Kolya on 24/5/2007 at 08:44
Quote Posted by Uncia
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.
Not to the assumption but to expectation of this topic. People weren't as ...clarified as we are about the matter. Though if I think of the early nineties when X-Files were big, maybe it's really a matter of fashion.
Rogue Keeper on 5/6/2007 at 09:57
Quote Posted by Sulphur
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.
If you are questioning what you saw in 2001, it means that movie worked. ;) Then Kubrick has reached his goal - 40 years after the 2001's release we still SPECULATE about it. :cool:
Like I suggested, you should better try to "feel the movie" instead of trying to point it out at all costs and doubt whether your conclusion is correct, because that may easily lead to frustration - there may be nothing like "THE ONLY TRUE POINT". This isn't epic.
Quote:
Kubrick has described 2001 as "nonverbal," adding, "I tried to create a visual experience, one that bypasses verbal pigeonholing and directly penetrates the subconscious with an emotional and philosophical content.... I think that if 2001 succeeds at all, it is in reaching a wide spectrum of people who would not often give a thought to man's destiny, his role in the cosmos, and his relationship to higher forms of life." (
http://www.celtoslavica.de/chiaroscuro/films/2001/2001.html)
Although Contact would still belong to high sci-fi cathegory, it's not so outstanding in the context of sci-fi production of last 20 years. Contact has presented it's ideas to contemporary audience, which is quite comfortable with topics like transdimmensional travelling, godlike superior extraterrestrial intelligence or the idea that humans may be a product such intelligence - all that has been presented in numerous sci-fi films since 2001.
Try to perceive 2001 in the context of sci-fi production of it's time - it wasn't just another story of Invasion from Above, it was genuinely the first strongly philosophical, humanist science fiction film which has been speaking with different language than blatant "Intro-Encounter-Battle-Preparation-Final Confrontation-Resolution" standard epic mold used by Hollywood. It has for the first time presented topics which became standard in science fiction cinema since then, and the old topics were told in different language.
Think of 2001 as of "paradigm" or "preparation" for a New Age of science fiction cinema. Just like David Bowman has been reborn into another state of existence, so has science fiction film changed after Space Odyssey.
Contact presents good thoughts, but they're in way as original for it's time as 2001 was in 68', and it also uses the standard epic mold. It has no choice - Zemeckis hasn't rached the point beyond the shadow of big studio producers yet, where he could afford to abandon that generally appealing, commercially less risky mold. Zemeckis is a very skilled craftsman, but not really an artist.
Uncia on 5/6/2007 at 14:22
Enh. I'd say 2001 was more like LGS games; ahead of its time, adored by its fans, mostly ignored by the majority of the industry afterwards. Except for Solaris I can't really think of many science fiction movies that are similar (2010 ignored to avoid a true / not true sequel tangent discussion).
Thirith on 5/6/2007 at 14:27
At its best, Sunshine captures some of the sheer awe of 2001.
At its worst, it looks like an arthouse version of Event Horizon.
Rogue Keeper on 6/6/2007 at 08:52
Quote Posted by Uncia
Enh. I'd say 2001 was more like LGS games; ahead of its time, adored by its fans, mostly ignored by the majority of the industry afterwards. Except for Solaris I can't really think of many science fiction movies that are similar (2010 ignored to avoid a true / not true sequel tangent discussion).
Most films can't afford such poetic structure and yes majority of them still follow the standard epic mold, but certainly it was a next step in moviemaking, work with camera and SFX. Few space sci-fis are scientific enough to reflect zero gravity problem and provide realistic solution how we could create arteficial gravity for future space missions. Almost no space sci-fis are scientific enough reflect the fact that there is a complete silence in space vacuum, afterall that wouldn't work at all in any action-packed space fantasy. In this aspect I have a sentiment against Star Trek because it tries to be a proper sci-fi and not a space fantasy of the Star Wars sort.
But most importantly, it has brought a new approach to theme of extraterrestrial intelligence into sci-fi film - the word ALIENS wasn't anymore automatically associated with image of slimy/evil/hostile/comical shallow creatures.
jasee on 6/6/2007 at 11:58
I know this wont contribute much to the IMO very intelligent critical analysis of this classic film,
but I gotta say that I like the bit with the monkeys:thumb: I've read The Sentinal, and seen the film a few times, but the bit with the monkeys (or should I say the representation of early man), is the only bit of the film that gets an emotional response out of me.
Sorry
Rogue Keeper on 6/6/2007 at 12:13
And it was really unfair that it didn't get any 1969 honorary Academy Award "for outstanding make-up achievement in a movie" like Planet of the Apes. I remember Kubrick joking about it somewhere that 2001 hasn't won Oscar for the ape masks just because the Academy didn't realize those "apes" were in fact people. :D
