 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
May 2, 2008 - 6:26 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Sarge
(Member)
|
2001 works brilliantly in the era in which it was created.
Bear with me...
An era without cell phones. An era without computers, e-mail, or message boards. An era with only three television stations, all of which cut off around midnight. No vhs, no DVDs, nothing.
An era in which the old studio system had collapsed, and filmmakers were experiencing a newfound freedom. An era in which massive corporations hadn't yet gobbled up the studios.
Pre-STAR WARS, pre-JAWS. Pre-CGI.
Pre-moon landing!
It was an era of Bergman, Truffaut, Kurosawa, Kazan, Lumet, Lean, Leone, and many others.
To a generation who had never seen a science fiction film with that kind of budget, that kind of meticulous care put into the visual effects, that kind of ambition, craft, and serious intent - it was astonishing. It was their METROPOLIS.
To today's attention-deficit audiences, I don't know what it is. I can't imagine a teenager getting through it, even in 70mm. And if they did, I'm sure they'd find it infuriating, because it steadfastly refuses to explain itself.
Instead, it demands that you think about it, and better yet, talk about it - like we're doing here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In complimentary order:
"Impressionistic" is a right astute representation, Dan, and one that could probably be conclusively grafted onto much of how Kubrick's visionary impulse worked (not that we advocate it as generally helping him overall; in a film like Spartacus, it wouldn't have worked but did so distinctively here). For once, his intuitive Right Side briefly triumphed over his more dominant Left intellect.
John, it may well have been The Boyd (Good God, what mem'ries THAT evoked) tho we'd haveta research the microfilms for either The Philly Inquirer, Bulletin or Daily News of the tyme to make sure). And, yep-per, that comparison was exactly the point we (feebly and, apparently, unsuccessfully, were tryin' to make).
[By the bye if you're familiar - as you apparently are - of those grand old City of Brotherly Love movie emporiums, NONE of 'em remain, be it the grand Fox, Boyd, Milgram or any of the center-city Rittenhouse Square long-lost and lamented artifacts. Progress? Pish Pah!  ].
As fer you, Phillip Tee, we'll return your recent appreciative ode our way by saying you've, per usual, offered a singularly intriquing take on the subject under scope. Since migrating over to This Syde, you've been one welcome Hill Street-er (Francis and Mick would be proud) ... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
May 2, 2008 - 11:08 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
JSWalsh
(Member)
|
the scenes beginning at "Jupiter and Beyond The Infinite" really still give me chills. As Discovery sails thru the various moons and the monolith floats around to the Ligeti music there's a real sense of impending.....something. Intense.
Agree.
Also, I don't think the monolith does anything but WITNESS events until this point. I never thought it caused the apes to make the connection about the bone--it just recorded what happened, then went to the moon and buried itself or floated away ala the head in ZARDOZ. The one in the moon set off a signal when unearthed (why this signal is heard over the astronauts radios, who knows). The one in space by Jupiter, seeing man has reached it, either doesn't know about the fight with HAL (only we do, and see that man can triumph over the machinery he has created--possibly something the aliens find important due to something in their history, or the history of civilizations they've encountered) or instigates it (I don't like this idea) as a test. In either case, when humans reach this monolith, the aliens believe, they've achieved the level of growth that makes them worthy of closer study, and they use the device to open a passage to their world.
And you know what the rest means.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think in one of the later novels, Clarke referred to the site of the Monolith that the apes discovered being the focus of an archaeological investigation. This would suggest that the monolith that the apes was found was still there millions of years later. Of course, the film doesn't rule out the monolith relocating from earth to the moon as you say.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
May 3, 2008 - 12:08 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
JSWalsh
(Member)
|
I think in one of the later novels, Clarke referred to the site of the Monolith that the apes discovered being the focus of an archaeological investigation. This would suggest that the monolith that the apes was found was still there millions of years later. Of course, the film doesn't rule out the monolith relocating from earth to the moon as you say.
Well, the novel doesn't count, for me, since we're talking the movie, and in the movie when they go to investigate the one on the moon, they don't say "It's just like that one we found in Africa," so that ends that, for me, at least.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
May 3, 2008 - 12:26 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Eric Paddon
(Member)
|
Eric, I'm calling you out because you're making the claim that Kubrick used inappropriate classical temp cues.
That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. When I hear the "Blue Danube", a piece that is evocative of old Vienna used to suggest space, I have the same reaction Miklos Rozsa had to William Wyler's idea of using "Adeste Fidelis" to underscore the nativity scene in "Ben Hur", and the same reaction most people have had to justify assailing George Stevens for using the "Hallelujah Chorus" in GSET. Stevens and Wyler were directors with far more impressive resumes (IMO) than Kubrick ever could aspire to (and both of them won a lot more Oscars), yet if they can't be exempt from criticism for their preference for what some people can consider inappropriate music for a scene, why should Stanley Kubrick?
"(like the original North music, which is good, but doesn't work that great next to the picture)?"
That is your opinion, it is not mine. I synched the North score to the visuals and I was taken aback by how sequences I found tedious with no music (Dawn of Man) or temp tracks, worked a lot better with those cues. You are again assuming an arrogance of colossal proportions to suggest your *subjective* view is somehow an objective fact, which it isn't.
If your suggestion that I should make my own films to make a judgment of what I think as a viewer is effective or not, were ever carried to its logical conclusion, then no one would ever have the right to express a negative view about ANY film that's ever been made. And that I think is a more true definition of what "condescension" is really about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JS- Clarke himself stated that the monolith "taught" the apes to use bones as weapons and tools. The apes were in the middle of a drought and starving...the ETs apparently felt they needed the assistance. The momentary flash to the monolith while the ape picks thru the bones represents this stimulus. But yeah, it may have then beamed itself up to the moon afterwards (when it disappears from the apes' locale)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chockful, can we have an immediate moratorium on this "calling out" concept? 'Cause if you don't, you're gonna have an awful lotta people in line to take on at High Noon.
One doesn't need a "degree" - and, if Kubrick deserved one, there are those who are in Eric's camp who'd opine it should be a Ph.D - Piled high and Deeper - for his (and Woody Allen, also)'s perennial penchant/preference for classical sources can be seen as insulting and disrespectful (what, contemporary composers aren't "good" enough. Obviously not).
[ Dan's "song compiliation" pet peeve is a clever way to put it. ]
If the story is correct that Mr. North wasn't aware his music had been unceremoniously jettisoned until HE ACTUALLY SAW THE FILM IN A THEATRE (Northophiles please confirm or deny) then, at best, it can be a Director's Preorgative and, at worst, it's the height of professional blindsiding and personal cowardice.
(But then, these characters are always Big and Bold on their own "terms" and terminally incapable of dealing with others as equals, let alone peers).
So when you categorically state he was working "with the artists", which ones are you referring to: all the dead ones?
We don't give a flamin' fig about his concept or vision; the film works in some substantial ways and falls far short in others (in Our Ever Unhumble Opinion) but to see him as some kind of cinematic Saint incapable of being held accountable or making choices which can be disputed is to grant him an artistic omniscience he doesn't deserve and never achieved.
Now back to our regularly scheduled Space Odyssey ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. When I hear the "Blue Danube", a piece that is evocative of old Vienna used to suggest space, I have the same reaction Miklos Rozsa had to William Wyler's idea of using "Adeste Fidelis" to underscore the nativity scene in "Ben Hur", and the same reaction most people have had to justify assailing George Stevens for using the "Hallelujah Chorus" in GSET. Stevens and Wyler were directors with far more impressive resumes (IMO) than Kubrick ever could aspire to (and both of them won a lot more Oscars), yet if they can't be exempt from criticism for their preference for what some people can consider inappropriate music for a scene, why should Stanley Kubrick?
As I understand it, that's the point - it's supposed to clash. You have these amazing images of space travel, accompanied by what is just about the most familiar and over-played piece of classical music that exists, representing how routine it's all become for those people (also why Dr. Floyd is shown sleeping on the journey). I could be wrong, but it works for me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
