|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
207.200.116.138
"How much would we appreciate La Giaconda [the Mona Lisa] 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."I really think this almost says it all. This movie has as much depth as you bring to it as a viewer. It was designed to be a mirror on humanity more than any kind of a commentary on it.That Kubrick was able to create such a unique quality in a scifi movie with a very dsitinct plot that would stand on it's own if the makers were lazy enough to give all the answers rather than ask all the questions is a remarkable achievement. I have no desire to try to convince anyone of the greatness of this movie if they have already failed to see it. This is a movie people have to discover for themselves. If you don't get it you don't get it. If you don't want to get it you won't get it.
Follow Ups:
aaa
I suspect that what we get from anything depends on what we bring to it. I don't think 2001 is a special case in this regard.I bought myself a copy of 2001 last year and saw it for the first time in over 30 years. Just to make Viktor's day, I also bought a copy of Solaris last year and saw it for the first time after a very similar period. My feelings about both after the lengthy gap may be of some interest to some in this debate.
First, what they have in common: both are slow moving and both are set in space. The endings of both are very strong on ambiguity/uncertainty.
Now to the differences. My feeling about 2001 is that there is less to it than I remembered while my feeling about Solaris is that there is more to it than I remembered. Perhaps that's not surprising because I think I saw Solaris maybe 5 or 6 times in the first few years after its release while I probably saw 2001 twice at most. I can remember both making an impression on me but I think it's fair to say Solaris haunted me. That's still the case.
I think 2001 is an influential film rather than a great film. I don't find any great philosophical or psychological issues/questions in it, and I can usually recognise such issues since I have a degree with majors in both of those areas. It really consists of 3 parts, the introduction in the distant past, the scene on the moon, and the space journey. Each has a completely separate set of characters and I find all of them rather flat. There really isn't anything in the way of character development anywhere. I don't regard the change in Dave as character development, and I think it's gilding the lilly to call it 'evolution' or 'transformation' instead, though that is what I think we are supposed to see it as, simply because we have no real idea of what he becomes. Really all we know is that he undergoes radical change. I think it's possible to do a good movie without character development, but then you have to rely on story telling, action, and/or comedy and we don't get much of these.
Having said all of that, I still think 2001 is spellbinding visually and it's superbly put together. It definitely moved the goals for what could be done in sci-fi film in a way that I don't think any other film has.
In contrast, what I find in Solaris is what is missing in 2001: realistic characters with human flaws grappling in different ways with a troubling situation and some genuine moral questions. I'm not certain that there's much of what I'd call character development but Kelvin certainly changes in the process. Solaris is also broken into separate parts: Kelvin on earth and Kelvin on the space station with the first setting the scene for the second in a way that the lack of character continuity in the episodes of 2001 fails to do for me.
And after seeing Solaris again after a long break, I'm surprised by how much more compelling I find both the issues it raises and the film itself.
So that's my take on things. Ultimately I think 2001 is a very influential film which is extremely well made but with few strong resonances for me while I think Solaris is a great film with very strong resonances for me.
Everyone's mileage is definitely going to vary here.
The films of Russian director Andrei Tarkovsky are more like environments than entertainments. It's often said they're too long, but that's missing the point: He uses length and depth to slow us down, to edge us out of the velocity of our lives, to enter a zone of reverie and meditation. When he allows a sequence to continue for what seems like an unreasonable length, we have a choice. We can be bored, or we can use the interlude as an opportunity to consolidate what has gone before, and process it in terms of our own reflections.At Telluride in 1982, when Tarkovsky (1932-1986) was honored and his "Nostalgia" had its North American premiere, there were long talks afterwards under the stars. We argued about a sequence in which the film's hero stands in an abandoned swimming pool and lights a candle and attempts to walk back and forth without the candle going out. When he fails, he tries again. During the movie there was audible restlessness in the audience, and some found the scene merely silly. Others found themselves thinking of times in their own lives where some arbitrary action, endlessly repeated, was like a bet with fate: If I can do this, it means I will get my wish.
Tarkovsky at that festival was given the Telluride Medal and then stalked to the edge of the stage, a fierce mustached figure in jeans and cowboy boots, to angrily say (in words translated by the gentle Polish director Zanussi): "The cinema, she is a whore. First she charge a nickel, now she charge five dollars. When she learns to give it away, she will be free," (The next night, the actor 1231"> Richard Widmark, also honored, replied: "I want to name you some pimps. Hitchcock ... Fellini ... Bergman ... Orson Welles ...")
Tarkovsky's brief manifesto was nevertheless of value as an insight into his approach to filmmaking. His later films are uncompromised meditations on human nature and the purpose of existence, and they have a profound undercurrent of spirituality--enough to get him into trouble with the Soviet authorities, who cut, criticized and embargoed his films, and eventually drove him into exile. He consciously embodied the idea of a Great Filmmaker, making works that were uncompromisingly serious and ambitious, with no regard whatever for audience tastes or box office success.
I saw his 1972 film "Solaris" at the Chicago Film Festival that year. It was my first experience of Tarkovsky, and at first I balked. It was long and slow and the dialogue seemed deliberately dry. But then the overall shape of the film floated into view, there were images of startling beauty, then developments that questioned the fundamental being of the characters themselves, and finally an ending that teasingly suggested that everything in the film needed to be seen in a new light. There was so much to think about afterwards, and so much that remained in my memory. With other Tarkovsky films--"Andrei Rublev," "Nostalgia,"The Sacrifice"--I had the same experience.
"Solaris" is routinely called Tarkovsky's reply to Kubrick's "2001," and indeed Tarkovsky could have seen the Kubrick film at the 1969 Moscow Film Festival, but the film is based on a 1961 novel by the Polish science fiction writer Stanislaw Lem. Both films involve human space journeys and encounters with a transforming alien intelligence, which creates places ("2001") or people ("Solaris") from clues apparently obtained by reading minds. But Kubrick's film is outward, charting man's next step in the universe, while Tarkovsky's is inward, asking about the nature and reality of the human personality.
"Solaris" begins with a long conversation between the psychologist Kelvin (Donatas Banionis) and the cosmonaut Burton (Vladislav Dvorzhetsky), at the country home of Kelvin's father. This home will be seen again at the end of a film in a transformed context. Burton tells him about a Soviet space station circling the planet Solaris, and of deaths and mysteries on board. Eventually Kelvin arrives at the station (his journey is not shown) and finds one crew member dead and two more deeply disturbed by events on the station. The planet, we learn, is entirely covered by a sea, and when X-ray probes were used to investigate it, the planet apparently replied with probes of its own, entering the minds of the cosmonauts and making some of their memories real. Within a day, Kelvin is presented with one of the Guests that the planet can create: A duplicate of his late wife Khari (Natalya Bondarchuk), exact in every detail, but lacking her memories.
This Guest is not simply a physical manifestation, however. She has intelligence, self-consciousness, memory, and lack of memories. She does not know that the original Khari committed suicide. She questions Kelvin, wants to know more about herself, eventually grows despondent when she realizes she cannot be who she appears to be. To some extent her being is limited by how much Kelvin knows about her, since Solaris cannot know more than Kelvin does; this theme is made clearer in Steven Soderbergh and George Clooney's 2002 remake of the film.
When we love someone, who do we love? That person, or our idea of that person? Some years before virtual reality became a byword, Tarkovsky was exploring its implications. Although other persons no doubt exist in independent physical space, our entire relationship with them exists in our minds. When we touch them, it is not the touch we experience, but our consciousness of the touch. To some extent, then, the second Khari is as "real" as the first, although different.
The relationship between Kelvin and the new Khari plays out against the nature of reality on the space station. He glimpses other Guests. He views a taped message from the dead cosmonaut, filled with information and warning. Khari, it develops, cannot be killed, although that is tried, because she can simply be replaced. Physical pain is meaningless to her, as we see when she attempts to rip through a steel bulkhead door because she does not know how to open it. Gentle feelings are accessible to her, as seen in a scene that everybody agrees is the magic center of "1231"> Solaris," when the space station enters a stage of zero gravity and Kelvin, Khari and lighted candles float in the air.
The last sequence of the film, which I will not reveal, invites us to reconsider the opening sequence, and to toy with the notion that there may be more Guests in the film than we first thought. It is a crucial fact that this final shot is seen by us, the viewers, and not by those on the space station. "The arc of discovery is on the part of the audience, not the characters.," writes the critic N. Medlicott. That they may be trapped within a box of consciousness that deceives them about reality is only appropriate, since the film argues that we all are.
The 2002 Soderbergh version was a good film, attentive to the vision and ideas of Tarkovsky, but much shorter (99 minutes to 165 minutes). Its shorter running time did not prevent audiences from rejecting it decisively; there was an enormous gap between the overwhelmingly favorable reviews and audience members who said in exit surveys that they hated it. The problem obviously was that the film attracted the wrong audience, drawing people who were seeking a George Clooney science fiction film, not a philosophical meditation, and had no knowledge or interest in Tarkovsky. If they thought Soderbergh's smart, seductive rhythms were boring, they would have been catatonic after the Tarkovsky version.
It may be, indeed, that Tarkovsky's work could have benefited from trimming. A producer with the scissors of a Harvey Weinstein could have deleted hours from his oeuvre, sometimes no doubt for the better. No director makes greater demands on our patience. Yet his admirers are passionate and they have reason for their feelings: Tarkovsky consciously tried to create art that was great and deep. He held to a romantic view of the individual able to transform reality through his own spiritual and philosophical strength. Consider the remarkable sequence in "Andrei Rublev" (1966) set in medieval times, when a young boy claims he knows the secret of recasting a broken bell, and commands a team of workers in a process about which, in fact, he knows nothing. When the bell peals, what we are hearing is the sound of Tarkovsky's faith.
films are more visual: 2001 is the ultimate visual journey.
But I have seen it that way, years ago. Likewise for Solaris which I also saw in the theatre years ago. I've seen them both in the theatre and I've now seen both of them again recently on DVD. The playing field is as level as it could be, given that there's always going to be a time gap between viewings of different films one is comparing.I agree that 2001 is an extremely compelling visual experience. If you re-read my original comments you will see that I said "I still think 2001 is spellbinding visually and it's superbly put together". I don't question your view on that.
For me, however, the visual spectacle of 2001—or of any film—is not the sole criteria that determines my overall opinion of the film. There are other aspects of a movie which receive our critical assessment: plot, acting, pacing, music, technical execution, and no doubt many others.
My assessment is that Solaris is the better film and the things that make the difference for me in this case relate largely to plot and acting. Bear in mind that I'm giving my personal assessment of which film I prefer and I'm not saying that those factors will always outweigh visual effects for me. I'm simply saying that, for these 2 films, on balance I assess Solaris more highly than I do 2001. I also said "Everyone's mileage is definitely going to vary here" and it obviously does. We are different people with different tastes and interests. I'm not surprised that others feel differently about this matter.
And I haven't said that 2001 was a bad film. I actually think it's quite a good film, one I have enjoyed each time I saw it, but I don't think it is a great film. That's my personal opinion. I think Solaris is a great film. That's another of my personal opinions. Feel free to disagree, that's OK. We don't all like the same things to the same degree and it's good that we don't. Variety in what people like is probably the only thing that guarantees that we're going to get variety in what filmmakers/composers/musicians/artists offer and we'd all be poorer without that variety.
meant to be a visual film... you do know Kubrick was a photographer before turning to film?
When I said the playing field was level, I meant that I had watched both films under similar conditions, ie in the theatre years ago and on DVD recently. I do realise that 2001 is a visual film, but then quite a few parts of Solaris are also quite predominantly visual.I don't think I've given one film an advantage over the other by the way in which I've seen it. That is the level playing field. If I could see both of them again in the cinema, I would do so, and I believe that if I did so my opinion would be unchanged.
The simple fact of the matter is that we have different tastes and preferences. Obviously 2001 really floats your boat and Solaris doesn't. That's fine, but for me that situation is reversed. I appreciate 2001, I enjoy it, and I respect it as a film, but I personally think that Solaris is a better film overall.
You aren't going to get total agreement on the respective merits of these 2 films. Some people will prefer one and some will prefer the other. It's not a matter of some people being wrong, just the fact that they have different tastes.
The first time I saw it was in 1968 in one lense Cinerama (AKA Ultra Panavision) on a huge curved Cinerama screen. They had the voice of HAL off to the right in a separate speaker all his own. It was mesmerizing. I saw it there a couple of more times and then followed it around for a year, even seeing it in the rain at a drive in! I of course bought the soundtrack lp, the "making of" book (first of its kind, I believe) and, later, every video version that came out until the current anamorphic 5.1 DVD. I have also seen a remastered film version a couple of times. I look forward to seeing it in high definition. It is my favorite movie of all time.
I kept nodding my head as I read it, I agree almost competely.From my memory I would only add that I though Kelvin's character did develop quite a bit, and also, even from the distance of several years, I get goose bumps remembering the scenes with his wife. Those scenes are truly tortuous and emotionally draining every time I see them.
All that is exactly what I meant when I said I love the sci-fi films that show the "effect" of technology on humans, more than the technology itself.
But you said it so right...
Victor,The reason for my reservation about whether or not Kelvin develops is that I tend to assess character development by changes in behaviour, before and after. We don't get the 'after' with Kelvin, just the before and during the process that we believe will be developmental.
I think one of the strengths of the film is that it leaves us hanging there—we don't know what happens to Kelvin. We don't know whether he really changes as a person or not, or how he changes if in fact he does change. I think if we had been shown an 'after' stage, we would be let off the hook, firstly because the question of whther or not Kelvin changes would be answered and secondly because we would have been presented with a solution to the issues that we could accept or reject.
As it is, we aren't presented with a solution in the form of a changed or unchanged Kelvin. I think one thing is for certain in Solaris: any change or growth that occurs in Kelvin is a direct result of the decisions he makes during the course of what we see in the film. We may not know what the outcome for him is, but I think we each come away with our own idea of what it would be. We just have to live with the fact that we aren't going to be shown whether we're right or wrong. I think that's a very dramatically strong form of ambiguity and it certainly contributes to the film's impact for me.
2001 is one of those films that while it is science fiction really isn't about space - not really -- in fact the lengthy space sequences remind more of Waiting for Godot. The vastness of the unexplainable with the human mind really no better than a monkey playing with a bone.The trick, if there is one to watching this movie, is to watch it NOT for science fiction but for philosophy. Certainly it will work on the levels presented - I have purposely avoided reading any critical essay on the film for the very reason that I may inadvertantly adopt one of the many points of perspective about this classic - I would rather just watch it and garner what it has to offer.
You bring to all great art a perspective - great art asks you to become part of the equation and to generate interpretations of what Kubrick was really talking about.
The problem though with this film is that most people need eveything spoon fed to them.
You take Star Trek which IMO was always a much better television series than it ever was on the big screen, because the ideas on the small screen were traded in for the big special effects and shootem-ups on the big screen. That is with the exception of Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home.
"great art asks you to become part of the equation and to generate interpretations of what Kubrick was really talking about."Oh, is that what great art does?
Of course you assume that Kubrick was actually talking about something. Maybe you're just jerking off wondering. Now that can be amusing and interesting but I don't pass it off as something profound.
"The problem though with this film is that most people need eveything spoon fed to them."
Ahhh, then you like the picture because you think your enjoyment of it makes you special.
You are a bitter person. You must have, or think you have some sort of physical flaw, or maybe its just a personality disorder. Well, snap out of it so you can actually enjoy some of your life.
Now in film which is really a fairly low form of art IMO a few films tend to rise above it. Still Film is at crosspurposes because they are intended as entertainments first and foremost.A great film SHOULD do both but it must always be entertaining first IMO.
Kubrick clearly has something to say about technology and about humanity. But he lets you interpret it the way you wish -- and you could just interpret as a colossal bore. First time I saw it that is how I felt.
I am not telling anyone they must like it - art is highly subjective - tell me why Jackson Pollack is so great or Andy Warhol because I don't particularly get it.
Art like comedy are two areas that simply rely upon personal taste - I do not find Jim Carey funny but Rowan Atkinso can make me roll of the chair in hysterics (Guess which one makes 20 million per movie) -- Clearly I am in the minority.
Plenty of people rave about the Mona Lisa (big deal ho hum to me) the movie 81/2 is self indulgant meaningless tripe in my opinion - Citizen Kane IMO is trying too hard to be important and the visuals self indulgent making it a good but vastly overrated film.
You don't like 2001 - well hell I compared it a bit to Waiting for Godot -- which is blasted by a large segment of the literary community. 2001 is a classic -- but that word implies that people ought to find it "Good" -- it does not. Lord of the Rings will probably be a "Classic" down the line -- and IMO these three films are 9 hours of pure tedium.
> > "great art asks you to become part of the equation and to generate interpretations of what Kubrick was really talking about."
> Oh, is that what great art does?It often does. You didn't know that?
> Of course you assume that Kubrick was actually talking about something.
It's not an assumption. While the movie poses many questions the premise and the story arc are not so ambiguous that even a novice film goer can figure that much out. You did manage to figure that much out didn't you? But gosh, based on your comment you either didn't figure that much out or you are just being a dick. Which is it?
> Maybe you're just jerking off wondering. Now that can be amusing and interesting but I don't pass it off as something profound.Maybe your'e just pissed off because you didn't get anything out of it and others did. They can't be smarter than you you so you figure they are all just jerking off of course.
> > "The problem though with this film is that most people need eveything spoon fed to them."> Ahhh, then you like the picture because you think your enjoyment of it makes you special.
Ahhh then you don't like the picture because you didn't get that much out of it and it makes you feel ordinary.So Victor, keeping count? I have no patience for dickheads like this.
"Ahhh then you don't like the picture because you didn't get that much out of it and it makes you feel ordinary."Well actually I am a pretty ordinary guy, certainly not as extraordinary a fella as you who uses the terms "dick" and "dickhead" so eloquently, one might think you are a crude lout instead of an intellectual filmlover. Which are you playing at? Both?
In any case any extraordinary things I may have done have nothing to do with my taste in movies.
I used to like 2001 anyway, like I said, back when I smoked pot I thought it was great. Maybe you need a piss test.
I see, calling you a dickhead is crude and unsophisticated but you accusing others of jerking off is completely OK. So that makes you a hypocritical dickhead. Maybe I was just bringing it down to a level you could relate to. I didn't want my post to go over your head like the movie did. Sorry to hear you are at your best when stoned.You don't like the movie. Fine. You disrespect others for seeing things in it you don't. So you get the same disrespect back in your face. Now you whine about it. Pathetic
Jerking off is jerking off. And you're doing it quite well.
Thanks for your time.
You are still being a dickhead. thanks for nothing,,,,,dickhead
So when are you applying for the new Pee Wee Herman opening?
.
How many does it need?
I've seen this film; maybe I'm missing something here, but based on my impressions, it's much adieu about grey poupon. I think Victor "wacks-his" poetic about the flick because he gets a big thrill out of watching Marcello Mastroianni (portraying the director) wearing that cute little Italian cowboy hat! Go figure. ;^)
Sure, AuPh ripped his fine vinyl pants grabbing hold on every park bench as they dragged him to the viewing, but he saw it!
Good question. As you may or may not know I am very big on seeing these sorts of things in the theater. Here in L.A. we are blessed with an amazing wealth of revival houses and programs at the Director's guild, the Arclight and the Motion Picture Academy. I was going to see it last year but I was wisked away on work out of town. I am waiting for it to come back. So my question is a sincere one. Is this a movie that needs a few veiwings? If so I may just want to prime myself with the DVD before I see it in the theater.
Only someone unfamiliar with Fellini should probably spend some time viewing his other earlier films before seeing this one. To me as soon as the first Nino Rota notes hit my ears I feel relaxed and totally at home. The great Fellini atmosphere always gives me an enormous sense of comfort.I don't know how familiar you are with his works, if not too much then perhaps what you are suggesting - some DVD's, but probably not that one, I think you would want to be hit with it on the big screen... some people get all the luck!
This film set the bar for all movie special effects to follow. And, I see your point as you can make what you want out of it--I usually choose not to do so. I don't got to movies to get profound messages. I did enjoy it for the superficial reasons and believe that Kubrick must have been stoned most of the time due to the glacial pacing.
***I have no desire to try to convince anyone of the greatness of this movie if they have already failed to see it.No? Then why this post? Looks like you just can't accept the fact some people are not as much in love with it as you are.
You don't like scifi. I may as well comment on opera. It all sucks. Is that a valuable meaningful comment? I think not. Victor there is no questioning your pasion for movies but you have very distict taste. Nothing wrong with that. You can't argue taste. The problem is you confuse your taste with artistic merit. Of course there is overlap between everybodies personal taste and true artistry. You seem to think you have achieved 100% overlap between the two. Nobody has.
nt
Joined by the keyboard?
s
I am a lot less patient than James. I'd think that would be obvious.
But I don't mind some temper and I usually quickly forget.
> > > "Joined by the keyboard?" < < <ROTFL-APMP! Talk about the proverbial pot attempting to carbonize the unsuspecting kettle!
Of course, it's only one man's opinion (albeit an opinion that is very well informed), but you & patrick are so co-joined that PT Barnum might've dumped Chang & Eng Bunker and paid a small fortune just to take you two "Archies" on a world tour along with his other curiosities! Hey, just add Napoleonic knickers and a pair of artsy-fartsy faux sabers and I'd wager that you two sin-twisters would've been a sensation with 19th century high-society in Europe!!! ;^D
Seriously (after administering such a brutal teasing), why can't you just allow someone else to express a point-of-view without trying to lay a guilt trip on the poster? After all, he wasn't challenging you, but agreeing with Analog Scott, was he not? I guess being unable to totally dominate the discussion without some disagreement cuts against the grain for ya, huh.
And hold it under your nose, my little darling...And? And what you see is....you!
Come on let us have a threesome...
What, tag teaming o.k. only when you are doing the tag teaming? How's about we meet the two of you in the back of the wine rack after school.
And I thought you would be honored! :-(
While 2201 has a vision, and the first ten minutes are one of the strongest opening ever seen in a movie, I failed and I did try hard to love the rest of the film.
With all my respect to this creation, it just failed on me.
It did for a lot of people. At least you tried.
Taste-wise, Victor's only passion for SF is that he romances Tvarscki, ...err Tarkovsky's Sore-laris. IMHO, poor Victor definitely suffers tunnel-vision! ;^)In regard to Peter Jackson's films and Tolkein's Lord of The Rings in particular, Victor's informed opinions are highly suspect, if you can call them 'informed' since he admittedly hasn't seen any these films in their entirity, theatrical releases or extended cuts.
However, if the film fare has a thick layer of grey poupon euro-sitcom personal relationship-foo slathered on he'll wax poetic for hours like Ernie Kovacs doing Percy Dovetonsils. 8^D
nt
...you'd hop on board for a tandem luge with Victor; it's as predictable as a Swiss watch! ;^)
After that you factually do not post a message on this board witout mentionning LoTS, or making it the central theme of your posts, it must be more than one, my dear...
In matters of public taste & incontinental visual arts criticism it is assumed that you two will stubbornly Prevail! ;^)
The kind who prostitute themself?
As I am sure you notice, I do not comment on things like Star Troopers Part 17 and other such films - but the 2001 was made by one of the greatest directors to ever walk this Earth, and is believed by many to have crossed the line between mindless entertainment and serious thinking movies, so it is a legit target (not that there is anything illegitimate with commenting on your run-off-the-mill sci-fi).Regarding the opera, I am not sure what your familiarity with it is, but I have certainly seen many, many sci-fi films - I do not always watch what I like. I had even watched some of those Star Troopers, or whatever that name is.
Nobody would put the 2001 in the same bin as ST, but the point of disagreement seems to be the philosophical, phychological and human depth of it. While there is definitely some there, I just don't see it close to that of the Solaris. The two represent two different extremes of sci-fi genre, ir you will - one purely visual and mechanical, the other one lacking severely in that department, but concentrating on the effect of all that technical mumbo-jumbo on humans.
They never worked on me ::rim shot:: I certainly can appreciate the set designs , lighting designs, the quality of the live orchestra, and even the quality of acting within such a stylized presentation. But I can't stand the singing. I hate it. It is a pure aesthetic distaste like my distaste for the smell of B.O. the taste of raw fish, the sound of construction work or the look of an industrial dump. That personal tatse slants my opinion of any opera to the point of being pretty worthless. But I know that it is my taste and not the artistic merits of opera that are at play here.While 2001 has high aspirations I think the very divide you put between high aspirations and scifi tells us something most of us already know about your taste with this genre. There are two basic kinds of scifi movies. the "what if" type and the futuristic fantasy type. 2001 is very much in it's premise and story arc a "what if" type of scifi movie. A well constructed intelegent "what if" scifi movie will take some sort of premise and ask interesting moral, ethical and even spiritual questions about the human existance. Most of them will go on to take a stance on those issues and use that stance to reflect on the human condition and the nature of the characters in the story. This is where 2001 differs from most good scifi. It doesn't take stances on the moral, ethical or spiritual questions that arise from it's basic premise. It brings us to the questions and leaves us to answer them for ourselves. It would seem that this sort of narative does not apeal to you, the "what if" scifi narative. many of us fidn great value in the construct of such a premise and story arc all by itself. The other thing that is very important is the spectacle of scifi. At it's best it is more than just eye candy and bring us into the world o f the ppremise, and disarms are guard against contiplation of the moral, social and spiritual issues that the "what if" gives us. It seems you do not care much for the spectacle of film. That's finer but that is a quirk of your taste. From the begining of film, from the begining of theater, from the begining of oral traditions of story telling spectacle has been a major element of narative. It may not matter to you but it can't be denied as a valued part of film. That element is an extremely important part of 2001. The "what if" is very well constructed. What if humanity as we know it was the result of an encounter with an intelelgent extra-terrestrial entity. What if that was the spark of enginuity that lead to hominids becoming tool makers/ builders of civilization? What if the second step in that experiment/encounter were to happen at a time when technology developed to the level of interplanetary space travel and AI? Interesting what if. one that was so smartly developed into a brilliant and truly tight narrative that showed us the begining of each stage without breaking any rules of logic or reason. There is plenty of depth in the questions this movie asks. I think what makes it so brilliant is that it makes sense that it doesn't give us answers. *IF* we were to encounter extra terestrial intelegence that evolved seperately from all life on earth it would in all likely hood be truly alien, not just in the literal sense but in the deepest meaning of the wrod alien. almost all scifi falls back on the anthropomorphising of aliens. makes it easy to relate to them and tell stories about them with neat conclusions all tied up and without need of explination. But I think most people who have given it any thought agree that this is a convenience of story telling that would be highly unlikely in reality. So any encounter with such an entitiy would likely be as mysterious as it is in 2001 and would likely leave us with far more questions than answers as it does in 2001. The questions we come up with and the answers we come up with is where we find the depth in this movie. It is unconventional but it is there. If we bring it. It's very hard to bring it if the genre which asks the "what if' questions doesn't appeal to us and if the spectacle which in the case of this movie is important doesn't matter to us.
Just a quick comment on that opera thing and then need to run, might come back to do the second part later.I love opera, and listen a lot to it, in fact have the ipod with nothing but opera in my car at the moment. For the life of me I can't understand your rejection of bel canto, but hence the rub - I do not have such reaction towards the sci fi movies, none at all. I actually love them as light form of entertainment. But I also find that what the American cinema has done to that genre truly sucks - it turnd it into a monster - pun purely intended... with nothing but row upon row of drooling ugly creatures. Sci fi can be intelligent, insigntful, psychological, entertaining and more - and that is how I recall it.
But today's dirty wave of "creaturism" is revolting.
But like I said - I do not see any similarity between your feelings towards the opera and mine regarding the sci-fi films. Give me a good one and I will enjoy it.
Here are some from the better one.-The day the Earth catch fire.
-Blade Runner ( first version ) this film is poetic and have a vision.
-The Thing ( Hawk version of course!
-Matrix only part one.
-Metropolis- Lang opus still rock.
-And Solaris which I used to consider a sleeper, and must revised it as this director ( Tarkowski ) in the meantime maybe in my eyes as the best universal director of all time.
But I was under the impression that you were about as fond of genre movies as I was of opera. I remember way back I asked you to come up with a short list of genre movies that you liked and you couldn't come up with anything other than one of the Sinbad movies, as very light entertainment.
...let me just state once again that I have nothing agains that or any other genre... heck, I dig the teenage films with cute babes... so it is just the matter of meeting a good one.The 2001 is one such good film, it is a fine work from many perspectives, it just fails, in my view, live up to the highest prase some people bestow on it.
nt
You are certainly not alone.
I have done extensive research into the 2001 phenomena over the last 20-25 odd years. My compiled research tells me that of the total no. of people who have watched 2001 - actually, make that "tried to watch" 2001 - somewhere between 25% to 50% fell asleep.
If you go into 2001 expecting to be entertained, you will probably end up a sleeper.
I agree with Analog Scott - it is a thinking movie. It leaves you with lots of questions and few answers. No ideology or philosphy is foisted onto you - but there is a lot to ponder afterwards if you want to.As an engineer, I loved it instantly for its totally realistic vision of space travel, which IMO is unsurpassed. I can't suspend my sense long enough to relax and enjoy Star Wars or any other modern sci-fi film - they are all 5th Element to me - just fun stories with gobs of mindnumbing CGI effects done because without the effects they'd have no movie at all.
The fact that almost nothing happens for much of the film is fine with me, the guys who one day travel to Mars or Jupiter will do nothing for most of the time as well.
2001 is like Pink Floyd music----something I no longer enjoyed once I stopped smoking pot.2001 was a big buildup to....nothing. Something for the pot smokers and would be intellectos to endlessly speculate about and make themselves feel bright and refined. Like another such picture of the period, "Blow Up".
Your comment on this two films reflect to the point what I think of, but certainly no one can deny many qualities to both of this films.
> > > "As I am sure you notice, I do not comment on things like Star Troopers Part 17 and other such films - but the 2001 was made by one of the greatest directors to ever walk this Earth, and is believed by many to have crossed the line between mindless entertainment and serious thinking movies, so it is a legit target (not that there is anything illegitimate with commenting on your run-off-the-mill sci-fi)." < < <LOL! Ummm, maybe you have Starship Troopers confused with Stalag 17. Hey, you really should cut back on the Stolli, dude! ;^)
As for great Directors, yes Kubrick was a master, but Paul Verhooven is no slouch either, but of course, YMMV. Conversely, I'd rather avoid the spin employed by your rodent-powered "run-off-the-mill" grey poupon.
> > > "Regarding the opera, I am not sure what your familiarity with it is, but I have certainly seen many, many sci-fi films - I do not always watch what I like. I had even watched some of those Star Troopers, or whatever that name is." < < <
Your ego is such that you can't even get straight which film you are referencing or bring yourself to use the real name as if embarrassed to admit seeing Paul Verhooven's magnificent SF film. Yes, there was a sequel by a lesser director; it was almost straight to video. While the sequel is not bad, it bears no resemblance to Verhooven's high-powered tongue 'n cheek pastiche of militarism, propaganda and the uncomfortable balance between patriotism and fascism. BTW, this film is not without it's critics, mainly because it strayed afield of Heinlein's deeper themes, many of which probably proved as uncinematic as that now infamous endless tunnel sequence in Tarkovsky's Solaris.
> > > "Nobody would put the 2001 in the same bin as ST" < < <
I don't know, doesn't "T" (spelling out 2001) come just after "S" in the SF section? ;^)
> > > "...I just don't see it close to that of the Solaris." < < <
Thank goodness!
> > > "The two represent two different extremes of sci-fi genre, ir you will - one purely visual and mechanical, the other one lacking severely in that department, but concentrating on the effect of all that technical mumbo-jumbo on humans." < < <
Not to take away anything from Lem's written work, the filmed versions of Solaris (both of them) are BORING, albeit for different reasons. The U.S. version is claustrophobic, talky and slow, and the Russian version would make Eric Von Stroheim's original director's cut of Greed seem of shorter duration.
Heck, you cannot find a more Sominex inducing formula for film watching than the Tarkovsky's Solaris. SF movies, scratch that ...genre movies in general, don't have to be solely about action, but they should at least MOVE! In other words, a GOOD genre movie should be involving and paced well enough to move the story forward plot-wise, something sorely lacking in Snorelaris.
AuPh
A film than many considered as Faschistoid, when it did come out.
At first glance I did loke it.
At second, I found it utterly boring.
Now up for a third time, as the director is a good one.
Has anyone else noticed that you do not get a realistic depiction of alien life forms anymore? Not since "Close Encounters" basically. It annoys me that there are no realistic depictions anymore. Some claim it is because the people that control the media won't allow it.click on "audio stream" for Dr Greer intervier with American Antigravity.
Elected officials are afraid of offending the migrant alien voting block! ;^)
;^)
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: