Films/DVD Asylum Movies from comedy to drama to your favorite Hollyweird Star.

---

[ Follow Ups ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Films/DVD Asylum ]

---

[ Alert Moderator ]

---

Yes, but I was being polite, ...

Posted by Audiophilander (A) on November 5, 2001 at 13:00:06

In Reply to: You think that was sarcastic. posted by john dem on November 5, 2001 at 05:19:34:

... since it's difficult to tell from this distance whether someone is frothing at the mouth or simply drooling latte`. The one thing that's been clearesd up is that you haven't had too much coffee. ;^)

Look, it was never my intention to slaughter your sacred cow. I was merely offering personal impressions of a film which I consider "great, but dated." However, I'm not going to sit still while you attempt blow smoke in my face nor am I going to stand for you to blow smoke in other places.

>>> "I certainly will (i.e., imply that I lack respect for older movies or that my knowledge of cinema is somehow lacking), as soon as I stop laughing at someone who would make comparisons between 2001 and any Star Trek film, or other children's films." <<<

The comparison was fair and not at all favorable to the Star Trek film. BTW, are you even aware that the movie I rather unkindly refered to as "Star Trek - The Motionless Picture" was directed by a legendary film auteur whose screen credits are every bit as impressive as Stanley Kubrick's? I thought not. If I revise my comments at all, it will be because the Director's cut of the Star Trek feature in question is being released this week. Early reviews seem to indicate that this version actually eliminates all the pacing problems associated with the rushed original release. Since that was the SOLE BASIS for my earlier comparison, it may not apply after tomorrow.

>>> "Whatever you do- don't see Solaris. It's even longer than 2001. You may find it as boring as Star Trek. It's not for children." <<<

The insulting description you're applying to the Star Trek series as being "children's films" suggests you may have a prejudice against films which combine action along with cerebral elements. It's almost as if you're saying that films which are entertaining can't be thought provoking and vice versa. Your mention of "Solaris" provides a case in point.

I made a serious effort to wade through this painfully slow film when it aired late one night not too long ago on TCM. Sorry, but the only deep thoughts it's contemplation of ponds and tunnels evoked in me came after I lapsed into REM-sleep on the couch. FTR, my criticism of "Solaris" isn't directed at Stanislaw Lem's novel, which is considered by many to be a classic of the SF genre, but rather the lack of motion in the motion picture, which moved at a snail's pace. You're absolutely right, the film "Solaris" is for adult's only, just like a prescription for sleep-inducing barbituants.

>>> "Discussing the special effects of 2001 is meaningless- they are what they are." <<<

That argument could be made about a lot of things in avoidance of a serious discussion on merits, but it's a very simplistic view, in my estimation. Any film can be appreciated outside of the context of it's limitations, but critical evaluation requires a deeper investigation of the parts which make up the whole.

>>> "Perhaps it (special effects) is a fascinating subject for children, but if that is all movies are then Hollywood is right- keep making childrens' movies- keep blowing things up, keep them dino- o- saurs comin'." <<<

In comprehending a film's enduring value as an entertainment one can't in good conscience exclude the analysis of ANY criteria which might inhibit it's appreciation to future audiences. Films relying solely on action or special effects have their own burdens to overcome.

>>> "Do you really have to suspend "suspend your disbelief" to appreciate a film? I guess Ted Turner is right- colorize all B&W films NOW!" <<<

Appreciate, no, but there are different degrees of involvement in the "cinema experience." BTW, I doubt that there is anyone more opposed to the airing of artificially colorized B&W films than myself.

>>> "And you need a solid story. And a bib, because being spoon fed is messy, isn't it?" <<<

To the contrary, in reading your posts on this subject one might reach the conclusion that a change of pampers is in order.

Kubrick: >>> "I intended the film to be an intensely subjective experience that reaches the viewer at an inner level of consciousness, just as music does... You're free to speculate as you wish about the philosophical and allegorical meaning of the film." <<<

The philosophical interpretations of 2001 aren't the key points of contention here even though one could make the case that Kubrick was in fact trying to tell a story, but wasn't sure how to end it.

>>> "Funny- he didn't say 'I didn't have a solid story, so I thought I'd just depend on special effects'." <<<

What director would say that without a hefty dose of sodium pentathol? ;^)

>>> "He should have made the film just for you, with a hero you can relate to, villains and a simple plot just to keep the children in the audience happy." <<<

Ignoring your thoughtless personal invective, one could also make the case that Kubrick presented all of those things in "2001, A Space Odyssey" (i.e., a resiliant hero, a villain who commits murder without a conscience and a simple plot so visually obtuse that it requires interpretation to bolster it's relevence)!

>>> "I'm sure he would be in agreement that 2001's single great strength was that it was filmed in 70mm, as would all of the critics and authors in all those books you have on film." <<<

Oh, I get it! You're just jealous because you DIDN'T get to see the Cinerama presentation while the format existed! I'm sorry; yes indeed, it was a visually stunning achievement. BTW, you might ask yourself (i.e., since you have such a good rapport with yourself - grin) why Stanley Kubrick bothered FILMING the movie in the rather difficult Cinerama format if he hadn't intended the visual experience to be the film's "single great strength." He alluded to that himself in the passage you referenced.

>>> "I'm not surprised you recommend a children's TV movie like "Charley"- perhaps you can tell me which Acadamy award it won?" <<<

WOW! If you knew how to research the information I doubt that you would've posted such a clueless response. Cliff Robertson won the Acadamy Award for "Charley" in 1968, but I'll post a link in case you dopubt my veracity or require more information about the classic status of the story Flowers for Algenon.

BTW, after you've had your second helping of crow, I'll be glad to accept your apology if your inclined toward offering it.

Respectfully,
AuPh

• Flowers for Algernon (aka Charley)   (Open in New Window)

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 ]

---

[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]

---