|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Not so impressive to me posted by orejones on November 06, 2001 at 05:54:48:
... "The Magnificent Ambersons" after preview audiences laughed and walked out. We can never know what Welles's original vision looked like because the footage is apparently lost and he was out of the country on assignment from the studio when the daunting task of revising the movie (i.e., so that the studio could recoup it's investment) fell upon Wise.BTW, when you mentioned "The Third Man", I believe that was directed by Carol Reed as opposed to Karel Reisz (i.e., unless that's a foreign spelling). Carol Reed was a fairly accomplished director in his own right (see link).
My opinion of 2001 is that it's two distinct movies, one is the beatifully shot groundbreaking work best seen in it's original cinerama format, the other is a slowly paced technically preoccupied exercise that translates more to an experience (i.e., a roller coaster ride to the stars) than to substance. This movie is always going to have it's supporters and detractors and who's to say which faction is correct in their impression of it. 2001 lends itself to both. However, the mantle of "masterwork" should not be so hastily confered upon the late director for one of his lesser works, as a crown to be worn posthumously as uncomfortably as Rudy Giuliani would wear his bestowed in absentia knighthood.
In all seriousness, several other films directed by the late director easily surpass 2001 as visionary works of art. At the top of my lisrt is the already mentioned "A Clockwork Orange", in second place I would suggest the biting satire "Dr. Strangelove" and just below that the supremely crafted "Barry Lyndon" with it's rags to riches to rags theme, lavish period detail and rich cinematography. At this point I would place "2001" in a virtual dead heat with "Barry Lyndon", then "Spartacus" would come in fifth, followed by "Full Metal Jacket", at least the first half or it.
I'm sure other's will disagree with these choices, the order and the degree of reverence or lack thereof. Nevertheless, this is how I see Kubrick's work. Looking at the body of it, I would almost agree with John Dem's effusive praise of Kubrick, but if one relies solely on "2001" as an indication of his genius it does a gross disservice to the memory of his greater accomplishments in my estimation.
AuPh
Follow Ups:
For fast typing (I´m not used to) and trusting in my memory, which is proven not to be so good as I sometimes think. Anyhow, I stay saying that the unmistakable signature of Welles is omnipresent in this film.Re Kubrick, I agree that he has films better than "2001". What happens with "2001" is that it is absolutely single in Kubrick´s filmography, as never had done anything in a SciFi frame, or anticipating future, and never did again. "Paths of Glory", to single one, would have been enough to put him in the short list of great directors, and he did explore many different paths, with "Eyes Wide Shut" exploring the realms of dreams and unconscious, after having gone through political satire ("Dr. StrangeLove"), antibelicism ("Paths of Glory", "Full Metal Jacket") social concern ("A Clockwork Orange") peplum with social criticism ("Spartacus"),..., never failing as a keen observer of social reality, and an extraordinary and meticulous director.
Each and every one of his films show Kubrick as a master, only failing as being more Apollinean than Dionisiac in most of them. Not that there´s not feeling in his works, only that most of them usually appeal more to intellect than to feeling.
As it usually happens, our disagreements just point to a root of agreement in the essentials.
Regards
BF
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: