I did watch in a sort of enhanced state (hashish, of course) with a bunch of friends. I thought it was cool, but also had a sense it was hollow at its core and I had no idea what the ending meant. it was only when I read the novel (or novelization...I'm not quite sure) that it became clear. this pissed me off, because the movie actually DID leave out the key information. I watched again recently and (as I feel about virtually every Kubrick movie after "Spartacus") it struck me as soulless and VERY hollow. I realize this is a minority position, but I can think of five Howard Hawks movies I'd rather see than ANY Kubrick movie (except for "Paths of Glory," which is a legitimate masterpiece--remember the last scene of the German girl singing while all the old soldiers cry? FANTASTIC and beautiful).
they should never have released "Eyes Wide Shut." it felt to me like Kubrick knew it was so bad, he decided to die before it opened.
he DID, however, learn his trade at CCNY, which had a film school before any other school in the city. but then again, if you were a poor Bronx Jew, you were bound to learn your trade at CCNY. I'm wearing a CCNY t-shirt as we speak.
and my 1968 took place mostly on the South Campus lawn and cafeteria. I made a lifelong friend by leaving a cute graffito in the student center men's room; "America killed Dylan Thomas, Charlie Parker and (I forget the third name) and it's given me COLITIS" which he quoted to me and of course I screamed "motherfucker, THAT WAS ME."
I pretty much agree, though as an Arthur C. Clarke fan I do appreciate 2001.
I particularly love the fact that the million-year "jump forward," in which the bone becomes a satellite orbiting the earth was the result of Kubrick "burning off" 50 feet of 16mm film left in his camera (that he used to see where he had gone wrong with a scene) as he and Clarke walked back to the production office after the waterhole scene was filmed - Kubrick tossing the bone and shooting it. They had been arguing for weeks over how to make the transition, and that night they watched the dailies, and there was Kubrick's "burn off" and they both realized that was "it."
Obv the creators of the movie were in a very enhanced state. It was one of a few movies I have ever seen that I decided then and there it was not meant to ever be figured out.
And I never have decided if that was a good thing or not. As far as filmmaking goes. A part of me felt snubbed by elitist creative freedom.
Someone asked me once if I wanted to watch it again years later. My response? F*ck no. LOL
Artur c. Clarke once wrote that "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." I think that applies to "2001."
My father used to love telling how he was contacted by the filmmakers in 1965, as a "leading scientist" they were contacting to ask for his prediction of the state of technology in 2001, as they were creating their world. His prediction was that by then solid state electronics would be released for civilian use "and then I bought my first solid-state TV the next year."
It was even harder to figure out 2001 if you saw it in an "enhanced" state. :-)
I did watch in a sort of enhanced state (hashish, of course) with a bunch of friends. I thought it was cool, but also had a sense it was hollow at its core and I had no idea what the ending meant. it was only when I read the novel (or novelization...I'm not quite sure) that it became clear. this pissed me off, because the movie actually DID leave out the key information. I watched again recently and (as I feel about virtually every Kubrick movie after "Spartacus") it struck me as soulless and VERY hollow. I realize this is a minority position, but I can think of five Howard Hawks movies I'd rather see than ANY Kubrick movie (except for "Paths of Glory," which is a legitimate masterpiece--remember the last scene of the German girl singing while all the old soldiers cry? FANTASTIC and beautiful).
they should never have released "Eyes Wide Shut." it felt to me like Kubrick knew it was so bad, he decided to die before it opened.
he DID, however, learn his trade at CCNY, which had a film school before any other school in the city. but then again, if you were a poor Bronx Jew, you were bound to learn your trade at CCNY. I'm wearing a CCNY t-shirt as we speak.
and my 1968 took place mostly on the South Campus lawn and cafeteria. I made a lifelong friend by leaving a cute graffito in the student center men's room; "America killed Dylan Thomas, Charlie Parker and (I forget the third name) and it's given me COLITIS" which he quoted to me and of course I screamed "motherfucker, THAT WAS ME."
was that a tangent? or was it fractal?
I could continue...on and on and on...
I pretty much agree, though as an Arthur C. Clarke fan I do appreciate 2001.
I particularly love the fact that the million-year "jump forward," in which the bone becomes a satellite orbiting the earth was the result of Kubrick "burning off" 50 feet of 16mm film left in his camera (that he used to see where he had gone wrong with a scene) as he and Clarke walked back to the production office after the waterhole scene was filmed - Kubrick tossing the bone and shooting it. They had been arguing for weeks over how to make the transition, and that night they watched the dailies, and there was Kubrick's "burn off" and they both realized that was "it."
that's the best moment in the movie. unfortunately, it comes about five minutes in...
the third name was, of course, Lenny Bruce, who was only about three months gone at that point (Fall '66).
Obv the creators of the movie were in a very enhanced state. It was one of a few movies I have ever seen that I decided then and there it was not meant to ever be figured out.
And I never have decided if that was a good thing or not. As far as filmmaking goes. A part of me felt snubbed by elitist creative freedom.
Someone asked me once if I wanted to watch it again years later. My response? F*ck no. LOL
Salud!
ЁЯЧ╜ЁЯТЬ
Artur c. Clarke once wrote that "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." I think that applies to "2001."
My father used to love telling how he was contacted by the filmmakers in 1965, as a "leading scientist" they were contacting to ask for his prediction of the state of technology in 2001, as they were creating their world. His prediction was that by then solid state electronics would be released for civilian use "and then I bought my first solid-state TV the next year."
they DID get the computer/AI thing right, alas.