In Reply to: Re: No you don´t! posted by patrickU on February 4, 2004 at 08:39:05:
I only noticed that you were in the anti-2001 camp after I made that post.You should reconsider. I think it has its weaknesses, particularly in the dated, fx-dependent, second sequence. But the rest, I think, is superb, successful for its minimalism, for the unsettling effects of bleakness and solitude (both clausterphobic and agoraphobic) it achieves, as well as for the absence of philosophizing, which, rather than leaving the film "empty" makes it potently suggestive (over-explanation being one of the fundamental faults of sci-fi, which genre 2001 transcends, and, more generally, "ideas" are too often overplayed by artists and praised by critics at the expense of art). Indeed, I think the whole film, from beginning to end, is suffused with a sense of unnerving, of a fear of the unknown akin to that sense one gets when, swimming to the deeper waters of a lake or ocean, one's feet suddenly kick at the colder strata of water beneath the sun-fed warm, telling of potentially limitless depths beneath. Holding up Harold Bloom's criterion of strangeness to film, I think 2001 is among the giants.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Yeah - Bulkington 09:19:16 02/04/04 (2)
- Re: Anti- 2001 camp? - patrickU 09:41:49 02/04/04 (0)
- Re: Anti- 2001 camp? - patrickU 09:41:29 02/04/04 (0)