 
|
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: Nice sarcasm, even if woefully misguided. posted by Audiophilander on November 05, 2001 at 01:32:06:
"So, you might want to reconsider implying that I lack proper respect of older movies or that my knowledge of cinema is somehow lacking!"I certainly will, as soon as I stop laughing at someone who would make comparisons between 2001 and any Star Trek film, or other children's films. I suppose in your collection of "classic" films there would be many that might not be as boring as Star Trek- I also suppose that in all of your library on cinema, all of the authors use Start Trek as some sort of yardstick with which to judge other films.
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.
Discussing the special effects of 2001 is meaningless- they are what they are. Perhaps it is a fascinating subject for children, but if that is all movies are then Hollywood is right- keep making children's movies- keep blowing things up, keep them dine- o- saurs comin'.
"The success or failure of special effects shots especially in science fiction films determines a viewers "suspension of disbelief". Is that so ? Do you really have to "suspend your disbelief" to appreciate a film ? I guess then Ted Turner is right- colorize all B&W films NOW!
"The problem 2001 suffers from in my estimation is that it relies too much on what was cutting edge visual effects (i.e., for the times) in lieu of a solid story."
And you need a solid story. And a bib, because being spoon fed is messy isn't it ? What a pity Kubrick said :
"I tried to create a visual experience, one that bypasses verbalized pigeonholing and directly penetrates the subconscious with an emotional and philosophical content...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."
Funny- he didn't say "I didn't have a solid story, so I thought I'd just depend on special effects".
He should have made the film just for you, with a hero you can relate to, villains and a simple yet solid plot just to keep the children in the audience happy.
I'm sure he would be in agreement that 2001's single great strength was that it was 70mm, as would all of the critics and authors in all those books you have on film.
I'm not surprised you recommend a children's TV movie like "Charley"- perhaps you can tell me which Academy Award it won.
ps- are any of those books you have on cinema color- in books ?
Follow Ups:
""The success or failure of special effects shots especially in science fiction films determines a viewers "suspension of disbelief". Is that so ? Do you really have to "suspend your disbelief" to appreciate a film ? I guess then Ted Turner is right- colorize all B&W films NOW!"Come on, how moronic. The use of black and white in cinema is an artistic choice - yes, even way back into the 1930s. Although in some instances, the choice was for budget reasons, in the most part, B&W film is used for asthetic value. The contrasting effects you can get between shadows & light areas on B&W are very different from colour, and depending on the DOP used on the film, can be far superior.
Take the "Elephant Man", for example, a brilliant film shot on B&W, at a time when B&W film was MORE EXPENSIVE to use than colour!!! I suppose you'd prefer that this film was colourised also? Ditto for "Dead Man".
YAY! Let's colourise everything!! Dr Strangelove, Lolita, Citizen Kane, The Elephant Man, Dead Man, The Big Sleep, Casablanca, The Third Man, A streetcar Named Desire, etc - let's vaporise the medium - Duuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
If you actually know something about a healthy discourse, particularly the Socratic use of irony, then it might dawn upon your simple mind that that you
and I are in complete agreement (which is more painful for me to admit than it ever will be for you).Of course, this assumes you have an attention span that exceeds that of a distracted gnat.
ps. You will not find the Socrates in Star Wars, he is of course a character from Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure.
Despite the persistent rumors, the relationship he had with Keanu Reeves was purely platonic.
John,
Do you actually know anything practical about filmmaking at all? Or is your knowledge actually relegated to mere theory and criticism? Are you just a glorified film nut, who contributes nothing at all to the art form? Or can you back up your words with real (practical)cinematic evidence that you actually know what you write about? Have you ever made anything other than a home movie (or have you even made one of those)??I am both a director and a film fan, whose (comparitavely) short career far surpasses (I'll bet) anything you've done in the cinematic world. I'm sure with your obviously well educated, yet definitely practically lacking mind, you'll know what they say about film critics.......
"Of course, this assumes you have an attention span that exceeds that of a distracted gnat."
Thinly veiled personal insults don't work with me, in fact it says alot about you.
ps, how ironic that you criticize AuPh for bringing up "Star Trek" as an example when you use "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure" ........and yes, I can tell that it's your cringe-worthy attempt at humour, but the mere fact that you know enough about it to use this film as an example speaks volumes about your relevance as a critic.
Why didn't you just present an example of the use of Socratic thought in film? Dead Poets Society comes to mind. Can you think of another one???? Come on, jump on the search engine!!pps, And, no, I won't give you my real name.
Why don't you just admit that you completely misunderstood my post, and my exhortation to colorize films was in fact an attempt to reduce Auph's assertion about the suspension of disbelief to an absurd conclusion.Auph understood it. Any reasonable adult could understand it.
You didn't- you took it literally, which I suppose most 10 year old intellects are prone to do.
"I am both a director and a film fan, whose (comparitavely) short career far surpasses (I'll bet) anything you've done in the cinematic world."
I do in fact have an extremely large penis.
But I am also prepared to accept that you are a better director than George Lucas, and that you have probably directed more films than he has.
And you probably don't steal other director's ideas, scenes and even plots from others. Unlike George.
"how ironic that you criticize AuPh for bringing up "Star Trek" as an example when you use 'Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure' "
Duh ! You are a slow learner. The Bill and Ted reference was an insult, not humor- it was directed at your adolescent intellect. It implied you are the type of person who would think Socrates was some dude from a teen B film.
There has been no proof to the contrary.
"pps, And, no, I won't give you my real name. "
Yeah- right. As if disclosing your real name could somehow make you smarter.
... 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
"You're absolutely right, the film "Solaris" is for adult's only, just like a prescription for sleep-inducing barbituants."AAAaaaaaaahahahahahahahahaha........legendary, mate - and agreed!!
"To the contrary, in reading your posts on this subject one might reach the conclusion that a change of pampers is in order."
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!! AGREED AGAIN (chuckle)
"Look, it was never my intention to slaughter your sacred cow."Sacred cow ? Is 2001 beyond criticism ? Of course not- it's just beyond your attempts at criticism.
Wise directed what some might consider "great films"- but that does not make him a great director. I don't think his list of screen credits puts him in any way in the same league as Kubrick. Competent enough- when given the right material, actors and budget to work with-(hey- who isn't ?) but not a great director. Nothing he has done sets him apart from a host of others. A "new" Star Trek with new special effects will probably make a lot of money.
"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."
Prejudice ? Hardly. Films that are made for the "target" audience age of whatever the studio's research shows it to be (teens no doubt) have resulted in the "juvenilisation" of American cinema. So it goes. Market forces are what market forces are. I don't have to like films such as Star Trek, but to pretend they appeal to anything but the most ordinary adolescent's understanding of cinema is preposterous.
"Oh, I get it! You're just jealous because you DIDN'T get to see the Cinerama presentation while the format existed!"
No- you don't get it. You decided the film's one great strength was cinerama- and you went on about Imax etc. How you draw conclusions about what I have seen or haven't seen is drivel.
All of my posts on this subject critcise your opinion as being shallow - I have no wish to drift over to the right of the page. You can rant about Star trek all you like- it only proves my point.
"Charley" won the Oscar for the Best Childrens TV film in 1965.
Your posts say "Charley". You said that "Charley" won an Academy Award. Go fish for your apology. If you meant "Charly", you should have typed Charly.
Cliff Robertson won the Best Actor Academy Award in 68 for "Charly" - so what ? Does the award bestowed upon the actor somehow make Charly a great film ? Oliver! won Best Picture, Charly wasn't even nominated. Not a great year by the look of it.
In the vernacular of Oliver!- you are a right Charlie.
The fact that you were left to fumble about with the spelling of "Charley" or "Charly", whichever you prefer (i.e., I used the spelling at the link's website as I didn't recall the exact spelling), instead of apologizing for the presumption which substituted for a gap in your own knowledge speaks to pride rather than honesty. I don't need to "fish for an apology" after catching what appears to be a blow-fish on the line! I guess this was one of those rare occasions when the fish is determined to troll for the fisherman! ;^)You ask if an award bestowed upon an actor somehow makes Charly a great film? No, not any more than winning a similar award for visual effects makes 2001 a great film! BTW, you said that '68 wasn't a great year by the look of it, but have you forgotten that 2001 was released the same year and won it's only Academy Award in competition with Ice Station Zebra?
You grouse about target audiences and the juvenilisation of American cinema, but you forget that the first rule of good cinema is to entertain. Yes, market forces do drive what ends up on the screen, but what would you suggest as an alternative, state-run cinema with the inevitable "educational" propaganda that would generate?
No, you don't have to like Star Trek or Star Wars or any other mass oriented entertainment, but pidgeon-holing it as being strictly juvenile fare does these films a grave injustice as well.
> > > "How you draw conclusions about what I have seen or haven't seen is drivel." < < <
LOL! That was just sarcasm; I'm surprised you missed it? ;^)
> > > "All of my posts on this subject criticise your opinion as being shallow - I have no wish to drift over to the right of the page. You can rant about Star Trek all you like- it only proves my point < < <
And what point is that? I haven't "ranted" about Star Trek at all, pro or con; I only used the first one as an example of slow pacing and then added a caveat based upon Robert Wise's Director's cut which is coming out this week.
BTW, you seem pretty certain that Kubrick's screen credits trump Robert Wise's, but are you so sure? I suggest that you read the linked URL in it's entirity; be prepared to have you eyes openned and your jaw dropped. (~8^o)
You're kind of like the guy who farts in an elevator before stepping off while others are left to "ride it out." I've avoided calling you names or suggesting that you might be as ignorant of the cinema as you believe yourself knowledgeable while you insist upon casting similar thoughtless invective my way. I, for one, do not think that the word shallow applies to you, although a similar word, callow, does come to mind.
Oh, and for the record, "Charley" couldn't have won *an Oscar for best children's film in 1965* because the Academy doesn't give out special Oscars for "children's films" or films produced for television! For shame, could the infalible John Dem possibly have some of his facts in error?
That's alright, I'll pass on the crow; it leaves more for you to consume! :o)
Regards,
AuPh
Like I said, '68 was a dud as far as The Academy was concerned. The fact that 2001 was not nominated (and Charly if you insist)but Rachel, Rachel, Funny Girl, Oliver, Romeo & Juliet were nominated for Best Picture says more about the Academy than the movies themselves.You did say that "Charley" won an Academy Award- but the truth is that Charly did not- the lead actor did in Charly. I never said anything about 2001 being a great film because it won an academy Award for special effects. You attempted to substantiate your claim for Charly's significance by stating that the film had won an Academy Award.
You are right about Charley- I did not read the "Venice Film Festival" part of the award title at IMDB and assumed it was the film you were talking about."but you forget that the first rule of good cinema is to entertain"
Forget ? Where can I find these rules ? Are you sure the first rule is to entertain ? Who decides what constitutes "entertainment" ?
I don't know why you would think anyone's jaw would drop when reading Wise's film credits- Sound of Music was nice, West Side Story was nice. Like I said- competent, but nothing he did makes him stand out as a director.
"You're kind of like the guy who farts in an elevator before stepping off while others are left to "ride it out." (I don't think so, there are others who often "drop" posts and never respond to replies, but I don't think that applies to you or me, slugger.)
And you're the kind of guy watching movies trying to find the feelers.
> > > "I don't know why you would think anyone's jaw would drop when reading Wise's film credits- Sound of Music was nice, West Side Story was nice. Like I said- competent, but nothing he did makes him stand out as a director." < < <With all due respect, here's a partial listing of Robert Wise's film credits:
Citizen Kane (editor)
Magnificent Ambersons (editor and co-directed)
Curse of the Cat People (Dir.)
The Body Snatcher (Dir.)
Blood on the Moon (Dir.)
The Set-Up (Dir.)
Day the Earth Stood Still (Dir.)
Run Silent, Run Deep (Dir.)
West Side Story (Dir.)
The Haunting (Dir.)
Sound of Music (Dir.)
The Sand Pebbles (Dir.)
The Andromeda Strain (Dir.)
The Hindenburg (Dir.)
Star Trek - The Motion Picture (Dir.)
Certainly among this list you'll find more than a few classics and several groundbreaking films. Had you read past the first page you might've noticed that he's contributed many more impressive entries than just those two you mentioned. Now please remove your jaw from the film room floor, the drool's getting slippery! :o)
Cheers,
AuPhPS: In spite of late's plea for armistice, I'll probably hear more from you on this, so 'til next time, keep your guard up and watch that riposte! ;^)
There are some films in this group that I like: "RSRD" "Sand Pebbles" (sorta), but nothing that grabs me and says "Oh, wow!" (to use a very 60s expression). Like "big ears" below, I see "Kane" as a Welles product, even if others had their names attached.A lot of this stuff strikes me as pretty workmanlike from a directorial standpoint: WSS, TSM, for example. Star Trek the Motionless Picture (great phrase, AuPh!) was the worst of the series -- a TV episode script stretched to feature film length and inflated with the worst of "Trekkie" High Seriousness. The other ones did not take themselves so seriously -- just good clean fun.
WSS is one of my least favorite movies ever. Until I saw several amateur stage productions of WSS, I had no idea that Bernstein/Sondheim's musical version of Romeo & Juliet -- with one or two small lapses -- was every bit as powerful dramatically as the Shakespeare original it was based on. The music, of course, is fabulous. But this film version is nothing but a bunch of fey dancers (who look about as menacing as kittens with tummies full of warm milk) and some pretty carboard actors whose singing is overdubbed with that real singers. Not a triumph for anyone, IMHO. In fact, although the chronology doesn't fit the argument (WSS was first), one could say that the main vice of the movie WSS is that is an attempt to "saccharinize" Bernstein/Sondheim's musical to the sweetness level of TSOM.
Much more than R&J, WSS is Maria/Juliet's story. Maria is the one who undergoes the psychological transformation -- from a young innocent into an adult desperately -- and unsuccessfully -- trying to avoid the consequences of the violent society in which she lives. In the climactic final scene, it is Maria who throws down the gun and refuses to perpetuate the cycle of revenge that has killed Tony. I suggest that if you stripped away the music and the dancing from WSS, you would still have one hell of a play. That is more than one could say for most musicals, which, at best, have plot lines about a 1/2 step more sophisticated than those of operas.
Mr. Wise's WSS buries all of this grown-up stuff under a 25 lb. bag of sugar, with a Natalie Wood poster stuck on the front.
Arrgh!!!!!!!
... but the word coming from some of our friends in the industry is that the Director's cut coming out today is VASTLY superior, completely eliminating the pacing and monotonous editing flaws forced upon Wise in the rushed original release. See the attached link for more details.The are three things about Robert Wise's resume which strike me as a lifelong film enthuesiast:
1) His diversity as director.
2) His longevity as a creative force in Hollywood.
3) His groundbreaking achievements as a director.His diversity can probably be attributed to the financial success of his films, but it's rare to see the degree of flexibility achieved here. This adaptability, in my opinion, is due to the director's own vision (i.e., knowing what works in each genre and being able to capture the appropriate style and scope required).
His longevity as a creative force in Hollywood is probably attributable to his ability to bring in movies on time and under budget; this has allowed him to work in what is easily the most cut throat business outside of a career in espionage as deep cover operative.
Last, but far from least, are the absolute classic films among those listed which you've apparantly opined to omit. These include, but aren't limited to: "Curse of the Cat People" and "The Body Snatcher" which he directed for Val Lewton, "The Day the Earth Stood Still" (one of the first true science fiction films and still one of the most memorable), "The Haunting" (one of the most atmospheric psychological fright films ever; second only, IMHO, to Hitchcock's "Psycho"), "The Andromeda Strain" (an inspired visualization of the Michael Crichton novel dealing with a alien microbiological threat) and of course the aforementioned "The Sound of Music" and "Sand Pebbles", each uniquely distinguished and moving in their respective genres.
I'm not a huge fan of the film version of West Side Story either, ...personally, I prefer Alice Cooper's abreviated version best (~;^D), but as his first go at translating a Broadway musical to film having been saddled with actors and a watered down script the studio felt necessary to "open" it, he did an excellent job. Some directors would've balked at the challenge.
Well, I've pretty much said my piece, but check out the URL; you may even want to risk adding the new DVD of ST-TMP(DC), to your collection. I know we're thinking about it!
Cheers,
AuPh
I'm strictly an analog guy. It's tape for me!!Yeah, if Wise cut The Motionless Picture down to the length of a TV episode, it might be pretty good.
It's also amazing to see how good some older, classic films look on DVD-Citizen Kane, Philadelphia Story, It's a Wonderful Life, etc. Sign up with Netflix (internet rental by mail service), buy some microwave popcorn in bulk, and your'e set.
Aarrrrgh! ;^)
...- a reliable hack.A documentary on his work would be aptly named "The Mild Bunch".
;^)
Dear AuPh,Iīve just come to see this thread, after Bruceīs rec in Outside, and found it pretty interesting, as it certainly has some fire!
Re Mr. Wise, well, that list is not bad, but leaving "West Side Story" aside, the other films were just correct (I havenīt included the co-Welles ones, as Welles himself is such a heavy weight that everyone working with him best stays in the shade: I mean, Wise may have signed, but they are Wellesīs films; as happened to "The Third Man", which is clearly Welles, no matter Karel Reiszīs name appearing as its director). So, Iīve always found Wise a decent director, but not much more than that. And "Charley" (or "Charlie", I canīt remember its title now, was only so so, bland and pretty poor).
And now, to "2001": thatīs a milestone film, not only as a "SciFi" film, what in fact it isnīt, but regarding its language, and its use of exceptional technical resources. Maybe not so much as "Citizen Kane", but exceptional, too. Itīs a journey of discovery and wonder, wrapped up in a SciFi disguise, and narrated in a pristine filmic language, with an extremely well measured sense of timing, and using very advanced resources.
Most people have looked at this film from outside, as if Kubrick was trying to tell some kind of SciFi story, and in so doing they look for a conventional plot, with good guys and bad guys, and a clear ending; and they are disappointed at not finding any of these. But, if you look at it from a different point of view, within a frame of temporal suspension of disbelief towards some minor details, like the absence of delay when talking from so far, and the "small" detail of the Monolith, which clearly was intended to be taken as a symbol, not as an actual "Thinking enhancer device", youīll find out how Kubrick was exposing Clarkeīs vision on Mankindīs progress, from apish to Homo faber, later to Homo cogitans (with ludic aspects shown simply by his use of "The Blue Danube" in the transition from the skull-crashing bone to the spaceship flying to the moon) and, in the end, as Homo trascendens, staring at the unknown borders of the Universe, and looking at something so much bigger than himself that there are no known words to describe it: itīs ineffable, thus why he use those whirling images of light in so many shapes, and why thereīs no clear ending in this film.
Kubrick didnīt just take Clarkeīs story and elaborate his film on it, but he worked very closely with Clarke himself when preparing it, and not much, if anything, was free in it (even the name "HAL", given to the computer, was the result of taking the letters preceding the ones in "IBM" [International Business Machines], thus suggesting some other use for computers than just being business machines...). And Clarkeīs story was not just a SciFi story, but his exposure of his feeling of awe and admiration about our evolution, and of what he felt would be our next step in evolution.
Perfect? Of course not, as nothing alive can be. But a masterwork it was, and it still is. And it has not dated, but maybe in some formal aspects: it is still fresh, for anyone who is able to see it with new eyes everytime, not letting the "itīs just..." impression veil the perception of a true piece of art.
Hope not to have bored you.
Regards
BF
The most succinct and thoroughly correct analysis of the film this thread is yet to see!!
... "The Magnificent Ambersons" after preview audiences laughed and walked out. We can never know what Welles's original vision looked like because the footage is apparently lost and he was out of the country on assignment from the studio when the daunting task of revising the movie (i.e., so that the studio could recoup it's investment) fell upon Wise.BTW, when you mentioned "The Third Man", I believe that was directed by Carol Reed as opposed to Karel Reisz (i.e., unless that's a foreign spelling). Carol Reed was a fairly accomplished director in his own right (see link).
My opinion of 2001 is that it's two distinct movies, one is the beatifully shot groundbreaking work best seen in it's original cinerama format, the other is a slowly paced technically preoccupied exercise that translates more to an experience (i.e., a roller coaster ride to the stars) than to substance. This movie is always going to have it's supporters and detractors and who's to say which faction is correct in their impression of it. 2001 lends itself to both. However, the mantle of "masterwork" should not be so hastily confered upon the late director for one of his lesser works, as a crown to be worn posthumously as uncomfortably as Rudy Giuliani would wear his bestowed in absentia knighthood.
In all seriousness, several other films directed by the late director easily surpass 2001 as visionary works of art. At the top of my lisrt is the already mentioned "A Clockwork Orange", in second place I would suggest the biting satire "Dr. Strangelove" and just below that the supremely crafted "Barry Lyndon" with it's rags to riches to rags theme, lavish period detail and rich cinematography. At this point I would place "2001" in a virtual dead heat with "Barry Lyndon", then "Spartacus" would come in fifth, followed by "Full Metal Jacket", at least the first half or it.
I'm sure other's will disagree with these choices, the order and the degree of reverence or lack thereof. Nevertheless, this is how I see Kubrick's work. Looking at the body of it, I would almost agree with John Dem's effusive praise of Kubrick, but if one relies solely on "2001" as an indication of his genius it does a gross disservice to the memory of his greater accomplishments in my estimation.
AuPh
For fast typing (Iīm not used to) and trusting in my memory, which is proven not to be so good as I sometimes think. Anyhow, I stay saying that the unmistakable signature of Welles is omnipresent in this film.Re Kubrick, I agree that he has films better than "2001". What happens with "2001" is that it is absolutely single in Kubrickīs filmography, as never had done anything in a SciFi frame, or anticipating future, and never did again. "Paths of Glory", to single one, would have been enough to put him in the short list of great directors, and he did explore many different paths, with "Eyes Wide Shut" exploring the realms of dreams and unconscious, after having gone through political satire ("Dr. StrangeLove"), antibelicism ("Paths of Glory", "Full Metal Jacket") social concern ("A Clockwork Orange") peplum with social criticism ("Spartacus"),..., never failing as a keen observer of social reality, and an extraordinary and meticulous director.
Each and every one of his films show Kubrick as a master, only failing as being more Apollinean than Dionisiac in most of them. Not that thereīs not feeling in his works, only that most of them usually appeal more to intellect than to feeling.
As it usually happens, our disagreements just point to a root of agreement in the essentials.
Regards
BF
The transmissions from earth are delayed-
Thanks for the precision. But what I really tried to say (and failed, trying to type fast) was that the delay was not right as, if memory doesnīt betray me, it was of just a few seconds in the film, when correct average timing, for the spaceship just close to Marsīs orbit, would be some 15 min. (3 to 22 min., depending of relative position between Earth and Mars); to put that delay into the film would not be practical, so it was somewhat compressed, and that was the "minor" detail.Regards
BF
Hi,
you guys seem to be leaving film in the dust.... Perhaps this is a case where intelligent people can disagree, non disputandum gustibus est, and all that rot. Not worth fighting over.
Wow,
never thought I'd hear that name. Solaris is based on a classic scifi work. But because the 'action' is about an alien mind trying to
come to grips with the humans who have arrived; part of it is a psychological drama. Like Dune, the moviemakers seemed to struggle; to
deal with this inner life, and in the end, fail. I thought the book was terrific, scary, exciting when I first read it back in the 60's. The movie is a big yawn.
I like Star Trek, the movies are just the show on a big screen.
Mostly it's just harmless fun; but Rodenberry liked to play with good ideas once in a while. 20001 is about a God-like alien race that guides us all. Deus ex obelisk.....it's not bad, but it has been done, before the movie and many times after. My favorite Star trek episode finds Data put on trial to determine if he is property of Starfleet. I think of that show's theme as a meta-intersection. The technology that created Data intersects with the need to decide what that is; what legal status he should have; with obvious moral implications. It asks some tough questions about sentience, slavery, morality. Your argument largely rests on the story that the movie tells us. There is no question that it is slow paced, dated. When I compare that story to the best of Star Trek, I find it wanting here as well. There would be no point at all in comparing 2001 to the best scifi has to offer. That would be absurd.
Btw, I am quite fond of Beggars in Spain, a fairly recent and terrific scifi novel.
I disagree Late,I don't think every film has to be full of action/ destruction to be interesting, or worth watching. 2001 stands some comparison to Solaris in terms of that, but little else.
Lots of people like Star Trek- not that there's anything wrong with that. Comparing the story of 2001 to any Star Trek episode is a bit strange- your comments about the deity are from the subsequent books- unless you saw the film and concluded the monolith represented a deity.
My "argument" as you put it is that 2001 is a better film than some here seem to think, and not so easily dismissed. Especially for its use of the medium, as opposed to the bland offerings that most directors are quite happy to serve up.
I can understand why your favorite Star Trek episode is about a robot- it says more about the other characters than it does about the robot.
That is another of my favourites.
Nothing much happens in that either, apart from Bruce Dern's great acting :~)Cheers
John K
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 ]
