Last sunday TCM presented 2001: ASO, Sidney made the introduction of the film as well as a final comment at the end of it.
Here's what he said.
"Those of us in the movie business have a polite euphemism for someone who's a pain in the ass. Whether it is an actor or director if they're a pain to work with you always call them a perfectionist. The only real perfectionist I've ever worked with is Stanley Kubrick.
"If you've been following the essentials you know that Stanley Kubrick's name keeps coming up. He directed Dr. Strangelove, A Clockwork Orange, Lolita, but the most famous is the one were about to see.
"This is probably the movie that set Kubrick apart form the crowd forever. Because of 2001 people who'd never followed movies or never think about directing became Stanley Kubrick fans. It was 1968 when this movie came out and it was, in a 60s way, totally awesome. People who were tripping on this movie lot of time were tripping on recreational drugs but not Stanley. The way he grabs your attention and makes you think is something not many filmmakers can do. I still don't know how … cant figure out how he did this film, how he got his ideas or how he did it technically before there was computer-generated anything.
"2001 is an amazingly visual film, every frame hits you in the guts and happens so regularly right from start that you begin to take it for granted. Kubrick gets to our feelings in a way that's not highbrow or briny even though it's really big stuff. It is sci fi but its really about our place in the universe and our future as a race. You have to remember that in 1968 the year 2001 sounded like never land, a long way off. Stanley found a way to
handle the material in direct emotional style. The words are almost incidental, the pictures and time and sound. Instead of our regular language, Kubrick uses pictures and sound and time.
"We should talk about the music. The Famous da da da DAADAA …. Stanley's feeling was when you had Strauss and Beethoven, Stravinsky, why would you use anyone else? So Stanley used the classics.
"Kubrick spent something like 5 years making 2001, which he did with most of his films. Five years of hard, meticulous work, living with the material, and it shows with every frame. Kubrick was just a guy from the Bronx but sometimes he could see things no one else could see. 2001 became a dividing line between the way movies are and the way they would be. As I mentioned I knew Kubrick for many years but I'm not sure it was possible to really now Stanley. You could know certain aspects but the man like the movie was enigmatic and mysterious and all good way.
"There are a bunch of monkeys, a computer named Hal and one of the most inspired transitions ever in any movie in which a bone turns into a space ship. Trust me, it works."
At the end of the film, Sydney returns to say:
"I got to work with Stanley Kubrick on his last movie, Eyes Wide Shut with Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman. Truth is I'd been communicating with him for 30 years but never met in person. We'd been trading letters and phone calls… he actually used to send me nescafe commercials, he'd be over in England and see the commercial and count the words, and he'd call all excited and say he found a way to cut three more words.
"Stanley Kubrick was a man with endless curiostiy about his craft. I never once had a conversation about film with Stanley Kubrick where I wasn't more excited in the end than when I started. He was a generous genius who supported all of us who were trying to direct films and he'll be sorely missed."
I saw this, and I thought Pollack was pretty down-to-earth, though respectful. I liked it. Sydney Pollack doesn't strike me as a great director, but he seems a decent and tasteful person.
I liked it too and glad to have gotten this transcript because I missed the broadcast. I like Pollack and agree he has had a mixed career as a director, but I think he struck comedic genius with Tootsie.
~rougerum
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetI liked it too and glad to have gotten this transcript because I missed the broadcast. I like Pollack and agree he has had a mixed career as a director, but I think he struck comedic genius with Tootsie.
~rougerum
I've not seen
Tootsie. :oops:
I do think Syndey Pollack can be a very good actor (
Husbands and Wives,
Eyes Wide Shut; I mean, he plays an asshole in both of those, and he obviously isn't one in real life, but he was convincing, I thought).
i think he's a wonderful director (tootsie, they shoot horses don't they? and out of africa come to mind)
Is 2010 worth a look ?
Sure, but don't expect anything mind blowing. It's a strict sci-fi thriller sort of piece, but it has a lot of good exciting stuff in it.
Quote from: KeenerIs 2010 worth a look ?
honestly? no.
Quote from: KeenerIs 2010 worth a look ?
only if:
u need to sleep
u like having everything explained to u
u like shit movies.
Quote from: mogwaiCome on, bro. Beeeee nice to Keener.
i didn't think that was about keener :shock:
they were reasons to watch the sucky movie. :shock:
Quote from: mogwaiMaybe Keener is offended if someone says that he likes sucky movies. :shock:
*sigh* mog moggy mogski.
*laughs like Dr Hibbert*
the only one offended is u cos u misunderstood what i was trying to say!
now let's go beat up trolls. :-D
I like attention.
I guess I'll avoid 2010.
it's funny how kubrick destroyed all the models and sets after 2001 was made so that there couldn't be a sequel or they couldn't use the materials in any way, but they made the sequel anyway. i'm curious to watch it, but i don't want it to ruin the original. does it ruin the original?
Quote from: bonanzatazi'm curious to watch it, but i don't want it to ruin the original. does it ruin the original?
If it was halfway decent it might.....but it isn't. It couldn't ruin 2001 if it tried. What I can't believe is the ignorance it took for a handful of exec's to actaully try to sequel a Kubrick film. That goes way beyond ballsy to downright stupid.
It's a good thing that A Clockwork Orange 2: Alex's Revenge would not make money these days. The Shining 2 on the other hand... :shock:
Ladies and Germs, I'm here to offer you the 1968 Playboy int., unfortunately I don't have enough space to upload it as its size is over 9mb, it's on acrobat reader, so if anyone is interested I can give it to you through msn messenger.
Just send me a pm and I gladly share this treasure with you. :wink:
Probably ppl have seen this before, but I have never seen it so for me it was a great discovery, God bless youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdKHuyhhyuM&search=kubrick
You also can find there his DGA acceptance speech.
Well well, three in a row, I feel like Mac now, isn't that special? :yabbse-wink:
Anyway, if any of you clicked on the above link you know it's a little int. made circa 1968 when SK premiered 2001, so this next clip is a mini doc. made by some Dutch channel after SK passed, it's almost 13 minutes long and also has the aformentioned interview.
The highlights are the interviews of George Sluizer (Director of The Vanishing) and Johanna ter Steege who was casted as the lead in Aryan Papers. It has subtitles so the film snobs will love it. :yabbse-grin:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8573044396498461503&q=kubrick&hl=en
Quote from: Fernando on August 25, 2006, 05:01:45 PM
The highlights are the interviews of George Sluizer (Director of The Vanishing) and Johanna ter Steege who was casted as the lead in Aryan Papers.
agreed, they were the only ones without some sort of vendetta.
everyone else is useless, especially the first idiot who talks about kubrick being cold and "over stylizing" his films. and malcolm mcdowell, bless his unemployed heart, i know he just wants attention but really that was just an embarrassing display.
Warning: This review is only a short one. I understand more can be said about 2001 because believe me I do have a lot more to say, but the review comes from the enclosement of a facebook review where space is limited because people expect shorter stuff. Maybe someday I will honor this film with a larger write up because I do feel it deserves one, but for the sake of Picolas' request and me putting my foot in my mouth, here is my mostly negative review of the film.......
3 stars out of 5
The three stars are awarded to the technical achievements in the film. The combination of work with minature sets and other special effects make for a film that feels like an adaquate platform for elegant music and other sound effects. The strict dedication Kubrick has to his filmmaking composition in lifting the music to work with the visuals is good, but the film fails miserably elsewhere.
2001: A Space Odyssey cannot even be considered science fiction because no part of the plot has legitimacy with scientific theory. The film really is a fairy tale. In interviews for the film Kubrick proved his knowledge for space theoretics, but he has little idea of how to match it with a legitimate philosophy of mankind and its future. No one takes investment in the idea that apes evolved because of a monolilithic intervention and we will soon do so as well. Supporters of the film don't care about this lackluster quality of the film, but they should because the idea that the film speaks to the meaning of human identity and our future needs to run in line with the film's theoretical concepts.
The component of the film that is heralded is the fact the film provides us with a future where humans are depedent upon computer functions for everything and that it will destroy our independence, but the film still needs to give us a believable idea of the future and our existence to make this situation truly compelling. We can already pinpoint everday uses of technology in our society, but making a deeper film about our association with it needs better grounds than the one offered in the film. The idea of a monolith intervening in human history is really stupid, but a lot of the audience doesn't care because it's an unexplained phenomenon and exists for ambiguilty. The real reason I think it is excused is because the filmmaking is so magical that it makes the viewer invested in the films' world and story, but nothing about our future or existence will be truly learned on the shoulders of a ridiculous prognosis of our existence and future. Any emotional investment has more to do with the filmmaking than anything else.
When Andrei Tarkovsky made Solaris as a rebuttal to 2001: A Space Odyssey, he encouraged fans of 2001 to still prefer that film because he did little to challenge the visual awe of Kubrick's work. The point is that he did make a film with a story based in actual scientific concepts about human existence. One critic who dissented against 2001 in 1968 said 30 years later that it was the major film where audience interest changed from human subjects to technological ones. I think he referred to the gadgetry in the film, but I think the shift was on the idea that filmmaking could be God and the ideas behind a film could be of little or no interest.
i'm surprised that you don't dig it more than that, GT.
in 2001, i think that the stunning clarity of the film acts as its own base in reality rather than scientific theories-- it's a film about that which we see/know as real but can't connect to actual human experience and vice-versa via intelligence. also, the monolith is a beacon for other energy, hence the sound disturbance that always accompanies it. the film explores some beautiful and important cinematic territory--duration and temporal space of thought-- in a way that I think is much more inventive than Solaris aside from the differences in technical execution.
*MINOR SPOILERS FOR SOLARIS HERE (though I'm sure we've just about all seen it)*
GT, I hope you do go into depth about this sometime soon because, based on this short post, I understand what you're saying but I, for one, am very interested to see you expand upon on a couple of points you made.
For example, you touch upon Solaris being based in real scientific ideas as opposed to 2001. I haven't seen Solaris in ages so all I can recall is the basic story of a planet as a conscious organism that has the ability to read other beings' minds and send parts of itself to them in the forms of people dead people they loved as a means of communication. And that sounds, on the surface, just as (im)plausible as an alien intelligence sending a beacon to point a primitive race of beings towards evolving to a point that we can communicate effectively with them.
I'm not saying you're wrong but I just want to understand specifically what you mean.
Quote from: reinhold on January 25, 2008, 08:58:27 AM
i'm surprised that you don't dig it more than that, GT.
in 2001, i think that the stunning clarity of the film acts as its own base in reality rather than scientific theories-- it's a film about that which we see/know as real but can't connect to actual human experience and vice-versa via intelligence. also, the monolith is a beacon for other energy, hence the sound disturbance that always accompanies it. the film explores some beautiful and important cinematic territory--duration and temporal space of thought-- in a way that I think is much more inventive than Solaris aside from the differences in technical execution.
Yea, I understand my review only associates the idea of scientific theory to point out the lack of interest for the rest of the film, but I do have a lot more to say about the film. I think my other ideas cover what you talk about (and more) so my stance against the film is in limbo until I further elaborate on it. That's why I feel I am cheating you guys with making a review this short look my official one because it only deals with one avenue of the film. I'm grateful for the respectful disagreeance because I know how much this film means to the board.
2001 is easily one of the best films ever made. One of the 2 or 3 actually. Its a visual poem of a beauty that Solaris and Tarkosvkis whole career never matched.
So far, your argument against it by comparing it to Solaris is completely irrelevant to 2001. Kubrick created a plausible reality with his knowledge on the subject, but his use of the monolith as a symbol of intelligence and an evolutionary leap, i think, its way too clear to be taken as anything else. Seriously, who thinks human destiny is altered by the presence of a monolith...just a monolith?
I have never before interpreted 2001 as saying that our dependence on technology will destroy us. It says our intelligence carries in itself the key to evolution and also to self destruction. The film suggests at the end that humans can become pure intellect.
Yeah, the filmmaking is beautiful, and maybe a lot of people dont understand shit about what happens in this movie and dont care. I know I had a question mark on my face for years after I finally started to make some sense of it, but thats a positive thing, it has a visceral appeal. Kubrick wanted this more than anything, he specifically said that he was aiming to achieve a film that needed no explanation, that went from a to b like a piece of music, ideas, meaning, he said, came last. And he succeeds in that probably better than anyone else. So why is it that, one more time, you compare two films with completely different agendas and declare one superior based on a strictly capricious criteria?
Please give us the full thing soon.
Quote from: Alexandro on January 25, 2008, 03:06:55 PM
2001 is easily one of the best films ever made. One of the 2 or 3 actually. Its a visual poem of a beauty that Solaris and Tarkosvkis whole career never matched.
So far, your argument against it by comparing it to Solaris is completely irrelevant to 2001. Kubrick created a plausible reality with his knowledge on the subject, but his use of the monolith as a symbol of intelligence and an evolutionary leap, i think, its way too clear to be taken as anything else. Seriously, who thinks human destiny is altered by the presence of a monolith...just a monolith?
I have never before interpreted 2001 as saying that our dependence on technology will destroy us. It says our intelligence carries in itself the key to evolution and also to self destruction. The film suggests at the end that humans can become pure intellect.
Yeah, the filmmaking is beautiful, and maybe a lot of people dont understand shit about what happens in this movie and dont care. I know I had a question mark on my face for years after I finally started to make some sense of it, but thats a positive thing, it has a visceral appeal. Kubrick wanted this more than anything, he specifically said that he was aiming to achieve a film that needed no explanation, that went from a to b like a piece of music, ideas, meaning, he said, came last. And he succeeds in that probably better than anyone else. So why is it that, one more time, you compare two films with completely different agendas and declare one superior based on a strictly capricious criteria?
Please give us the full thing soon.
The comparison to Solaris is not irrelevant. You're right to objectify 2001 according to its musical structure, but you also get too carried away because it isn't a pure visual opus in all senses of the word. To be so it would have to be a complete structural break from all strands of standard storytelling. The film has building blocks of story and philosophy to develop themes that build to a conclusion. Kubrick wanted to make a film devoid of structural familarity but admitted he never was able to do it in his career.
The building blocks within the film are open to criticism because people do believe its philosphical content is sophisticated. You argue the monoliths are "a symbol of intelligence and an evolutionary leap". I'd say that is the purpose, but is it a remarkable idea? No, it is an obtuse one. Other science fiction films would use invented scenarios to make the dramatic leaps to get to the themes, but they they were bad because they had absurd scenarios try to explain human history. The monolith also tries to explain human history. Kubrick studied the history of science fiction films before making 2001 and I believe he carried over a lot more structural similarities of older science fiction films than what is normally believed. Generally, older science fiction films lacked relevance because they were done ups of fairy tales and had little grounding in true theoretical thinking.
The depedence of humans on technology comment isn't a new one. It's always been associated with the film because of the plasticity of the human characters and how exuberantly the technology is shown in the film. Important essays have been written on the subject. That subtext of the film also speaks to critizable faults in lack of dramatic and theoretical thinking.
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on January 25, 2008, 04:44:16 PM
The comparison to Solaris is not irrelevant. You're right to objectify 2001 according to its musical structure, but you also get too carried away because it isn't a pure visual opus in all senses of the word. To be so it would have to be a complete structural break from all strands of standard storytelling. The film has building blocks of story and philosophy to develop themes that build to a conclusion. Kubrick wanted to make a film devoid of structural familiarity but admitted he never was able to do it in his career.
This I totally agree with. I must say Solaris doesn't achieve that either, or any other film or filmmaker that I know of.
I don't get why the monolith solution is obtuse. Using symbols is hardly original, so much so, that is more of a resource arists can use just as any other. To me it works better like that than if he made something as the older science fiction films you mention, with their absurd scenarios. What's the point, actually, of doing something like that? The thing is cool about 2001 is that Kubrick made all this research and gave everything a realistic feel to it, but the film at heart is more of a fable than a scientific theory. I'm sure fable is the wrong term, because he film uses both scientific and more primeval, I would say religious instances to develop.
I think it as wise from him to not rely entirely on theoretical thinking or scientific grounds. After all, theoretical thinking will change over time, and scientific grounds, with some luck, will eventually get to conclusions far ahead from what is shown in this film or any other.
I've seen 2001 probably 100 times. I saw it like an idiot when I was 15, over and over, not getting anything, but I was enthralled by the filmmaking. With time I started taking meaning out of it, and sometimes I wish that hasn't happened. I think it's a beautiful film and a beautiful statement (more hopeful than any other) about humanity's potential. But there was something magical about it being mysterious to me. A couple of years ago I saw it on acid, an experience that is usually pretty intense (watching any movie i mean) so I usually reserve the movie watching for the morning after, when things are calmer, but this time we put it right in the middle of the trip, and I would say it was a rediscovery for which I have no words. It was a scary, funny, tense, beautiful, transcendental experience. It was as if I was looking at the universe from a window. In a way it was like coming back to that teenage experience, but with a difference: it all made immediate sense. There wasn't a second without vital information, and it seemed every scene needed the one before to have the effect it had at that moment. I can tell you HAL 9000's death had me in tears, which never happened before (and I wasn't thinking of the filmmaking at that point, it was unbelievably chilly to hear the "i can feel it, i can feel it" bit, and yet it was sad too). Anyone can say, "well, you were on ACID", but I've seen lots of movies on acid, and that kind of response never occurred. It didn't happened with Apocalypse Now Redux (which I saw on acid AT the movie theatre), or with Finding Nemo, for instance. And 2001 is not even the film I've watched more times. I've probably seen Boogie Nights or Good Fellas more times than that. What I'm trying t get at is that 2001 for all it's clinical approach, it's a tremendously emotional film, and even though it doesn't achieve the "breaking of the form" that Kubrick aimed at, it certainly works emotionally like a piece of music and like an abstract painting.
To me, the half and half approach that Kubrick CHOSE with 2001, in terms of balancing scientific facts and theoretical thinking with an open, more wonderlike and almost religious view, goes deeper than Solaris. Of course, after years of hearing how people compared the two, when I finally catched Solaris five years ago I just couldn't get it. These are two very very different films. And to me Solaris is a masterpiece on its own. But the resemblances are only superficial.
Quote from: Alexandro on January 26, 2008, 12:42:05 PM
I don't get why the monolith solution is obtuse. Using symbols is hardly original, so much so, that is more of a resource arists can use just as any other. To me it works better like that than if he made something as the older science fiction films you mention, with their absurd scenarios. What's the point, actually, of doing something like that? The thing is cool about 2001 is that Kubrick made all this research and gave everything a realistic feel to it, but the film at heart is more of a fable than a scientific theory. I'm sure fable is the wrong term, because he film uses both scientific and more primeval, I would say religious instances to develop.
If people, when challenged with the falsity of much of 2001, admit it, then why do they still associate the film with meaningful and powerful ideas of human existence? You're right in that artists do use symbols to relate back dramatic points, but the Monolith and even the Star Child have little identity to what we rationalize about human existence. They say even less about human future. The evolution of man of his future in space is a fascinating subject, but the film only offers us a visual poem in which to jog our thinking. The best films have wonderful filmmaking, but they also have excellent thinking behind it.
Also, good works of art that make up different worlds to make comments about our own make sure to have parts of that fabled world to be grounded in some reality of existence of thought we can associate with. It allows for the work of art to be theoretically correct. I see some of it with the relationship of man to machine in the film, but not in the major parts about the film's commentary about man and his future.
Quote from: Alexandro on January 26, 2008, 12:42:05 PM
I think it as wise from him to not rely entirely on theoretical thinking or scientific grounds. After all, theoretical thinking will change over time, and scientific grounds, with some luck, will eventually get to conclusions far ahead from what is shown in this film or any other.
Theoretical thinking is necessary. Making the film groundless in any thinking still disrupts the themes getting out in the film. The film has objectives to be meaningful and philosophical. If you're objective is to make the film timeless and open to new generations then that ambition will be lost to the evolution of film style's and film tastes. Someday the film will look and feel old and thus become a relic. It is said the lifetime of a work of art is a hundred years because that work will be able to amass all the thinking and thoughts of its time period for display. As time moves on and thinking shifts, so the work in question takes a step back in importance. You're right that theoretical thinking would make it dated, but it's a good reason to be dated. Besides, other things will as well.
Quote from: Alexandro on January 26, 2008, 12:42:05 PM
I've seen 2001 probably 100 times. I saw it like an idiot when I was 15, over and over, not getting anything, but I was enthralled by the filmmaking. With time I started taking meaning out of it, and sometimes I wish that hasn't happened. I think it's a beautiful film and a beautiful statement (more hopeful than any other) about humanity's potential. But there was something magical about it being mysterious to me. A couple of years ago I saw it on acid, an experience that is usually pretty intense (watching any movie i mean) so I usually reserve the movie watching for the morning after, when things are calmer, but this time we put it right in the middle of the trip, and I would say it was a rediscovery for which I have no words. It was a scary, funny, tense, beautiful, transcendental experience. It was as if I was looking at the universe from a window. In a way it was like coming back to that teenage experience, but with a difference: it all made immediate sense. There wasn't a second without vital information, and it seemed every scene needed the one before to have the effect it had at that moment. I can tell you HAL 9000's death had me in tears, which never happened before (and I wasn't thinking of the filmmaking at that point, it was unbelievably chilly to hear the "i can feel it, i can feel it" bit, and yet it was sad too). Anyone can say, "well, you were on ACID", but I've seen lots of movies on acid, and that kind of response never occurred. It didn't happened with Apocalypse Now Redux (which I saw on acid AT the movie theatre), or with Finding Nemo, for instance. And 2001 is not even the film I've watched more times. I've probably seen Boogie Nights or Good Fellas more times than that. What I'm trying t get at is that 2001 for all it's clinical approach, it's a tremendously emotional film, and even though it doesn't achieve the "breaking of the form" that Kubrick aimed at, it certainly works emotionally like a piece of music and like an abstract painting.
I hope you understand if I can take your history of acid trips serious as an explanation of dramatic excellence, but at least it does make more sense than an epiphany from Pete.
Quote from: Alexandro on January 26, 2008, 12:42:05 PM
To me, the half and half approach that Kubrick CHOSE with 2001, in terms of balancing scientific facts and theoretical thinking with an open, more wonderlike and almost religious view, goes deeper than Solaris. Of course, after years of hearing how people compared the two, when I finally catched Solaris five years ago I just couldn't get it. These are two very very different films. And to me Solaris is a masterpiece on its own. But the resemblances are only superficial.
Considering I'm not as inclined to buy into visual excellence as you, I still have align myself with Solaris as the deeper film. It has the thought provoking subject as well as the tone and pacing to invite you into the subject of the story and relate back the questions of the film to you own existence.
oh cool, lose another argument then tag it with a cheapshot.
Quote from: pete on January 27, 2008, 07:20:24 PM
oh cool, lose another argument then tag it with a cheapshot.
I didn't lose an argument.
As usual we see things differently.
I don't think any of us can say with certainty if 2001 will become old and dated in 100 years or any other amount of time. It hasn't happened in almost 40 years so far, so we'll give it the benefit of the doubt.
Theoreticall thinking is a good reason to be dated if that's the way you choose to communicate in your film. But if he had done that with 2001, a lot of the mystery it has, and what actually makes it a major work of art, would be lost. We will not get to an agreement of this, cause you feel pretty much the opposite, but that's the way I see it.
Offering a visual poem is quite a feat is you ask me. So saying it "only" offer one to us seems to me a little unfair. Many filmmakes try to come up with a visual poem to convey a statement, and most fail. Solaris is also trying to be a visual poem, but the value of that film lies elsewhere.
I guess I'm the kind of person that can accept an acid experience as an enrichment on the perspective of the dramatic structure of 2001. You aren't. That's the beauty of the world.
After reading all the posts, for some reason, I'm hearing the the "Different Strokes" theme song.