I think because there's such astonishing film-making virtuosity at play, there are those who kneejerk to discounting 2001's content on that basis. A little like when virtuosity and instrumental prowess are present in music, to a certain mindset that means that there's "no soul" or the musicians "don't know how to write a good song."Originally Posted by Painter
Last edited by undergroundrailroad; 04-04-2018 at 04:27 PM. Reason: punctuation
Agree completely. The space scenes still look more realistic and accurate than most of the CGI schlock sci fi films of the present.
+1 to Painter and DocP. I didn't see this film until several years after it was released, but did see it in a theater first, and also NOT under the influence. It wasn't until college and after that I started really mining it for all the available attention-to-detail and film-making virtuosity involved. The realism and accuracy written about in the above quotes is so much more satisfying to my eyes and sensibilities than the hyper-"real" video game look of even the best CGI being used today. And the story content? Still thought-provoking after all these years, and stands up well with the great speculative fiction of any era primarily because it leaves one with more questions than answers. It's one of the first discs I purchased when I got my first DVD player and I still watch it at least once a year.
David
Happy with what I have to be happy with.
But whether or not there is a "story" really isn't that important. It's a feature, like the opening credits. Some films are story-driven and others aren't.
As far as Lynch/Kubrick, I don't think David Lynch is anywhere near the caliber of Kubrick. He's a legit artist with a unique perspective, but I don't think that the majority of his work is very successful.
Haven't seen all of those, but anyone that tries to tell me that Twin Peaks has a coherent storyline is going to get big laughs.
My, this is good coffee. And hot.
Cobra handling and cocaine use are a bad mix.
Laughing is quite apropo, because part of the appeal of Twin Peaks is the odd offbeat Lynchian humor.
I still wouldn't agree that it's just nonsense for nonsense's sake, as it served a purpose to the story and film. It was a way of making comprehensible something that is incomprehensible. Even though most of the film was scientific in its approach, it was still a science-fiction story written by Arthur C. Clarke. Even he was known to play fast and loose with science from time to time, in service of telling a story.I understood it to mean what you have written above, which was the prevailing explanation at the time. But it's still nonsense, because the rest of the film was SCIENTIFIC.
I think I was a bit harsh and a bit of a poo poohead when I stated Kubrick was overrated.
Following comments from here, I did some research and more background on Stanley Kubrick and it seems he was the real deal.
I just got tired of all these actors fawning on and on about Stanley to the point it was nauseating.
Still one wonders with his vast body of acclaimed work why the Academy never awarded him an Oscar.
He did receive a Special Effects Oscar for 2001, but many including the gentleman who actually did the effects, felt the award was wrong since (according to the Special Effects Director), Kubrick never worked on them.
Hitchcock never won a best director Oscar.
For best picture, Scorsese's Raging Bull was beaten by Ordinary People; Goodfellas was beaten by Dances with Wolves; Taxi Driver was beaten by Rocky
Peter O'Toole didn't win best actor for Lawrence of Arabia
Shakespeare in Love beat Saving Private Ryan for best picture
Francis Ford Coppola did not win Best Director for The Godfather
John Ford never won a Best Director for any of his westerns
Orson Welles, Robert Altman, Sidney Lumet, Stanley Kramer, Ingmar Bergman never won a Best Director Oscar
etc etc
My comment wasn't to support the overrated statement.
It's one of the curiousities that exists in the world of entertainment, and often I think nominations and awards are more a popularity contest or what's trendy than the actual talent and art.
Last edited by Top Cat; 04-08-2018 at 07:12 AM. Reason: mispelled word
I think it was a very dickish move on his part to accept the Special Effects award instead of the four guys who worked, slaved and innovated never-before-seen stuff (Trumbull's Slit Scan and paint-in-oil effects).
I am in awe of his visionary artistry and his meticulous attention-to-detail. But, he was most likely someone I wouldn't want to have met. Or work for.
Wasn't saying you were one way or the other. You said "one wonders why..." and I was simply pointing out the litany of some of the ridiculous Oscar snubs and oversights over the years. So yes, the best always don't get recognized. Kubrick was never a "Hollywood guy".
My older half brother was the last manager of this city's State theater around 1970. He would call me and say ya gotta come down and see this.
He was never more emphatic than for 2001(not even for Andy Warhol's Frankenstein, lol).The film was long past it's first release blush. When I did go there couldn't have been more than 4 or 5 people on the premises, two of whom were he and I, and he had concessions to run.
Wide screen, nearly empty theater, just the movie and me...
...nearly 45 minutes without dialogue to start...
...the great waterhole battle...
...the discovery of the first tool...
...of course, a weapon.
...the triumphant bonethrow skyward...
...Strauss II's Blue Danube spacedocking...
(I, of course had heard the piece before, but not like this. Not like this.)
I was 11, I think. Maybe 12, but I'm thinking 11.
I will never, ever forget it. I may not have understood it, it took reading the book a few years later.
One of my very favorite films ever.
Perhaps finding the happy medium is harder than we know.
That's a great story, man.
What a cool memory. Thanks for sharing.
Yes, I find it most interesting the filmmakers used music composed by 2 unrelated guys with the surname Strauss. Of course, Blue Danube was public domain at the time, but to use Also Sprach Zarathustra as the film opener, they would've had to get permission from the Richard Strauss estate. He died just a couple of decades before the film was made.
Last edited by progmatist; 04-08-2018 at 01:37 PM.
"Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"--Dalai Lama
Why would they have needed to get permission from the Strauss estate? Strauss estate had no control over any orchestral performances of his music. Just like Ligeti (who was still very much alive) didn't need to be asked to have his music used in the film.
2001 is in my top 3 films. Kubrick is not at all overrated, IMO.
I was taken to see the movie when it came out (in Cinemascope!), and I have a surreal memory of that since I was only five years old. It surprises me every time I watch it. I love the end sequence, it's given me a lot to think about over the years, and I've read lots of opinions, explanations, etc.
RE: David Lynch, I'm not a huge fan, but I haven't seen everything and I need to rewatch what I have seen. I actually like the Dune movie, as well as the book. I'm not big fan of weirdness for weirdness' sake, but I'm willing to give Lynch more time. Blue Velvet didn't register much with me, but I should watch it again. I really don't think of Lynch as being in the same league as Kubrick. IMO Kubrick is in the same league as Hitchcock. But, I need to do more work.
That is insane! It was a pretty good year though.
I totally understand people not liking David Lynch, he's quirky and a whole lot of weird, but I happen to like that.
Is David Lynch one of the greatest directors of all time, in my opinion no, but he's great at what he does and for those who like his work, he can open one's mind to look at things differently than what we see on the surface.
Blue Velvet wasn't one of my favorites either, I did like the sequel to Twin Peaks, Firewalk with me which explained a lot of what the series was about.
My favorite Lynch movie is Mulholland Drive, and I think it's one of the more accessible movies he's made, although like many of his movies the story unfolds slowly.
Regarding Kubrick, since this thread started and I did more research on Kubrick rather than making an emotional evaluation of his talent, I've learned a lot more about Kubrick and his directing. And I've come away with a deeper understanding and respect for his body of work. Like all things, there are some movies that aren't my cup o tea, that I've passed on over the years.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks