Started by Fernando, June 04, 2003, 09:23:23 AM
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Fernando on August 25, 2006, 05:01:45 PMThe highlights are the interviews of George Sluizer (Director of The Vanishing) and Johanna ter Steege who was casted as the lead in Aryan Papers.
Quote from: Pas Rap on April 23, 2010, 07:29:06 AMObviously what you are doing right now is called (in my upcoming book of psychology at least) validation. I think it's a normal thing to do. People will reply, say anything, and then you're gonna do what you were subconsciently thinking of doing all along.
Quote from: Cinephile on March 07, 2008, 01:51:29 PMpubrick RIP
Quote from: reinhold on January 25, 2008, 08:58:27 AMi'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.
Quote from: Alexandro on January 25, 2008, 03:06:55 PM2001 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: The Gold Trumpet on January 25, 2008, 04:44:16 PMThe 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.
Quote from: Alexandro on January 26, 2008, 12:42:05 PMI 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.
Quote from: Alexandro on January 26, 2008, 12:42:05 PMI 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.
Quote from: Alexandro on January 26, 2008, 12:42:05 PMI'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.
Quote from: Alexandro on January 26, 2008, 12:42:05 PMTo 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: pete on January 27, 2008, 07:20:24 PMoh cool, lose another argument then tag it with a cheapshot.