 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2001 is one of my alltime favorites. I didn't appreciate it until I was in my early twenties, and since then I watch it every year or two. With each viewing, I discover more nuances, and no matter how many times I see it, I always contemplate its shades of meaning and re-examine what I thought I knew and challenge it yet again, which is one of the reasons the film has such longevity for me. And besides all that, it's just a beautiful site to behold and experience. I will never tire of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Oct 19, 2010 - 2:24 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Adam S
(Member)
|
The discussion took off partly from my comment about why we’re watching ships fly for an extended length. You offered a legitimate interpretation but Kubrick seems to be saying that there’s no expectation to intellectualize this kind of scene anymore than we must intellectualize a great classical musical piece. If people are moved to ponder other things, great, but he says the success of the film will be if it appeals to people who don’t think of these things at all. So I don’t think your point is the same. It is also relevant to the discussion earlier about whether or not one has to “get it” in order to enjoy the movie. I can see how the film encourages one to think that but that wasn’t Kubrick’s mindset evidently except in so far as he wanted it to be an emotional journey - something different than what has been said.
I don't disagree, but a few points:
What he's saying, is that it's there, it stands alone, and there's no compunction to 'understand' it. If someone made, say, a chair that was amazingly designed to reveal the secrets of the universe, it would still be a failure if you couldn't sit on it, as a chair. The same with movies. You could just have a movie of a talking head on screen giving a lecture explaining the movie's meaning, but that would fail as a movie.
One thing ought to be said there though: to understand where a movie's coming from and then explain it .... well, that may be a killer, and indeed a spoiler, but it isn't 'intellectualising'. Intellectualising is where you REDUCE a work or anything to an intellectual meaning. The movie works on different communication lines, sometimes emotional, sometimes intuitive, like all movies, sometimes visceral as well as mental. But when they sat with a clean slate, empty paper, and had to come up with the ideas, they DID come up with certain ideas, otherwise that film would never exist. There's no chaos in it. It's very disciplined and consistent. Kubrick wouldn't want me spelling it out, but he'd also hope people can go to whatever levels are there.
On another level, if it doesn't sound too pretentious, the realities to be found in the movie, that the movie refers to, if they really could be grasped by the individual could change his/her life. That dwarfs any 'artistic criticism' or 'entertainment' thing. I'm trying not to LIMIT what art can do, if we let it.
Well I thought the movie was pretentious at times so I guess your last comment , and I'm not trying to sound insulting, does fit the vibe of the film and the kind of reaction it could invite. But, being more generous about it, I just think art can strike people in very different ways. The kind of thing that stimulates one people's thinking isn't going to be the same for everyone. Nothing wrong with that. In fact that's a good thing.
- Adam
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The discussion took off partly from my comment about why we’re watching ships fly for an extended length. - Adam
it worked in SPACEBALLS 
I think the long extended space shots were simple Cinerama eye candy which had never been seen before.
Plus, he accompanies it with classical music which fits in with his comment that the movie can be experienced in the same way we experience other art like classical piece. It felt like an indulgent artistic conceipt to me but a lot of people differ obviously. Forgot about the Spaceballs scene. That's funny. (:
- Adam
Indulgent? Perhaps....but such scenes had never been seen on such an epic scale before...I recall it feeling very much like being in actual real space...almost dizzying (in 1968) for those used to seeing Irwin Allen level special efx.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Those efx still look impressive today. That's one of the things that blows my mind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Plus, he accompanies it with classical music which fits in with his comment that the movie can be experienced in the same way we experience other art like classical piece. It felt like an indulgent artistic conceipt to me but a lot of people differ obviously. Forgot about the Spaceballs scene. That's funny. (:
- Adam
Oh, are we talking about the space-station shots? I'm not talking about that! I thought you meant the infinity journey at the end.
Surely those shots are just meant to be a sort of congratulatory 'Look what we've achieved' scene. I always felt the use of the Strauss waltzes was ironic (like most of the score), and fitted in with the almost airport lounge 'musack' aspect of the space-station scenes. All very smug and complacent, deliberately. Like humanity. Leonard Rossiter is sitting in that space-station, and that spells out irony in itself.
The one thing nobody talks about much, except for the 'Hal' sequence, is the sheer comedy in the film. The joke's on us and our human complacency about how great we are.
I don't get all this obsession with 'a different kind of narrative', as though it's some sort of unheard-of thing. Great film-makers all try this, especially in the experimental area. I mean no disrespect when I say that, despite (or maybe because of?) the Cassavetes and Warhol, and Antonioni brigade, American fans, especially on this site seem to be very wedded to 'conventional storyline and development' to an extent that anything else seems unbearably exotic. Kubrick only stretched the genre a little in that area. He was actually a great storyteller. But every film has a few 'stop and open it out' moments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well I thought the movie was pretentious at times so I guess your last comment , and I'm not trying to sound insulting, does fit the vibe of the film and the kind of reaction it could invite. But, being more generous about it, I just think art can strike people in very different ways. The kind of thing that stimulates one people's thinking isn't going to be the same for everyone. Nothing wrong with that. In fact that's a good thing.
- Adam
No offence, Adam, but I'm calling it quits on this one. You're arguing a point I never made. All I can say is that, yes, OF COURSE a good work of art means different things to different people, but if you try MAKING art, you'll find you can't do it on that basis. YOU have to have an idea to communicate, no matter what others may make of it. In some areas you may not yourself consciously know what it is you're doing yourself, but you'll be trying to do SOMETHING. It's easy for anyone to say anything about anything.
Some of you guys are actually unaware that you're talking as if these films just 'were', just came from nowhere, and what is important is only what we subjectively see (or don't see) in them. That aesthetic is disappearing slowly actually, it was prevalent from the 1960s until recently. Many artists have deliberately parodied that, by making art that means nothing, as a statement. The emperor without clothes trick. But you can't do that for ever.
I actually often get accused of 'intellectualising' here simply because this is a place of 2D words. That's all we can do here. This is not a place for the artists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Plus, he accompanies it with classical music which fits in with his comment that the movie can be experienced in the same way we experience other art like classical piece. It felt like an indulgent artistic conceipt to me but a lot of people differ obviously. Forgot about the Spaceballs scene. That's funny. (:
- Adam
Oh, are we talking about the space-station shots? I'm not talking about that! I thought you meant the infinity journey at the end.
Surely those shots are just meant to be a sort of congratulatory 'Look what we've achieved' scene. I always felt the use of the Strauss waltzes was ironic (like most of the score), and fitted in with the almost airport lounge 'musack' aspect of the space-station scenes. All very smug and complacent, deliberately. Like humanity. Leonard Rossiter is sitting in that space-station, and that spells out irony in itself.
The one thing nobody talks about much, except for the 'Hal' sequence, is the sheer comedy in the film. The joke's on us and our human complacency about how great we are.
I don't get all this obsession with 'a different kind of narrative', as though it's some sort of unheard-of thing. Great film-makers all try this, especially in the experimental area. I mean no disrespect when I say that, despite (or maybe because of?) the Cassavetes and Warhol, and Antonioni brigade, American fans, especially on this site seem to be very wedded to 'conventional storyline and development' to an extent that anything else seems unbearably exotic. Kubrick only stretched the genre a little in that area. He was actually a great storyteller. But every film has a few 'stop and open it out' moments.
Behold my new thread about Rossiter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
try watching a film of the Grand Canyon on TV then go to the edge of it for real.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 19, 2010 - 3:20 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Adam S
(Member)
|
Well I thought the movie was pretentious at times so I guess your last comment , and I'm not trying to sound insulting, does fit the vibe of the film and the kind of reaction it could invite. But, being more generous about it, I just think art can strike people in very different ways. The kind of thing that stimulates one people's thinking isn't going to be the same for everyone. Nothing wrong with that. In fact that's a good thing.
- Adam
No offence, Adam, but I'm calling it quits on this one. You're arguing a point I never made. All I can say is that, yes, OF COURSE a good work of art means different things to different people, but if you try MAKING art, you'll find you can't do it on that basis. YOU have to have an idea to communicate, no matter what others may make of it. In some areas you may not yourself consciously know what it is you're doing yourself, but you'll be trying to do SOMETHING. It's easy for anyone to say anything about anything.
Some of you guys are actually unaware that you're talking as if these films just 'were', just came from nowhere, and what is important is only what we subjectively see (or don't see) in them. That aesthetic is disappearing slowly actually, it was prevalent from the 1960s until recently. Many artists have deliberately parodied that, by making art that means nothing, as a statement. The emperor without clothes trick. But you can't do that for ever.
I actually often get accused of 'intellectualising' here simply because this is a place of 2D words. That's all we can do here. This is not a place for the artists.
Actually you're arguing points I never made. I did say something about intellectualizing because I was referring to Kubrick's comments that we don't have to explain a great classical piece of music. But, of course, if we want to try, we use our words. I'm not faulting you for it, I was pointing out that you had a specific explanation that went beyond what Kubrick was prepared to say because he felt that it wasn't necessary to connect it to these larger issues and could merely be experienced on a more emotional, visceral level.
Of course Kubrick had to know where he was going. That's why I quoted him on that very question. It seemed very relevant to the question of where he was going.
Anyway, no reason for this discussion to turn bitter. My final comments was not expressed as a disagreement but as a statement of respect for people who may have liked the film and saw things in it that I didn't.
- Adam
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I actually often get accused of 'intellectualising' here simply because this is a place of 2D words. That's all we can do here. This is not a place for the artists.
That makes me sad. Don't change. If we lose the intellectualizing on topics such as this, we lose...ourselves, man, ourselves. Well some of us, anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 19, 2010 - 3:43 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Thor
(Member)
|
I don't get all this obsession with 'a different kind of narrative', as though it's some sort of unheard-of thing. Great film-makers all try this, especially in the experimental area. I mean no disrespect when I say that, despite (or maybe because of?) the Cassavetes and Warhol, and Antonioni brigade, American fans, especially on this site seem to be very wedded to 'conventional storyline and development' to an extent that anything else seems unbearably exotic. Kubrick only stretched the genre a little in that area. He was actually a great storyteller. But every film has a few 'stop and open it out' moments.
Exactly. It's a pretty straightforward narrative and communication, even though it may be considered high brow or complex by mainstream Hollywood standards.
Certainly, if compared with the works of more avantgarde directors and films, it's very easy to follow. The philosophical themes may be complex and grand and mythic, but except for a few symbolic scenes and the pace, it's quite simple.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 19, 2010 - 3:58 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Adam S
(Member)
|
I don't get all this obsession with 'a different kind of narrative', as though it's some sort of unheard-of thing. Great film-makers all try this, especially in the experimental area. I mean no disrespect when I say that, despite (or maybe because of?) the Cassavetes and Warhol, and Antonioni brigade, American fans, especially on this site seem to be very wedded to 'conventional storyline and development' to an extent that anything else seems unbearably exotic. Kubrick only stretched the genre a little in that area. He was actually a great storyteller. But every film has a few 'stop and open it out' moments.
Exactly. It's a pretty straightforward narrative and communication, even though it may be considered high brow or complex by mainstream Hollywood standards.
Certainly, if compared with the works of more avantgarde directors and films, it's very easy to follow. The philosophical themes may be complex and grand and mythic, but except for a few symbolic scenes and the pace, it's quite simple.
Actually I was the one arguing these scenes were very straightforward and simple and, aside from some confusion, I interpreted the comments from WilliamMCCrum as trying to find more abstract meaning from it that I argued wasn't necessarily there. Kubrick said it was not intended to be a a typical narrative approach so that's not controversial. It doesn't mean he's the only one to do it - no one said that here that I've seen. Strange how these exchanges always have to end up with distangling confusion, even when there's not much at stake with the disagreement.
- Adam
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've seen this movie twice. Once when I was a younger (had no idea what to make of it), and again when I was older, hoping I would be able to now enjoy and understand it. Neither happened. Visually impressive, but otherwise not something I can get into. My dad loves it, but I just shake my head and go, "I guess I just don't get it."
Okay - basically - the film says that mankind has no intelligenge as an ape - therefor an alien species has given us the monolith - when touched by the monolith (being radiation via ray coming from the sound or soething else) you begin to be an individual and not just part of a species that fights for survival,
Watch the apes with the bones - they have been "touched by the monolith" and now they begin to think,
They think if we use a weapon to kill then it would be better to eat - so they attack another group that hasn't been touched by the monolith and kill one of them
the ape group that was touched by the monolith will evolve into human
the ape groupe that was not touched by the monolith will remain ape up until today
The famous scene with the bone and spaceship shows that evolution has gone from using a bone as weapon to a makind that can build flying machines in space.
the second film's ending is a rehash of the beginning of the first one - Jupiter has turned into a second sun and A moon on jupiter that are in the living-zone has a monolith where small microbe now can evolve - that's why we must not go there - life should begin on it's own.
The truth behind all this
Those ALIEN SPECIES are beading us like a pet.
Go watch it on BLU-RAY - it's impressive and the picture is spot on -
uhhhh NO...you're talking about the ending for 2010.
The monolith found by Bowman at Jupiter opens a Stargate which sucks him to another part of the universe through various dimensions and realms where he comes to rest in a room manufactured by the unseen aliens (themselves now evolved into pure consciousness beyond flesh) out of images from Bowman's mind where he is artifically evolved though bending time jumps until they recreate him as a new species (the next step forward for man to superman) the Starchild returns to Earth orbit and ponders his former home and fate (and in the novel he blows up all the orbiting nukes which isn't in the film)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The monolith found by Bowman at Jupiter opens a Stargate which sucks him to another part of the universe through various dimensions and realms where he comes to rest in a room manufactured by the unseen aliens (themselves now evolved into pure consciousness beyond flesh) out of images from Bowman's mind where he is artifically evolved though bending time jumps until they recreate him as a new species (the next step forward for man to superman) the Starchild returns to Earth orbit and ponders his former home and fate (and in the novel he blows up all the orbiting nukes which isn't in the film)
Those are metaphors, Charles. That's the straight narrative, but there's nothing re the monolith that you can't say about the 'Philosopher's Stone'. The narrative is only a parallel. It's pure alchemy. The 'unseen aliens' are a good plot device in a book or a film. They REPRESENT the greater transcendent 'consciousness', and as such are from ourselves. They give birth to us and we give birth to them. But they aren't 'out there'. They're a dimension of US.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So what're we missing?