BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


"2001". I know, but...

 
 
johnny whatif
08:42 / 03.08.01
I know, i know... People have been yakking on about this film since it came out - artistic masterpiece/demonised travesty/whatever... But...

Myself and a few mates caught it in the cinema last nite - the re-released 70mm print, and it makes the difference.
I'd only seen it on VHS before, so the full effect of the sound and the scale and scope of the picture at the cinema nailed me to my goddamn seat.

I'd forgotten exactly how good the opening half an hour of this movie is! Watch it again! If you haven't seen it, then do!

I will admit that the twenty minutes/half an hour before the "lightshow" sequence is, well, dull as fuck (sorry, but no matter how much I like Kubrick, an eight minute static shot of the outside of a ship is gonna have a tough time holding anyone's attention), but the rest of the film is well worth a look.

And think of the fun you and your friends can have endlessly debating editing and shot composition, for hours and hours and hours and hours*, in an attempt to figure out just what is going on!!!

*and hours.
 
 
Spatula Clarke
11:08 / 03.08.01
I quite like 2010. Not in the same league as 2001, obviously, but it's alright.
 
 
The Strobe
11:23 / 03.08.01
I haven't seen 2010, but have read it, and whilst it tries to literalise 2001 a bit, it does have some interesting stuff in it. Especially the stuff about _what_'s on Europa.

And for once, the book and film are vaguely similar. The book of 2010 follows the film of 2001. The book of 2001 is just a mess, floating in its own little place. And not that great.

2001: great film. But I need to take a book for those fucking apes. That bit really pisses me off.
 
 
Spatula Clarke
12:05 / 03.08.01
quote:Originally posted by CameronStewart:
No.

Oh, come one. It's not that bad. Sure, it's not the most amazing visual experience ever, it doesn't really go anywhere and it may not be hugely thought-provoking, but if you're looking to waste a couple of hours it fits the bill.
 
 
Spatula Clarke
12:14 / 03.08.01
Actually, reading back over that I can't help but feel that I've just described a really boring movie...
 
 
tracypanzer
14:04 / 03.08.01
You have to see this in the theater. And the fact that it is difficult to understand is the whole point, that if/when we do encounter something like this, we're not going to be able to comprehend it.
 
 
Annunnaki-9
18:14 / 03.08.01
2001 is great. The sequels, well... they're sequels, and so, they suck.

2001 is one of only say three science fiction films made in the last 30 plus years. Oh yaeh, it's true. Before you lay into me with your Star Trek's and Star Wars, and the Matrix, hear me out. Those flicks were action movies, essentially war or western pictures where the Germans or Indians have been substituted by aliens and the ol' six-iron is now a phase-shift liquifier plasma gun. Space is the west, the Force is the code of the cowboy, etc....
 
 
bio k9
18:45 / 03.08.01
Ok, I'll bite. What are the other two?
 
 
Dee Vapr
20:15 / 03.08.01
Seriously though, 2010 is ok. I mean Roy Schnieder! C'mon! hes'th'man. It's not as bad as all that. Nowhere near as good as 2001, of course, but I don't think it spoils the original film at all, which it could have if it was a truly commercial sequel. Just kind of complements it, quietly.

And f**k Arthur C Clarke for f&&kin his own brilliant legacy up the arse. Of course! The whole 2001 mystery needs to explained down to the most infinitessimal detail. Of course! TWAT.

Don't real the last two books. THEY SPOIL the whole thing. not 2010 the film. s'okay.
 
 
CameronStewart
09:49 / 04.08.01
>>>to be objective, though, the flim has many, many points of contention. yes, it doesn't make much sense<<<

See, I've never understood this - why do so many people say 2001 "doesn't make sense"? I don't see what people find so hard to understand...
 
 
Jamieon
09:49 / 04.08.01
quote: Space is the west, the Force is the code of the cowboy, etc....

I'm not trying to be a cunt, but:

I KNOW THE TEXTBOOK WHERE YOU GOT THAT.

I am not joking.
 
 
The Return Of Rothkoid
09:49 / 04.08.01
quote:Originally posted by Theo Kalypso:
Space is the west, the Force is the code of the cowboy, etc....

Hmm. But could we reverse this, indeed? I'd like to see Clint Eastwood or John Wayne do some Jedi mind tricks on hapless horse-rustlers. That would be way cool.

"These aren't the farmhands you're looking for."
 
 
Jamieon
09:49 / 04.08.01
If I can get hold of that textbook I might quote from it later.
 
 
rizla mission
14:51 / 04.08.01
Fer fooks sake! Stop being such smart arses!

STAR WARS IS NOT A WESTERN!

WESTERN'S DON'T HAVE ROBOTS IN THEM!!*

Iconography matters just as much of plot structure, y'know.

And anyway, if you are going to take that view, then the archetypal themes expressed in the Star Wars story go back a hell of a lot further than John Ford..

*apart from Westworld of course
 
 
Jamieon
16:42 / 04.08.01
I'm not being a "smart arse" - I'm taking the piss.

But I really do own the textbook from which Theo nabbed that idea.
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
19:04 / 05.08.01
2001 the film is shit, Kubrick was a talentless twat who didn't know the first thing about what he was doing (this is FACT, ask any of the poor sods like Nicholson, McDowell, Cruise et al who would fruitlessly plead with him for direction) and all of his films should be fired into the sun except Dr. Strangelove (which probably is good because Sellers never took any notice of directors and just did his own thing anyway) and possibly 'Full Metal Jacket'. Can anyone really defend Kubrick? At least 2001 realistically shows us what to expect from space, that it'll be really really dull.
 
 
CameronStewart
20:26 / 05.08.01
<speechless>

Whu..fuh..

huh...

<wanders off, stunned>
 
 
CameronStewart
20:28 / 05.08.01
Alternatively:

<Bugs Bunny> Of course you realize that this means war...</Bugs Bunny>
 
 
Ganesh
20:39 / 05.08.01
Ungodly, I'm interested in your rock-solid definition of 'FACT'...
 
 
Ria
09:59 / 06.08.01
quote:

2001 is one of only say three science fiction films made in the last 30 plus years. Oh yaeh, it's true. Before you lay into me with your Star Trek's and Star Wars, and the Matrix, hear me out.


I at first misread this and thought you had written "best sf films" not "only sf films".

I agree with your point about Trek and so on (though maybe not The Matrix)... I guess you define sf as a film the themes of which you couldn't transpose to any other form?

well then that narrows it down a bit but... three? David Cronenberg alone has made Scanners, Videodrome, eXistenZ and The Fly. arguably even Naked Lunch and .Crash
 
 
Templar
09:59 / 06.08.01
Multi-directional response.

Part of the standard academic definition of science-fiction is that is absorbs some other genre. Hence Terminator, a chase movie, Alien, a thriller, and The Matrix, an actin film.

And if you're going to deconstruct Star Wars how about going all the way? Basically, it's the Hero's Journey which is... oh, sh*t, the same as almost every film Holywood makes.

And the reason why people don't understand 2001 is that, shockingly, most people are stupid. Yes, I said it.
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
10:25 / 06.08.01
Oh I understand it, I just don't think it's that interesting. The film at least, the book's better (and it's worth reading 'the Lost Worlds of 2001' if you can find it to see how far Clarke and Kubrick came from 'Plan 9' hokiness).
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
10:29 / 06.08.01
quote:Originally posted by Ganesh:
Ungodly, I'm interested in your rock-solid definition of 'FACT'...


Hmmm, altered parts of it just before sending and then didn't bother to check whether it was internally consistent. Kubrick does good sets. But he lacks any human empathy and warmth. I watch his films and never manage to care for any of his characters. It would have been extremely difficult to fuck up 'Clockwork Orange' considering the wonderful source material yet he somehow manages it. He is basically a set designer that sat in the directors chair by accident and no-one ever noticed.
 
 
Saveloy
11:20 / 06.08.01
Regarding this thing about what is and isn't sci-fi, I believe fans and writers alike find it useful to distinguish between 'sci-fi' and 'SF'. I'm not an expert, so I apologise if I get any of this wrong but I think it goes like this: Sci-fi is yer space opera stuff, with the lasers and the robots and the running about and the metal codpieces and the FUN. SF is slightly more serious minded and is all about asking 'what if?' Also fun, but in a different way. THEN you've got HARD SF, which is simply sci-fi /sf which requires physical/scientific realism - ie the author should be able to provide some plausible explanation for how the rocket works and all that. I would say that 2001 falls into that camp.

[advert]For an example of the a hard SF space opera, check out Alistair Reynolds' stuff. Astrophysicist, Fall fan and lovely chap, he published his first novel Revelation Space last year to great critical acclaim (and he sold a lot of copies too). Recently produced a follow-up, called Chasm City.[/advert]
 
 
CameronStewart
12:34 / 06.08.01
>>>But he lacks any human empathy and warmth. I watch his films and never manage to care for any of his characters.<<<

This does not automatically mean he is a "talentless twat."

I dunno, I'm still a huge admirer of Kubrick and I doubt I'll be able to take part in this argument without just going off on a noisy rant.
 
 
Annunnaki-9
13:45 / 06.08.01
Dear runt,

I write this in the form of a personal letter from me to you, if for no other reason than to blunder and blur genres further.

I assume you're referring to Joseph Cambell. Well, in truth, I was not cribbing from any of his books (though I've read them all- they're excellent toilet-breezers). Actually, I'd been talking about what's come to be called the 'Hero's Journey' for years before I'd ever even heard of Cambell (with whom I have some major beefs). In fact, I wrote a paper in high school along similar lines and the teacher was the one who directed me to the Grand Master of the Mono-myth, Joseph Cambell himself. Imagine my surprise when I read him and discovered we were talking about the same things. I thought he was stealing MY thunder. But hey, what could I do?

On further investigation, I found that Campbell himself was working off the research of a predecessor named Lord Raglan. Cambell infused Raglan's work with Jungian archetypes, but in order to do so, he had to simplify Raglan's roughly 17 part progression to roughy three. This is the lot of the populizer, to simplify.

In fact, many hinted at these things before JC. Freud, Raglan, Levi-Strauss, Malinowski, Jung, etc. This is all, of course assuming that you are referring to JC. If so, then so, if not, then not.

There are themes that appear as universals, and no one can be called the 'inventor' of such a thing, only the 'discoverer.'
 
 
grant
15:41 / 06.08.01
There is no science in Star Wars.

Kubrick: gorgeous photographer with a taste for sociopathic lead characters. Empathize with the machine-mind, maaan. He does it well.
"i am in a world of shit." - gomer pyle.
 
 
Ria
18:20 / 07.08.01
quote:

Part of the standard academic definition of science-fiction is that is absorbs some other genre. Hence Terminator, a chase movie, Alien, a thriller, and The Matrix, an actin film.


two of the three you mentioned applly a coating to sf to something else. not sf film does. only most of them of them.

quote:
And the reason why people don't understand 2001 is that, shockingly, most people are stupid. Yes, I said it.


or more politely don't know how to 'read' an sf film for grownups.
 
 
netbanshee
20:11 / 09.08.01
Any idea on a U.S. re-release date?

Just watched it again a week ago and have found the strange habit where all first kubrick viewings start from an inebriated state, followed by general mishaps in other viewings, to finally watching the whole goddamn thing, to being able to watch it comfortably for every viewing thereon...

Anyone else have similar issues..?
 
  
Add Your Reply