|
Post by Robert C. on Jan 31, 2009 21:41:47 GMT
What arguments can be made against a claim that this film is little more than an exercise in formalist aestheticism, or, less charitably put, a high-brow effects showcase built around vague, mystical transcendentalist themes? ...? Can't argue either way b/c I haven't really seen enough of this picture to have thoughts of my own, but I know that Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut is a very comprehensive and indepth portrayal of "Illuminatus" culture, a movie that many "conspiracy theorists" have recently begun to consider as a holy grail of sorts. Point being...the dude was a smart motherfucker who made some VERY in-depth films about subjects that have gone virtually unstudied.
|
|
|
Post by arkadyrenko on Feb 1, 2009 22:24:46 GMT
"Stanely Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey is one of those films that practically hypnotizes you into not even noticing how long it is."
If you think you are a zen master of the arty of watching long slow paced movies without turning them off, i dare you, I DARE YOU, to watch Sergei Bondarchuk's movie WAR AND PEACE. This is not the Holylwood version with Henry Fonda, no, this is the russian version, that runs for 484 Minutes.
Thankfully, the DVD is divited in 4 parts, as intended by the director, for the movei to be a 4 part long movie. I once saw it in onje go, and let me tell you, it's quite an experience.
And by the way, 2001: a space oddyssey is one of my top fave movie ever. My love for this movie knows no bounds. For me, it's one of those rare PERFECT MOVIES. It is a great movie. And for those who disagree, to hell with them!
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Feb 1, 2009 22:41:50 GMT
Maybe--and I like that film--but going "VERY in-depth" into utter nonsense isn't necessarily admirable, is it? I mean, it's feasible to make a film that plays completely into the hands of Young Earth Creationists or UFO abductees too. Not that that's necessarily the sum value of the film--its appeal to Illuminati mythology buffs--but pointing out that they love it isn't quite a ringing endorsement either.
But do you have an argument against that claim?
|
|
jrod
Ghost writer
Posts: 970
|
Post by jrod on Feb 2, 2009 19:23:23 GMT
What arguments can be made against a claim that this film is little more than an exercise in formalist aestheticism, or, less charitably put, a high-brow effects showcase built around vague, mystical transcendentalist themes? ...? None perhaps. Not that that is something that detracts from it. This movie just engulfed me, and is probably one Ill revisit a dozen more times in my life. I enjoy an effects showcase and vauge themes when executed well....
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Feb 2, 2009 19:41:46 GMT
Surely if that claim is true it does detract from the film's supposedly weighty intellectual content (it would seem it has very little, if any, if that claim is true).
That the film could nonetheless be enjoyable is a given, I think. What's at stake is its status as something that's great for more than aesthetic reasons.
|
|
jrod
Ghost writer
Posts: 970
|
Post by jrod on Feb 2, 2009 19:54:17 GMT
I would think that besides the fact that it is about as visually dazzling as any film, people enjoy it because it sets you up to think about humanity's place among animals, machinery and ( ). Little to no answers are provided of course, but I can't say I was ever hoping that the film would provide some...
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Feb 2, 2009 20:11:23 GMT
2001 also is a masterpiece because Kubrick had the pull, balls, and willingness to make a movie that won't just satisfy everyone, but also alienate those who aint down to bogey with it, and tell them to go fuck off.
That attitude has some a many film (like SOUTHLAND TALES) and yet 2001, Kubrick obviously knew what the fuck he was doing.
|
|
|
Post by quentincompson on Feb 14, 2009 16:40:04 GMT
What arguments can be made against a claim that this film is little more than an exercise in formalist aestheticism, or, less charitably put, a high-brow effects showcase built around vague, mystical transcendentalist themes? ...? It is somewhat vague but I think it's supposed to be more impressionistic than anything. The emphasize on and precision of the aesthetic aspect is what creates the detached, cold, increasingly alienating nature of technological progression. The film marks the progress of this with a transcedental segment as the conclusion, which may be slightly vague, but I don't see why this is a problem? It's an unknown stage of human development I don't know how it could be specific, the more unknown the better.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Feb 14, 2009 18:02:18 GMT
So it's supposed to give the viewer the impression that, broadly and vaguely speaking, technological progression is alienating and the universe is mysterious.
Is the former even necessarily true? I don't think so at all. Although I agree that that's a central theme, and an interesting one, if it was addressed seriously. But to just say "technological progression is alienating", I think that's vague, ahistorical and simplistic.
I think it's saying more than that too. It hypothesizes, for instance, that human evolution can be attributed to extraterrestrial intervention, and not even in a concrete, material sense, but as basically a secular reimagining of Divine intervention... and then the human appears to transcend his physical existence at the end and become a 'Star Child', etc. Is the entire "Jupiter and Beyond the Infinite" segment a flamboyant way of saying "We don't know what's out there"?
|
|
|
Post by quentincompson on Feb 14, 2009 18:26:29 GMT
I don't think it's simplistic if the formal aspects are powerful enough to give you that detached feeling while watching the film.
Your interpretation is another valid one, but it could be just that all the alignment, monolith is not the product of any kind of intervention but just symbolic of inevtiable predetermination.
Without a doubt imo.
|
|
|
Post by arkadyrenko on Feb 20, 2009 13:11:42 GMT
Or maybe the alligment is just one very cool way to show the awesomeness of space, and a great visual way to present it.
|
|
|
Post by Robert C. on Feb 21, 2010 21:55:37 GMT
What arguments can be made against a claim that this film is little more than an exercise in formalist aestheticism, or, less charitably put, a high-brow effects showcase built around vague, mystical transcendentalist themes? ...? I viewed this film in its entirety for the first time the other night and did a bit of research. Supposedly, the film and novel (written conjointly with the film) are meant to portray Friedrich Nietzsche's famous philosophical treatise "Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A Book for All and None." I've not encountered it directly, but it deals with Nietzsche's thoughts on the "Superman" and "The Death of God." Richard Strauss' musical masterpiece "Also sprach Zarathustra", featured brilliantly in the film's opening score, is also inspired by Nietzsche's work. To say that the film falls short of truly portraying the philosophical collectives presented in Nietzsche's work, notwithstanding a cpl of moments containing real intrinsic value, is an understatment. I found the lack of dialogue, used by Kubrick to give the story a more lucid meaning for the audience, facilitating my lack of interest in the film and I sort of forgot I was even watching, occupying my time with other more exciting endeavors such as watching paint dry. =/
|
|