 
|
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: Yep... for lack of better films posted by Victor Khomenko on July 04, 2003 at 10:09:13:
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?
Follow Ups:
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 ]
