 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 - 6:12 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
