2001 - What am I missing?

[Java]

Darth Saber - that is a really beautiful painting.

One thing for sure, Kubrick created art in 2001. All the dialog in this thread alone, 44 years later kinda solidifies it.

Me, I love the HAL scenes. Dave fighting for his very life against that failing, paranoid, almost childlike computer, makes the movie.

"open the pod-bay doors, HAL" - the desperation!

Dave's solution - can YOU imagine having the wits and the will to do that?

"killing" HAL - chilling and sad.

 

[DARTH SABER]

Darth Saber - that is a really beautiful painting.

One thing for sure, Kubrick created art in 2001. All the dialog in this thread alone, 44 years later kinda solidifies it.

Me, I love the HAL scenes. Dave fighting for his very life against that failing, paranoid, almost childlike computer, makes the movie.

"open the pod-bay doors, HAL" - the desperation!

Dave's solution - can YOU imagine having the wits and the will to do that?

"killing" HAL - chilling and sad.

Just some great scenes.
Oh, one more thing about 2001- I dont think any other science fiction has ever portrayed space in such a terrifying way.
In Star Wars or Star Trek you always had the notion that even though they were in space, there was always a nearby planet with inhabitants, or a starfleet ship around the corner, etc. It never felt like a truley isolated.

In 2001, theres this sense that you were indeed in the middle of NOWHERE.
Sort of like being dropped in the middle of the ocean with no one for thousunds of miles. Very creepy.

 

[Art Andrews]

Kubrick threw it all out, desiring something far more ambiguous, something on which the viewer could project his own imagination. The result opens up interpretations ranging from Nietzche to the Resurrection and beyond...

"How could we possibly appreciate the Mona Lisa if Leonardo Da Vinci had written on the bottom of the canvas: 'The lady is smiling because she is hiding a secret from her lover.' This would shackle the viewer to reality, and I don't want this to happen to 2001." - Kubrick.

And a word from Arthur C. Clarke:

"There has been little attempt at integrity on the part of filmmakers in dealing with the possibility of extraterrestrial life. This is what makes 2001 so unique, I think. It poses metaphysical, philosophical and even religious questions. I don't pretend we have the answers. But the questions are certainly worth thinking about." (And 2001 remains the only film to have dealt with the issue so seriously, with the possible exception of Solaris)

See, this is where you lose me (or more appropriately, Kubrick loses me). I guess I am just not that kind of person because in the back of my head, I always feel like those who leave their work "open to interpretation" are really just copping out because they don't have an answer or don't know what they are doing and they are attempting to hide that fact with a faux aura of mystery. Maybe I have just had bad experiences with this, but I will never forget my utter disgust with my literature classes in college (all with the same professor unfortunately) in which we would read books that were fairly straight forward and then the teacher would inject all this ridiculous layering of meaning into a story that I feel confident was just a story. The author wasn't some super-genius dealing with all the complexities of life. They were just telling a story.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and I would MUCH rather the author of a work tell me their intent than come up with one of my own that may have nothing at all to do with their original purpose. Maybe some people like that kind of imagination, but for me, that is just me playing mental gymnastics in my own head. My interest in art is understanding and hearing someone else's ideas and thought processes... not having them give me something vague that I am just going to apply my same old thought processes to. Me? I WOULD want to know the story behind the Mona Lisa instead of imagining some false reasoning for myself.

BTW, I watched Solaris last night since it was brought up. It was a little slow, but I actually liked that pretty well.

 

[Art Andrews]

DS, whether I care for the film or not, I dig that painting and it does beautifully illustrate an epic moment in the first part of the story!

 

[SSgt Burton]

I revisited 2001 last summer and never realized just how impressive the Dawn of Man sequence really was until then; the little nuances I never truly absorbed.

DS' painting (which is amazing :thumbsup) sums it up perfectly-

Notice how the tribe members with bones are standing erect (as opposed to the other tribe which is still on all fours)- they have evolved.


Art- (not trying to purposely sound condesending in any way here) it's simply a case of it being "not your thing." There's nothing wrong with that.

There are certain subjects (without breaking the TOS) that are very much "not my thing", and no matter how well a movie might be shot, or how cleverly it is done, it will still not be "my thing."



Kevin

 

[Colin Droidmilk]

Darth Saber - that is a really beautiful painting.

One thing for sure, Kubrick created art in 2001. All the dialog in this thread alone, 44 years later kinda solidifies it.

Me, I love the HAL scenes. Dave fighting for his very life against that failing, paranoid, almost childlike computer, makes the movie.

"open the pod-bay doors, HAL" - the desperation!

Dave's solution - can YOU imagine having the wits and the will to do that?

"killing" HAL - chilling and sad.

:thumbsup The HAL scenes ARE satisfying drama at the conventional level. The film is not bereft of it entirely, as its detractors claim.

 

[DARTH SABER]

I revisited 2001 last summer and never realized just how impressive the Dawn of Man sequence really was until then; the little nuances I never truly absorbed.

DS' painting (which is amazing :thumbsup) sums it up perfectly-

Notice how the tribe members with bones are standing erect (as opposed to the other tribe which is still on all fours)- they have evolved.

First off, thanks for the comments and secondly.... Congratulations.
I've had that image on my gallery for months now with dozens of comments and you're the first one to pick up on the stance=evolution element.

I also had to play around with the composition so that the guy with the bone was the only one at a worms eye view, to make him tower or the rest of the apes (his superiority over the rest of them.)

Ds

 

[ONEYE]

I enjoyed this thread and learned some new things. Thank you all.

 

[benhs1898]

See, this is where you lose me (or more appropriately, Kubrick loses me). I guess I am just not that kind of person because in the back of my head, I always feel like those who leave their work "open to interpretation" are really just copping out because they don't have an answer or don't know what they are doing and they are attempting to hide that fact with a faux aura of mystery. Maybe I have just had bad experiences with this, but I will never forget my utter disgust with my literature classes in college (all with the same professor unfortunately) in which we would read books that were fairly straight forward and then the teacher would inject all this ridiculous layering of meaning into a story that I feel confident was just a story. The author wasn't some super-genius dealing with all the complexities of life. They were just telling a story.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and I would MUCH rather the author of a work tell me their intent than come up with one of my own that may have nothing at all to do with their original purpose. Maybe some people like that kind of imagination, but for me, that is just me playing mental gymnastics in my own head. My interest in art is understanding and hearing someone else's ideas and thought processes... not having them give me something vague that I am just going to apply my same old thought processes to. Me? I WOULD want to know the story behind the Mona Lisa instead of imagining some false reasoning for myself.

BTW, I watched Solaris last night since it was brought up. It was a little slow, but I actually liked that pretty well.

If art does not challenge the audience, then the audience does not become engaged. Rather, are passively receiving information. Art thrives on the concept that everyone takes from it what they will. Subjectivity is in everything and it is the great artist who embraces this and TRULY challenges the audience.

It is a double edged sword, because it is kind of a copout to simply expect everything to be explained. Especially in film- a visual media- stories should not be entirely spoken. This is where lies the old argument that silent films were greater because they were almost purely visual. In screen writing, exposition (telling the story verbally basically) is actually considered a very weak way of conveying story.

Ultimately it is a matter of taste. People try too often and with too much effort to impose their values on others. It's fine if it isn't your cup of tea. I don't think any less of you for not thinking the same way as I expect you don't think any less of me for thinking the way I do. Just don't make the mistake of saying something is necessarily "bad" because you don't like it.

 

[ONEYE]

If art does not challenge the audience, then the audience does not become engaged. Rather, are passively receiving information...

Here is where I am odd or different. When I watch a movie, I do not want a challenge, I want to be entertained. Daily life is challenging enough at times. If I want a challenge, I'll pick a different medium, like a book, that is without music, pictures and requires my mind to work. I guess I must be a boneless monkey? :unsure

 

[Colin Droidmilk]

See, this is where you lose me (or more appropriately, Kubrick loses me). I guess I am just not that kind of person because in the back of my head, I always feel like those who leave their work "open to interpretation" are really just copping out because they don't have an answer or don't know what they are doing and they are attempting to hide that fact with a faux aura of mystery. Maybe I have just had bad experiences with this, but I will never forget my utter disgust with my literature classes in college (all with the same professor unfortunately) in which we would read books that were fairly straight forward and then the teacher would inject all this ridiculous layering of meaning into a story that I feel confident was just a story. The author wasn't some super-genius dealing with all the complexities of life. They were just telling a story.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and I would MUCH rather the author of a work tell me their intent than come up with one of my own that may have nothing at all to do with their original purpose. Maybe some people like that kind of imagination, but for me, that is just me playing mental gymnastics in my own head. My interest in art is understanding and hearing someone else's ideas and thought processes... not having them give me something vague that I am just going to apply my same old thought processes to. Me? I WOULD want to know the story behind the Mona Lisa instead of imagining some false reasoning for myself.

BTW, I watched Solaris last night since it was brought up. It was a little slow, but I actually liked that pretty well.

I understand you. It's something I've battled with all my life as a fine artist, the question of how much mystery and how much clarity goes into the mix. From Picasso to Max Ernst to Kubrick you'll find artists agreeing that the possibility of a full explanation of a work kills a work stone dead, or even an artist's full knowledge of what he's doing can be the kiss of death. I think since existence is mysterious a work best reflects life if it can recreate in itself that mystery. But this is art stuff, not regular film stuff, and part of Kubrick's achievement was that he got an art approach into mainstream cinema houses, where of course it obviously irritated a whole load of people, lol...

The ending of 2001 is disorientating in a way it would not have been if he'd shot the original easy-to-follow script. But I think total disorientaion is required at that point in the film, and Kubrick was absolutely right to go with it. How else to make the viewer share Bowman's terrifying trip through infinity to transcendence? Whether his transcendence is at the hand of ETs or God or something else entirely is a question Kubrick does not want explicitly answered and for me it would be a smaller film experience if he had answered it. Ironically I suspect it's because I believe in no God that the religious interpretation of 2001 appeals to me so much - even atheists can yearn for the resurrection, and they're given it in the Star Child ( an image which never fails to move me to tears). But while the 'God' aspects of 2001 appeal, they only appeal because they're not explicit. If it were explicit, it'd be corny BS. And this is the value of obfuscation. Similarly if we saw the aliens and knew their purpose, we'd know we're just stuck in the universe still, that we haven't gone outside it to total transcendence. It's one reason I dislike 2010; the transcendent is reduced to 'the landlord' by the new audience-friendly lemme-tell-ya-what's- going-on Dr. Floyd.

 

[benhs1898]

Here is where I am odd or different. When I watch a movie, I do not want a challenge, I want to be entertained. Daily life is challenging enough at times. If I want a challenge, I'll pick a different medium, like a book, that is without music, pictures and requires my mind to work. I guess I must be a boneless monkey? :unsure

No, you're not. There is plenty pure entertainment. I, personally, enjoy both. I have high standards for entertainment but not impossible expectations (e.g. I enjoyed Iron Man, well crafted entertainment). I respect that some people just don't care. Everyone should just be respectful of others' preferences.

What I don't like and fight against is when someone imposes their ideals onto others. I do it sometimes, but I try not to (no one is perfect). For instance, I hate it when someone says something is outright "bad" because they simply didn't care for it.

 

[Clutch]

Love this!:thumbsup

One of my favorite films.

 

[CessnaDriver]

2001 ended perfectly, the only sequal should be in your own imagination.

 

[Colin Droidmilk]

Here is where I am odd or different. When I watch a movie, I do not want a challenge, I want to be entertained. Daily life is challenging enough at times. If I want a challenge, I'll pick a different medium, like a book, that is without music, pictures and requires my mind to work. I guess I must be a boneless monkey? :unsure

Not that different. I sure as shoot don't want a Kubrick challenge every time I watch a movie! And let me tell ya Kubrick is at the accessible end of art cinema. God, some of the stuff at the other end... Warhol movies - now that's watching paint dry and then remaining there till it peels off the walls.

Darth Saber - lovely analysis of the movie and a great painting!

 

[benhs1898]

Yeah, I am in the middle. I can watch Men in Black then jump into Tree of Life.

I am pretty flexible.

 

[Carson Dyle]

Different strokes, I guess.

I find nothing more disillusioning and unsatisfying than listening to an (alleged) artist explain the intended "meaning" of his work.

One of the reasons I like and admire Kubrick is that he had faith in his films as well as in the audience. He was content to let his movies speak for themselves, and he respected the audience's intelligence enough not to coach them from the sidelines a la "Here's what the story is really about..."

In that regard Kubrick was no different than Hitchcock, Fellini, Lean, Bergman, Malick, Lynch, Allen, or any number of cinematic artists who allowed, or continue to allow, the audience to make up their own minds re: "meaning."

At any rate, "2001" isn't nearly as hard to decipher as some would have us believe. Everything one needs to know is right there on the screen. For all the debate re: the famously "baffling" ending I honestly believe the general audience understands (perhaps "intuits" is more apt) "2001" much more fully than they sometimes give themselves credit for.

Here is where I am odd or different. When I watch a movie, I do not want a challenge, I want to be entertained.

You're not odd or different. These days, you're the norm. And with all due respect, you're the reason a lot of smart, bold, dangerous, creative, imaginative, daring, inventive, poetic, soulful, and, yes, challenging films will never get made.

The good news is that cinema as we've known it is probably a dying art form. My generation had "2001," "The Graduate," and "Midnight Cowboy." My son's generation will have 1st Person shooter games.

Vive le revolucion!

 

[CessnaDriver]

This was a cool model kit concept from some years ago that I just love how it conveys some meaning of the film.

Starship Modeler - Astronaut with Ape Diorama

 

[Onli Won Kanomi]

There are plenty of Michael Bay type 'ooh thet thar aylee-yen rowbott blewed up real gud' films for those who don't want their minds to work and are only concerned with what 'loox kewl doodz'...its easy to get those kind of 'dum dummerer n dummerest' films a greenlight from fat lazy-minded studio execs whose only concern is maximizing profit for their big corporation owners because the 'Universal Language Of Splosions' is easier to sell tickets to an English-illiterate moviegoer in Outer Mongolia than intelligent dialogue and a subtle exploration of the major philosophical questions of human existence through cinematic artistry is likely to be lost on the 50% of potential ticket buyers anywhere with sub-100 I.Q.s.

2001 would never be greenlit today...a modern Kubrick could never get his vision to screen. Deliberate stupidity to sell the most tickets to foreign illiterates and domestic morons is the present economic model of the modern film industry..

 

[Colin Droidmilk]

^ Hear hear.

Sorry I'm forever posting in this thread but it's got me onto a real 2001 kick now...

Was just thinking about a connection between HAL and the apes. They're the only ones who exhibit passions, namely fear and the instinct to murder, and they're both at the dawn of their development.

And re the 'tedium' of the spaceflight stuff, Russian cosmonaut Leonov said of 2001, 'Now I feel like I've been in space twice.' As Clark said, 'It's the best testimonial for the movie.'

Oh and note how Kubrick laughs at Floyd and the other scientists at the moon monolith. They have a mystical moment in front of the slab and then what do they do? Stand around having their pictures taken like vulgar tourists. The monolith's piercing signal comes over as punishment for this profanity.