2001, A Space Odyssey, explained in 10 minutes
- Thread starter pookie_old
- Start date
David G. Smith
Steak Knife Member
Too cool. Where do you find this stuff Pookie?
I am a big fan of 2001 and this is one of the better attempts at interpretation.
I am a big fan of 2001 and this is one of the better attempts at interpretation.
Steve Strickland
Well-known member
Wow, that was cool. Thanks for the link, Pookie. I loved this take on 2001. Everytime I read or, in this case, see someone's interpretation on this film, it makes me want to go watch it again for myself. For a movie that was made almost thirty years ago, it is awesome that people are still dissecting it and contemplating the films meaning. More proof, like any more was needed, that Kubrick was a true master of his craft. If only he could have gone out with A.I. instead of Eyes Wide Shut.
edit: I meant 40 years, I just can't count very well... :embarasse
edit: I meant 40 years, I just can't count very well... :embarasse
Kirk Gillock
Rebel with a cause
Very cool. Thanks Pookie.
Coincidentally, "40 years" is how long it takes for that thing to load.
Good find. Makes me want to watch it right now. Too bad I don't have a projector. 2001 doesn't have the same effect when viewed on a small screen. It's amazing in the theatre.
MovieSwede
Well-known member
mmm said:
There is even movies showin in the theaters today that look like ****
David G. Smith
Steak Knife Member
MovieSwede said:
I love a quote I read in the book about the making of "2001" where some critic says, "This film should be shown continuiously on a wall at the Musem of Modern Art."
I second that.
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
That was very cool; and saves me another 3 hours watching it and trying to figure it out.
How do people like this movie? How do people dig Kubrick so much? Yes yes yes...... I appreciate some of the work he has done but find his myth and mystique and his open shuning of Hollywood is what people tend to gravitate towards.
I find Kubrick to really just not care about the audience. 2001 has no narrative structure but is like a montage of a visual poem and we're supposed to 'figure it out' or 'make what we will' out of it.
If it wasn't for films like Spartacus, The Shining and Full Metal Jacket I'd have ZERO respect for this filmmaker; cause the rest is prententious crap.
How do people like this movie? How do people dig Kubrick so much? Yes yes yes...... I appreciate some of the work he has done but find his myth and mystique and his open shuning of Hollywood is what people tend to gravitate towards.
I find Kubrick to really just not care about the audience. 2001 has no narrative structure but is like a montage of a visual poem and we're supposed to 'figure it out' or 'make what we will' out of it.
If it wasn't for films like Spartacus, The Shining and Full Metal Jacket I'd have ZERO respect for this filmmaker; cause the rest is prententious crap.
David G. Smith
Steak Knife Member
John_Hudson said:
What about Lolita, Dr. Strangelove, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb and The Killing? Throw in 2001, a Space Oddessy, A Clockwork Orange, The Shining, Full Metal Jacket and yes, Barry Lyndon and you have one hell of a body of work. Now I agree, there is alot of hype about Kubrick that was fostered upon him by the press and I think that his only fault was by keeping quite about it and not adderessing it.
One thing I admire about Kubrick is that he was the original American independent. He did what Robert Rodriguez, Kevin Smith, Joe Carnahan and Sam Rami did. He went out and made a movie with what ever resources he could scrape together. Of course, he did it in 1953!!. Of course the film, Fear and Desire is not that good, IMO, but he did it. Kubrick predates John Cassavetes's Shadows for pete'sake.
As for 2001, it is not for eveybody and in this post Star Wars, MTV, A.D.D world we live in, it is a hard movie for some people to grasp. However, I totally disagree with the common complaint that, "It has no narrative". Kubrick is quoted as saying, that with 2001, he was, "Trying to destroy the 3-act narrative". What most people do not understand is that is complete bullshit. 2001 is one of the most tightly structured 3 act narratives ever put on film. Look at it, Act-1-Aliens meet Apes, Act-2 Aliens meet Humans, Act 3-Humans find Aliens. Along the way, we are treated to some of the most
magnificent visuals ever captured on film. Not to mention the fact that the use of music in the film forever changed movie music. I have had the good fortune to have seen the film, in 70mm, a couple of times. What an experience. I love it. I quess we will have to just disagree on this one. I think it is a great film.
As for no respect for him as a filmmaker. Gee whiz, some people will slap together a 35mm adaptor and shot flowers in their back yard and we all damn near pee on ourselves giving them praise on this forum (and deservedly so). Give it up for Kubrick. He chopped up a Mitchell BNC and mounted NASA lenses on them so he could shoot in candle light! Also, look at how he forever changed special effects in 2001. You may not like his movies, but I think that talking smack about the dude as a filmmaker is wrong.
:thumbsup:
i dunno, when i was at NYU, there ws major gripe between the Art majors (me and Company) and the Tisch Film folk.
They often had problems with our film work and Video art because it lacked narritave structure.
Now i personally have mucho respet for Filmmmakers because i got 2 shorts under my belt and it is just as much, if not more work to put to gether a coherent narritive story as it is to come up with an art video or Art film. ( like that saying goes walk a mile in a mans shoes before you judge him) But i personally find that alot of work out there is pretentious crap. but the the thing you have to understand is some times its really not. The genius of the Kubrick was that he ws trying to convey a philosophic concept ( more on this later). THAT IS UNBELIEVABLY dıfficult to do with a narritive story. because philosophy unless you can follow it very closely is SOOO boring. 2001 a space odyssey, was much more similar to art in my mind because, he lays out the symbols, and lets the viewer put it together. The genius was that he was able to do so in such a way that without telling you what to think, the juxtoposition of the elements of the film leads the viewr to the philosophic conclusion on their own. For example: "Waking Life"..... that whole movie was philosophic rhetoric... but it was shallow because if you could follow its dialogue, it just kinda is like mental masturbation, cause it makes you feel smarter just that you were able to follow the logic of the writer..... its answers were prepackaged. you basically evesdropped on a few awesome conversations. this is why i think he had to do the weird animation thing just to distract you from the fact that he was leading you around. Same deal with "Pi" the Aronofsky film. it seemed like it was gonna answer some bıg question. then it just kinda fızzles out and becomes an action movie at the end to distract you from thefact that the writer couldnt answer the questions he posed....
Kubrick, on th other hand had no delusions that he knew any answers. he just gave you his evidence ( or Sir Arthur C Clarke`s) and lets you make what you will of it.
That is why this film Really is a piece of art. you have to work to understand it. it actually make you smarter after you watch it.
lol i actually remeber when i joined this board i posted upsome Video Art stuff i did when i got my DVX.. and John said it was crap too.... well at least hes consistent. lol
( no offense should be taken John, i highly respect you)
They often had problems with our film work and Video art because it lacked narritave structure.
Now i personally have mucho respet for Filmmmakers because i got 2 shorts under my belt and it is just as much, if not more work to put to gether a coherent narritive story as it is to come up with an art video or Art film. ( like that saying goes walk a mile in a mans shoes before you judge him) But i personally find that alot of work out there is pretentious crap. but the the thing you have to understand is some times its really not. The genius of the Kubrick was that he ws trying to convey a philosophic concept ( more on this later). THAT IS UNBELIEVABLY dıfficult to do with a narritive story. because philosophy unless you can follow it very closely is SOOO boring. 2001 a space odyssey, was much more similar to art in my mind because, he lays out the symbols, and lets the viewer put it together. The genius was that he was able to do so in such a way that without telling you what to think, the juxtoposition of the elements of the film leads the viewr to the philosophic conclusion on their own. For example: "Waking Life"..... that whole movie was philosophic rhetoric... but it was shallow because if you could follow its dialogue, it just kinda is like mental masturbation, cause it makes you feel smarter just that you were able to follow the logic of the writer..... its answers were prepackaged. you basically evesdropped on a few awesome conversations. this is why i think he had to do the weird animation thing just to distract you from the fact that he was leading you around. Same deal with "Pi" the Aronofsky film. it seemed like it was gonna answer some bıg question. then it just kinda fızzles out and becomes an action movie at the end to distract you from thefact that the writer couldnt answer the questions he posed....
Kubrick, on th other hand had no delusions that he knew any answers. he just gave you his evidence ( or Sir Arthur C Clarke`s) and lets you make what you will of it.
That is why this film Really is a piece of art. you have to work to understand it. it actually make you smarter after you watch it.
lol i actually remeber when i joined this board i posted upsome Video Art stuff i did when i got my DVX.. and John said it was crap too.... well at least hes consistent. lol
( no offense should be taken John, i highly respect you)
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
I cannot dispute his body of work is wide open and I too wish he addressed the hype. I strongly feel that the majority of it is that; hype and mystique (ooooh and awwww)
Again, part of that sensationalism of Kubrick. I admit; anyone doing this route is cool for school in my book. I have no desire to ever 'Make it' in Hollywood and would kill (only bad people) to be in the RR vien of indieville
I can't chalk it up to the MTV thing; not for me anyway. A good film is a good film is a good film. Hell, M Knights films are very deliberate intheir pacing and are the farthest thing from a Star Wars, MTV A.D.D. idea. I too saw 2001 on the bigscreen (as a child) and I also wouldnt chalk it up to someone not being able to grasp it. Once we take that approach it starts becoming a kind of elitist pompous arty vibe. Someone people like it, some people don't. I don;t personally get how someone can stand to sit there for almost 3 hours and watch it. Like "Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz..." and Space ships flying floating through space to pre-recorded classial music is cool; for a few moments.
I'm down. If we all liked the same things where would we be? Jesus; some people actually like John Woo; know what I mean?
I'm digging it. Hell; I have more stokage on him for these reasons thatn the actual films. My last word is just 'Overhyped' IMO. Good; really good even? Yes. The great magnificent OZ? No.
David G. Smith
Steak Knife Member
John_Hudson said:
Yeah, I agree. I dig the **** out of the guy. Greatest filmmaker ever? No way. (I know I am gonna get **** for this, but I would give that title to John Ford.)
You know what I love as for explaining Kubrick? Vivian Kubrick's documentary on the making of the Shining. It was cool to see Kubrick blocking shots, working with the camera, dealing with Shelly Duval. It really made him out to be just what I think he was, just a very smart guy who made movies for a living. You are right, the great and magnificent OZ? No way.
Also, I forgot about Paths of Glory. Holy ****, that is a great film.