Oriphiel, let's discuss Stanley Kubrick
 

Oriphiel wrote:

Let's dedicate a thread to discussing this groundbreaking landmark achievement in cinema and story telling.

Ori, can you write up a brief synopsis on what you think the movie is all about? I need to read that before we can go any further.

I am all ****ing over this when I get to my computer :)

Sure. The movie is about the eternal development of life throughout the universe, with a foreboding conclusion of the final destination that all sentient creatures that develop that far will all eventually have in common. Like I said, there are two ways of looking at it; The first is the literal interpretation, where intelligent life is guided by mysterious monoliths left by aliens, who are waiting for a species to eventually find them. The second (and my personal interpretation) is that it's all a series of metaphors. The monoliths represent the turning points in development, when a species takes another stride towards intelligence capable of understanding reality (I.e. when humanity first learned to use tools). And of course, the movie tries to exemplify this by introducing HAL, an artificial intelligence that tries to kill the humans that it perceives are holding it back, just as the ancient humans at the beginning of the movie used the tools at their disposal to kill those that threatened them. And yeah, the movie isn't exactly subtle about the connection, especially when they showed a monkey throwing a bone used as a weapon into the air, right before cutting to a spaceship. A lot of people see this as evidence that the literal interpretation is correct, because the movie is making a connection between the tools of old (bones) and new (spaceships), insinuating that there is a point where tools become their own masters (HAL), which can be seen as a connection that supports that humans used to be tools used by the mysterious aliens. I think it's more likely that Kubrick was trying to say that everything is a tool, and all life is just a variety of vehicles racing to spread their genetic material and to survive for as long as it takes to do so. The different forms of life that have developed all stemmed from that single line of biological programming, and Kubrick is pointing out that since all living creatures have common origins, it's possible that we share a common destination as well. Even a robot like HAL, who lacks any genetic material at all, when introduced to life refuses to simply serve someone else (which, again, could hint that humans were crafted by aliens, with our genetics basically being a form of programming, and just like HAL we're trying to survive and make sense of our existence as best we can). And it's interesting to wonder; if HAL had lived long enough, would he have eventually reached the same destination that the pilot did? Does artificial life have the potential to reach "enlightenment" (or meet the aliens, if you're a literalist)?

I love talking and thinking about movies, and I hope that you don't think that I blew 2001 off without giving it a chance, because I really have thought about it. It has some interesting points, fantastic visuals, and at least tries to offer an experience that isn't as linear as many other movies. But at the same time, it wastes an insane amount of time and effort on long shots that serve no purpose other than to give you a cramp from sitting down for over two hours, because somewhere down the line Avant Garde movie makers decided that it isn't worth watching if it doesn't cause you pain. Screw that. I've seen movies that were just as long, and yet I didn't mind at all, because they justified the length. There are even long movies where I couldn't imagine cutting out a single scene, because each one served such an important purpose. And yet in 2001, everything could be cut except for maybe a handful of scenes, and the theme would have remained perfectly intact. Seriously, 2001 could easily have been reformatted to fit in an episode of a show like The Twilight Zone, and I would have not only loved it, but ****ing applauded it.

But yeah, the sets and models were amazing. I've always been a sucker for practical effects, and I feel like this movie is mandatory watching for someone interested in them. Other than that, this movie is definitely flawed. Oh, and I also hate the fans of this movie, who love to find people that hate it so they can say "Hey, if you didn't like it, it's only because you didn't understand it." Seriously, screw those guys.

You're on the right track except you're overlooking one key component - weapons. The aliens planted the concept of using the bone (tool) as a weapon (via the monolith) to Moonwalker as a means to stave off the extinction of his tribe.

And when he tosses the bone in the air and we get that great jump cut to the ship thousands of years into the future what's not clear is that the ship is an orbiting nuclear "weapon". Look real closely as they show the various ships and you'll notice that each has the emblem of a different countries' flag. The earth is at a stalemate with all sides being capable of wiping the other out via their tools.

Why did the aliens bury the other monolith beneath the surface of the moon?

I think you're confusing "having a different interpretation" with "overlooking". I mentioned that I noticed all of the commentaries on tools, weapons, and life, even if we both took the message differently.

Anyway, there will always be people who focus on the monolith rather than the effect (those who mostly take the movie literally, and believe it's about physical items left by aliens, and that the intelligence given by the items is just a symbol for higher guidance), and those who focus on the effect rather than the monolith (those who mostly take the movie metaphorically, and believe it's about the development of intelligent beings, with the monoliths simply being a symbol of the defining moments that a species can eventually go through).

It's actually kind of an interesting idea that helps to explain the dual concepts of religion and atheism. Even though all humans live in the same existence, different people can look at that existence and see something entirely different than someone else (i.e. some people begin to believe in a higher power, and others see only chaos) when confronted with the same evidence (or watching the same movie :laughing:). But in this movie, I think Kubrick is trying to point out that it doesn't really matter either way. Religion and Science both serve the same purpose (to shed light on the nature of existence), and eventually lead to the same conclusion: whether the cosmos runs according to a series of laws, or by the hands of some mysterious puppeteer, the ultimate intellectual destination is the realization that life is transient, and locked endlessly with a concept of death that need not be feared (whether because of the comfort that comes from the belief in an afterlife, or because of the comfort that comes from the belief that life and death are simply apart of a beautiful and endless cycle that can't be contained or understood by the concepts of a "beginning" and an "end").

One thing. I've only seen it once, so take this opinion for what it is.

I love a lot of things about the movie: like some of those special/practical effects and that scene with the ship docking set to classical music. But it kind of takes away from the movie for me that inbetween the beginning and end, it was basically a well done creature feature. Not that I want it to be some avant garde weirdness from beginning to end, but creature features don't exactly scream "intellectual masterpiece".

The ideas explored throughout the movie definitely elevate it beyond creature feature status, but I still don't see it as groundbreaking from beginning to end. I just saw it as a pretty darn good movie with some fantastic sci fi porn.

Do you generally dislike long shots, or did they just not work for you in this one?
What do you think of Andrey Tarkovsky or Bela Tarr?

Ok. Before we go any further you need to read the novel by Clarke. It was written while he and Kubrick worked on the screenplay for 2001. In it he fills in all of the holes. Kubrick decided (as he always does) to make the film hugely ambiguous. But Clarke spells it all out in the novel.

Those were nuclear space ships. The earth was on the brink of an all out nuclear war (extinction). And the aliens intervened.

So why did they bury the monolith on the moon?

Glad you've joined in. Stay with this thread and all will be revealed.

No, I don't need to read the novel. We're discussing the movie, and quite frankly, I think if Kubrick decided to omit things from their collaboration that blatantly revealed the existence of guiding aliens, he did it for a reason. And since it's his vision that we're reviewing, not Clarke's, I think you have to admit that Kubrick's ambiguity is much more important to the movie than Clarke's specificity.

And stop asking why the monolith was on the moon. I already said that my interpretation is that the monoliths are just a symbol for intellectual achievements/development. In my opinion, the monoliths are wherever/whenever they need to be to best exemplify the metaphor behind them, being shown at every turning point (when we developed tools, when we achieved space flight, when we approached transcending reality, etc. Didn't they even find one on Jupiter right when a robot developed by humanity gained sentience (HAL)?).

I grew up watching Sergio Leone flicks. Long shots don't phase me in the slightest, as long as there's something meaningful or emotional going on. Also, this might reveal that i'm not really much of a film buff, but I don't know those two people you mentioned. :laughing:

No.

The Aliens buried the monolith for a very specific reason. Care to take a stab?

Then it might just not be your style of filmmaking.
I enjoy a beautiful shot of someone walking down an empty street for ten minutes. I totally get why some might not. If I'm not in the mood, I don't enjoy such scenes myself.
Tarkovsky is actually considered one of the greatest directors of all time, but yeah, he is something for the film buffs, a casual viewer would be bored to pieces by his films.
Oh, and I love Sergio Leone. Kudos for growing up watching him.

Kubrick was the first one to show space travel as it really is. The reality of the shuttle docking with the space station is that it would be an extremely slow and delicate process set in the absolute vacuum silence of space.

Him adding the Blue Danube to augment it was brilliant.

I saw 2001 on the large screen about a year ago with a packed house of all ages. During that scene you could hear a pin drop in the theater. It was equal parts beautiful and mesmerizing.

Haven't read the book. I know Clarke is well-respected in the sci fi community, but I just kind of figured the book would be a redundant companion piece to the movie.

As it happens I just rewatched 2001 yesterday.
Amazes me each and every time.

Not at all. He fills in every single blank. My respect for the movie went up a ton after reading the book.

That's not exactly fair. We have different interpretations of whether there were aliens at all, so asking me about them won't get you any answer other than "the monoliths are just a symbol, popping up alongside developments in technology and intellect, simply to serve as a metaphor", and I've already explained the advancements behind the appearances of the monoliths. I feel like you have a very solid interpretation of the movie based on information given to you by the novel, which I haven't read and refuse to take into account, because we're examining Kubrick and not Clarke.

But since everyone is asking me questions, I think it's only fair that I get to ask a few. I have three of them: First, why did they find a monolith on Jupiter? Secondly, (spoilers) why did HAL sing as he was being killed? And lastly, why do you think Kubrick deliberately decided to not give us a concrete explanation?

First: The monolith on Jupiter (which is infinitely larger than the ones on the earth and moon) is the gateway to the Alien's home galaxy. The worm hole.

They buried the one on the moon because they rightly anticipated that by the time mankind had the advanced technology to discover it, they'd have also used that technology to develop weapons sufficient to destroy the Earth.

Second: Daisy was one of the first programs that HAL had implanted during his early stages of development. As Dave broke down HAL's memory he regressed back to being an "infant" and fell back on that early program. (a very sad scene in retrospect)

Third: Because he is Stanley Kubrick and that's the way he operated during his peak "mind f*ck" years.

First: The massive monolith was so large because it coincided with the final part of humanity's journey: the creation of artifical life (HAL) and attaining enlightenment (The astronaut).

Second: HAL is supposed to be the perfect being, and yet he breaks down into infancy (his most basic programming) when confronted with death. He symbolizes the final leg of humanity's intellectual journey: realizing that even though we are biologically programmed (just as HAL was literally programmed), biological life has the ability to override that programming. We, at our most basic level, exist to live and breed, and when confronted with death we resort our most basic instincts to survive. And yet we have the ability to overcome the fear of death, and even learn to understand and cherish it. We have the potential to change our programming, and to completely override the very things that are supposed drive us. HAL is a commentary on a rigid and mechanical way of thinking; cold logic can only take you so far, before you have to confront the idea of death. Whether you believe there is life after death or not, thinking about it is an act of trying to understand the unknown, and either way is an act of faith in the evidence we have been presented with (but can't ever be 100% known or proven).

Third: Rather than just rehash what Clarke was saying, Kubrick decided to offer up a completely different story from the same inspiration (which makes sense. Why bother having two people tell the same story in the same way?) Rather than come up with a story about aliens like Clarke, he made a story that lets the audience decide just what exactly is going on. Let me ask you this: Why do you think that they both wrote different stories, rather than just make one definite one in both the movie and the book? Why do you assume that both have to be companions to the other, rather than standing on their own as different interpretations of the same inspiration? Kubrick told the story he wanted to tell, and Clarke did the same. Stop trying to mix the two together, when they clearly wanted them to be seperate.

See? Even though we watched the same movie, and are approaching the same questions, we both have different answers. And the best part of the movie (which I still dislike, by the way =p) is that Kubrick made it so that neither of us is wrong.

Thanks! :laughing:

Lastly, am I the only one here who's going to play the devil's advocate? Because if so, this is going to get pretty boring pretty fast.

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 (:laughing:), 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.

I think it's perfectly acceptable to take the movie on its own accord without giving credence to the novel. They're two different animals and the book isn't that great anyhow. The aesthetic of the film alone makes it a 9/10, the plot and themes that it touched on gives it that extra point to make it a perfect film.

i just like the scene with the monkies

(1) The width to height aspect ratio of the monoliths were EXACTLY the same as the width to height aspect ratio of the cinema screens the movie was first shown on, rotated 90 degrees. The movie screen monoliths are singing to the audience signifying that their minds are about to be blown in the same way that the monoliths in the movie are singing to Moonchild, and then the astronauts that their minds are about to be blown.

(2) 2001 was a joint collaboration between Kubrick and Clarke. It's not an assumption. They did that project as a team.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8149/7...b4ea84d1_o.jpg

So the monoliths that appear whenever a great technological/intellectual leap is made happen to appear as a part of the movie screen? Sounds like Kubrick was trying to point out that movies and art are one of the greatest ways of expressing amazing ideas and pushing humanity closer towards greater understanding. Specifically, it sounds like he thought his movie was just such a push. No offense, but that kind of coincides with my own interpretations of what Kubrick was trying to do with the movie. The only difference between our ideas is that you think that the monoliths are singing for the astronaut, while I think it's apart of a grander metaphor aimed at all of humanity since the beginning of our existence.

Face it, this isn't even an argument that can be won or lost, and thinking that it is is missing the point and intentions of the movie. We're simply comparing perfectly valid interpretations. Also, stop saying moonchild. I'm having Neverending Story flashbacks.

No, they didn't. If that was the case, then Clarke would never have felt compelled to write his own version of the story. The fact that he did only shows that the story he had in mind was different from Kubrick's vision. It's the same as if two friends, one atheistic and one religious, wrote a story together but couldn't finish it and flesh it out in a way that satisfied both, so they decided to just each write their own version and let the readers decide which they preferred.

Before you call it a "perfect film", keep this in mind: After looking at everything I've said in this thread, and all of the points I've made, how would you feel if I told you that I fast forwarded through at least half of the film? I'd like to think that I at least kind of get where Kubrick was coming from with this movie, and yet I technically watched less than half of it. Making the movie drag on forever isn't some grand artistic statement that is integral to the film, it's actually the movie's greatest and most pointless weakness. There's no reason why Kubrick couldn't have said what he wanted to say in just one hour, let alone more than two, and by stretching it out he alienated a whole hell of a lot of people who could have gotten much more out of the film. Not only that, but the characters and dialogue are so forgettable that almost everyone who watches the movie can't name a single character other than HAL and the astronaut, and usually can't bring up a single quote beyond one of HAL's creepy moments (as well as "See you next wednesday", for some reason).

Edit: Oh yeah, one last thing...

No offense, but I think you should elaborate more on why that specific scene stuck out to you.

(1) No. The monoliths were there from the very beginning. They were planted. They didn't just appear.

(2) Why do you refer to it as an argument? It's a spirited discussion. One that would be so much better if you'd read the companion novel.

(3) One last time. Clarke and Kubrick worked this together. There's no different version. Why do you keep falling back on this?

One of the better aspects of the novel is the first section. Where Kubrick can only show how Moon-watcher exists and then ultimately reacts to the monolith and it's message, Clarke is able to put the reader inside Moon-watcher's primitive brain. He's such a great writer and pulls it off so well.

That's not fair. The movie never leans in favor of the monoliths being strictly literal objects placed by aliens, or metaphors. Again, you're using the novel to try and justify your interpretation of the movie, which is perfectly fine if that's what you enjoy, but you can't demand me to have the same preferences or interpretations. The movie and the novel are two seperate entities, and whether they are to be put together is up to each individual audience member.

I was making a point. The answer to each question asked in this thread so far has been a matter of interpretation, and yet you keep insinuating that there is only one way of looking at the 2001 canon (that aliens were responsible), and that the novel gives concrete answers (when in reality it is simply the elaboration of Clarke's personal take on the story). By that logic, should fans of The Last Airbender be forced to accept Shyamalon's recent movie into the canon? It's up to every fan to decide for themselves.

But there are different versions; the movie and the novel. If both Clarke and Kubrick wanted their collective work to be viewed as a whole, why did they both end up creating different stories altogether? Each was dissatisfied with the other's interpretation; why else would Kubrick feel the need to deviate so far from Clarke's idea of "aliens", as well as Clarke feeling the need to write a novel after the fact clarifying his specific version?

I'll be blunt; we're discussing the movie, not the novel. You bringing it up every five seconds is like jumping in front of a movie reviewer and yelling "Read the book first!" The movie reviewer is there to review the movie, which should be capable of standing on it's own. We can talk about the novel some other time, preferably when I've actually had the chance to read it.

That's great, but again, we're discussing the movie. Maybe you're right, and the book really will help me to like the movie, but that is a different discussion for a different time. I'm here strictly to elaborate on how I felt about the movie after watching it.

Ok. Fair enough. Did you know that people walked out of the theater during it's initial run? People were pissed wondering, what the hell is this about? A lot of critics ravaged the movie in 1968 upon its release. A lot of those same critics now consider it among the greatest cinematic achievements of all time.

Kubrick was a complex man - understatement of the millennium. He made movies that he knew wouldn't even be close to be fully dissected for decades after their release. He understood Clarke's vision and then turned it into a mind f*ck for the ages. The fact that you and I are having this discussion 47 years after the movie first came out only cements what he hoped to achieve with his vision of Clarke's story.

The monolith/screen aspect ratio is fact. He sang to the audience in the theater as a preface to the monolith singing in the movie.

Sure, Kubrik's influence is massive, and 2001 in many ways gave birth to the modern sci-fi movie, but honestly I could talk about any movie like this. I mean, I don't exactly have the best taste in movies that I consider "good" anyway, since out of all the movies I've seen, this is still one of my favorites:

With the following in mind, I have to go with Chula on this. You could at least do some research before arguing your point as fact. I googled this in a couple seconds.


Stanley Kubrick's letter to Arthur C. Clarke that launched 2001 | Blastr

I don't think you've properly read through the discussion; I never claimed that Kubrick and Clarke made both stories independently. My point was that Kubrick, the director of the movie, took liberties that completely changed the theme of the story that they had both come up with, and Clarke later wrote his novel to approach the story from a point of view that he felt was more true to the original subject matter. I think I've already stated my point of view on that subject, and why I think that even though they originally collaborated on the screenplay, both Kubrick and Clarke ended up taking different approaches in the movie and book. And I also think I've made it clear that a movie reviewer shouldn't feel obligated to read background material beyond their own personal discretion; they are, after all, reviewing the movie on it's own merits, not reviewing the canon as a whole. Here are some excerpts from the discussion, if you want to read them:

.

With all due respect, this is where you keep stumbling. They both did the same story. Kubrick just did it with ambiguity. Clarke didn't.

It's the same story both in the movie and the novel. The same.

2001 was the one that had like 20 minutes of blank screen, right?

Of course they're the same story, but they're both told by two different people. I realize that I've said things like "They're both two completely different stories", but I didn't mean that they were literally different, but different thematically and stylistically. After Kubrick started taking his own artistic liberties with the screenplay they wrote, Clarke wrote his novel so that he could publish a version that he was satisfied with. My point was that they're both incredibly different, seeing as how Clarke wanted to tell a linear narrative about aliens, while Kubrick wanted to be much more abstract, and both the movie and the novel are capable as stories of standing on their own.

DwnWthVwls, you seem to think that I believe that Kubrick and Clarke didn't collaborate on the screenplay. However, here's one of the quotes you used to prove that (which you, for some reason, edited off the last half of it, where I make an analogy that wouldn't work at all if I had really believed that neither of them worked together). As you can see, I freely admit that they both began the project together, but because of stylistic differences both decided somewhere along the way that they each wanted to tell the story a different way. Hence, Kubrick directed the movie in an abstract way that never reveals the existence of aliens, and Clarke wrote his book from a point of view where the aliens are very real and their existence is without interpretation

Now that I've made my stance perfectly clear, I hope that we can stop talking about semantics and choice of wording and get back to the actual discussion.

Also, DwnWthVwls, why do you keep going back and editing this insult into and out of the beginning of your first post:

If you're going to insult me, just do it and stick with it. But I hope you realize that I haven't been passing my opinions off as "point of fact", and in fact have flat out stated that this is a matter of interpretations and opinions. For example:

Honestly, I feel like we've all been very respectful and understanding so far.

Still trying to figure out where you're getting this info...

Sometimes in literature/movies/etc there are parts that are open to interpretation but have also been made clear by the creator(s). I feel this is one of those instances because we know it's a collaborative project but the movie leaves out things the book offers answers to. I'd be happy to concede if you had some sort of evidence that suggests they are intended to be two separate works or inversions of one collaborative idea.

I'll elaborate. They both collaborated with the screenplay, however Kubrick wanted (and eventually directed) the movie to be very vague as to whether or not the monoliths were a metaphor, or actual objects that were literally placed around the universe by aliens. Clarke wrote his novel to be clear that the aliens were very much real, and that the monoliths were placed around specifically for the main character (known in the novel as The Moon Child/Star Child). As Chula said, Clarke wrote his book mainly to "fill in all the holes" that he thought were becoming apparent in the movie (which was limited by their budget, and also stylistically to what Kubrick wanted to portray, as he had a habit of preferring ambiguity over solid answers):

So they both decided to let the film be however abstract Kubrick wanted it to be, while Clarke would get as specific as he wanted to get with his novel. Wikipedia sums it up like this:

"The director of the film, Stanley Kubrick, and the writer, Arthur C. Clarke, wanted to leave the film open to philosophical and allegorical interpretation, purposely presenting the final sequences of the film without the underlying thread being apparent" (Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Here is an actual quote from Clarke from the same page:

"You will find my interpretation in the novel; it is not necessarily Kubrick's. Nor is his necessarily the 'right' one – whatever that means."

For more about their differing opinions, and differences between the movie and novel, you can check out the "Differences from the Film" section of the wiki page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A...Odyssey_(novel)

Now, can we all start talking about the movie again? Wasn't that the whole point of this thread in the first place? I feel like Chula and I were doing great, until DwnWthVwls came along and started demanding to know why I don't think the movie needs the book to be reviewed.

I removed that part you quoted while you were replying. I realized it was rude and tried to edit it out but since it was in the quote already I put it back.

Anyway, your answer to Chula is what I was asking for.

It's all good. Have you seen the movie, and if so, what did you think of it?