 
|
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 |
In Reply to: 2001 once again posted by edta on July 04, 2003 at 09:27:09:
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.
Follow Ups:
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 ]
