Rogue Keeper on 21/5/2007 at 14:51
More precisely it's a Space Odyssey explanatory spoof. If you have ever wondered what all the subtle symbolism in 2001:SO means, you can watch this slightly parodic condensed version...
(
http://www.kubrick2001.com/)
Of course, it's better to read Clarke's rationalist novel if you want a serious explanation of the lyric movie.
zombe on 21/5/2007 at 18:26
That reminds me ... i found the movie to be quite watchable - as long as i did hold the fast forward button down (seriously. had to resume with normal speed if they talked though, but that rarely happened).
Gingerbread Man on 21/5/2007 at 18:51
Is it just me not paying a lot of attention to this fairly mediocre thing after a couple of minutes, or has the guy who did this never heard of Arthur C Clarke nor read the damned books?
fett on 21/5/2007 at 23:44
Much like the original movie, I had to put a gun in my mouth about 45 seconds in to save myself from the boredom.
demagogue on 22/5/2007 at 01:35
I love thinking about the deeper meanings in movies like 2001, Blade Runner, etc, but this little flash thing doesn't really go very deep. It's ok ... I'm happy I watched it and got that guy's perspective, but it's more like a cliff notes version of the movie's meaning (which is fine, don't get me wrong). But if something is going to go geeky with thinking things through, it may as well go (
http://fusionanomaly.net/monolith.html) all the way, at least for a movie like this.
(On that link, start reading from the blue text, the sentence that says "Kubrick uses alchemical allegories through out the film." and on through "Finally we get to Kubrick's ultimate trick." ... If you can't be bothered, just read this really short version (although I recommend you read the link's longer version if you have the initiative; it's better):
There should be 4 monoliths because there is one for every celestial alignment, but only 3 show up, where's the missing one? It should be there right after the first eclipse, but all we see is the black scree ... wait a second, same dimensions. Oh, the movie is the monolith! Except this one is meant for us, to transform us like the others transform their respective humanities. Kubrick is so clever.)
Kolya on 22/5/2007 at 02:59
If you don't get this movie you probably haven't payed any attention. In which case you wholly deserve it being explained to you by a site like this.
And for all of you who find it "soooo boring": Lay off the coke people. Seriously. If you can't sit down and watch a beautifully shot movie for two hours or what without phoning all your friends, going three times to the loo and talking about group sports you have an attention problem that neither this movie nor philosophy will ever be able to fix for you.
fett on 22/5/2007 at 03:13
Truly, I feel like an uncultured slob now. I'd put a gun in my mouth, but OH WATE I already did that trying to sit through 2001.
Rogue Keeper on 22/5/2007 at 08:38
Quote Posted by Gingerbread Man
the guy who did this never heard of Arthur C Clarke nor read the damned books?
It' wouldn't be very fair to argument with explanations in the book, as the book has been written after the movie. The original short story "Sentinel" has been a loose source of inspiration for the movie. Surely, the novel explains a lot, but it also creates an important contrast between Clarke's descriptive rationalism and Kubrick's mysticism, magic of the untold, leaving open space for your own conclusions.
That's why I recommend people to watch the movie first and read the book later, because people often mistake the movie for adaptation of the novel. Opposite approach usually leads to opinion "The book was great, but the movie was realy lousy and derivative in comparison."
Having your own conclusions from the movie without knowing about the novel would be completely legitimate though.
Quote Posted by demagogue
I love thinking about the deeper meanings in movies like 2001, Blade Runner, etc, but this little flash thing doesn't really go very deep.
Some key conclusions which it offers are common for most people, while other conclusions may be strictly individual.
That's why it's more like "2001 For Busy People" - people who neither have patience to watch it, nor to think about it for too long on a metaphysical level. This compact version of 2001 explicitly explains them all important key points, sparing their brain cells. For this purpose it serves well. :cheeky:
Quote Posted by fett
I'd put a gun in my mouth, but OH WATE I already did that trying to sit through 2001.
And you didn't have guts to pull the trigger? You could have been a Star Child by now. Oh well, this Michael Bay generation. :p
Critically taken, the movie indeed has it's weaknesses in the middle part, when we are watching Dr. Floyd's trip to the Moon. Here Kubrick focuses on technical wonders of the future too much. The dialogues in this part (especially with his small daughter and Russian scientists) are awkward, not relaxed and natural. Too much attention is being dedicated to fantastic devices like VoicePrint Identification terminal and Videophone and Floyd uses them like for the first time, not as if they were natural part of his everyday life. The MoonBus part is too long. Of course, all this didn't look so redundant back in late 60s, but from our retrospective, it may look funny. Luckily "Mission Jupiter" and "Beyond the Infinite" parts are still inspiring as ever, and they are the reason why is this movie so unforgettable.
2001 is that kind of lyric (or "poetic" if you want) movie which you have to feel through instead of trying to rationally understand every bit of it at all costs. Similarly like Tarkovsky's Stalker. It's a classical music concert, accompanied by bizarre, symbolic visuals. Of course, one has to be in the right mood for such movies to enjoy them.
demagogue on 22/5/2007 at 15:26
Quote:
The dialogues in this part (especially with his small daughter and Russian scientists) are awkward, not relaxed and natural.
What I remember thinking from these scenes is that the dialog was just
too unnatural and stilted to be unintentional. I have to think Kubrick wanted them to exaggerate that old style of "performance" acting.
It was like the way actors talked in the 1940s-50s, announcing things at each other, as if it wasn't a person they were talking to but a cold point. It brings to mind all the stuff we love to hate about the 1950s ... insincerity, paternalism, fake decorum and courtesy.
Those scenes were
meant to annoy and have us rolling our eyes at the actors, IMO, or at least prime us in that old way of thinking/talking that we find so absurd in 1950s movies, in the same way the Graduate does this ... to make the "break" all the more dramatic, when the actors suddenly started talking like normal (post-1960s) people ... they just said naturally what was on their mind and didn't sugarcoat or "perform" it. (All these 60s movies, like the music, wanted to be a part of the whole "social revolution" thing).
It seems so intentional because you noticed the style of acting breaks so dramatically once they got to HAL, and later Dave, where the technique is very much natural acting, like their emotions are an open book and dialog is "real", nothing insincere about HAL's real fear of dying at the end or his relapse into infancy, or
especially the Beyond the Infinite part, seriously where Dave has no one left to "perform" or "be insincerely polite" to. It's
so natural. I think the Jupiter and Beyond parts wouldn't have been as effective or dramatic, nor so much like a "break", unless the viewer were already primed by the Mission to Mars part, sick of the insincerity and paternalism of their absurd dialog (the "weaknesses").
