![]() ![]() It's great that there is some hard sci-fi (Arthur C. It's like future version of an alternative histories plot. I never really found the sci-fi ideas very convincing or at least as with the OP, they were presented but NOT explored. And visually it's definitely very very impressive. I think given it came out in '68 or so, that it was an unusual and different film and that is why it is a great movie from that context. ![]() This is a good summary of the plot + ideas in the movie. ![]() I just want to remind you all that no film is flawless. In many threads, people refer to Kubrick as some sort of demi-god of filmmaking, and in general movies like The Godfather and 2001 are considered to be flawless. My main reason for posting this is that I think we need to start looking at “classic” films with more scrutiny. I welcome anyone to refute me, because while I think 2001 fairs poorly as a film, I’d be happy to change my mind, if someone gives me good reason to. Without this, the film comes off as a sort of cold-blooded exercise. The one I see as most important is an emotional core – some reason for the viewer to care about what’s happening. I know that 2001 was not designed to be a conventional film, but if we want to label it as a “great film”, then it should have at least some features of a good film. At best, I see the film as a piece of abstract art: composed with great technique, but it doesn’t say much.ģ) It provides the viewer nothing to care about. If this is the case, then appreciation is highly dependent on whether certain abstract elements “click” with the viewer. This would perhaps explain why Bowman’s experience in the alternate dimension is philosophically unsatisfying, but artistically inventive. This is where being too abstract can be costly.Ģ) In response to the first concern, one might argue that the film is meant to fulfill the subconscious, not the conscious mind. But I do not see any places in the film where these questions are even addressed. I’m not saying that this film ought to have some philosophical thesis – ambiguity is fine as long as the subject is studied from all facets. This brings with it plenty of interesting questions – what are we becoming? What is our destiny? Why should we care? I feel that while the film gives us a topic sentence, it does no exploration of these ideas. For instance, let’s take the commonly held view that the film discusses the evolution of the human race. The reason I consider this to be a major flaw is that everyone praises the film’s philosophical depth, but there is no real philosophical exploration taking place. I believe this for three main reasons:ġ) It is too enigmatic to say anything important. That being said, I believe it was, by no measure, a great film. Additionally, I appreciate the artistic vision that went into the film, as well as the landmark cinematography that was used to achieve it. Let me start out by saying that 2001 was an audacious experiment. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |