2001 space odyssey
- Thread starter kippu
- Start date
- Status
eggman said:
2001: A Space Odyssey is the single most avant-garde film I can think of. I've even bought the Blu-ray version of it and it looks even more spectacular and awe-inspiring than the DVD version. Everything from the special effects, the philosophical quandaries, to the psychedelic trip it takes you on was way ahead of its time and a precursor of modern sci-fi film-making. To play the devil's advocate, it's no doubt a slow movie and you need to be in a relaxed and calm frame of mind to watch it. But once you have, it's thoroughly rewarding. I'd give it a 10/10.
Spindoc, here's something to dwell over. Do you know that directors like Kubrick and Coppola are director's directors. In the sense, the directors that we have come to love and whose work we hold high in esteem actually revere directors like Stanley Kubrick. Surely then you have to give them due credit since they've inspired chaps (I'm only mentioning the bigwigs before you go for my throat) like Lucas, Spielberg, Peter Jackson and the lot. Without them we'd never have Star Wars or Bladerunner or for that matter even the Matrix.
It's like this band called The Velvet Underground. Maybe you've heard of them, maybe you haven't. They weren't famous in their time because they were too avant-garde. Yet, get this, they're regarded as one of the most influential bands of all time. Brian Eno, an electronic god is noted for say ""only about 1,000 people ever bought a Velvet Underground album when it was launched, but every one of them formed a rock 'n' roll band."
It's exactly the same for Stanley Kubrick and 2001: A Space Odyssey (in that order). If that doesn't define greatness, then what does?
neoronin said:
Dude, you won't believe this, but the movie got simultaneous (limited) release here in India back in 1968. My father saw first day first show in Kanpur!! And he still can't forget the experience.
As for me, even I felt asleep during the watch, it's not because I was getting bored, but because I was watching it around 2am and naturally fell asleep. (I fell asleep even during POTC3: at world's end).
My bro really loved it, he actually started loving the sci-fi genre after watching this.
And Space odyssey is not your usual blockbuster Sci-fi (ala Matrix, etc.). Arthur C. Clarke's work is supposedly very serious Sci-fi. Would definitely watch Rendezvous with Rama when it's out. (don't read books anyway).
@tracer , i like that analysis ....
so to summarise , we have people who either slept through the movie or find it great
,
one another thing i should add about the movie is the lack of dialogues , unless i have read the book , most of the nuances would have been lost , so if you are still thinking about watching this movie , read the book , then watch it ...
so to summarise , we have people who either slept through the movie or find it great
,one another thing i should add about the movie is the lack of dialogues , unless i have read the book , most of the nuances would have been lost , so if you are still thinking about watching this movie , read the book , then watch it ...
blr_p
Quasar
Params7 said:
This is the general story with anything avant-garde.
The whole point of avant garde is to go further by questioning existing 'truths' & beliefs.
Most ppl that would not appreciate it already have in their mind what is 'good' and therefore look for something similar.
You have to be willing to let go of those 'truths' before you can see the artists point of view.
Its not always easy to do tho, a lot of avant-garde can be pretty far gone from reality and requires an effort to be made on part of the viewer.
When ppl say Kubrick is a genius and wrt to his movie in particular, you have to appreciate what was available at the time and the leap this movie took from that place. This of couse is not to say its dated in anyway, because a lot of modern plots are fairly similar with what existed then but just have better effects.
^^ I'd never say that this movie is dated. In fact there have been many movies from the 80/90s whose fx seem far more impressive than the new cg ones. It is just that I didn't get the intention of the movie, which I guess is essential to enjoyment. For example the exercise scene in the begining was technically very impressive even now.
And I thought I was the only one who slept through this (8.4/10 IMDB) 'epic'. It felt more like a documentary rather than a sci-fi movie. 2010: The Year We Make Contact managed the same feat, again. The entire odyssey series of books are a must read though...as is almost all of Clarke and Asimov.
spindoctor
Explorer
tracerbullet said:
since you mentioned me specifically, i'll go ahead and respond.
human civilization is the sum total of it's history. we don't eat our feces... because someone in history did and people realized it was not a good idea. it should be right to say that we were influenced by that person, yes? being influenced by past events/people is not as big a deal as you seem to think it is. even if the 'big name' directors of this generation say so.
here's a simple fact. all art is exhibitionist. no matter whether it's technically adept, or whether it's though provoking, or whether it's simply irreverent. the moment an artist puts it in front of the world, it's meant to evoke a reaction. i find that 2001 failed to elicit any sort of positive reaction for me at least, as do most of kubrick's movies. if people wish to claim a deeper understanding of the material, they're free to do so. if they somehow choose to diminish a valid opinion of disapproval (like the next post i've quoted does) by saying that we don't 'get' it, then i'll just point out that they should tone back the pseudo intellectualism and perhaps revisit the story of the emperor's new clothes.
i'll say one thing though... about forward looking ideas in movies from the past. i honestly believe the credit for that should go to the writers. i haven't read 2001, so i won't comment on it, but i'll try with the example of william gibson's neuromancer. now this is a story written in 1983 or 1984, which in a post matrix world, loses it's sheen somewhat. what really makes the story great though, is how close it comes to reality today having been written 25 years in the past. managing that is it's real accomplishment in my opinion.
Params7 said:
people who think kubrick was great simply have no idea what they are talking about. see, i can do that too.
whatsinaname
Innovator
I love 2001, but it's really odd to say that if someone does not like a movie, it's because they didn't 'get it'. I watched A Serious Man the other day. I did get it, but was very unimpressed by it. I am sure there are tons of other movies like that.
Anyone who wants to watch a more 'conventional' Kubrick movie should watch Paths of Glory (one of the greatest war movies I have ever seen). And Full Metal Jacket and Dr. Strangelove.
He is one of the few directors who has made great movies in such a wide array of genres.
Anyone who wants to watch a more 'conventional' Kubrick movie should watch Paths of Glory (one of the greatest war movies I have ever seen). And Full Metal Jacket and Dr. Strangelove.
He is one of the few directors who has made great movies in such a wide array of genres.
- Status