I don't want this discussion to go on forever, but -
He wasn't puting it down. I said he doesn't think it's entertaining. He still loves it and still watches it but it's for completely different reasons. If you were to ask him for a good Kubrick movie to watch then 2001 would be the last one he'd recommend because it is an "art" film.
I keep saying it's avante garde and that's because it is.
I just want to say something - ANYONE CAN MAKE AN ART FILM.
That's probably going to start another argument that'll go on for weeks but it's true. Absolutely ANYONE on this board could make an art film. Film someone crossing the road, tell people it's about terrorism and people will analyze it and eventually believe that it is. It won't look as good as 2001 but you could still do it. That's why I don't like them.
It's not hard. It's not smart. It's not intelligent and there is no great genius behind it.
That's what 2001 is. An ART FILM! Art films are made for one reason and that is to show everyone how genius the director is. All art films are pretentious because that's what they're meant to be. They are made to show people that the director is something special. That they are different from everyone else around.
It's not about telling stories it's about the director showing off. Whether it's visuals, sound, colour, fx etc.
You get taught that in film classes.
I was told not to do a normal film course but instead go to art school because it's the easiest way into the film industry.
Most film students’ start off by making art films because they know it will get them attention. And it's easy.
2001 is probably the biggest art film ever made.
This is a passage from an essay by film historian Philip Kemp. The whole essay is actually praising Kubrick but even he can admit what 2001 is.
"The most universally hailed and hated film of all time"
You're Stanley Kubrick. One of the most revered directors of your generation. Admired by your peers and causing such a fuss amongst film critics that you're name crops up in every review. You've reached a peak.
With 2001: A Space Odyssey you are about to create a storm. The most universally hailed and hated film of all time. For this film, you have access to the very latest in cinema technology and are eager to use it to show off your unquestionable visual flair. But Arthur C Clarkes book isn't exactly the most obvious material to turn into a movie. So, you string together some excuse for a narrative, ask questions that you have no intention of answering and all the while make sure that you never clearly define what it is you're attempting to say.
The punch line to that joke is that the masses latched onto Kubricks undefined ideas and immediately took them as brilliance. It then became as contagious as the black plague and pretty soon everyone seemed to "know" what the director was trying to say even though the director himself had no idea what he was saying.
Kubrik added to this by refusing to answer questions which added to the confusion.
Multiply this effect by 32 years and you have a certified classic. 2001 was the perfect marriage of eye-popping visuals with a plodding, empty-headed script. Kudos to Doug Trumbull's effects.
But whether you love it or hate it, you can't deny that it worked. The bones of this movie are still being picked over by self-important, pseudo intellectuals who are keen to impose a meaning rather than derive one from what is really a visual showcase for Kubrick.
What's fishy about it? He's a huge Kubrick fan and loves everything he did. If Kubrick had made a film about the 3 little pigs then he would watch it over and over and he would love it.
But he's a film student so he watches it for the visuals and the camera techniques, not to be entertained by the story.
Bad Boy if you have to study this for Media than I'm sorry for you because it's torture. I had to watch it about 7 times and then write about it.
KMC Community Forums
Nov 19th, 2002 05:47 PM
