Quote:
Originally Posted by Chula Vista
But they didn't. The story is the same. Kubrick told it ambiguously so that everyone could take stabs at their own interpretations. And then Clarke released the book (the novel was released after the movie had been out for a while) to clear up the ambiguity.
Ignoring the novel is doing a real disservice to the movie. Not saying that's a bad thing, just that the story is so much more satisfying having both to draw upon.
At the start of the movie you see a black screen for a few minutes with music playing. Then there's an intermission midway through, where again you see a black screen with music playing. What's the significance?
This is not in the book and is 100% pure SK brilliance.
|
I disagree. You might think that ignoring the novel is doing the movie a disservice, but I think it's the other way around; that taking the novel into account robs the movie of it's strongest point (the openness to interpretation). Anyway, knowing Kubrick, the darkness and music probably symbolized the underlying and perpetual nature of life throughout existence. The onward march of life, of trying to survive and make sense of the unknown, isn't all that dissimilar to a symphony in the dark. When humans prowled the earth as primitive tribes, and also when humans mastered technology and space travel, our motives and programming remained the same, and we were just as in the dark at our greatest cultural peak as we were when we first began. Until the astronaut reaches enlightenment, and the screen has a seizure (
), which is probably a metaphor for leaving the darkness.
But I'll ask again: Why do you assume that both the movie and the novel have to go together? Kubrick wanted an abstract commentary, and Clarke wanted one that was solid. Because of their different natures, and the different intentions held by the different creators, each has to be examined on it's own. Why? Because reviewing the movie (an abstract effort) as if it were a solid effort is ignoring much of what it has to offer. And reviewing the book (a solid effort) as if it were abstract is trying to go against the way that the author was trying to inform the reader. If you gain enjoyment from combining the two, then that's fine. Go for it. But you have to realize that there are people who enjoy them both
seperately, and there's nothing wrong with point of view either.