Film Score Monthly
FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM   
Search Terms: 
Search Within:   search tips 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
 Posted:   Mar 25, 2014 - 1:29 PM   
 By:   solium   (Member)

I don't know. It's not just about "getting it". I'm fascinated with future technology, space travel, and classical music. So for me it was art on screen. If one isn't into classical music or into spaceships, then they are simply gonna call it boring and pointless. One thing I will say, its a really good film. Well crafted and despite what some consider robotic performances, well acted. Not pretentious, because it doesn't present any kind of gimmicky agenda.

 
 
 Posted:   Mar 25, 2014 - 1:31 PM   
 By:   John McMasters   (Member)

I would love to see 2001 again on a large screen -- I was lucky enough to have seen it twice in large formats. The first time was during its premiere engagement at the amazing Cooper Cinerama in Denver -- and the second was a re-release at one of the huge NYC movie theaters now torn down (I think it was the old Criterion which had a curved screen from its days as a "Dimension 150" theater -- but I could be wrong about that).

I love the movie. When seen back in the 60's it seemed grand, austere, imposing, and mysterious. But more and more whenever I rewatch the film (most recently on blu-ray) I find myself aware of Kubrick's dark and glowering humour throughout the film – almost like an SF “Waiting for Godot”. The sense of ironic distancing really gets to me now – and at the end the Star Child always seems to me like a stand-in for Kubrick (even though it does look like Dullea, it also has Kubrick-eyes – perhaps that’s why he cast Dullea).

I see Kubrick’s films as an ongoing, compulsive, investigation into issues and situations that intrigue and compel him into clinical observations (rather like his huge collation of boxes kept in storage at his home). I always imagine the Star Child/Artist is looking down at the Earth in the final frames and contemplating “What Is This Object – What Does It Mean – What Can I SEE?” Questions that are, for me at least, partially explored and answered in Kubrick's very next film, “A Clockwork Orange.”

 
 
 Posted:   Mar 25, 2014 - 1:36 PM   
 By:   Nicholas_DW   (Member)

Your inability to grasp reality is your reality.

There are such things as facts, and your opinion of 2001 is ridiculous in the face of the facts. You are entitled to your opinion, of course, even though it's asinine and completely worthless. To pretend that the film is something other than it is or that it's impact and influence has not occurred or that millions of viewers have not enjoyed and respected it over the decades is delusional. Why don't you go back to school and take a class in Logic.


Excuse me? My opinion is worthless because the film had an impact on cinema and it's one of the greats? I tried to explain my difference in opinion so it wouldn't be seen as an attack, but you took it there. Who the fuck are you to say something like that you irreverent cunt?

Why don't you go back in time and blow Kubrick already because your zeal regarding this film is nothing short of fanatical. I'm pretending nothing. I never said people weren't moved by it. I used a quote from a respected author to sum up my feelings about the film. Your idea of logic is a joke.

Now go get that Kubrick cum you crave. Don't forget to bring a towel. Twat.

Aaand BLOCKED.

*Use of bold in this post is to enable the pretentious to comprehend its meaning.

 
 Posted:   Mar 25, 2014 - 1:43 PM   
 By:   Mike_J   (Member)



To properly absorb any film requires appropriate mental machinery to be fully engaged to absorb the story content and meet it on the existential plane in which it rests. 2001 requires higher comprehensional ability than most. It requires real mental stretching on initial exposure.


That comment seems to imply that the only people who don't like 2001 are those who haven't understood the film or don't even try to.

I don't profess to be a film expert or a genius by any means at all but I'vewatched and enjoyed movies that are far, far more cerebral than 2001.

My problem isn't to do with the film being "deep" or that it requires you. to engage your brain. Far from it. I just find it absurdly dull. The dawn of man scene seems to go on forever and the bit with the Orion shuttle going to the space station is just like a 10 minute Pan Am commercial. Even the stuff with HAL seems to take an age. As I say, I absolutely have no problem with intelligent, thought provoking movies but I do have a problem with any movie where scene after scene makes me doze off.

Perhaps my mental machinery just is the equivalent of a rusty Chevy.

 
 Posted:   Mar 25, 2014 - 1:46 PM   
 By:   Mike_J   (Member)

Ok since I'm venting about 2001 I have to say this:

That match cut... the bone-into-spaceship shot at the end of the Yawn of Man sequence.... sorry, its rubbish. Nice idea, terribly executed.

To paraphrase Comic Book Guy "Worst. match cut. Ever."

 
 Posted:   Mar 25, 2014 - 1:57 PM   
 By:   David Sones (Allardyce)   (Member)

Nicholas_DW...do you want to clean up that post or shall I delete it? It's disgusting and doesn't belong here. Richard-W may have been provocative in arguing with you, but you crossed a line of conduct and taste. Please delete it or tone it down.

DSS

 
 Posted:   Mar 25, 2014 - 2:06 PM   
 By:   Grecchus   (Member)

Well, you know Mike, I agree the cut from the bone to orbiting satellite could have been done better. But, only because if you freeze frame the sequence the bone is slanted one way, while the ship is slanted the other. The cut is fast and first time you see it you don't notice. But yes, if bone and ship had been properly aligned things would have been better . . . for posterity if nothing else.

If you've seen cerebral film, by how far does it pre-date 2001?

 
 
 Posted:   Mar 25, 2014 - 3:25 PM   
 By:   Octoberman   (Member)

It's possible that the roughness of the cut itself was intentional.
I have no proof to offer, other than the evidence that the technology of the time would certainly have allowed for a far smoother cut, and Kubrick would certainly have known this.

2001. Not a movie to watch if yer in a hurry, eh?
big grin

 
 Posted:   Mar 25, 2014 - 3:30 PM   
 By:   Mike_J   (Member)

It's possible that the roughness of the cut itself was intentional.
I have no proof to offer, other than the evidence that the technology of the time would certainly have allowed for a far smoother cut, and Kubrick would certainly have known this.



Match cuts have been around for years so yeah it wasn't a technical reason that caused the non-match.

Not sure I buy the idea of it being intentional though. Perhaps Kubrick also intentionally bought a bunch of joke shop monkey masks for the yawn of man scene too rather than going with decent prosthetics.

 
 
 Posted:   Mar 25, 2014 - 3:32 PM   
 By:   Octoberman   (Member)

Not sure I buy the idea of it being intentional though. Perhaps Kubrick also intentionally bought a bunch of joke shop monkey masks for the yawn of man scene too rather than going with decent prosthetics.


Hey, why not? The guy had a kinky side, no?

 
 Posted:   Mar 25, 2014 - 3:44 PM   
 By:   Grecchus   (Member)

Maybe there is a reason for the bounding frames of bone/ship being set at an angle. It may even be that is one way of characterising the man-apes first dwelling on technological issues being de-coupled from the scaleup to man made hi-tech objectivity. Unless someone comes forward, who knows?

Maybe Douglas Trumbull is laughing his head off.

By the way I just found this, having missed it's intitial appearance:

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/jun/18/douglas-trumbull-return-science-fiction-movies

 
 Posted:   Mar 25, 2014 - 4:11 PM   
 By:   WILLIAMDMCCRUM   (Member)

Deleted because I see no point.

It's funny how people can dump on a film they don't get, declare the many people who do 'pretentious' and then ..... call other people irreverent.

Funny old world.


Kubrick liked to pose puzzles. But not puzzles that can't be solved.

 
 Posted:   Mar 25, 2014 - 5:12 PM   
 By:   Heath   (Member)

It funny how lots of critics were calling Gravity a "Gamechanger". Now Gravity is a fun adventure movie with great FX... but those calling it a "gamechanger" don't know the meaning of the word.

2001: ASO... that was a gamechanger. No other film has quite influenced the movies in so many different fields as drastically as 2001. Without it, there'd be no Lucas, no Speilberg, etc etc ad infinitum. It made art-house movies respectable and bankable in the U.S. so without it there'd be no Coens, no Linklaters, no Lynches, no Andersons (Wes and PT)... even Woody Allen might have got stuck making goofy comedies forever.

Sure, 2001 comes from a long, fine lineage of thoughtful, bold films. But Kubrick's genius was to mesh the worlds of pure visual cinema with a pure and perfectly realised technical design. That design not only offered a prediction of future technology, but was to actually dictate it.

Put simply: stuff today looks like it walked out of 2001 ASO. I was looking at the movie yesterday. This 50 year old film has aged so incredibly gracefully that it's almost frightening. One exception: next to no women. Too bad that.

Also if I were to be brutally honest about it, Gary Lockwood, when he's viewing the message from his parent, looks like an authentic 21st Century man watching an archive recording of a 1960s sitcom. It's a jolting stylistic mismatch, but at least it contrasts the film with the way movies and TV actually looked when it was being shot. It's a rare and minor "flaw" in the film which, ironically, only makes Kubrick's wider realisation look more brilliant.

 
 
 Posted:   Mar 25, 2014 - 5:18 PM   
 By:   Nicholas_DW   (Member)

Nicholas_DW...do you want to clean up that post or shall I delete it? It's disgusting and doesn't belong here. Richard-W may have been provocative in arguing with you, but you crossed a line of conduct and taste. Please delete it or tone it down.

DSS


Unless you go after his post for insulting me I won't. He engaged in an unprovoked attack and I have a right to retaliate. Bad taste isn't limited to bad words and I'm tired of people like him owning this board because they don't use profanity.

Wrong is wrong. Insults are insults. Saying someone's opinion has no meaning is as insulting as it gets, regardless of how it's phrased. I stand by my reply because a person such as himself deserves no more.

Do as you must.

 
 Posted:   Mar 25, 2014 - 5:24 PM   
 By:   Mike_J   (Member)

Nicholas_DW...do you want to clean up that post or shall I delete it? It's disgusting and doesn't belong here. Richard-W may have been provocative in arguing with you, but you crossed a line of conduct and taste. Please delete it or tone it down.

DSS


Unless you go after his post for insulting me I won't. He engaged in an unprovoked attack and I have a right to retaliate. Bad taste isn't limited to bad words and I'm tired of people like him owning this board because they don't use profanity.

Wrong is wrong. Insults are insults. Saying someone's opinion has no meaning is as insulting as it gets, regardless of how it's phrased. I stand by my reply because a person such as himself deserves no more.

Do as you must.


Ask him for his conkers back too.

Oh, sorry, for a moment I thought we were 5 year olds in a playground.

 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
© 2014 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved.