In Reply to: starstuff posted by late on November 3, 2001 at 18:18:05:
He assumed the audience had an attention span that would allow them to sit quietly in a cinema and watch a film for about 2 hours- without furry little creatures, comic relief and things blowing up. And you are allowed to think while you are watching- the director doesn't have to hold you by the hand and walk you through each image."some of it seems quite dated"
No offence, but this is one of the most inane criticisms that could be levelled at any work- literature, cinema or music. Of course it is dated, but its modernity lies in its ideas- not in its Art Direction.
(Art Direction which is flawless in its execution - as are all of Kubrick's films, particularly Barry Lyndon,in this often overlooked aspect of cinema.)
Kubrick may have not been the greatest director of the 20th. century, but few today would rival his eye- his ability to direct an image, to deliver to an audience his exact vision, his ability to use the medium.
Nor are there many directors who are prepared to make films for adults (Magnolia comes to mind- I guess the same people who "don't get" 2001 are the same people who don't know what the frogs "mean"), nor are there any in Hollywood that could aspire to create a film with the impact and effect that 2001 had more than 30 years ago.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Kubrick didn't make films for children. - john dem 00:17:17 11/04/01 (2)
- So you KNOW what the frogs mean? - Corndog71 18:56:17 11/04/01 (1)
- Dreary ? - john dem 19:45:17 11/04/01 (0)