2001?
Stoneberg
This is my first stop in this newsgroup, and this probably has been brought up
before, but for the life of me I can't figure out the hype behind 2001. I've
now forced myself to sit through this film 3 times, and I consider it to be
quite possibly the worst film I have ever seen (along with I'm Bout It). For
this movie to be considered Kubrick's masterpiece is a complete joke. A
Clockwork Orange is so far superior to 2001, as is Dr. Strangelove, Barry
Lyndon, The Shining and Full Metal Jacket. Could someone explain to me what is
so great about 2001? Because for the life of me, I don't see it. I hear the
music, I see the things floating through space, but I sure as hell don't see
anything even close to an enjoyable film.
JimWebb 66
>From: ston...@aol.com (Stoneberg)<BR>
>This is my first stop in this newsgroup, and this probably has been brought
>up<BR>
>before, but for the life of me I can't figure out the hype behind 2001.
>I've<BR>
>now forced myself to sit through this film 3 times, and I consider it to
>be<BR>
>quite possibly the worst film I have ever seen (along with I'm Bout It).
>For<BR>
>this movie to be considered Kubrick's masterpiece is a complete joke. A<BR>
>Clockwork Orange is so far superior to 2001, as is Dr. Strangelove, Barry<BR>
>Lyndon, The Shining and Full Metal Jacket. Could someone explain to me what
>is<BR>
>so great about 2001? Because for the life of me, I don't see it. I hear
>the<BR>
>music, I see the things floating through space, but I sure as hell don't
>see<BR>
>anything even close to an enjoyable film. <BR>
----------------------------------------2001 is like no other film to me. it is
so far beyond film and settles in a region of art ive never seen before or
probobly ever will. we all have our own opinions and i accept yours. if you
dont like it well what can i do to change your mind ....nothing so i wont. its
special to many here and just ordinary to others, hell some hate it!
zaw...@my-dejanews.com
ston...@aol.com (Stoneberg) wrote:
>
> This is my first stop in this newsgroup, and this probably has been brought up
>
another, it might be a normal thing but sometimes we forget it. I love 2001,
but no one of my friends like it. However this movie, that in a certain sense
isn't a movie, ( I think it's "more" a movie the moon landing of the '69)
summarizes all the cinema, of the past and the future, and is at the centre of
the Kubrick production, that at the end (I think with EWS, and A.I.), will be
like a painting, a great important painting including all the aspects of the
society and the man through the centuries. If we, for instance, remove 2001
from this production it'd sound incomplete. I saw the movie many times, and
everytime is like the first one, I always find out something new. What my
friends say is boring, to me is a marvellous and hipnotyc voyage through the
humanity and its contraddictions, not only in the space. I'm 18, and I wonder
of the effect the movie had in '68! All this doesn't mean I "prefer" it to the
other movies by Stanley, because I see the global thing, as I said before.
Finally, I'd like to say that a movie like this will never be made in the
future. It's a point where not only the Universe turns around, but the entire
Cinema.
Bye
Andrea
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
William Beutler
is the one thing that drives people away, and can make it difficult to sit
through. The actors are bland, their dialogue rote--hell, even that
computer is more interesting.
Exactly the point. Remember that a good 99% of everything in a Kubrick film
is intentional and reasoned. Much of this, I believe, is due to the
ponderance of artificial intelligence versus human intelligence. And where
the human intelligence is headed.
Of all interpretations of the film, I can't recall any that branch
radically from the main idea: the evolution of mankind, from primitive
beginnings, to modern masters of technology, to the unknown future: a race
beyond the scope of space and time. This can be argued, obviously--but it's
how I take it.
And the first thing that allows SK to tackle such a subject is to do away
with the common notions of 'story' or 'character'. I've seen dozens
(perhaps more) of films that tackle interesting concepts and stretch
ideas... but most bog down on the human level, where they can't seem to
escape standard plots and characters.
Were Kubrick to do this, 2001 would be "another movie", but instead, it is
a totally different type of film. It isn't the kind of thing that can be
viewed the way 'regular' movies are. It plays like an essay, and its focus
is intellectual, rather than emotional.
And what lasts the millenia, anyway? From Aristotle to Galileo, from the
Moonwatcher to Dave, only the facts remain. But perhaps, as the final
segment of the film hints, perhaps this can change.
See it again with an open mind. I personally think it is the most original
film ever made. Nothing quite matches it.
BiLL
--
==================================
'The planet is a gunboat in a sea of fear.'
Radiohead
http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~wbeutler
==================================
Stoneberg <ston...@aol.com> wrote in article
<199807070525...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
Steve Sondericker
off a lot of people. Something else to remember is its context in
cinematic history, which has now been largely forgotten. At the time
nothing even remotely like 2001 had ever been seen before in a
mainstream release. The special effects were better than anything
before it not by degree but by orders of magnitude. The surreal images
had never been attempted on such a broadly based audience, nor had the
ambiguity or the aforementioned non-traditional narrative structure.
Keep in mind also that one doesn't always find a mirror on humanity in a
movie's most explicitly human characters. The great, wonderful irony of
2001 is that its explicitly non-human characters (the proto-humans and
HAL) are the ones from which we learn the most about the human
condition. Think about it; the very fact of HAL's non-humanness makes
us all that much more aware of the basic humanity of his actions. Of
course, I could drivel on for hours like this, but Kubrick himself would
object to someone trying to give a laundry list of reasons why the movie
is worthwhile. If it speaks to you, fine, if not, that's fine too.
tomlinson
: This is my first stop in this newsgroup, and this probably has been brought up
: before, but for the life of me I can't figure out the hype behind 2001. I've
: now forced myself to sit through this film 3 times, and I consider it to be
: quite possibly the worst film I have ever seen (along with I'm Bout It).
That's rather strong a statement!
I don't think 2001 is boring but (and this is an opinion with which
few agree) I think it's Kubrick's least successful major film. It's
the fourth act which fails. I don't buy any of the conventional
interpretations of it. Different persons read into that fourth
act what they will, and I mistrust that: if _anything_ may be
read into a work of art without contradiction, then is there really
_anything_ there to be read? Is a blank sheet of paper a work of
art on those grounds? (For my part, I find the end of 2001
frightening and oppressive, not at all uplifting.)
-tomlinson
--
Ernest S. Tomlinson - San Diego State University
Teo Ee Ming
JSM wrote in message <35A2D546...@pacbell.net>...
>p.s.-- in response to a another reply, '2001' was actually one of most
>successful films -- if not his most successful. The least successful
>was "Barry Lyndon."
How would such a fine film like "Barry Lyndon" fail at the box office? I
thought Kubrick had control of everything, including marketing of his
product. How was the promotion of BL at that time? I read somewhere that
Kubrick boasted to Warner Bros. before starting this project that it is
going to earn lots of money and lots of Oscars. He got the Oscars bit
correct.
Teo Ee Ming
cine...@hkspnetam.com
> p.s.-- in response to a another reply, '2001' was actually one of most
> successful films -- if not his most successful. The least successful
> was "Barry Lyndon."
Errr, I think (hope) you mean least successful in terms of box office receipts,
but not in any other sense.
If one attaches any status to Oscars -- and we all do in our own silly ways -- BL
earned four Academy Awards. If there was a category for Perfect Movies, it
should have earned five.
2001, remarkably, is STILL successful at the box office.
Along with how many other movies from the late sixties?
derek
Tim Fulmer
2001 is like no other film to me. it is
> so far beyond film and settles in a region of art ive never seen before or
> probobly ever will.
Wow! Are you sure someone didn't spike your drink with acid? I mean, I
understand your enthusiasm, but "a region of art I've never seen
before"--heavy!
This puts in better perspective that story of how at the initial
screening of 2001 someone in the audience went running up to the screen
during the scene of the Famous Floating Space Infant, yelling, "God!
I've seen God!" (This tidbit is supposedly true.)
My own opinion on all of this is that the film 2001 settles in a region
of art that I've visited all *too* often...
Eddie Wood
2001 is the best film I've ever seen. It's the absolute Kubrick. If you
don't like it, you can't understand his style and I'm sorry for you.
Tim Fulmer
> Finally, I'd like to say that a movie like this will never be made in the
> future. It's a point where not only the Universe turns around, but the entire
> Cinema.
Sheesh!
But I appreciate that you've capitalized the word "cinema." Perhaps
then you were also the author of the following work:
"Edward Schizohands: The Postmodern Gothic Body"
Abstract: In the conjunction between the gothic body of
Edward in Tim Burton's film Edward Scissorhands and
the anti-Oedipal Body without Organs in Deleuze and
Guattari's Anti-Oedipus, this essay posits a common
machine, that of the fragmentary, persecuting Gothic
body. Whether in James Whale's 1931 film
Frankenstein or in 1991's Body Parts, the partial body
appears again and again as the persecuting agent of a
society founded upon the monolithically Oedipal
nuclear family. This constitution of this body, with its
scars and sutures, is in fact fundamentally
Anti-Oedipal; when organs do not stay in place, where
is an erogenous zone to go? This essay thus offers a
reading not only of Edward Scissorhands and its filmic
and novelistic precursors, but also of the postmodern
suburbanity which beings from Frankenstein to Edward
continue to invade.
PennTex281
Blew my Mind ! I loved it ! It doesn't work with todays young
viewers because there is no love interest ( or even any women at
all ) No violence or mass destruction , no hip music , It's incredibly
slow moving and hardley anyone can understand it ?! I feel your
pain !!! ( But I still like it ! )
Stoneberg
>2001 is the best film I've ever seen. It's the absolute Kubrick. If you
>don't like it, you can't understand his style and I'm sorry for you.
If you don't like 2001, you can't understand Kubrick's style at all? what are
you talking about? To not understand what is so great about one movie, is not
his style, 2001 is very different to his films, so what is his definent style,
that I'm missing (wierd as I'm writing this there doing a 2001 refernece on the
Simpsons)
"There are a million fine looking women in the world, dude. But they don't all
bring you lasagna to work. Most of them just cheat on you"
"Gyute was the ugly pig"
"Visions of hell tormented my face, so I chewed my fucking arm off and made and
escape"
William Beutler
> thought Kubrick had control of everything, including marketing of his
> product.
But does he have control of the audience's pocketbooks?
Brian Miller
Stoneberg <ston...@aol.com> wrote in article
<199807070525...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
> This is my first stop in this newsgroup, and this probably has been
brought up
> before, but for the life of me I can't figure out the hype behind 2001.
I've
> now forced myself to sit through this film 3 times, and I consider it to
be
> quite possibly the worst film I have ever seen (along with I'm Bout It).
For
> this movie to be considered Kubrick's masterpiece is a complete joke. A
> Clockwork Orange is so far superior to 2001, as is Dr. Strangelove, Barry
> Lyndon, The Shining and Full Metal Jacket. Could someone explain to me
what is
> so great about 2001? Because for the life of me, I don't see it. I hear
the
> music, I see the things floating through space, but I sure as hell don't
see
> anything even close to an enjoyable film.
>
Little did you know that you answered your own question twice:
"for the life of me"
"because for the life of me"
That's what 2001 is all about, including the "hype".
Gonigal
>This puts in better perspective that story of how at the initial
>screening of 2001 someone in the audience went running up to the screen
>during the scene of the Famous Floating Space Infant, yelling, "God!
>I've seen God!" (This tidbit is supposedly true.)
You know, I think "This tidbit is supposedly true." perfectly captures the
essence of usenet.
-D.G.
JSM
>
> JSM wrote:
>
> > p.s.-- in response to a another reply, '2001' was actually one of most
> > successful films -- if not his most successful. The least successful
> > was "Barry Lyndon."
>
> Errr, I think (hope) you mean least successful in terms of box office receipts,
> but not in any other sense.
I was talking solely about box office receipts.
JimWebb 66
>I saw it when it firs t came out in '69 when I was sixteen and it
><BR>
>Blew my Mind ! I loved it ! It doesn't work with todays young <BR>
>viewers because there is no love interest ( or even any women at
><BR>
>all ) No violence or mass destruction , no hip music , It's
>incredibly <BR>
>slow moving and hardley anyone can understand it ?!
---------------------------------well this young viewer thinks your 100% wrong.
Me
Stoneberg wrote:
> This is my first stop in this newsgroup, and this probably has been brought up
> before, but for the life of me I can't figure out the hype behind 2001.
The problem is probably on several levels, so I'll address them seperately to
avoid confusion.
> I've
> now forced myself to sit through this film 3 times,
If you devoted that much to it, you must have seen something there. Or were you
listening to the hype, and hoping to find something you didn't see before? It can
be helpful to look for something in a film, but it can backfire. If you don't
want to watch it, but are forcing yourself, you are setting the experience up to
be a failure. Don't do that. Watch it because you feel like watching it.
> and I consider it to be
> quite possibly the worst film I have ever seen
What are your standards? What are you looking for in a film? That could be the
problem. You are looking for plot elements that are sparse in this film, and you
are looking for it to flow in a way familiar to you, which is definitely going to
be absent. Whatever expectations you have of film as a medium you need to put
right out of your head before you see it, because Kubrick did not try at any point
to fulfill those expectations or conventions. This movie was meant to redefine
what movies can be from the ground up, pretty much. I agree with another response
concerning "conceptual" films. I'm sure you've heard it before, but there is a
common comparison of experimental films as being "paintings that move." I don't
think 2001 falls quite into this category, but it certainly makes use of that
theory of film. Especially in the final act.
> For
> this movie to be considered Kubrick's masterpiece is a complete joke.
I'm not laughing. And I'm not trying to make you laugh.
> A
> Clockwork Orange is so far superior to 2001, as is Dr. Strangelove, Barry
> Lyndon, The Shining and Full Metal Jacket.
All of these films run a lot closer to standard plot/character-orientation than
2001. I even find Full Metal Jacket to be a bit flawed.
> Could someone explain to me what is
> so great about 2001?
Not really. There's a Kubrick interview that I believe is posted on the site of
one of the regulars (I'm sure they'll tell you if you ask nicely) in which he
talks quite a bit about 2001 and how it should be approached. Well, that's not
exactly how he would put it... his conclusion is that you should just go into the
theater (there's something that MIGHT help... seeing it in the theater) and watch
it and decide for yourself, but he does end up saying a few helpful and intriguing
things.
> Because for the life of me, I don't see it. I hear the
> music, I see the things floating through space, but I sure as hell don't see
> anything even close to an enjoyable film.
Another problem there.... not that 2001 can't be enjoyable (I enjoy it immensely,
and even find it "entertaining"), but it's primary focus is not to be a thrill
ride. I know you probably aren't the shallow, explosion-seeking average
filmmaker, but you still may be hung up a bit on what the film can bring to you,
and you end up not bringing anything to it.
-Benjamin
Stoneberg
> pm...@pacbell.net
>> I've
>> now forced myself to sit through this film 3 times,
>If you devoted that much to it, you must have seen something there. Or were
you
>listening to the hype, and hoping to find something you didn't see before? It
can
>be helpful to look for something in a film, but it can backfire. If you don't
>want to watch it, but are forcing yourself, you are setting the experience up
to
>be a failure. Don't do that. Watch it because you feel like watching it.
The first time I watched it was about 5 years ago, and I hated it. My friend
convinced me that I was too young to really enjoy it (I was 14 at the time) so
I decided to watch it again, a few weeks ago, and hated it again, but I agree
with you, i was forcing myself to watch it. But last week I really wanted to
see it, cause I was feeling open-minded and I still hated it.
>> and I consider it to be
>> quite possibly the worst film I have ever seen
>What are your standards? What are you looking for in a film? That could be
the
>problem. You are looking for plot elements that are sparse in this film, and
you
>are looking for it to flow in a way familiar to you, which is definitely going
to
>be absent. Whatever expectations you have of film as a medium you need to put
>right out of your head before you see it, because Kubrick did not try at any
point
>to fulfill those expectations or conventions. This movie was meant to
redefine
>what movies can be from the ground up, pretty much. I agree with another
response
>concerning "conceptual" films. I'm sure you've heard it before, but there is
a
>common comparison of experimental films as being "paintings that move." I
don't
>think 2001 falls quite into this category, but it certainly makes use of that
>theory of film. Especially in the final act.
I completely understand why you would assume i am only looking for plot and
flow, but that isn't true. Cause I do enjoy films with none of that. For
example, Lost Highway. I loved lost highway and that didn't have definite plot
and flow.
Phil Noir
> [2001] certainly doesn't have a traditional narrative structure, which puts
> off a lot of people.
I disagree. 2001 has a distinct theme, plus a begininng, middle and end
-- the traditional 3-act curtain. (Hey, it even has title cards for the
hard-of-seeing.)
It is not the structure of 2001 which puts off certain viewers, it's
because of the stylistic choices Kubrick made. He chose to show, not to
tell. Lazy audiences want (or need) talking heads to explain motivations
and further the plot. 2001's theme did not warrant this kind of
approach, the thematic canvas was too large, and Kubrick too canny a
director to fall into the trap of relying on narrative exposition to
move the story along. It's linear, just inacessable to minds steeped in
formulaic expectations.
>The surreal images had never been attempted on such a broadly based audience...
No offense, Steve, but 2001 is contains not one surrealist image.
Without trying to patronize I suggest you surf around the web a bit for
information on the surrealist movement and then try to apply their
aesthetic to 2001.
I agree that the film challenged (and continues to challenge) the status
quo of ordinary cinema, but not for the reason you cite.
tomlinson
: I disagree. 2001 has a distinct theme, plus a begininng, middle and end
: -- the traditional 3-act curtain. (Hey, it even has title cards for the
: hard-of-seeing.)
_Four_ acts. The first three acts contain some of Kubrick's finest
work; without mincing word, I declare that the fourth act ("Beyond
the Infinite") is a failure. Can you demonstrate to my satisfaction
that there is something in the fourth act other than what you
yourself are choosing to read into it?
Phil Noir
> _Four_ acts. The first three acts contain some of Kubrick's finest
> work; without mincing word, I declare that the fourth act ("Beyond
> the Infinite") is a failure. Can you demonstrate to my satisfaction
> that there is something in the fourth act other than what you
> yourself are choosing to read into it?
The finale, climax, conclusion, denouement -- whatever you call to
choose it, is not an act per se. For the very same reason that Full
Metal Jacket is not a film of two halves, as many have misidentified it.
Brush up just a little bit on narrative structure before you go making
these claims.
And how would I go about demonstrating to *your* satisfaction that there
is "something" in it? Of course there is something in it, unless the
film snapped and you were watching a blank screen. I assume you mean
something of substance, something which can be processed.
More to the point, the question is what does one *think* it's about, and
does it have any meaning for them? Personally I don't hold with any
mystical interpretations (Bowman meets God, yadda yadda yadda)and I
don't think he's gone space happy, hallicinating in his suit. I think
the finale subverts the standard s/f scenario, ie. the scientist being
studied -- it's handled in an atypical manner, with the
flashback/flashforwards, and therefore more interesting.
It happens that when I first saw the film I came to the same basic
conclusions about almost all the elements presented in the film that
Clarke literalized in his novel, including the rebirth -- without having
read the book (at the time).
If anything has dated the film, it's the trip. Hard to defend as the
"ultimate" anything these days. What sort of defense were you looking
for here anyway?
M4RV1N
writes:
>>JimWebb 66 wrote:
>2001 is like no other film to me. it is
>> so far beyond film and settles in a region of art ive never seen before or
>> probobly ever will.
>Wow! Are you sure someone didn't spike your drink with acid? I mean, I
>understand your enthusiasm, but "a region of art I've never seen
>before"--heavy!
I am in complete agreement with the remarks you scoff at. And you can bet your
PhD I can back up my position.
>This puts in better perspective that story of how at the initial
>screening of 2001 someone in the audience went running up to the screen
>during the scene of the Famous Floating Space Infant, yelling, "God!
>I've seen God!" (This tidbit is supposedly true.)
I had an equally powerful reaction, although I did no running or screaming.
Being an atheist, I certainly had no monotheistic epiphanic moment of contact.
I did however, in the span of 141 minutes, gain an entirely new, vibrant and
resonant sense of man's place in this universe, together with a new perspective
on the >point< of the progression of intelligence. A theory of mind the
keynote of which is a rational benevolence in response to creative effort.
This is Mythic in the grandest possible sense that Art can ever achieve.
Mankind has always had a powerful need for the envisagement of a place in
history, a >context< for his experience of the universe. The film presents
symbols charged with meaning only when organized into a Gestalt; the burden of
understanding, of realizing, is ours.
If you don't get this from "2001" then you do not appeciate the film; some
people never will (perhaps the orginator of this thread). Discussing the
merits of the film with these folks is like discussing color with the blind.
Zero context overlap. And I have not even touched on Kubrick's >execution< of
these ideas, for which perfection is the most apt summation.
>My own opinion on all of this is that the film 2001 settles in a region
>of art that I've visited all *too* often...
I don't know what this sentence is supposed to convey, but name one film other
than "2001" that deals with the each of the following:
The origin of conceptual thought.
The act of creativity and its relation to destruction.
The purpose of intelligence.
Progress by benevolence vs. progress by competition.
Technology as:
a manifestation of intelligence, and
a limiting factor of it, a "crutch", at some point for a leg that is no
longer lame.
The present state of man as a dead end; a state of "intelligence" that is
directionally flawed in spite of an ever increasing accumulation of data and
technology.
Since this is a hopeless task, I'll make it feasible by expanding the scope.
Name another work of art in >any< medium that successfully deals with these
issues. If you can... THEN you can make a case that "2001 settles in a region
of art that I've visited all *too* often."
It occurs to me that your education has given you a glib overconfidence by
which you feel obligated to dismiss "2001". I challenge the validity of that
dismissal.
Mark Ervin
David Mullen
Don't force yourself to watch a movie that you can't seem to enjoy.
Just don't call a film that many others think is great as "the worst film you
ever saw" (whatever) because THEN you are not saying that you didn't "get it"
but instead you are insulting everyone who likes it. There's a difference.
You are implying that you are not expressing a personal reaction but instead
an objective evaluation. Clearly "2001" is not one of the worst films ever
made whether or not it moves you on any level. Its virtues as a piece of art
(not just filmmaking) must be clear to almost anyone whether or not they
actually ENJOY it as a moviewatching experience.
Although I enjoy it quite a bit...
David M.
Gordon Dahlquist
> tomlinson wrote:
>
> > _Four_ acts. The first three acts contain some of Kubrick's finest
> > work; without mincing word, I declare that the fourth act ("Beyond
> > the Infinite") is a failure. Can you demonstrate to my satisfaction
> > that there is something in the fourth act other than what you
> > yourself are choosing to read into it?
>
> It happens that when I first saw the film I came to the same basic
> conclusions about almost all the elements presented in the film that
> Clarke literalized in his novel, including the rebirth -- without having
> read the book (at the time).
>
> If anything has dated the film, it's the trip. Hard to defend as the
> "ultimate" anything these days. What sort of defense were you looking
> for here anyway?
I have to agree with Phil. While the "trip" through the stargate has
perhaps dated (and I'd say it's the only part of 2001 that has), it's
still punctuated so expressively by those absolutely haunting stills of
dullea's face trying to look away inside his helmet, and the superb final
sequence of his eye blinking in different colors, then normal light ...
but the scenes on the other side of the stargate - from the arrival of the
pod to the final moment of the monolith by the bed - are among my favorite
moments of the entire film. The entire series of shots strikes me as
uniquely graceful, economical and expresive - the overlapping of dullea as
he ages, within the same shot, is simply genius - a wonderfully deft way
to suggest how many basic assumptions of time/space/cause & effect may not
quite hold up here ... and Dullea's presence in this hermetic room, coming
from where he's come from, is something I always find very moving.
I don't know - clarke's writing makes a literal hash out of the whole
thing for me, like someone stomping about in a garden - but for me this
final sequence has always managed to both "make sense" of the rest of the
film, but also adhere to the abstract and evocative manner of expression
that makes the film so unique.
Andy Dimond
>than "2001" that deals with the each of the following:
>
>The origin of conceptual thought.
>
>The act of creativity and its relation to destruction.
>
>The purpose of intelligence.
>
>Progress by benevolence vs. progress by competition.
>
>Technology as:
> a manifestation of intelligence, and
> a limiting factor of it, a "crutch", at some point for a leg that is no
>longer lame.
>
>The present state of man as a dead end; a state of "intelligence" that is
>directionally flawed in spite of an ever increasing accumulation of data
and
>technology.
>
it, um, hmm, oh I know! Armageddon!!!
Andy Dimond
audience...
>
>No offense, Steve, but 2001 is contains not one surrealist image.
>Without trying to patronize I suggest you surf around the web a bit for
>information on the surrealist movement and then try to apply their
>aesthetic to 2001.
>
space, but these are closer to mere juxtaposition for contrast than true
surrealism. I disagree that the film is not at all surrealist, it is quite a
surrealist thought process that suggested a black rectangle as the root of
human feeling.
Andy Dimond
well there's yer probbum, yip...
JGM
> Can you demonstrate to my satisfaction
> that there is something in the fourth act other than what you
> yourself are choosing to read into it?
You say that like it's a *bad* thing.
JGM
--------------------------
Blue Danube == Nebulae dub
Me
Andy Dimond wrote:
> >I loved lost highway
>
> well there's yer probbum, yip...
I don't know... I liked it too.... hasn't affected my love for
2001.....hmm.... I wonder what's wrong with me.....
Me
Phil Noir wrote:
> Steve Sondericker wrote:
> > [2001] certainly doesn't have a traditional narrative structure, which puts
> > off a lot of people.
>
> I disagree. 2001 has a distinct theme, plus a begininng, middle and end
> -- the traditional 3-act curtain. (Hey, it even has title cards for the
> hard-of-seeing.)
This is true, except that it seems to me that he is following a musical structure
more than a dramatic one, which lends weight to the notion that the film itself is
not calling itself a drama, but a different form of art entirely. Of course,
classical music structure and classical dramatic structure are closely entwined, and
often emulate each other, but I think it draws attention to the fact that you are
supposed to be watching this differently. I think I was just redundant there.
Sorry. Also, I haven't seen the film in a while... anyone know precisely what the
title cards say?
> >The surreal images had never been attempted on such a broadly based audience...
>
> No offense, Steve, but 2001 is contains not one surrealist image.
> Without trying to patronize I suggest you surf around the web a bit for
> information on the surrealist movement and then try to apply their
> aesthetic to 2001.
After spending some time with the subject myself, I'd have to say that, with any
genre, there is a massive difference between the movement and the style. Lots of
people borrow the surrealistic style without knowing anything about the movement,
and under post-modernism, it hardly matters. The final act of 2001 was
very....surreal. Sorry.
-Benjamin
Phil Noir
> This is true, except that it seems to me that he is following a musical structure
> more than a dramatic one, which lends weight to the notion that the film itself is
> not calling itself a drama, but a different form of art entirely.
"Seems to me," as you say does not reflect Kubrick's intention, but your
opinion; we part here. 2001 is a heady film (pun unavoidable) but not
necessarily a dense one in terms of plot. The plot in fact is crystal
clear up until the trip sequence. If is not a "story," or narrative in
your opinion, what form of art is it, specifically?
>Of course, classical music structure and classical dramatic structure are closely >entwined, and often emulate each other, but I think it draws attention to the fact >that you are supposed to be watching this differently. I think I was just redundant there.
Again, "supposed" is a supposition, not fact. I am getting redundant,
too I suppose!:) How is one supposed to watch a film differently? With
their eyes shut? With another sensory organ -- maybe, lick the screen?
> After spending some time with the subject myself, I'd have to say that, with any
> genre, there is a massive difference between the movement and the style. Lots of
> people borrow the surrealistic style without knowing anything about the movement,
> and under post-modernism, it hardly matters. The final act of 2001 was
> very....surreal. Sorry.
Even if one is not consciously familiar with the surrealist aesthetic --
its anarchaic playfulness, its pschological underpinnings etc, one can
borrow from the imagery as it has been processed raw -- for example, the
artist Jacek Yerka. He is a contemporary surrealist whether or not he
holds the aesthetic valid (or not). I don't know, and it doesn't really
matter.
This is a minor point, but I like to be precise with language. I am
suggesting that the term surrealist, as used generically for just plain
weird, outre, trippy, etc. is a poor misnomer. At the risk of
Part of it is psychedelic (the polarized images) part of it is a
scientific extrapolation (the expolding universe) and part of it is
techno-wallpaper (Trumbull's slitscan).
Anyone else agree, or am I simply full of it?
Michael Post
> On Thu, 9 Jul 1998, Phil Noir wrote:
>
> > tomlinson wrote:
> >
> > > _Four_ acts. The first three acts contain some of Kubrick's
> finest
> > > work; without mincing word, I declare that the fourth act ("Beyond
>
> > > the Infinite") is a failure. Can you demonstrate to my
> satisfaction
> > > that there is something in the fourth act other than what you
> > > yourself are choosing to read into it?
Wasn't that the point of that act, and to a lesser extent, the whole
movie?
What little Kubrick has said about the movie indicates that he wanted
the
movie to be almost entirely subjective. He wanted the audience to read
their own meanings into it--which is why little is explained in the
dialogue
or unfolding in the plot, you are meant to derive meaning from pure
visuals.
Is it a failure at achieving this? No, you have stated that it succeeds
in this.
Is it perhaps a failure in satisfying what you wanted it to be?
Mike Post
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~postm/2001/index.html ..(Framed)
Phil Noir
>At the risk of...<
I never finished my sentence, this was a poor cut and paste job. Sorry
folks. I'm sure you all know very well how many bloody times I've risked
redundancy by this time, anyway... :)
Me
Phil Noir wrote:
> Me wrote:
>
> > This is true, except that it seems to me that he is following a musical structure
> > more than a dramatic one, which lends weight to the notion that the film itself is
> > not calling itself a drama, but a different form of art entirely.
>
> "Seems to me," as you say does not reflect Kubrick's intention, but your
> opinion; we part here.
That's a bit nitpicky, but I'm merely guilty of being honest about the fact that I don't know everything. As a matter of fact, I've heard the comparison before of 2001 to musical structure.Perhaps some clarification should be placed on what we are talking about
by classical dramatic structure. I, for one, am not just talking about plot....that is, one thing happens and then another and so on. With classical structure (and this really includes most filmmaking) you have all the roles that must be filled, like the
protagonist, and events that must happen, and these must happen in a specific order at fairly specific times. 2001 does defy this, although I "suppose" you could loosely tie its elements back to these (I'm supposing st this point because I had a rather heated
discussion with an insane drama professor about teh subjectivity of structure.....I held and still do hold that the structure of any piece is debateable....he didn't agree, and my grade reflected that). My point is..... that 2001
defies/strays-from/places-little-import-on/operates-on-a-level-other-than classical structure. You choose the slashed/-hyphenated option yourself...but I hope you get my point, if not my phrasing.
> If is not a "story," or narrative in
> your opinion, what form of art is it, specifically?
Art
philosophical
moral
plot
I'm missing a level of the "pyramid" (if you don't know, don't ask, because it's a foggy memory to me anyway), but if this little message looks familiar to you, then you have another clue to what I'm getting at.
> >Of course, classical music structure and classical dramatic structure are closely >entwined, and often emulate each other, but I think it draws attention to the fact >that you are supposed to be watching this differently. I think I was just redundant there.
>
> Again, "supposed" is a supposition, not fact. I am getting redundant,
> too I suppose!:)
Actually, I was not supposing at this point. Kubrick was. Kubrick gives you the clues about how you are supposed to experience this, or read it, or whatever...... if you don't pick up on them, then I suppose he supposed wrong.
> How is one supposed to watch a film differently?
Watching/reading are interchangeable at this point.
> With
> their eyes shut? With another sensory organ -- maybe, lick the screen?
I think people may do this at the Rocky Horror Picture Show, but I can't say for sure. Besides. I think you know that was not what I meant....and I doubt Kubrick did. I mean, maybe he has licked the screen himself, but that's between him and the theater
management.
> > After spending some time with the subject myself, I'd have to say that, with any
> > genre, there is a massive difference between the movement and the style. Lots of
> > people borrow the surrealistic style without knowing anything about the movement,
> > and under post-modernism, it hardly matters. The final act of 2001 was
> > very....surreal. Sorry.
>
> Even if one is not consciously familiar with the surrealist aesthetic --
> its anarchaic playfulness, its pschological underpinnings etc, one can
> borrow from the imagery as it has been processed raw --
Exactly. And even if you are aware of it, and you try to avoid it, you can stumble into it on accident.
> Anyone else agree, or am I simply full of it?
Of what?
-Benjamin
Phil Noir
>As a matter of fact, I've heard the comparison before of 2001 to musical >structure.
So have I'm not refuting it because I openly admit to not having enough
knowledge about the musical form. However I've been working in film for
over a decade. I feel qualified to make a few salient observations on
the medium. I've tried to challenge your assertion that 2001 is
non-narrative, and a wholly other animal than a movie. I have suggested
that is in fact a fairly typical s/f plot presented in a beautifully
creative and subversive style.
>Perhaps some clarification should be placed on what we are talking about
> by classical dramatic structure. I, for one, am not just talking about plot....that >is, one thing happens and then another and so on. With classical structure (and this >really includes most filmmaking) you have all the roles that must be filled, like
We are in agreement here. That's where it ends.
>2001 does defy this,
Are you saying that 2001 defies the conventions of plot and character?
(Granted the characters are banal, but this suits the thematic purpose.)
Until the conclusion of the film (the trip & beyond) all the evidence
points otherwise. Rather than summarize the events we are all so
familiar with I suggest you just think about them. What is it about the
presentation that defies (in your words) "the protagonist, and events
that must happen, and these must happen in a specific order at fairly
specific times."
>I held and still do hold that the structure of any piece is debateable....<
Taking an arbitary or subjective stance, anything is debatable -- but we
go round and round if one keeps making assertions without specific
examples.
>My point is..... that >2001 defies/strays-from/places-little-import-on/operates-on-a-level-other-than >classical structure. I hope you get my point, if not my phrasing.
I get your point, I have been affected by the film quite deeply
myself...but as I implied in my previous post, we have a common language
-- and to use it well results in better communication. This means using
specific examples, not vague phrases like "surrealistic" where they do
not apply, or making statements such as the above which really has no
meaning. I asked you a direct, simple question:
("If is not a "story," or narrative in your opinion, what form of art
is it, specifically?")
and your answer is a vague pyramid:
> Art
>
> philosophical
> moral
>
> plot
I asked again:
"How is one supposed to watch a film differently?"
and your reply,
> Watching/reading are interchangeable at this point.
What the hell is that supposed to mean? Thanks, but I prefer language to
present my opinions. When pressed on how one is suppsed to experience
this new form of art -- the one *you* suggested is not a cinematic
experience bit something above, beyond, or sideways to the medium, your
reply is that Kubrick himself
"gives you the clues about how you are supposed to experience this, or
read it, or whatever...... if you don't pick up on them, then I
suppose he supposed wrong."
"Whatever" is becoming the theme of your debate. Total subjectivity;
language is redundant and obsolete; if one doesn't "pick up" an idea
than both the creator and the viewer is wrong...
I "get" the film. I "got" the film a long time ago. I don't "get" your
observations.
Aidan
LEJACKAL
>music, I see the things floating through space, but I sure as hell >don't see
>anything even close to an enjoyable film.
>This<, coming from someone who quotes Kevin Smith movies (Mallrats and
Clerks) on their AOL profiles. Are you worth listening to? Not likely, mate.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
David Culpepper
tomlinson wrote
>
>_Four_ acts. The first three acts contain some of Kubrick's finest
>work; without mincing word, I declare that the fourth act ("Beyond
>the Infinite") is a failure. Can you demonstrate to my satisfaction
>that there is something in the fourth act other than what you
>yourself are choosing to read into it?
>
>--
Ruffles and flourishes to accompany your declaration. I'm not sure I
understand your reasoning tho. Are you saying that due to your perception
of the 4th act as a tabula rasa, that it is a failure?
Tobasco
Me
Phil Noir wrote:
Me wrote:
>As a matter of fact, I've heard the comparison before of 2001 to musical >structure.So have I'm not refuting it because I openly admit to not having enough
knowledge about the musical form.
Ah...that answers a few questions (and yes, I'm going to remain vague on that point)
However I've been working in film for
over a decade. I feel qualified to make a few salient observations on
the medium.
I've been watching films for 25 years, and I feel qualified to make unsupported observations on Usenet.
I've tried to challenge your assertion that 2001 is
non-narrative, and a wholly other animal than a movie. I have suggested
that is in fact a fairly typical s/f plot presented in a beautifully
creative and subversive style.
What is a typical s/f plot? Starship Troopers? Or Dahlgren? 2001 runs closer to the latter.
>Perhaps some clarification should be placed on what we are talking about
> by classical dramatic structure. I, for one, am not just talking about plot....that >is, one thing happens and then another and so on. With classical structure (and this >really includes most filmmaking) you have all the roles that must be filled, likeWe are in agreement here. That's where it ends.
Where have I heard that before.....?
>2001 does defy this,Are you saying that 2001 defies the conventions of plot and character?
YES. For example, who is the protagonist? Floyd? I don't think so. Dave? Hal? More likely the Monolith. Sorry if I am not giving you fully fleshed out examples, but I'm not writing an essay here, I'm addressing a very small point, and offerring up some very small bits and pieces that point to where I'm coming from... I don't want to retell the film for you......
>I held and still do hold that the structure of any piece is debateable....<Taking an arbitary or subjective stance, anything is debatable -- but we
go round and round if one keeps making assertions without specific
examples.
Uh.....see the above essay comment.....
>My point is..... that >2001 defies/strays-from/places-little-import-on/operates-on-a-level-other-than >classical structure. I hope you get my point, if not my phrasing.
I get your point, I have been affected by the film quite deeply
myself...but as I implied in my previous post, we have a common language
We don't really have a common language. That is why I felt the need to draw a line between plot and structure. I think I clarified that point adequately.
-- and to use it well results in better communication. This means using
specific examples, not vague phrases like "surrealistic" where they do
not apply,
?
or making statements such as the above which really has no
meaning.
????? Did you read it? Are we looking at the same post? That statement you are referring to is crystal clear to me.
I asked you a direct, simple question:
("If is not a "story," or narrative in your opinion, what form of art
is it, specifically?")
I have to answer this with a question. A painting can relay a story...does that make it narrative? I have stated before... in this thread, I believe, that I don't think 2001 quite qualifies as being a completely different medium. It merely gives you clues that in order to understand parts of it, you have to be able to appreciate it on a non-plot/character-oriented level. Otherwise, you'll be bored stiff. Yes, there's a plot there, but that isn't what you are really supposed to be concerned with. It is atmospheric, philosophical, and beautiful to look at, and a bunch of other nice things, but if it was any less of a film in ways other than character and plot, then I would not watch it myself. Therefor, it does not work for me on a plot/character level. You have said yourself that the characters are banal. The plot itself is simplistic. So WHY are we wwatching it over and over again? Certainly not because of the great plot and characters. I don't have to give you an answer on what form of art it is supposed to be, because I don't think even Kubrick could answer that. The point is that it is hinting at a new kind of art... a different way of looking at film, and that, like the ending of the film itself, is a vague but hopeful statement that few people understand.
and your answer is a vague pyramid:> Art
>
> philosophical
> moral
>
> plot
No, this pyramid is not vague, in fact, it's something I learned in school. If you've been to one of those nice educational facilities where they teach you all about dramatic structure and nifty things like that, then you have probably seen this "vague" pyramid yourself, in which case you should be nodding right about now and going" ah, I see what he's getting at", but since you are probably like me and don't remember everything precisely (I did leave out a level), then perhaps the reference is lost on you. Sorry about that. But it isn't vague.
I asked again:"How is one supposed to watch a film differently?"
and your reply,
> Watching/reading are interchangeable at this point.
What the hell is that supposed to mean?
It means that licking the screen is not what I was talking about (that was your proposed alternative, licking the screen).
Thanks, but I prefer language to
present my opinions. When pressed on how one is suppsed to experience
this new form of art -- the one *you* suggested is not a cinematic
experience
Nope, I never did that. You're putting words in my post/mouth now. Better go back and read my posts a bit closer.
bit something above, beyond, or sideways to the medium,
Now that's an interesting perspective...sideways from the medium...really, that's better than making value judgements about things.... equal but different....yeah....I like that....
"Whatever" is becoming the theme of your debate. Total subjectivity;
language is redundant and obsolete; if one doesn't "pick up" an idea
than both the creator and the viewer is wrong...
Actually, this is oretty accurate, if you buy nihlism. I don't but I think it is a mistake to ignore the possibility that it is true.
I "get" the film. I "got" the film a long time ago. I don't "get" your
observations.
This is just something to ponder...how can an observation not be gotten. A point can not be gotten, or disagreed with, but an observation? I'll have to sit on that one for a while.
-Benjamin
Phil Noir
> I disagree that the film is not at all surrealist, it is quite a
> surrealist thought process that suggested a black rectangle as the root of
> human feeling.
How would you demonstrate this?
Steve Sondericker
the three-act play as possible." -- Stanley Kubrick, quoted in "The
Making of Kubrick's 2001"
2. Obviously, if we use the term surrealist in the strictest sense of
the word then the movie is not surrealist, just as the music is not
"classical" in the strictest sense. However, if we go by the dictionary
definition of the word "surreal," which is the word I originally used,
it fits quite nicely.
Me
Phil Noir wrote:
> I've tried to challenge your assertion that 2001 is
> non-narrative, and a wholly other animal than a movie. I have suggested
> that is in fact a fairly typical s/f plot presented in a beautifully
> creative and subversive style.
I know it may be a fallacy to use someone else's words as evidence to support my claims, but since I'm tired of having an arguement with someone I basically agree with in spirit but disagree with in language, I'll refer you to someone else who's theories on
film and what it should do with itself are perhaps better articulated (but very similar) to my own. His name is Peter Greenaway. He makes films that, like 2001, portray stories on the surface, but do not put emphasis on that aspect of the art. He has said
himself that anyone making films to tell a story is wasting celluloid. Or something to that effect. Granted, he is a very different filmaker than Kubrick, but similar in his apparent (oh God, there I go making assumptions again) disdain for classical
structure.
And again I ask, who is the protagonist? Moonwatcher? The Monolith itself? Haywood? HAL? Who, I ask?
Whatever.
(just kidding)
-Benjamin
Phil Noir
> I'll refer you to someone else who's theories on film and what it should do with >itself are perhaps better articulated (but very similar) to my own. His name is Peter >Greenaway. He has said himself that anyone making films to tell a story is wasting >celluloid. Or something to that effect.
I will catch up with Greenway's work one of these days, but the comment
you paraphrase does not predispose me to want to go there any time soon.
I happen to gravitate towards cinema as a storytelling medium. Not that
I don't appreciate its ancillary benefits...
> And again I ask, who is the protagonist? Moonwatcher? The Monolith itself? >Haywood? HAL? Who, I ask?
Seems clear to me. Humanity itself (as represented by Moonwatcher,
Heywood, and the astronauts) is the protagonist; the aliens (as
represented by their herald and cosmic burglar alarm, the Monolith) are
the antagonists.
Gordon Dahlquist
And why would you say that the monolith is the "root of human feeling"?
This seems to very much miss a point of the film.
But anyways, phil's right - if you're using the term "surreal" as anything
other than a vague synonym for "wacky" or "unexpected", i.e. with any real
sense of artistic context, it's not the right word for 2001.
Gordon Dahlquist
On Mon, 13 Jul 1998, Me wrote:
>
>
> Phil Noir wrote:
>
> > I've tried to challenge your assertion that 2001 is
> > non-narrative, and a wholly other animal than a movie. I have suggested
> > that is in fact a fairly typical s/f plot presented in a beautifully
> > creative and subversive style.
>
> I know it may be a fallacy to use someone else's words as evidence to
> support my claims, but since I'm tired of having an arguement with
> someone I basically agree with in spirit but disagree with in language,
> I'll refer you to someone else who's theories on film and what it should
> do with itself are perhaps better articulated (but very similar) to my
> own. His name is Peter Greenaway. He makes films that, like 2001,
> portray stories on the surface, but do not put emphasis on that aspect
> of the art. He has said himself that anyone making films to tell a
> story is wasting celluloid. Or something to that effect. Granted, he
> is a very different filmaker than Kubrick, but similar in his apparent
> (oh God, there I go making assumptions again) disdain for classical
> structure.
Well, I like greenaway's films in general - though he certainly seems to
have lost his way since prospero's books (pillow book - what the fuck was
that!?) - but he's also sort of a tricky case. On one hand, he expresses
disdain for the traditional trappings of narrative, on the other hand, his
strongest films are the ones that are most steeped in narrative for their
emotional impact ... part of this is taste, and part of this is where his
particular skill as a filmmaker lies ... it's easy to equate lazy
characterization or indifference to acting with "disdain for classical
structure". I'd say greenaway's inconsistent in this regard. I enjoy his
films, and will always see what he's up to, but I think he's one of those
people whose talk doesn't always meet their work eye to eye.
> And again I ask, who is the protagonist? Moonwatcher? The Monolith
> itself? Haywood? HAL? Who, I ask?
I'd say humanity is the protagonist, though throughout the film three
figures - moonwatcher, floyd (to a lesser degree), and most importantly
bowman - are set up (and seen as) as represenative figures of the species.
Me
Gordon Dahlquist wrote:
> > And again I ask, who is the protagonist? Moonwatcher? The Monolith
> > itself? Haywood? HAL? Who, I ask?
>
> I'd say humanity is the protagonist, though throughout the film three
> figures - moonwatcher, floyd (to a lesser degree), and most importantly
> bowman - are set up (and seen as) as represenative figures of the species.
Oh, I see. So the entire film is a fable? I suppose fables do often fit
into the mold. But citing three characters as being THE protagonist throws the
classical theory completely out of whack. There can be only one. One person
who sets the entire story in motion. Who is that? The monolith is the only
possible answer. Moonwatcher would never have thought about manipulation of
his little weapon if it were not for the presence of the monolith. Also, the
monolith upsets things again on the moon, and prompts Floyd's actions, and
those prompt HAL, and that prompt's Bowman, in a simplistic chain of events.
The question then arises, can an inanimate object actually be a protagonist?
Is the monolith inanimate? Who/what put the monolith there in the first
place? Are not they responsible for the entire action of the film? Does any
of this matter once we see what becomes of Bowman? Is the breaking point here
explanable in the classical sense, or is the whole "story" really just an
excuse for the uh-oh...."surrealism" of the ending? Is it a valid question to
even ask if 2001 fits the classical model of drama? If so, why? How is that
important? If not....if it is a moot point whether 2001 fits into that mold,
then does that not lend some credibility to my point, and prove that looking at
that aspect of the film is pointless......that it offers no insight to the
film, and that the film is supposed to be licked in a different way?
-Benjamin
B.J. West
> Gordon Dahlquist wrote:
>
> > I'd say humanity is the protagonist, though throughout the film three
> > figures - moonwatcher, floyd (to a lesser degree), and most importantly
> > bowman - are set up (and seen as) as represenative figures of the species.
>
> Oh, I see. So the entire film is a fable? I suppose fables do often fit
> into the mold. But citing three characters as being THE protagonist throws the
> classical theory completely out of whack. There can be only one. One person
> who sets the entire story in motion.
Who says that? Yes, one protagonist is the traditional way of doing it, but I don't
think anyone from Artistotle to Joseph Campbell set down on paper that more than
one protagonist is *forbidden*, and 2001 shows quite clearly that it works.
----------
B.J. West - Art Direction, Design, Animation
http://www.strafe.com/bj
----------
Strafe's Guide to Streetspeak!
http://www.strafe.com
----------
Me
B.J. West wrote:
> Me wrote:
>
> > Gordon Dahlquist wrote:
> >
> > > I'd say humanity is the protagonist, though throughout the film three
> > > figures - moonwatcher, floyd (to a lesser degree), and most importantly
> > > bowman - are set up (and seen as) as represenative figures of the species.
> >
> > Oh, I see. So the entire film is a fable? I suppose fables do often fit
> > into the mold. But citing three characters as being THE protagonist throws the
> > classical theory completely out of whack. There can be only one. One person
> > who sets the entire story in motion.
>
> Who says that? Yes, one protagonist is the traditional way of doing it, but I don't
> think anyone from Artistotle to Joseph Campbell set down on paper that more than
> one protagonist is *forbidden*, and 2001 shows quite clearly that it works.
>
Yes, they did. That's what I'm talking about. You've made my entire point.I agree
that it works. But there has to be a clear, single protagonist, or there is no point
to differentiating between the protagonist and the rest of the characters. There can
be key players who greatly affect the outcome of the story, but in he classical
structure, that is, every Greek Tragedy and every work by Shakespeare (with a couple
arguable exceptions, but that's a different thread for a different newsgroup) there is
one person who sets the events in motion. The only option you have in 2001 is the
monolith, if you want to stick with that, and even that is questionable because it is
only our assumptions that lead us to believe it is anything more than an inanimate
object. But, of course, assuming is a no-no, so clearly the monolith is out, and what
are we left with? Multiple protagonists? Possible, yes. Functional, yes. Classical,
no. But I digress.... my point was never to get into a debate about classical
structure, but to point out, rather, in response to an oh-so-long ago post, that 2001
was not meant to be regarded in the typical fashion that films are. In fact, it makes
the point that it is structured as a musical piece is structured. If you are desperate
to point out that rather useless observation that there is a plot and that things
happen, then go ahead, but that does not mean anything. Aristotle himself was trying
to point out that there's more to drama than just a bunch of stuff happening.....that
there is an underlying structure to drama, and that you need certain things to happen,
and certain characters to exist, and so on ( I'm not going to give you a synopsis of
the Poetics here, for you clearly are aware of what I'm talking about) for "it" (a
dramatic piece) to work. The musical structure, however, makes a lot more sense
because music doesn't make sense. No one asks what the final movement of a symphony
means (and if they do, I am really curious how any sane person could possibly answer
with a straight face). The simple fact is that the final act of 2001 means nothing
except what we bring to it, and the structure of the film sets us up for that. It is
music for the eyes and mind. It is not a "story" any longer....
-Benjamin
Robert D
>Without trying to patronize I suggest you surf around the web a bit for
>information on the surrealist movement and then try to apply their
>aesthetic to 2001.
I don't know... the sequence where Dave Bowman grows old in those creepy
white rooms strikes me as being quite surreal. Isn't one of the concepts of
surrealism to place objects in unfamiliar / absurd juxtapositions? Well, if
that is the case, Dave's shuttle hurtling through a "stargate" and then
suddenly - Bing! - turning up in some crazy white room, is pretty damn
surreal.
-
Rob
"And in the Euston Tavern you screamed it was your shout
But they wouldn't give you service so you kicked the windows out
They took you out into the street and kicked you in the brains
So you walked back in through a bolted door and did it all again
At the sick bed of Cuchulainn we'll kneel and say a prayer
And the ghosts are rattling at the door and the devil's in the chair"
- From `The Sick Bed of Cuchulainn', by Shane McGowan
Gordon Dahlquist
On Mon, 13 Jul 1998, Me wrote:>
>
> Gordon Dahlquist wrote:
>
> > > And again I ask, who is the protagonist? Moonwatcher? The Monolith
> > > itself? Haywood? HAL? Who, I ask?
> >
> > I'd say humanity is the protagonist, though throughout the film three
> > figures - moonwatcher, floyd (to a lesser degree), and most importantly
> > bowman - are set up (and seen as) as represenative figures of the species.
>
> Oh, I see. So the entire film is a fable? I suppose fables do often fit
> into the mold. But citing three characters as being THE protagonist throws the
> classical theory completely out of whack. There can be only one. One person
> who sets the entire story in motion.
This is totally received nonsense, and the effectiveness of a film like
2001 proves it. The specific protagonist shifts to three people in the
film, who each serve as emblematic figures of humanity. This is the way
it does in fact work - what's the problem? Many many works have multiple
protagonists - insisting on a hierachical ranking is missing the point.
> Who is that? The monolith is the only
> possible answer. Moonwatcher would never have thought about manipulation of
> his little weapon if it were not for the presence of the monolith. Also, the
> monolith upsets things again on the moon, and prompts Floyd's actions, and
> those prompt HAL, and that prompt's Bowman, in a simplistic chain of events.
> The question then arises, can an inanimate object actually be a protagonist?
Well, the monolith isn't the protagonist at all. The entire notion of the
monolith in the first place is to provide a kind of metaphoric constant to
place against the varagies of human "progress". While the mechanism of
the monolith figures prominently thoughout the film, it's not what the
film is "about". The film is "about" human beings, and human society.
> Is the monolith inanimate? Who/what put the monolith there in the first
> place? Are not they responsible for the entire action of the film? Does any
> of this matter once we see what becomes of Bowman? Is the breaking point here
> explanable in the classical sense, or is the whole "story" really just an
> excuse for the uh-oh...."surrealism" of the ending? Is it a valid question to
> even ask if 2001 fits the classical model of drama? If so, why? How is that
> important? If not....if it is a moot point whether 2001 fits into that mold,
> then does that not lend some credibility to my point, and prove that looking at
> that aspect of the film is pointless......that it offers no insight to the
> film, and that the film is supposed to be licked in a different way?
Certainly 2001 has a clearly laid-out "Act" structure. I don't think
examining this structure is useless, because the broad juxtapositions that
the films makes (bone=spaceship) beg for this kind of comparison and
study. John Simon cleverly dismissed the film as "a shaggy god story",
and of course, he's half-right. But what's important about the structure
of the film - and the bold narrative strategies kubrick uses (i.e. the
actual plot of the film is pratically never advanced through any piece of
dialogue) - is not the "result", it's the process, the journey (or, all
right, "trip"). Of course it all points to the stargate sequence, but
it's not a puzzle with a solution, or a "match-the-symbolism" quiz with a
correct key of answers (and of course, the stargate is not the end of the
fil, either).
The questions you ask about the origin of the monolith - plot oriented
questions - are important in a sense, but primarily so that we understand
that our desire for those answers, like floyd's meeting or poole's death,
are being placed against an attempt to conceptualize "the infinite". It's
not about surrealism precisely because something very concrete is being
represented, and not as a provocation or in reaction, but to signify a
kind of enormity which lends a rather brutal context to human endeavour.
The fact that a scientific analysis of the monolith makes more sense to us
(and seems more important in the long run) than a more in-depth look at
the subsequent hunting habits of moonwatcher's tribe is more a matter of
our own closeness to it than any big-picture significance.
Gordon Dahlquist
>
>
> B.J. West wrote:
>
> > Me wrote:
> >
> > > Gordon Dahlquist wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'd say humanity is the protagonist, though throughout the film three
> > > > figures - moonwatcher, floyd (to a lesser degree), and most importantly
> > > > bowman - are set up (and seen as) as represenative figures of the species.
> > >
> > > Oh, I see. So the entire film is a fable? I suppose fables do often fit
> > > into the mold. But citing three characters as being THE protagonist throws the
> > > classical theory completely out of whack. There can be only one. One person
> > > who sets the entire story in motion.
> >
> > Who says that? Yes, one protagonist is the traditional way of doing it, but I don't
> > think anyone from Artistotle to Joseph Campbell set down on paper that more than
> > one protagonist is *forbidden*, and 2001 shows quite clearly that it works.
> >
>
> Yes, they did. That's what I'm talking about. You've made my entire
> point.I agree that it works. But there has to be a clear, single
> protagonist, or there is no point to differentiating between the
> protagonist and the rest of the characters. There can key players who
> greatly affect the outcome of the story, but in the classical structure,
> that is, every Greek Tragedy and every work by Shakespeare (with a
> couple arguable exceptions, but that's a different thread for a
> different newsgroup) there is one person who sets the events in motion.
> The only option you have in 2001 is the monolith, if you want to stick
> with that,
Ack, no, really - the need for "a single protagonist" is nonsense.
Aristotle goes almost entirely by Sophocles and ignores all kinds of
exceptions within greek tragedy, specifically in any number of euripides
plays were there are multiple protagonists. Nor does he talk about comedy
- aristophanes would throw a lot of his points into question - which I
only mention because your use of aristotle is assuming an essentially
"tragic" context for analysis, and I'm not sure that kubrick isn't more
of an essentially comic (if darkly so) filmmaker, structurally.
As for shakespeare, again, it's nonsense if we're talking comedy or many
of the histories, and questionable for any number of tragedies. Certainly
there's a "norm" (and this is what aristotle was dealing with), but so
many plays diverge from this that to deal with any kind of
correct/incorrect mindset just seems imposed and academic. 2001 has a
very clear dramatic structure - I'd even argue that it >is< pretty
aristotelian in its way - but the protagonist just doesn't happen to
reside in a particular person. What's the problem with this? It's not
like they're on the screen at the same time - we easily understand that
our focus transfers with each new section of the film, while the thematic
throughlines the film is dealing with remain the same. This is in fact
pretty straightforward. The insistence on equating protagonist with
individual actor/charactor is exactly the kind of literal-mindedness that
the film is reaching beyond.
> The simple fact is that the final act of 2001 means nothing except what
> we bring to it, and the structure of the film sets us up for that. It
> is music for the eyes and mind. It is not a "story" any longer....
What do you possibly mean here? If you're simply talking about the
stargate sequence, well, sure, there are a lot of fairly abstract images
going by - but they're certainly going by within a very specific dramatic
context, one that kubrick underscores by consistently cutting back to
dullea. 2001 is actually a pretty spare, pretty economical film,
generally very straightforward in presenting what's going on. Much of
what's going on is particularly literal, but perhaps that's why it's a
very visually oriented film. Still, I really disagree with you about the
last act "meaning nothing except what we bring to it" - this statement
seems to utterly undervalue the previous sections of the film, and the
though to which kubrick and clarke brought to the whole package.
Me
Gordon Dahlquist wrote:
> Ack, no, really - the need for "a single protagonist" is nonsense.
All right, there is an ongoing theme in this thread, and it is based on the fallacious
assumption that I think there "should" be a single protagonist. I don't. As for
Aristotle, I almost completely disagree with his world view and have never bought his
artistic view. I don't even believe in analysis of art, if you want the truth.....I just
do it when I have to to make a point, and I only attempt to make a point in the sad case
where someone has a problem appreciating a work of art. Please, go back and read the post
that started this entire thread. I'm trying to offer someone a different perspective for
appreciating the film 2001, because he didn't get anything from it by viewing it as a
story. That is the issue. Classical structure and whether it's okay to have multiple
protagonists is inconsequential. (you are both right and wrong, by the way...you are right
about Euripedes, but to ignore the fact that Aristotle's pattern has been followed and
emulated and used as a yardstick is just ignoring historical reality...there are always
exceptions, but the trend is there, like it or not).
> As for shakespeare, again, it's nonsense if we're talking comedy or many
> of the histories, and questionable for any number of tragedies.
I have argued this point myself, but I would not call the traditional viewpoint nonsense.
That is just a bit...intellectually insolent. Go ahead an prove your point, but for crying
out loud, calling the point nonsense is.....hmm.....
> Certainly
> there's a "norm" (and this is what aristotle was dealing with), but so
> many plays diverge from this that to deal with any kind of
> correct/incorrect mindset just seems imposed and academic.
Which is the argument I've always had with any analysis, but it probably applies to
Aristotle's views even more strongly.
> > The simple fact is that the final act of 2001 means nothing except what
> > we bring to it, and the structure of the film sets us up for that. It
> > is music for the eyes and mind. It is not a "story" any longer....
>
> What do you possibly mean here?
I think you know. I've already explained it. Here's where my posting all began:
Phil Noir wrote:
> Steve Sondericker wrote:
> > [2001] certainly doesn't have a traditional narrative structure, which puts
> > off a lot of people.
>
> I disagree. 2001 has a distinct theme, plus a begininng, middle and end
> -- the traditional 3-act curtain. (Hey, it even has title cards for the
> hard-of-seeing.)
(and then I wrote):
"This is true, except that it seems to me that he is following a musical structure
more than a dramatic one, which lends weight to the notion that the film itself is
not calling itself a drama, but a different form of art entirely."
Does that clarify my perspective? How about this:
Stoneberg wrote:
> and I consider it to be
> quite possibly the worst film I have ever seen
And I replied:
"What are your standards? What are you looking for in a film? That could be the
problem. You are looking for plot elements that are sparse in this film, and you
are looking for it to flow in a way familiar to you, which is definitely going to
be absent. Whatever expectations you have of film as a medium you need to put
right out of your head before you see it, because Kubrick did not try at any point
to fulfill those expectations or conventions. This movie was meant to redefine
what movies can be from the ground up, pretty much. I agree with another response
concerning "conceptual" films. I'm sure you've heard it before, but there is a
common comparison of experimental films as being "paintings that move." I don't
think 2001 falls quite into this category, but it certainly makes use of that
theory of film. Especially in the final act."
Notice I said "makes use of" when talking about the "paintings that move" school of film.
I did not say that it kept to that or anything. I was very careful to choose that phrasing
because I know that Kubrick isn't that simple, and neither is 2001. And when I said
"Kubrick did not try at any point to fulfill those expectations or conventions" I was
right, especially in the sense that the movie has long sequences that don't need to be
there to tell the story, but are there for a different reason altogether, and that the
movie does not tell one story about one person, but has million-year jumps, and babies
floating in space, and space pods in Victorian dining rooms, and big slabs of something
appearing out of nowhere and giving people sudden headaches; all things which are prevalent
in the film, and are very unusual. That is all.
> Still, I really disagree with you about the
> last act "meaning nothing except what we bring to it" - this statement
> seems to utterly undervalue the previous sections of the film, and the
> though to which kubrick and clarke brought to the whole package.
Not at all..... but I do think the previous sections are there for the final section,
more than it is there for them. Of course, it is all needed to function as a whole, and
the last piece certainly follows a character from one of the precious sections (breaking
from a trend within the movie itself). But the final section is not clear about what is
happening.... Dave is seeing a bunch of weird stuff, but then he ends up looking at
himself...not in the mirror, but at a different age. (for those of you who don't think
Surrealism applies....please tell me how that part is not surreal). So, what exactly is
going on here? You can bring all sorts of explanations to the table, and the film
certainly offers clues for you to do so, but it does not give you anything solid to stand
on. You really have to make the final act work for yourself. How am I wrong here? I
don't get your point.
-Benjamin
P.S. If I show any aggression in my posts, please don't take it the wrong way....I find
the thread fascinating, even though it's life seems to depend on people disagreeing with me
(I suppose it would be boring if other's shared the same perspective).... but I would
appreciate it if someone would pleeeeeeease acknowledge the reason this thread exists to
begin with, and look at my comments within that context.
Me
Gordon Dahlquist wrote:
This is totally received nonsense, and the effectiveness of a film likeThat's a bit nervy calling anything I've written nonsense (this is the second time) when you write the following:
2001 proves it.
I'd say humanity is the protagonist, though throughout the film three
figures - moonwatcher, floyd (to a lesser degree), and most importantly
bowman - are set up (and seen as) as represenative figures of the species.
Humanity is a pretty big umbrella. Umbrella's can't be protagonists, especially in anything Aristotelian, but also in any other form. This proves my point. 2001 does not place importance on classical dramatic structure. That doesn't mean there isn't a structure there. I'm not a big fan of structure to begin with (as you might have guessed), so perhaps, as I've tried to point out before, the point is moot.
-Benjamin
Gordon Dahlquist
>
>
> Gordon Dahlquist wrote:
>
> > This is totally received nonsense, and the effectiveness of a film like
> > 2001 proves it.
> That's a bit nervy calling anything I've written nonsense (this is
> the second time) when you write the following:
Given usenet, I wouldn't say it's nervy at all, and I understand from your
other post that you're offering this in a specific context, but I do think
that such a sentitment, if it's being offered as some kind of "authorized
template" is, in fact, nonsense - don't you think?
> > I'd say humanity is the protagonist, though throughout the film three
> > figures - moonwatcher, floyd (to a lesser degree), and most importantly
> > bowman - are set up (and seen as) as represenative figures of the species.
>
> Humanity is a pretty big umbrella. Umbrella's can't be protagonists,
> especially in anything Aristotelian, but also in any other form. This
> proves my point. 2001 does not place importance on classical dramatic
> structure. That doesn't mean there isn't a structure there. I'm not a
> big fan of structure to begin with (as you might have guessed), so
> perhaps, as I've tried to point out before, the point is moot.
I think you're missing something here - one of the main thematic points of
the film is >exactly< that, in your words, "the umbrella >is< the
protagonist" - that there is a direct link between moonwatcher, floyd and
bowman (especially m & b), that in an important way they are the "same"
person confronting the unknown. Isn't the case that the whole film is
attempting to change our perspective about human effort and human history,
to see all this in terms of an "infinite picture"? I understand that
you're not so much adhering to aristotle as you are trying to raise it as
an example, but I do think you're mistaken in your interpretation here -
2001 is simply shifting the scale of the characters, while the >structure<
remains the same.
What I'm trying to get at - and I've no great love of aristotle, either
(it's wonderful, but it shouldn't be a rule book) - is that an underlying
joke of 2001 is that it is actually a rather simple, clearly structured
story, arcing over a very long (some might say glacial) period of time. I
think it works in terms of a "classic" narrative just fine, and clearly
the subtitle's use of the word "odyssey" means to invoke that very
reference (and I don't think it's wrong to do so).
I agree with you that the film employs a very formally daring method of
telling this story, and that indeed, it's perhaps the most profoundly
"experimental" film ever funded and released by a major studio, but I also
think it does so on top of a fairly straightforward sci-fi tale. Kubrick
seems to strike a balance between an odd kind of brechtian formalism and a
more old-time-movie-virtue insistence on story-telling and pungent
character ... within the given context of its subject matter, I think 2001
displays both of these qualities.
Another regrettable aspect to discussion of this film (and perhaps even
moreso barry lyndon, seeing as that's even less available) is the degree
to which people are first (or only?) experienceing it on video. I mention
this because it's a lot harder to get into the film on a small screen -
the wonder of it (and the manner in which the formal elements do in fact
replace much of our need for more obvious story-telling gestures) is
pretty seriously diminished ... at a certain point when someone complains
that they didn't get or like the film, I have to ask about how they saw
it, because I'm convinced it does make a difference ...
Steve Sondericker
traditional three act drama.
Phil Noir
Thank you Gordon. Thank you. You succeeded where I failed....
sigh....
Nicolas Colovos
Stoneberg wrote in message
<199807091707...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>>> Ston...@aol.com (me)
>> pm...@pacbell.net
>
>The first time I watched it was about 5 years ago, and I hated it. My
friend
>convinced me that I was too young to really enjoy it (I was 14 at the time)
so
>I decided to watch it again, a few weeks ago, and hated it again, but I
agree
>with you, i was forcing myself to watch it. But last week I really wanted
to
>see it, cause I was feeling open-minded and I still hated it.
>
>
bravo. if you don't like it , trust your heart. we may disagree but there
are too many pompous asses who pretend to understand something they do not.
so stick to star trek.
PennTex281
production. I remember it being quite a phenomenal piece of "art". My question
is has anyone ever seen this film? I've never heard it mentioned by anyone
since. (Or was it all just a dream?)
Danny Carr
<199807221635...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
EL TOPO is directed by Alejandro Joderowsky who is from Chile. More
recently he made SANTE SANGRE (which you can probably get easily on video).
He also nearly made DUNE in the 1970s with HR Giger as designer. I think he
lives in Paris these days.
I haven't seen the film since I was a kid and my main memory is of deep
confusion but I have seen SANTE SANGRE more recently and it is a wonderful
film. Imagine Fellini and David Lynch getting together to direct a Bunuel
movie.
You can find a review of EL TOPO in one of Pauline Kael's books I think.
She didn't like it and I think she uses it to attack thoughtless
'sensational' filmmaking -- not sure. Mind you, Pauline Kael hates WINGS OF
DESIRE and loves the seventies KING KONG remake -- she's happy to disagree
with the majority.
Danny
M4RV1N
writes:
>Mind you, Pauline Kael hates WINGS OF
>DESIRE and loves the seventies KING KONG remake -- she's happy to disagree
>with the majority.
Yes, and she always delighted in making the most perverse statements she could
possibly conceive of. There is no question many (if not all) of her opinions
were an attempt to give her a sense of self-worth based on how upsetting she
thought they would be to others. Without doubt she is one of the most
disturbed people ever to have their ideas published.
Mark Ervin
Danny Carr
I don't dislike her that much! She's done much to promote films that ARE
worthy of serious attention and she's done much to promote the idea of
giving films serious attention in the first place.
I particularly like her rave review of John Lithgow in the fourth segment of
the TWILIGHT ZONE movie and her justifiable enthusiasm and support for
Robert Altman.
We need more super-enthusiastic subjective film critics. Maybe the
seventies KING KONG is a masterpiece (and then again..). And what she said
about WINGS OF DESIRE, although provocative, does actually have a lot of
validity. Personally, I find it hard to see past the film's extraordinary
visual beauty. We need devil's advocates too.
Danny
Phil Noir
> I saw a film back in 1975 (?) called El Topo. I believe it was a Mexican
> production. I remember it being quite a phenomenal piece of "art". My question
The answer to both questions is "yes."
Christoph Michel
I saw a film back in 1975 (?) called El Topo. I believe it was a Mexican
production. I remember it being quite a phenomenal piece of "art". My question
is has anyone ever seen this film? I've never heard it mentioned by anyone
since. (Or was it all just a dream?)MmmHmm, I love that film (sorry, just slipping). Your memory serves you well. <El Topo> ("The Mole") has been regularly revived in festivals and was available on videotape, too. So have several other of Alejandro Jodorowsky's works, such as <Subida al Monte Carmelo> (The Holy Mountain) and <Santa Sangre>. If you like <El Topo>, you will love them. After all, Jodorowsky _is_ a Chilean of Russian descent working in exile in Mexico, which sort of makes it "logical" that he uses surrealist techniques and imagery in his writing and filming.
Jodorowsky is a psychoanalyst by profession, and thus not primarily a filmmaker, but his films definitely profit from the fact that he does not depend on them for an income. [He has also penned a series of graphic novels together with "Moebius"]
Personally, I highly recommend his latest (?) book, <Donde mejor canta un pájaro>, a wildly fictionalized chronicle of his family. Sorry, but I don't know the title of the english translation, as I have read the german.
Perhaps they can help you at amazon:
Amazon.com
- Query Results
For further introductory information, there is
El Topo
(part of a fine Jodorowsky site) and of course the
Filmography
for Alejandro Jodor owsky at IMDb
Hope this helped
Christoph
P.S.: Please Email me if I haven't integrated the links correctly - I don't always seem to work the buttons right - thanks
Waldo D. Sánchez
Mexican-Argentinean production. The director was Alexander Jorodousky (I
think last name was spelled incorrect). If I found more information I will
let you know.
Waldo Sanchez
wds...@yahoo.com
PennTex281 wrote in message
<199807221635...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
Nicolas Colovos
Christoph Michel wrote in message <35BB6A92...@hempseed.com>...
PennTex281 wrote:I saw a film back in 1975 (?) called El Topo. I believe it was a Mexican
production. I remember it being quite a phenomenal piece of "art". My question
is has anyone ever seen this film? I've never heard it mentioned by anyone
since. (Or was it all just a dream?)
MmmHmm, I love that film (sorry, just slipping). Your memory serves you well. <El Topo> ("The Mole") has been regularly revived in festivals and was available on videotape, too. So have several other of Alejandro Jodorowsky's works, such as <Subida al Monte Carmelo> (The Holy Mountain) and <Santa Sangre>. If you like <El Topo>, you will love them. After all, Jodorowsky _is_ a Chilean of Russian descent working in exile in Mexico, which sort of makes it "logical" that he uses surrealist techniques and imagery in his writing and filming.
Jodorowsky is a psychoanalyst by profession, and thus not primarily a filmmaker, but his films definitely profit from the fact that he does not depend on them for an income. [He has also penned a series of graphic novels together with "Moebius"]
Personally, I highly recommend his latest (?) book, <Donde mejor canta un pájaro>, a wildly fictionalized chronicle of his family. Sorry, but I don't know the title of the english translation, as I have read the german.
i haven't seen el topo, but i did see santa sangre. what bothered me most was jodorowsky total absence of visual style. he has a sense of the weird but neither the intelligence or inventiveness of, say, bunuel, fellini, or resnais. not surrealism but sorryealism.
despite his ambitions, i doubt his worth as an artist is about on the level of john waters.
Nicolas Colovos
Danny Carr wrote in message <6pa8no$e8t$1...@plug.news.pipex.net>...
did see faraway, so close and it was by far and away one of the worst.
pompous, inflated, mushy, and dull.
as for king kong, kael was amused by the socio-political content of the
movie and its campiness. she wasn't defending it as art.
Katherine D. Easterly
>kael was probably right to bash wings of desire. i haven't seen it but i
>did see faraway, so close and it was by far and away one of the worst.
>pompous, inflated, mushy, and dull.
Good God! Don't judge Wings of Desire by Faraway, So Close! Wings of
Desire is >much< butter than it's followup...see Wings of Desire
before judging it like this...or simply take the word of all *persons
of taste* (i.e. me) and assume it's a masterpiece...if you're going to
form an opinion of a film without seeing it, that is...
>as for king kong, kael was amused by the socio-political content of the
>movie and its campiness. she wasn't defending it as art.
I don't know, but there's something almost morbidly fascinating about
this flick. Those scenes of the obviously-a-man-in-a-simian-suit
making sad faces and wandering around obvious-scale-models-of-trains-
and-buildings-and-whatnot all to the accompaniment of John Barry's
better-than-the-film-deserved score... Yeah, this film is strangely
poignant and almost kind of moving in a perverse way. Clearly it's
not a good film by any conventional standards, but the camp value and
the somewhat pathetic nature of the thing somehow produce a film that,
for me at least, is in a somewhat elevated category of "bad movie."
What is it called - the Anti-Masterpiece?
Certain bad movies or movies that fall short of their aims often
affect me in a way that good movies do not, not because anything
onscreen is moving, but because the whole idea of the film failing as
art, the filmmakers striving for something beyond their abilities...
It reflects the tragedy at the heart of the human experience with more
immediacy than a fictional narrative does.
But that's just me.
Did I miss something, or does this have nothing to do with El Topo?
Katherine D. Easterly
-----
To communicate w/ me, simply unscramble my email address.
LEJACKAL
Mexican-Argentinean production. The director was Alexander >Jorodousky
Jodorowski sucks! He's the most pretentious, mysogenistic director in the
history of film-making. His films give me a headache (Fando And Lis showed some
promise but that's about it)
I saw an interview with him once, I remember two things about it; both quotes:
"I love violence...I LOVE VI-OL-EN-CE" and "I hate women. I HATE them".
-- Alex
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Me
Katherine D. Easterly wrote:
> >as for king kong, kael was amused by the socio-political content of the
> >movie and its campiness. she wasn't defending it as art.
>
> I don't know, but there's something almost morbidly fascinating about
> this flick. Those scenes of the obviously-a-man-in-a-simian-suit
> making sad faces and wandering around obvious-scale-models-of-trains-
> and-buildings-and-whatnot all to the accompaniment of John Barry's
> better-than-the-film-deserved score... Yeah, this film is strangely
> poignant and almost kind of moving in a perverse way. Clearly it's
> not a good film by any conventional standards, but the camp value and
> the somewhat pathetic nature of the thing somehow produce a film that,
> for me at least, is in a somewhat elevated category of "bad movie."
> What is it called - the Anti-Masterpiece?
This would make an interesting subject, for I think there is something to
this. A lot of the types of films you talk about end up on the cult classics
shelf, but so does a lot of other unrelated nonsense. I'd like to see a list
of people's favorite Anti-Masterpiece films. Not so-bad-they're-good, so
much, nor necessarily the favorite piece of junk/intentionally bad, but the
favorite runts of the litter, maybe, or something. Actually, I'm not even
sure that's a good description, but I think you are on to something with
this.
> Certain bad movies or movies that fall short of their aims often
> affect me in a way that good movies do not, not because anything
> onscreen is moving, but because the whole idea of the film failing as
> art, the filmmakers striving for something beyond their abilities...
> It reflects the tragedy at the heart of the human experience with more
> immediacy than a fictional narrative does.
Of course, that's a big part of what that Ed Wood movie was about....
> But that's just me.
....so no, it isn't just you.
> Did I miss something, or does this have nothing to do with El Topo?
Very little.
-Benjamin
Faisal A. Qureshi
LEJACKAL wrote:
> >"EL TOPO was an excellent movie produce in 1973-74. I was not sure it was an
> Mexican-Argentinean production. The director was Alexander >Jorodousky
>
> Jodorowski sucks! He's the most pretentious, mysogenistic director in the
> history of film-making. His films give me a headache (Fando And Lis showed some
> promise but that's about it)
BBC 2 showed El Topo a couple of months ago... I still haven't got past the first
20minutes... a part of me is thankful he didn't do Dune... its a pretty big part.
> I saw an interview with him once, I remember two things about it; both quotes:
> "I love violence...I LOVE VI-OL-EN-CE" and "I hate women. I HATE them".
> -- Alex
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sometimes we can all feel like that....;)
FAQ
Bilge Ebiri
Faisal A. Qureshi wrote in message
<35BFB2B5...@gatley1.demon.co.uk>...
>
>
>LEJACKAL wrote:
>
>> >"EL TOPO was an excellent movie produce in 1973-74. I was not sure it
was an
>> Mexican-Argentinean production. The director was Alexander >Jorodousky
>>
>> Jodorowski sucks! He's the most pretentious, mysogenistic director in
the
>> history of film-making. His films give me a headache (Fando And Lis
showed some
>> promise but that's about it)
>
>BBC 2 showed El Topo a couple of months ago... I still haven't got past the
first
>20minutes... a part of me is thankful he didn't do Dune... its a pretty big
part.
>
Hey Faisal,
Is that same part of you >glad< that David Lynch >did< do DUNE?
Sorry, couldn't resist.
love,
Bilge.
Pet...@my-dejanews.com
sha...@hempseed.com wrote:
>
> --------------C7A97092EFF46F82C771A5DA
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>
> PennTex281 wrote:
>
> > I saw a film back in 1975 (?) called El Topo. I believe it was a Mexican
> > production. I remember it being quite a phenomenal piece of "art". My question
> > is has anyone ever seen this film? I've never heard it mentioned by anyone
> > since. (Or was it all just a dream?)
>
> MmmHmm, I love that film (sorry, just slipping). Your memory serves you well.
> <El Topo> ("The Mole") has been regularly revived in festivals and was available
> on videotape, too. So have several other of Alejandro Jodorowsky's works, such as
> <Subida al Monte Carmelo> (The Holy Mountain) and <Santa Sangre>. If you like <El
> Topo>, you will love them. After all, Jodorowsky _is_ a Chilean of Russian
> descent working in exile in Mexico, which sort of makes it "logical" that he uses
> surrealist techniques and imagery in his writing and filming.
>
> Jodorowsky is a psychoanalyst by profession, and thus not primarily a filmmaker,
> but his films definitely profit from the fact that he does not depend on them for
> an income. [He has also penned a series of graphic novels together with
> "Moebius"]
>
The great French visionary Moebius was slated to do the art
direction and/or production design for "Dune". One of his anthologies
has some sketches and designs. Also... In the early 80's Peter
Gabriel and Jodorowsky attempted to get a film version going of the
1974 Genesis opus "The Lamb Lies Down On Broadway". Gabriel was
floored by "El Topo" and felt Jodorowsky was the perfect surrealist
to give life to his weird (and of course ludicrously overblown) epic.
This was exciting news to us old prog-heads, but nothing ever came of
it.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Peter Schoelzel
<gd...@columbia.edu> wrote:
>On Thu, 9 Jul 1998, Phil Noir wrote:
>
>> tomlinson wrote:
>>
>> > _Four_ acts. The first three acts contain some of Kubrick's finest
>> > work; without mincing word, I declare that the fourth act ("Beyond
>> > the Infinite") is a failure. Can you demonstrate to my satisfaction
>> > that there is something in the fourth act other than what you
>> > yourself are choosing to read into it?
>>
>> It happens that when I first saw the film I came to the same basic
>> conclusions about almost all the elements presented in the film that
>> Clarke literalized in his novel, including the rebirth -- without having
>> read the book (at the time).
>>
>> If anything has dated the film, it's the trip. Hard to defend as the
>> "ultimate" anything these days. What sort of defense were you looking
>> for here anyway?
>
>
>I have to agree with Phil. While the "trip" through the stargate has
>perhaps dated (and I'd say it's the only part of 2001 that has), it's
>still punctuated so expressively by those absolutely haunting stills of
>dullea's face trying to look away inside his helmet, and the superb final
>sequence of his eye blinking in different colors, then normal light ...
>but the scenes on the other side of the stargate - from the arrival of the
>pod to the final moment of the monolith by the bed - are among my favorite
>moments of the entire film. The entire series of shots strikes me as
>uniquely graceful, economical and expresive - the overlapping of dullea as
>he ages, within the same shot, is simply genius - a wonderfully deft way
>to suggest how many basic assumptions of time/space/cause & effect may not
>quite hold up here ... and Dullea's presence in this hermetic room, coming
>from where he's come from, is something I always find very moving.
>
>I don't know - clarke's writing makes a literal hash out of the whole
>thing for me, like someone stomping about in a garden - but for me this
>final sequence has always managed to both "make sense" of the rest of the
>film, but also adhere to the abstract and evocative manner of expression
>that makes the film so unique.
>
>
I don't like to disagree with you about the trip, because I think
it lies within the repeated viewing (even in a theater) of the trip
that one gets the 'dated' impression
the creative act always demands new sensations