 
|
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: You place Kubrick in the second tier of directors? Well, posted by tinear on February 03, 2004 at 09:09:11:
...by the size of his blanders.In that respect Kubrick did MAJOR damage to his standing by doing the EWS peace of incredibly poor-taste cacarella.
He exibited poor judgement before, but usually was able to recover with the next film, but the EWS defies any understanding... it was a true shocker.
Follow Ups:
Gimme a break, Vic!
Lesse. Spartacus is just a weak megalomania Hollywood spectacle. Lolita is a weak old man's fantasy - no, not Nabokov's. The Shining has some moments, but it is not a strong film. 2001 a giant white elephant... great for AuPh's "young adults" and not much more... and OK entertainment.Seriously, he made many mistakes. But you are distorting what I said - he is still a great director, just not what you presented originally.
reputation. I guess I didn't understand that was such a sly compliment, i.e. he could take a major hit and still be GREAT!
Are you sure, btw, that you dislike 2001 because of its portrayal of Russians, and nothing more?
I never said he was anything but great, it is just that I regret his mistakes. 2001? Russians? Me?
No other science fiction film approaches its reach: it touches on anthropology, i.e. the origin of homo sapiens' intellectual development and the first use of weapons in violent combat.
Metaphysics: what comes after "life?" Are we alone?
Also, individual alienation in the super-modern world of space travel.
Further, the issue of technology overcoming traditional human nature, creating a hybrid personality, i.e. the astronaut communicating distractedly with his parents on his birthday through a screen; the father talking to his far-away daughter.
Finally, the power and potential danger posed by machines which have greater powers than humans--and which necessarily have "emotions."
The film also is remarkable for its many stunning visual moments: the bone transforming into the spaceship, accompanied by a waltz; the rotation of the stewardess; the flashing screens during the landings with that damn pinging!; the eerie silence---pierced only by the very heavy breathing---during the retrieval of the body floating in space; and, of course, the light trip and subsequent aging of the astronaut----culminating in the much-satirized embryo-rebirth.
Sorry you didn't appreciate it.
The basic philosophical ideas of 2001 could be nicely compressed into a paragraph... which you did.But try to do so with something like Andrey Rublev.
...that would be considered in the same context as for instance Nights of Cabiria or Persona.All that techno stuff is something I loved like thirty years ago... I think I grew out of that.
Few films, such as Solaris, for instance, can do w/out a certain amount of the "gee-whiz!" stuff. But, these are very different movies, one purely about the impact which technology can effect upon emotions and the other, well, I listed several above.
If you prefer, one can summarize 2001 in one sentence: the history of the human race. I don't believe any other movie has attempted so large a statement, or come anywhere near its accomplishment. Kind of like the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel...on film.
...if all the movie has to offer is sci-fi.Solaris has plenty to offer besides the primitive effects, so it has a strong leg to stand on, both artistically and philosophically, and the 2001 has some good stuff in the artistry area, none in philosophy (unless you indeed consider the question: "Are we alone?" a deep philosophical question...:-)), but its emphasis is on effects, so it lost me quickly. Sure, back then these were near revolutionary, but today... who cares?
we're communicating, for example!
How many of our asylum members live in different cities, away from their grown children (or children of divorces)?
Now, add space, more techo wizadry...and our tactile humanity becomes that much less "physical" and intimate.
So, in sum, the depiction of technology WAS a critical part of the movie----how it can even threaten mankind's very survival.
Is there a more originally scary (and yet, poignant) moment in film history than the "killing" of Hal by Dave? "Dave, DAVE!!---I can feel my mind...."
If 2001 is the story of the human race, I would prefer not to be a member.
Ok, the transition of the apes to another world was brillant. And some other parts too.
But it remains empty, like a Cary Grant LSD trip, it was just all ouside without very much inside.
It was just a " pseudo " film.
THAT future. Such immensity of change is terrifying. That, I believe, is the point of showing the embryo---he will only know a futuristic world; he will be at home in it (we don't miss huddling in a cave, frightened by a saber-toothed cat because we don't "remember" it).
Think of 2001 as a sci-fi cousin of "Lost in Translation."
We're well on our way!
The Lost- is coming soon to my shore.
I wonder if I will or not see it the way Victor did. her first work was a little bizarre but I had the feeling more for the sake of being.
5 never had the wish to look at it twice.
s
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 ]
