2001 - What am I missing?

[Art Andrews]

All due respect Art, if you think you're going to achieve some higher level of understanding by listening to some artist explain his intensions rather than trusting your own instincts to discern those intensions for yourself you will never come to "know" anything worth remembering. At least not where art, music, literature, or affairs of the human heart are concerned.

No offense taken on my part, but please understand that I am not looking for a "higher level of understanding." I am simply looking to understand. I don't know how my instincts would ever be able to lead me to greater clarity than if the creator of a piece shared their thoughts and reasoning and in just thinking about that a bit, it would feel presumptuous and arrogant for me to think I ever could. Perhaps I just don't appreciate art in the same way as some of the rest of you do, which would lead us directly back to my initial question regarding what I am missing.

Kubrick was loathe to dissect his own works, but if after reading and watching the following you still regard Kubrick as the sort of intellectually shallow weenie who needed to rely on "confusion, mystery, and lack of clarity" to smoke-&-mirror his way out of having to deal with meaningful cinematic narrative, then I'll happily cede the point...

Sorry is there was a misunderstanding. I am not directly accusing Kubrick of copping out... only that I think many "artists" do.

 

[Carson Dyle]

I am simply looking to understand. I don't know how my instincts would ever be able to lead me to greater clarity than if the creator of a piece shared their thoughts and reasoning and in just thinking about that a bit, it would feel presumptuous and arrogant for me to think I ever could.

Yeah, well, you seem like a reasonably intelligent guy, Art. maybe you should give yourself more credit. My hunch is you already "understand" all you need to understand about "2001" from a cerebral standpoint.

The thing is, film has never been a particularly cerebral art form. It's emotional. Either "2001" connects with those emotions, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, no one on this or any other forum is going to be able to "explain" what you're missing.

Not that some of us haven't given it our best shot.

 

[scotthm]

If it comes down to me imagining what you meant or knowing what you meant, I'll take knowing every time.

What if the meaning was to put you in awe of an intelligence that you (and Kubrick) cannot imagine? I accept that you don't like 2001, but how would you have a film maker explain things that are beyond any human understanding? To try to do so would diminish the experience, IMO.

---------------

 

[Colin Droidmilk]

^ Precisely.

And yet to some degree I do share Art's general desire to know something of an artist's intentions, and indeed something of their intelligence... As a teenager, I only began to appreciate a lot of Modern Art - the more impenetrable works of Picasso, Miro, Klee, Duchamp - when I read about it. And when viewing today an impenetrable piece of contemporary art I am often clueless as to whether I'm looking at the product of a fine intelligence and sensibility, or the work of a cretinous, dim-witted chancer, as exemplified by Britain's alleged greatest artists, Damien Hirst and Tracy Emin.

 

[Colin Droidmilk]

Look at the sci-fi films that came before "2001."

The cream of the crop consisted basically of the following: "Metropolis," "King Kong," "The Day the Earth Stood Still," "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea," the George Pal stuff, "Forbidden Planet"... and maybe a couple others I'm forgetting.

All terrific films to be sure, but let's face it; "2001" represented (and still represents) a quantum-leap forward in just about every regard.

Indeed. And partly for this technical reason: KubricK didn't just want good special effects, or better special effects than had gone before, but set himself the insane goal of making a movie where you coudn't tell visually that the shots even were special effects. He was quite clear about this. And by ****** did he succeed. Indeed there is nothing inferior about the space station and its motion to any such modelwork or motion in SW or anything since. If you were to film that space station today it simply could not be done any better than it appeared in 1968. This is ASTOUNDING. And everyone - especially SW fans - should be on their knees thanking Kubrick for lifting FX in a single bound to this level.

 

[DARTH SABER]

What if the meaning was to put you in awe of an intelligence that you (and Kubrick) cannot imagine? I accept that you don't like 2001, but how would you have a film maker explain things that are beyond any human understanding? To try to do so would diminish the experience, IMO.

---------------

I believe at one point during the script writing process clarke and kubrick were talking about possibly having an alien in the film rather than a monolith.
In the end he thought that no matter how good the alien makeup would be it still wouldn't be able to come close to representing this unimaginable entity, so they just stuck with the monolith as a solid slab that represented simplicity but yet had straight lines and a form that suggested it was created by an intelligent being.

 

[wannab]

I believe at one point during the script writing process clarke and kubrick were talking about possibly having an alien in the film rather than a monolith.
In the end he thought that no matter how good the alien makeup would be it still wouldn't be able to come close to representing this unimaginable entity, so they just stuck with the monolith as a solid slab that represented simplicity but yet had straight lines and a form that suggested it was created by an intelligent being.

They were also going to have the monolith, or "teacher" as they called it, display video images to help the subject learn things to help them advance. They opted for just the simple black surface monolith, that when touched the subject would be given an evolutionary advancement boost via direct to brain (or dna) transfer.

This tidbit about the teacher, led me into assuming the monolith only worked on "chosen ones" who would be the best vehicle to spread the knowledge "naturally". Sort of like the planets aligning in the right person sense.

I found it kind of odd how each evolve jump was was tied together with a weapon advancement (e.g. the bone club then the orbital bomb). Makes you wonder what weapon the star child evolution era will have, or if those two were merely book ends and now man moves past it.




Doug

 

[androidandy]

You can be told and maybe even believe the earth revolves around the sun, and not the other way around, but to experience it and know it takes imagination. We still say sunrise and sunset because that is what we see "superficially" happening. Some movies like some science take a real effort to understand more than just being told what it is about, or taking it on just what we see in front of us. Some people will say because they don't get rocket science, they will say it is "Stupid". Kubrik's movies are nearly as layered and complex, but still wonderful on the surface level if only for the visuals, and just his observations of humanity.

2001 is one of the few true "Science Fiction" films that isn't more fantasy, or watered down cliche's and action adventure. It is a space simulator before we ever went to space, and makes more points about our existence as humans in the modern age, and our place in the universe than many religions. If you get it your life will be changed by it, if you don't, I don't know what to tell you. It is just impossible to accurately explain an experience. Your mind has to be open to it. Problem is that I think we are just programmed to digest information, and not really chew it anymore. We go to movies to have a roller coaster start to finish ride, not something that will continue to make us think long after, and even change how we think.

If I had to describe the film to someone who had never seen it, I would say it is/was the most realistic study of what space travel would/should be for us, and how it may change us as in our next step in our evolution, by getting a connection with the universe as we do/did with the earth. What will it take for us to be ready to cut our cord to the earth? The answer is a hell of a lot more than we think. When I ponder it now it still blows my mind. The thing is that it is part of our spirit more than our intellect, or maybe the union of the two. Most people only have one or the other...if that. Taking some LSD might help get it though

Andy

 

[Colin Droidmilk]

Reading again Agel's 'Making of 2001', which is crammed with contemporary reviews from highbrow critics, middlebrow critics, radio jocks and ordinary joes, it's amazing to see how the split in reaction crosses all these groups. There are many intellectuals for instance who 'get' the film, noting Kubrick's metaphysics and arthouse form but just turn their noses up at it, mocking the former as a 'shaggy God story' and the latter as a muddle compared to Bresson, Luc-Godard etc. Other highbrow critics praise it as being the only film in years worthy of the name film.

The back of Agel's book is emblazoned with :

THE CRITICS LOVED IT
THE CRITICS HATED IT

 

[darth_myeek]

And this is why I am not an artist ... not to mention I don't have a single artistic bone in my body!

Your photography contradicts that statement.

 

[Martin-El]

Well if nothing else this thread makes me want to ge the blu-ray and watch it again with fresh eyes. As it has been years since I last saw it I kind of dismissed 2001 as 'weirdness' eclipsed by everything that came after it but now (at age 38) I don't think I could be more into the concepts or notions it represents. I'm one of the few people that adored 2010 because it was a far more accessible picture that sought to answer questions, not present them - (and I just loved Roy Scheider's grounded portrayal) so the ambiguity was cleared up in a more contemporary setting. Now I've come full-circle and have watched in horror as thirty years of ever-more diluted crud has left me longing for ambiguity and the need for imagination so its time to see it again. I always found it hard work to watch and much of the silence I found terrifying so I wonder if I'll become a fan now...

 

[Art Andrews]

Your photography contradicts that statement.

Haha... thank you for the compliment, but now that you have brought up my photography, I feel like it only serves to prove my point a bit. Based on what a number of people posting here are saying about "art" I don't know that my photos themselves would even be considered art that they would appreciate in any way. My photos are very straight forward, self-explanatory and are shot in a more of a documentary style than in a way to make the viewer think or create their own interpretation. My goal in much of my photography is two-fold; to impress and to inspire. For anyone who doesn't know, I mostly shoot costumes.

I want to:

1) Impress the viewer (not with my photo) by showing off a costume in the best possible light and pose so that the costume is as impressive as it can possibly be and all the hard work of the costumer is shown off in the best possible way.

2) Inspire the viewer to create their own costumes because they find the costume they are looking at in my photos so impressive.

 

[Art Andrews]

I suggest that you add two more films to your Kubrick list...

Paths of Glory - You may like it (one of my favorite fims)

Barry Lyndon - You will hate it. :lol (again, one of my favs)

Well, you pretty much predicted it.

Paths of Glory was ok.

Barry Lyndon... what the heck was the point of that?!? That was essentially two hours of nothing!

 

[wannab]

Haha... thank you for the compliment, but now that you have brought up my photography, I feel like it only serves to prove my point a bit. Based on what a number of people posting here are saying about "art" I don't know that my photos themselves would even be considered art that they would appreciate in any way. My photos are very straight forward, self-explanatory and are shot in a more of a documentary style than in a way to make the viewer think or create their own interpretation. My goal in much of my photography is two-fold; to impress and to inspire. For anyone who doesn't know, I mostly shoot costumes.

I want to:

1) Impress the viewer (not with my photo) by showing off a costume in the best possible light and pose so that the costume is as impressive as it can possibly be and all the hard work of the costumer is shown off in the best possible way.

2) Inspire the viewer to create their own costumes because they find the costume they are looking at in my photos so impressive.

Art you sound very literal and linear in your approach both as a photographer and an observer of art. It's just how you are wired, and there is nothing wrong with that -- you are who you are.

I think great art needs to not only be beautiful in some way but be suggestive and provoking in some way, not be literal in the hand holding sense. Beyond the initial obvious beauty aspect, this "recipe for great art" makes it a personal thing for the observer, each will take away from it different impressions.

Now, that said, do I feel 2001 is great art? Lets see, initial great beauty >check<, suggestive >check<, provoking >check<. Beyond these, it is also proven to be inspirational. Is it flawed strictly as a movie absolutely yes, but as art it nails it.

Now I have to add, I am someone who can find art and beauty in a crumpled up piece of tin foil. So I guess I'm on the other end of the spectrum from you Art. lol


Doug

 

[Java]

Art need not be ambiguous nor in-your-face.

It's something you either connect with, or don't.

Dali's use of color is amazing to me. His subject matter, not so much.

 

[Onli Won Kanomi]

I found it kind of odd how each evolve jump was was tied together with a weapon advancement (e.g. the bone club then the orbital bomb). Makes you wonder what weapon the star child evolution era will have, or if those two were merely book ends and now man moves past it.
Doug

We found out in "2010" and its a rather AWESOME 'weapon' too.

The Kardashev Level 2+ Galactic civilization in Star Wars could explode small rocky planets into rubble.

The Monolith civilization [at least Kardashev level 3, maybe 4] which Bowman/Starchild evolved to parity with as HALMan in 2010 could implode gas giant planets into STARS.

Thats one heckuva 'giant leap for Mankind'...and represents the kind of Power no reasonable intelligent being anywhere would want to oppose.

"All these worlds are yours except Europa. Attempt no landing there"

Of course those who've read 3001 or History know **** sapiens sapiens is not nearly reasonable enough to take the rather shock-and-awe-inspiring Object Lesson behind that warning as seriously as it ought to...

...but that would be another movie that ought to but probably will never be made thanks to the present Hollyweird marketing climate. -sigh-

edit: wow this site actually censors the proper scientific name for the human species??? Hilarious!

 

[CessnaDriver]

So who wants to go on this one way trip to ascension Bowman took?
If you had the chance...
Would you go?

 

[wannab]

So who wants to go on this one way trip to ascension Bowman took?
If you had the chance...
Would you go?

Prior to having kids, yes. Now, no.



Doug

 

[Angelus Lupus]

This is one of thos films that I liked bits of, but never really 'got'. There's moments of excitement, but the pacing is rather laborious for a lot of the film. It's like Gattaca for me (It took about five viewing before I was able to sit through the whole of that film without getting bored - it's so slow)

 

[SSgt Burton]

So who wants to go on this one way trip to ascension Bowman took?
If you had the chance...
Would you go?

Anything that gets me out of work for the day.


*hears crickets chriping...* :unsure


Wasn't there supposed to be an ending in which the Star Child returns to Earth and destroys all the Nations' orbital weapons?


Kevin