Quote:
Originally Posted by Frownland
Does that make you unwilling to enjoy it? The long tracking ****s are fantastic imo, they really add to the spacey aesthetic.
|
I think you misinterpreted my comment. I was trying to say that 2001 is the kind of movie that works on different levels, and is a different experience for different people. For the people who like the long and redundant shots/scenes, they're there for the watching. But for those of us who don't get anything out of them, why wouldn't we skip them? It's the same principle as listening to an album; some people like to listen to the songs all at once, as a whole, to get the full experience (especially when the artist intended each song to be played in sequence), while others only regularly listen to the songs they like (especially when each song was created to stand alone). Kubrick gave us an album that (while flawed) has something to say either way; it's meticulously crafted to be played in sequence, but also features meticulously crafted songs that stand firmly on their own. As it is with most of his movies, the choice of how deep you're willing to go is left to each member of the audience, and no one opinion or method is "better" or more "correct" than any other.
I personally found that the depth of the movie was redundant and incredibly unnecessary, and I really do believe that the movie would have benefited from being shortened (as well as having more dialogue and characterization). That doesn't mean that I was unwilling to enjoy it, because I really did give it a fair shot during each scene to have a purpose before I skipped it. Some people don't need or want ten minutes to come to a conclusion about what the director was trying to say with a scene; it only takes us a moment, and dwelling any longer is just not for us. It's just as unreasonable for you to expect me to like incredibly long shots of one action taking place, as it is for me to expect you to like movies where every scene seems to superficially flash by in an instant (ala Michael Bay).