|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
124.185.60.158
In Reply to: RE: Fresh Musings on Kubrick’s Monument for the Ages: 2001 posted by halfnote on May 10, 2008 at 21:52:06
We've had a couple of interesting discussions here in the past about the respective merits of Tarkovsy's "Solaris" vs Kubrick's "2001". I voted for "Solaris" and still feel it is the better film, but I've recently rewatched "2001" a couple of times on Blu-ray and have come to appreciate it more. It certainly is a film that cries out for the best quality visual image you can manage, and the music in the soundtrack also begs for a high quality soundtrack. The DVD certainly pales in comparison on both scores.
While you're contemplating the meaning of various passages, consider Floyd's pep talk to the people at the moon base about how their sacrifice is appreciated, and compare it to his approach with the Russians on the space station on his way to the moon. I find nothing genuine in his behaviour in either case and I wonder whether there may not be a message there that one cannot deceive one's opponents or enemies without deceiving one's own people as well. That raises the question of what does deceit lead to?
The crew of the Jupiter mission are also the victims of deceit. They aren't told the truth behind the mission either. How much of HAL's "distrust" of Bowman and Poole, as well as of the hibernating members of the crew, stems from "his" knowledge that the mission planners did not trust the crew with the truth before their departure, and does "he" decide to kill the crew because they can't be trusted with that information? Does HAL's "doubt" stem in part from the doubt of the mission planners, a doubt demonstrated in the deceit they perpetrate on the crew?
I can't help but wonder whether Kubrick, deep in the Cold War and Vietnam War eras, was making a point about the relationship between international and domestic relations, how deceit in one could only be maintained by deceit in the other as well, and that deceit at home can't be maintained without injury to your own people. Nixon proved that publicly some 4 years later.
I still prefer "Solaris" but I do think "2001" is a better film than I gave it credit for when we last discussed these 2 films here.
David Aiken
Follow Ups:
I have never seen Tarkovsy's "Solyaris", or the Soderberg's remake.
Is there a dubbed version of the Tarkovsy? I HATE reading subtitles. But I will certainly seek it out. I have already picked up a few interested critical tidbits on the film. So I'm primed.
The mere fact that some of you folks here see fit to compare it to 2001 speaks volumes. However, I will be surprised if it turns out to be a work of its stature. But I am definately intrigued, and I will keep an open mind.
Also, you have really put your finger on yet another interesting thematic cluster in 2001 -- the whole idea of deception. There are so many importat instance of it. HAL himself proliferates deceptive, duplicitous statements at every utterance.
"I enjoy working with my human counterparts"
"Thanks for the stimulating chess game, dave."
Then, there's the ruse about dave's psychological test, as though deceiving humans has been hard-wired into his "psyche." And the humans are very wary and distrustful of him, and he of them. Frank and Dave invent their own ruse to discuss their concerns privately about his fault prediction on the antenna. (Interesting phrase, in terms of the earlier ethical themes I cited ... "fault prediction"). Also, as you point out, the crew is not told the truth about the nature of the mission. And prior to this, a "cover story" about some sickness has been created to prevent "mass confusion" and "cultural shock" on the part of humanity, were they to find out the ACTUAL discovery of made on the moon. And this foreshadows, perhaps, HAL's own reaction to the terrible truth that he cannot handle -- namely, that he has made a mistake.
The idea that we are victims of a grand ruse, that we never know the truth, and that we would be unable to process it if we WERE to learn it is woven deeply into the film's fabric. We are left wondering if the Universe itself is not some kind of ruse, and, in high irony, if Kurick has not himself fashioned a "truth" in 2001 that we, as viewers, cannot handle.
Your point about the timeliness of the themes of deception, internationally and politically (themes Kurick has explored in Paths of Glory, and which he would return to in Clockwork Orange, perhaps most notably) are yet another example of this film's uncanny ability to work both within the context of its own time and to transcend it -- just as it does with its psychedelic themes.
There is only one other place where I have encountered this kind of concatonation of concepts ... this sense of almost inexhaustible richess in content and theme: the major plays of Shakespeare.
Seriously, if you hate subtitles read a synopsis of the story, then watch it in Russian with no subtitles. That would be a better experience than dubbed IMO.
Rod
I'm in Australia and local DVD releases here are a different region to the US, and in PAL rather than NTSC. The PAL version of "Solaris" which I have does have a dubbed soundtrack. Check DVD Beaver for comparison reviews of different releases of Solaris as they indicate what soundtracks are available.
Tarkovsky's "Solaris" is a very different film to "2001" with very different themes but it, also, is slow moving. I sometimes find the pace of "2001" more of an issue for me than that of "Solaris" but others have more problems with "Solaris". Tarkovski's film is more intellectual than Kubrick's in my view, and Kubrick's more visually memorable.
Soderberg's "Solaris" is not a remake so much as a different take on the original novel which I have not read so I can't say which is closest. I don't think it's not a bad film and if I hadn't been so moved and impressed by Tarkovsky's which I first saw a couple of years after it's release and which has haunted me ever since, I think it might have impressed me more but my vision of the story has been permanently conditioned by the Tarkovsky film and it would take an even greater version of the story to make me switch allegiances. Soderberg's film isn't good enough to grab me that strongly. It's certainly shorter and faster paced so it's probably an easier film to view for many. I think George Clooney's performance in it is quite good.
David Aiken
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: