 
|
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: ... with all the sophistication of Vicomte de Valvert from the well known Rostrand play. posted by Audiophilander on November 06, 2001 at 02:03:24:
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
Follow Ups:
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
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 ]
