User123abc on 23/5/2007 at 18:17
BR# I misunderstood. It turns out I actually agree with you. I was very specific about my language. I didn't say movies, I said "works" as a catch-all term. I was specifically thinking of music and the distinction between music and poetry - the first being purely emotional (at its best) and the other being a combination of emotion (the music of words) and
comprehensible structure. I didn't say it wasn't poetry. In fact I said the opposite, because I thought
you were saying that it wasn't poetry. The problem is that I'm focusing on the distinctions between poetry and music, whereas you didn't mean that as a big thing.
Also, what you described in the interaction of emotion and meaning is what I meant by "accentuate."
Quote Posted by Kolya
The problem clearly is that you think symbolism is a cop-out.
Well that, for sure, and also something else.
I think it has something to do with applying real-world expectations to literature or art or whatever. I watch a movie which starts in a believable world, so I switch to "truth mode" and assume the director won't lie to me. He's going to tell me a story which could possibly occur within the confines of the rules which govern my own world. And so when I see something supernatural, I try to give the author the benefit of the doubt, and so I look for a way to rationalize everything that he's showing us, so that his story stays in this world. With some works, that's what the author wants. A good example is the transformers movie - all of a sudden, the robots that look like fucking cars are such because they're mechanical organisms from an advanced society or something (I'm probably off here, but hey, it serves my purpose). The thing is though, I don't think that's the correct response with 2001.
It's a little bit like what was said about cheesy dialogue influencing the way we look at a movie. That ending is an example of an author
intentionallymaking something so impossible and unrealistic that it basically serves as a huge sign for us that says "HEY THIS IS SYMBOLIC." (We're giving examples now, so I usually think of Shakespeare and his use of the supernatural as a model for this sort of technique)
I don't think we, as viewers, need to draw any conclusions about where Bowman is in the end besides the ones which Kubrick gives us (ie the room, and whatever qualities it has). The same goes for the monoliths. I'm not sure, but I'm starting to think that the "explanation" was on the right track here, and that they're really important because they serve as a way to show the relationship which people have or have had with the unknown (though I wouldn't call it a "challenge from aliens"). I mean I haven't seen the movie in a while, but that's what we see in the monoliths, right? Reflections of people?
And frankly, for me, aliens and the fourth dimension kind of kill the experience of 2001. I'd rather have a mystical allegory than a literal story full of mundane sci-fi cliches. It's a good thing Kubrick focuses on preserving that sense of mystery, as opposed to keeping his story in the realm of reason.
I didn't watch the explanation all the way through, but I've heard a lot of interpretations which focus on HAL/[reliance on technology], or just rationalism as you put it. That interpretation might work for part of it, but it fails at the end. I mean, Kubrick definitely takes a very broad approach in starting with the "DAWN OF MAN" and giving us some advice drawn form the annals (yes,
annals) of all human history - and I suspect his imagery is borrowing from some philosophical vocabulary that deals with general life views. One thing stands out: Nietzsche's pretty well-known image of the child as the
end of a metaphysical transformation ("Thus spake Zarathustra" - not much of a coincidence right?)
I'm not sure I agree with you about Stalker, for pretty much the same reason as 2001. I think you're being too specific in establishing the framework of the movie in terms of reason and faith. The biggest hint not to do that is that there's a clear distinction between the writer and the scientist - it would be very very hard to hard to lump them together as the forces of reason. Knowing a bit about Tarkovsky (he somehow managed to be both a religious zealot and also a deep and very intuitive humanist), I'd say that your interpretation is at least part of what he's saying. Meaning, I have little doubt that it's about religion - or, in a more general/metaphysical sense, about the utility of faith, and the unfathomable. But I don't think it's just about a conflict between faith and rationality. That's part of it for sure, but I 'd keep the framework like this: it's focused on the different kinds of relationships the characters have with (again, utility, or its use to them) the mythical room, and how that influences their relationships to the zone and/or to each other (on that last point: in the end, it all goes back to the Stalker and his wife with that long-ass monologue).
This is pretty much as far as I've gotten in trying to systematically unwrap Stalker: realizing that the zone is a pretty good metaphor for life or interaction with the world in general. You could say he just compressed and expressed physically the actions and attitudes we take in the course of a lifetime, and also the things which happen to us therein - the way Tarkovsky's characters navigate the anomalous zone is like the very careful way we live our own lives within a dangerous and unpredictable world.
I really love a good movie, and its really cool to be able to talk seriously about it. Personally, I'm partial to the slightly more fluffy stuff of the Frenchmen. Ooh, I also just saw Rashomon (sp?). Curious if anyone has any thoughts on that...
Uncia on 23/5/2007 at 18:43
Quote Posted by Kolya
The problem clearly is that you think symbolism is a cop-out.
With scifi? It usually is. Black Hole's ending is shit, but if you wrap it up in "it's symbolism!" it's suddenly deep instead.
In 2001's case I think it's just poor cinematography, at least if you consider the book's interpretation as canon. When I first saw 2001 the ending sure as hell didn't scream "the monolith transported him to an artificial environment created by aliens!" to me. Even if I had guessed that, it'd feel hollow because we're at no point in the movie given any indication that the monolith can transport things, that it was made by aliens in the first place (for all we know it's God's instrument, or a transformer), that they even still exist after all this time, etc etc. Too much guesswork to make for a satisfying ending.
I only lost the :erg: about the movie after reading the book and realizing the thing's ending wasn't just a David Cronenberg cop-out.
Jackablade on 23/5/2007 at 19:05
The book's interpretations isn't necessarily the only canon though.
Quote Posted by Wikipedia
Clarke's first venture into film was the Stanley Kubrick-directed 2001: A Space Odyssey. Kubrick and Clarke had met in 1964 to discuss the possibility of a collaborative film project. As the idea developed, it was decided that the story for the film was to be loosely based on Clarke's short story The Sentinel, written in 1948 as an entry in a BBC short story competition. Originally, Clarke was going to write the screenplay for the film, but this proved to be more tedious than he had estimated. Instead, Kubrick and Clarke decided it would be best to write a novel first and then adapt it for the film upon its completion.
However, as Clarke was finishing the book, the screenplay was also being written simultaneously....
Due to the hectic schedule of the film's production, Kubrick and Clarke had difficulty collaborating on the book. Clarke completed a draft of the novel at the end of 1964 with the plan to publish in 1965 in advance of the film's release in 1966. After many delays the film was released in the spring of 1968, before the book was completed. The book was credited to Clarke alone. Clarke later complained that this had the effect of making the book into a novelisation, that Kubrick had manipulated circumstances to downplay his authorship. For these and other reasons, the details of the story differ slightly from the book to the movie. The film is a bold artistic piece with little explanation for the events taking place. Clarke, on the other hand, wrote thorough explanations of "cause and effect" for the events in the novel. Despite their differences, both film and novel were well received.[12][13][14]
I got this quotation from here: (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C_Clarke)
Kolya on 23/5/2007 at 19:07
Quote Posted by Uncia
With scifi? It usually is. Black Hole's ending is shit, but if you wrap it up in "it's symbolism!" it's suddenly deep instead.
But that is (over-) interpretation. It's applied by the viewer. Symbolism is something the author of a work tries to express with it by using allegories or metaphers.
Quote Posted by Uncia
... that it was made by aliens in the first place (for all we know it's God's instrument, or a transformer)
If you see the movie in the context of it's time, as contemporary viewers inevitably did, aliens become a much more likely explanation and not surprisingly so at all.
Uncia on 23/5/2007 at 20:05
And viewers are more than happy to overinterpret weak movie points as symbolism, which was my point. ;)
Also, feel free to expand on the context of the time. Given that you weren't alive when the movie came out I assume there's something to support that?
Kolya on 23/5/2007 at 21:23
I'm sure you can look up terms like (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_age) space age and (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_race) space race yourself. It was a time when many technical achievements, not only concerning space exploration, seemed within reach.
Also a cultural attitude of future expectation was common. I don't know quite how to describe it without referring to details that seem trivial by themselves, eg The Byrds song (
http://www.lyricsfreak.com/b/byrds/mr+spaceman_10054806.html) Mr. Space Man (1966). In 1969 the first man walked on the moon...
Sorry, I feel like I am talking to an alien now. I think if you spend some time involving yourself with the era it's quite clear what I meant.
EDIT: Even though I haven't lived in the time I have very much inherited a lot of it's ideas and ideals through my mother and most importantly through music of the time. This has shaped my view of it in a very personal and emotional way, which may not be be accurate and/or not coincide with what you or others associate with that time.
EDIT2: I'm slowly getting used to write these disclaimers.
Sulphur on 23/5/2007 at 21:53
Quote:
and giving us some advice drawn form the annals (yes, annals) of all human history
HEH HEH U SAID ANAL DUDE THATS SO GROSS GO CLEAN UR MOUTH WIT SOPE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well, you expected it, didn't you? :ebil:
--
Now to go on a complete tangent. :)
Quote:
One thing stands out: Nietzsche's pretty well-known image of the child as the end of a metaphysical transformation ("Thus spake Zarathustra" - not much of a coincidence right?)
I'd read the book before seeing the movie, so the ending made at least some sort of sense. But if I hadn't... I'm sure I would have gone, 'Uh, wha?' at that point. After all, there isn't any convenient voiceover narrative that's giving you concise sound bites about what the hell's going on. At least the book did something to alleviate your growing suspicions of whether Clarke was going on an acid trip.
But I can now see why 2001 bored a lot of people senseless.
It's not exactly peppered with pop culture references, is it? Nor is there an overweeningly 'human' element that you can relate to. Most of the characters in this movie are emotionally blank.
And neither is the symbolism in the story something that's immediately and urgently apparent - unlike, say, Dr. Strangelove.
Now that you've drawn that comparison, User, about Nietzsche, it clicks. But how was somebody supposed to get that if they hadn't read any Nietzsche(as I most obviously haven't) or been able to draw the parallel from Strauss' "Also sprach Zarathustra"? I usually love details like that, but this went over my head completely.
(Okay, so do most of the pop culture references on TTLG. :o But I digress.)
--
I also appreciate the subtle irony of the wormhole sequence. To be able to turn around a concept as amazing as that - bending space-time to circumvent the light speed barrier - into a light show that ends up making half the people I'm watching the movie with go, '...meh' - that must take a special sort of cynicism.
I mean, I love this movie and the dedication to detail in it - there's a reason why this movie
still looks like a documentary of the future, nearly forty years after it was made. But after a couple of minutes of the acid trip, I was wondering when the hell the Star Gate would SPIT HIM OUT ALREADY. (Also, it didn't help that the book had vastly better, almost poetic imagery in the form of the written word for this sequence.)
Of course, that wasn't the intended effect back then. Douglas Trumbull had this to say -
Quote:
Clearly, if we'd had the kind of computer graphics capability then that we have now, the Star Gate sequence would be much more complex than flat planes of light and color. ... I just had a straight track and some straight pieces of glass. The technology of the time dictated the way things looked.
However, I'm sure the man could've made it more visually arresting if he'd applied a pair of editing scissors to that Star Gate bit of the reel. Contact certainly did that bit a little better.
And anyway, as long as we're talking symbolism, - and this is purely as a comparison between Zemeckis and Kubrick, not Sagan and Clarke (both of whose works have never ceased to infuse me with child-like delight and wonder every time I look up at a star-filled sky) - I think I prefer the warmth of Contact's humanity to the coldness of the Star Child's stare.
User123abc on 24/5/2007 at 01:31
Quote Posted by Uncia
And viewers are more than happy to overinterpret weak movie points as symbolism, which was my point. ;)
Also, feel free to expand on the context of the time. Given that you weren't alive when the movie came out I assume there's something to support that?
Somewhere lost in that internet essay was my point, which was that these points are so "weak" as to make it clear that they are definitely symbolism, which absolutely
begs some attempts at interpretation from the viewer.
Really, it's safe to say that 2001 is art and philosophy first, and sci-fi second. In that sense, you could call mystery a weakness if you want - the film attempts a sci-fi setting so I guess its fair to judge it by the same criteria you judge Battlestar Galactica. And like I said, I agree with you to the extent that I also thought that Kubrick was deliberately mysterious about the sci-fi elements. Only I like that aspect of the movie, because I think that to ignore or dismiss the artistic and metaphysical elements is to pretty much just throw away the three (?) hours you spent watching it. And in fact I prefer that aspect over the sci-fi - although, for sure, the futuristicf setting is definitely thematically relevant, and is what's made 2001 a cultural phenomenon where other equally serious movies have been pretty much forgotten by most.
Continuing that though, I would say that it's still pretty good just as sci-fi, in the sense that it creates its own pretty distinct futuristic world with a very alien feel to it (hard to describe). But that's pretty subjective...
I forgot the quote code format so uh...
DEAR SULPHUR,
I dunno about the whole thing with symbolism and if it should be obvious or not. That's a huge issue, I think, to ask what actual purpose is there in Kubrick, or any author, hiding his advice for us behind a bunch of obscure symbols and structures. Why not just go on the radio and say "the meaning of life is [SPOILER]XXXsextrannybizareehardcoreanalunder18horsesheepnymphoMorrowindOblivionsexMILFmaturewhorebukkakedogsexpregnantrape[/SPOILER]?" I think there are some decent arguments both for and against simplifying your message, but excuse me if I don't spend another half hour writing essays on video game forums.
I'm not sure exactly what people mean when they say whether something is urgent or not. It's hard to decide unless you can say for sure exactly what it's about. For all you know Kubrick is giving us the key to getting all the hot chicks and finding a good job. Plus, I'd say any attempt at philosophy, no matter how obtuse ("what does it mean to be 'pious?'"), has its merits.
I saw Contact on TV a while ago - I think that says it all. It was all right, but not nearly as artistically masterful as 2001. Plus the two are about different things. I didn't know it was from Sagan's novel or something, but it makes a lot of sense now that a dedicated scientist and educator would write a story about the frustrations of getting something done when you're surrounded by politicians and apparent idiots (which is what most of the movie actually focuses on).
I might be gushing a little here. I like 2001 a ton, but I never considered it one of my very favorite movies, and I'm not trying to argue that it's the holy grail of cinema or anything like that.
EDIT: Well that's interesting. The forum code automatically puts a space there when a word is too long?
Uncia on 24/5/2007 at 06:48
Oh, I think 2001 is outstanding as a science fiction movie, I just don't much care for the ending (mostly because it's boring. And this coming from someone who loves both the rest of this movie and Solaris).
And Koyla, I just don't see how "an age of space exploration" can directly be linked to assumptions of aliens. Fascination with space, yes, but "ah, well, it has to be aliens" seems to be reaching.
Sulphur on 24/5/2007 at 08:09
Quote:
Why not just go on the radio and say "the meaning of life is [SPOILER]XXXsextrannybizareehardcoreanalunder18horsesheepnymphoMorrowindOblivionsexMILFmaturewhorebukkakedogsexpregnantrape[/SPOILER]?"
I prefer 42. And you've been poking around my internet cache, haven't you?
Really, though? I'm not too sure why you chose that as an example. Because it's obvious there isn't any message in it, so hiding it behind obscure symbols and structures would be equally pointless.
Quote:
I think there are some decent arguments both for and against simplifying your message, but excuse me if I don't spend another half hour writing essays on video game forums.
The issue isn't about simplifying the message. It's about obscuring it to the point of people asking, 'What IS the message?'
2001's third act suffers from a general vagueness, - or a vague portentousness, if you will, and by the end of it you feel you've seen something important, but you can't for the life of you point out
why exactly.
By comparison, Contact deals with a theme that's almost similar - the advancement of man by alien technology. But nowhere in that movie do you actually question whether it has a message or not.
