony would be to emasculate it
by erecting an artificial barrier between conception and appreciation.
You're free to speculate as you wish about the philosophical and
allegorical meaning of the film -- and such speculation is one
indication that it has succeeded in gripping the audience at a deep
level -- but I don't want to spell out a verbal road map for 2001 that
every viewer will feel obligated to pursue or else fear he's missed the
point. I think that if 2001 succeeds at all, it is in reaching a wide
spectrum of people who would not often give a thought to man's destiny,
his role in the cosmos and his relationship to higher forms of life.
But even in the case of someone who is highly intelligent, certain
ideas found in 2001 would, if presented as abstractions, fall rather
lifelessly and be automatically assigned to pat intellectual
categories; experienced in a moving visual and emotional context,
however, they can resonate within the deepest fibers of one's being.
PLAYBOY: Without laying out a philosophical road map for the viewer,
can you tell us your own interpretation of the meaning of the film?
KUBRICK: No, for the reasons I've already given. How much would we
appreciate LA GIOCONDA today if Leonardo had written at the bottom of
the canvas: "This lady is smiling slightly because she has rotten
teeth" -- or "because she's hiding a secret from her lover." It would
shut off the viewer's appreciation and shackle him to a "reality" other
than his own. I don't want that to happen to 2001.
PLAYBOY: Arthur Clarke has said of the film, "If anyone understands it
on the first viewing, we've failed in our intention." Why should the
viewer have to see a film twice to get its message?
KUBRICK: I don't agree with that statement of Arthur's, and I believe
he made it facetiously. The very nature of the visual experience in
2001 is to give the viewer an instantaneous, visceral reaction that
does not -- and should not -- require further amplification. Just
speaking generally, however, I would say that there are elements in any
good film that would increase the viewer's interest and appreciation on
a second viewing; the momentum of a movie often prevents every
stimulating detail or nuance from having a full impact the first time
it's seen. The whole idea that a movie should be seen only once is an
extension of our traditional conception of the film as an ephemeral
entertainment rather than as a visual work of art. We don't believe
that we should hear a great piece of music only once, or see a great
painting once, or even read a great book just once. But the film has
until recent years been exempted from the category of art -- a
situation I'm glad is finally changing.
PLAYBOY: Some prominent critics -- including Renata Adler of The New
York Times, John Simon of The New Leader, Judith Crist of New York
magazine and Andrew Sarris of the Village Voice -- apparently felt that
2001 should be among those films still exempted from the category of
art; all four castigated it as dull, pretentious and overlong. [KAEL:
'It's a monumentally unimaginative movie'; ADLER: 'Incredibly boring';
SARRIS: 'A disaster' || from Ciment, p. 43 -- B.K.] How do you account
for their hostility?
KUBRICK: The four critics you mention all work for New York
publications. The reviews across America and around the world have been
95 percent enthusiastic. Some were more perceptive than others, of
course, but even those who praised the film on relatively superficial
grounds were able to get something of its message. New York was the
only really hostile city. Perhaps there is a certain element of the
lumpen literati that is so dogmatically atheist and materialist and
Earth-bound that it finds the grandeur of space and the myriad
mysteries of cosmic intelligence anathema, But film critics,
fortunately, rarely have any effect on the general public; houses
everywhere are packed and the film is well on its way to becoming the
greatest moneymaker in M-G-M's history. Perhaps this sounds like a
crass way to evaluate one's work, but I think that, especially with a
film that is so obviously different, record audience attendance means
people are saying the right things to one another after they see it --
and isn't this really what it's all about?
PLAYBOY: Speaking of what it's all about -- if you'll allow us to
return to the philosophical interpretation of 2001 -- would you agree
with those critics who call it a profoundly religious film?
KUBRICK: I will say that the God concept is at the heart of 2001 but
not any traditional, anthropomorphic image of God. I don't believe in
any of Earth's monotheistic religions, but I do believe that one can
construct an intriguing scientific definition of God, once you accept
the fact that there are approximately 100 billion stars in our galaxy
alone, that each star is a life-giving sun and that there are
approximately 100 billion galaxies in just the visible universe. Given
a planet in a stable orbit, not too hot and not too cold, and given a
few billion years of chance chemical reactions created by the
interaction of a sun's energy on the planet's chemicals, it's fairly
certain that life in one form or another will eventually emerge. It's
reasonable to assume that there must be, in fact, countless billions of
such planets where biological life has arisen, and the odds of some
proportion of such life developing intelligence are high. Now, the sun
is by no means an old star, and its planets are mere children in cosmic
age, so it seems likely that there are billions of planets in the
universe not only where intelligent life is on a lower scale than man
but other billions where it is approximately equal and others still
where it is hundreds of thousands of millions of years in advance of
us. When you think of the giant technological strides that man has made
in a few millennia -- less than a microsecond in the chronology of the
universe -- can you imagine the evolutionary development that much
older life forms have taken? They may have progressed from biological
species, which are fragile shells for the mind at best, into immortal
machine entities -- and then, over innumerable eons, they could emerge
from the chrysalis of matter transformed into beings of pure energy and
spirit. Their potentialities would be limitless and their intelligence
ungraspable by humans.
==================
"...a certain element of the
lumpen literati that is so dogmatically atheist and materialist and
Earth-bound that it finds the grandeur of space and the myriad
mysteries of cosmic intelligence anathema"Thanks. That Kubrick excerpt says more to an intelligent reader than anything more I could add.
2001 is the most shallow of all Kubrick's films... well, we shall not even consider the EWS for the moment. Even The Shining is better. Spartacs is not much better, but still.The whole "philosophy" in that film is that of an insignificant sci-fi novel... nuff said.
Im most of his films he concentrated on people and their feelings, reactions, troubles. In 2001 he left that solid ground and gave in to the mandane obsession with outer space childhood fantasies.
The result is perhaps the best work in the very minor genre - hardly any accomplishment for an esteemed director. Surely Beethoven could write a simple popular song, but he would not be Beethoven if that was all he did.
Paths of Glory is one of the best his works, following on the incredible success of his two earlier films - Killer's Kiss and The Killing. All three are far more significant than the 2001 in the overall scheme of Kubrick's art.
Being shallow, the only place where 2001 could swimm is the shallow waters of the American culture, obsessed with the silly techno side of the events.
Anywhere else it is usually put in its right place.
I have had "2001" on my best films list for more than 30 years. I've seen it many times and never cease to be amazed at the insight and sheer genius of the film and its message.Excessive reliance on technology dehumanizes. Notice how Heywood Floyd was only comfortable when he was talking to his daughter, who was on Earth, from a private booth aboard the space station? At all other times he was formal and stiff, albeit friendly. Conversations were trivial and guarded. People were more comfortable with machines and computers (gadgets) than with other persons. Notice how Poole and Bowman (the Jupiter-bound astronauts) almost never talked except when they had to. They did have conversations with HAL. Even their conversations with their families were terse.
The focus on HAL and his breakdown say that technology is dangerous when it is over relied upon. HAL was supposed to be perfect. "Computers don't make mistakes." But computers are designed and programmed by human beings, which means the insistence of perfection is specious and self-deceiving. It is impossible to forsee every possibility and, because of this, no machine, no matter its sophistication, is or can be perfect.
What is the monolith? Did it plant ideas into the apemen's heads, starting that evolutionary path toward space travel or was it merely a sentinel?
What is the Starchild? New Messiah or new man, "Ape, Man, Superman?"
Who cares? It asks questions and present rhetorical and/or metaphorical answers to some and leaves others entirely unanswered or with several possible answers. It makes one think. It is entertainment for the intellectual rather than the emotional.
Some people don't get it. Some think it silly and shallow. Some, like me, find it brilliant yet disturbing.
Some prefer Sartre while others prefer Robert Ludlum. Some like challanges while others just want to be entertained.
And, before you condemn the story, why not read Arthur C. Clarke's "The Sentinel."
Like why were the astronauts not told of their mission? I know, they said security, still?Was HALs false report a ruse by HAL or a real malfunction?
What would HAL have to gain by killing all the humans? Would "he" then rendezvous, "himself" with the monolith? He was, after all the only "one" that knew the plan.
Hal didn't seem to know that Bowman would blow into the airlock. Why was that? Why did HAL think that the lack of a helmet was not a deterrent in the face of certain death?
What does it mean when Bowman in spacesuit looks at Bowman old inside the "room" on/in the monolith? And was it really on the monolith or somewhere else?
i like 2001 very much. it's a great trip.yes, i think HAL the computer comes across as more human than the human characters. even in your questions, you look for and undertanding of purpose, motivation and other "human" qualities behind HAL. i think that's a statement about what kubrick sees human culture as.
in his other films, kubrick often shows his characters in longshots that show them as insignificant in a landscape. kubrick's films do seem to suggest inevitability beyond our control in the fate of our lives. at the same time, i think kubrick also suggests that there is something greater we are cablable of moving on to. so i'm not sure that kubrick sees human as souless. i think he sees our world as souless, but he sees humans as capable of much more.
i remember siskel and ebert talking about this film long ago on thier tv show. he saw the ending as the astronaut seeing himself in his next phase of life just as he became aware of where he was. siskel described the ending as something like, "do you want to die as a man in a room of material wealth, or do you want to become something more, a starchild?"
i haven't read the book on which 2001 was based. many who have seem able to "explain" this and that in the film. i think the film has to stand alone as its own work, reflecting more of kubrick's world view than the book's.
I believe this does expand the discussion. Thanks.A long, strange trip we are all on.
Nothing wrong with asking plot related questions - we all do.But therefore lies the damnation of 2001 - the plot overshadows everything else in that work.
Does it really? Not to all viewers. Some are still searching for elements of art... sure enough there are some - Kubrick would not be a Grand Master if he didn't put some even in his weak work. But they are far more scarce than in his best films.
Problem with concentrating on plot is that anyone can take a plot and make a movie... but only a master will make a masterpiece.
That is amply examplified by the many remakes of good movies, most remakes having the same plot - and the same plot related quesitons - but none usually of the caliber of the original.
I always say that art is not in the subject, it is in the means. In 2001 Kubrick got absorbed too much in the game aspect of the work, in the then revolutionary flashy effects and to some degree lost the track of his career.
Not the plot. Bigtime.How do you feel about the film's critique of Homo Faber? I have noticed that you are very technically oriented and love superb machines.
Superb cinematography and images. The bone turning into the space station is a classic. This may not be the masterwork that Weidner describes but it is one of the top films of the 20th cen., no contest.
No, I don't recall that. When I watch a movie I usually leave my technical inclinations and love for machinery at the door.I never regret watching that film - I must have seen it three or four times - but I always quickly forget it. This is in comparisson to some other films that often linger in your mind for weeks. For instance the Solaris always casts long lasting spell on me. But then that one is almost completely anti-technical.
Ok, you do know that I was referring to man the toolmaker, right?I guess we differ on movies. When I go to a movie I like to think I bring everything I have to it.
Check out old geezer's post with the Kubrick quotes from Playboy. That and Weidner's essay just about cover the philosophical aspects of 2001.
The methods Kubrick used to communicate the reasonably simple plot were revolutionary. THAT was the movie.
Almost all visual and musical. Dialog is one of the least important aspects of the film. When everybody dies, they die in silence. It's still amazing.
Cheers
John K
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
