 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: 2001 -- A space Odyssey returns to DC posted by Bruce from DC on November 02, 2001 at 07:14:22:
"Only a few films are transcendent, and work upon our minds and imaginations like music or prayer or a vast belittling landscape. Most movies are about characters with a goal in mind, who obtain it after difficulties either comic or dramatic. ``2001: A Space Odyssey'' is not about a goal but about a quest, a need. It does not hook its effects on specific plot points, nor does it ask us to identify with Dave Bowman or any other character.It says to us: We became men when we learned to think. Our minds have given us the tools to understand where we live and who we are. Now it is time to move on to the next step, to know that we live not on a planet but among the stars, and that we are not flesh but intelligence."
- Roger Ebert
Follow Ups:
Plot -- the pre-occupation of simpletons and children not blessed with the gift of perception of the transcendantCharacter -- a distracting irrelevance. Humans are so boring and predictabale. A superfluity. . .
What we have here, ladies and gentlemen, is a window on the transcendant -- a dynamic canvas of color, motion, sound that reaches directly to the intellect, bypassing the limiting media of language and the conventional exposition of drama.
Not mere sci-fi, but A NEW ART FORM!!!
Sorry I'm such a dolt.
.
None of Kubrick's later films deserve that.Such hostility for a work that abandons the traditional narrative- why the sheer impudence of the man.
Like I said, he should have gone for the lowest common denominator and put in some explosions and stuff.
what is the name for a person who read this: 'my considered view is more in the p-o-s direction than in the "timeless classic classic" direction' as the same as calling the film a p-o-s?"Dolt," indeed.
I said "Not liking 2001 doesn't make you a dolt- calling it a "P.O.S" does."But since your original post put the film, in your considered view, towards a piece of shit, that would put your view towards doltishness. Just as your view would put my opinion towards liking a piece of shit.
Clearly, you are not a dolt, neither am I. I would hope that discussions about film would not lead to films being characterzed as pieces of shit or not pieces of shit, or even approaching pieces of shit, for that clearly is the domain of dolts.
I doubt that a search of the archives here would uncover a musical work being described as a piece of shit.
I doubt a search of the web would uncover much in the way of "pieces of shit" describing anything but pieces of shit.
Why 2001 is singled out for this wonderful phrase is insulting- it's an interesting film to some, unremarkable to others.
Jeez, this is so much fun -- being teamed up with 'Phlounder; arguing with you -- I can't help myself.Fair enough, John. We will excise p-o-s from my vocabulary.
And if we keep talking about this movie, pretty soon I'll have to walk the three blocks from my house to the theatre that's showing it and have a look at the damn thing . . . again.
"I'm afraid I can't do that, Dave."
Have a good evening.
..we can discuss why Clockwork Orange is one of Kubrick's worst films.Along with Eyes Wide Shut.
It's been a very long time since I've seen "Clockwork."With respect to "Eyes" I don't think we'll have much to discuss. I agree with you.
"What we have here, ladies and gentlemen, is a window on the transcendant -- a dynamic canvas of color, motion, sound that reaches directly to the intellect, bypassing the limiting media of language and the conventional exposition of drama.Not mere sci-fi, but A NEW ART FORM!!!"
However it essentially sums up quite well my true feelings for this movie. Perhaps with the substitution of "subconscious" for "intellect." I think you hit the nail on the head.
as the say, " de gustibius non disputandum est "Seriously, though, "2K+1ASO" is a sufficiently audacious and differentiated film that it is worth watching, whether one likes it or not or whether one finds its successful or not.
In my case, after several viewings over a period of years, I find it a failed attempt. But others find it otherwise -- and I'm not going to call them names for doing so.
I do wonder, however, if some of these professional writers who unleash a torrent of florid prose don't sometimes cringe when they read what they've written, years later.
Hi,
I have always loved ideas like that. I was a fan of scifi, hard, soft, Tolkein, almost all of it.....before 2001. When I first saw the movie, in a quite ordinary theater, I was thrilled. But the simple truth is this.....It is slow paced, some of it seems quite dated; and the subplot, you know the one, where our fate is determined by an alien race...all of these things no longer thrill me. I still like to watch parts of it; but I am unable to watch the whole thing. It's day has come, and gone.
2001 still stands up IMO. Beyond the premises of aliens, monoliths and suspended animation, pretty much all of the space travel/special effects in 2001 hold up to the realities of physics - which are as valid today as they were then.
Clarke was a scientist and a sci-fi writer - (Like Fred Hoyle I believe). He "invented" the theory of the geo-stationary orbit which makes stationary communications satellites possible - he had a cutting edge knowledge of the physics involved.
Most remarkable is that at the time, only a handfull of humans had ever been in space and the Apollo moon landing occurred after 2001 was in the can. Comparisons with Star Wars etc are pointless. None of their effects are remotely realistic. Fireballs do not occure in space, starfighters don't turn like F-14's. Gravity and the english language are not universal. When they talk on the phone they have normal communications, even though they are lightyears apart.What amazes me most, is that a 2001 scenario could still happen and if it did, it would happen much like Clarke/Kubrick foretold. The only major change is that no-one would be wearing stovepipe plaid suites on the space station :~)
BTW My wife and my sister both hate it. They both fall asleep in the exact same spot, when HAL first starts to show signs of losing it. I can watch it over and over.
Cheers
John K
Finally, someone with a brain!!!!!!!
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.
I thought it was funny as hell and not a bad way to end a dreary, but well-acted movie.
Rob CThe world was made for people not cursed with self-awareness
I have to disagree, oh Mutt of Maize,Magnolia stands as one of the most emotionally honest films to come out of Hollywood. Each shot was well crafted- a joy to watch a director use the lens rather than just shoot what the storyboard says- as most directors just do. I did not find it dreary in the least (and the acting was terrific- who'd have thought Cruise was so good)- it moved along at good pace and Anderson was not scared to play with the medium- the characters singing, the allegorical quiz show, the frogs from the sky. The frogs are just a device- a funny variation on the deux ex machina used in ancient plays. That night was a defining moment in the lives of the characters- and the frogs were there to prove it. Life is like that sometimes- frogs just happen.
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 © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
