tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-294916540840535575.post1268364752980212612..comments2024-03-22T08:29:01.459-07:00Comments on Are the hills going to march off?: 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) A Film by Stanley KubrickCarson Lundhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10164962777812861110noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-294916540840535575.post-34202880632624591642010-08-07T08:34:40.972-07:002010-08-07T08:34:40.972-07:00Thanks for the comments, guys.
Loren, though eve...Thanks for the comments, guys. <br /><br />Loren, though every film Kubrick made post-<i>Fear and Desire</i> is substantial and worthy of great praise, <i>2001</i> is certainly his biggest quantum leap, a film that stands on its own as this crazy, unexpected, philosophical work of art. And you're right about the bone-to-shuttle cut. Not only is it visually splendid, but Kubrick also has the main theme music swell and naturally transform into the classical waltz associated with the space scenes. It's a beautiful, seamless aural transition. <br /><br />Stephen, thanks so much for the lofty praise! It's too bad that <i>2001</i> hasn't worked for you. I do agree that to some extent it can draw too much attention to itself. I have a few friends that find it self-serious like you do, but for me it's so controlled and aesthetically immaculate that any of these complaints are overwhelmed. Terrence Malick is certainly a tremendous mood-builder too, but Kubrick is an even more masterful manipulator.Carson Lundhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10164962777812861110noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-294916540840535575.post-13521021186022235822010-08-06T23:46:24.418-07:002010-08-06T23:46:24.418-07:00This is one of the most interesting and convincing...This is one of the most interesting and convincing pieces on the film I've read, Carson.<br /><br />I have to say that the languid rhythms, the slow motions and the hifalutin use of classical music didn't work at all for me.<br /><br />I thought it was pretentious and a little ludicrous. It always felt like Kubrick was straining to create a sense of awe and deep meaning that the film couldn't sustain. <br /><br />In terms of "visual and sonic capabilities", I think Terrence Malick's films do better at matching mood to story. The story in 2001 doesn't grab me and the visuals outstay their welcome.<br /><br />Still, this review has made me want to revisit it. Maybe I'll have a different experience next time.Stephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07036103762441216161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-294916540840535575.post-32723903504481798082010-07-28T03:38:51.705-07:002010-07-28T03:38:51.705-07:00While 2001 isn't my personal favorite of Kubri...While <i>2001</i> isn't my personal favorite of Kubrick's, I agree that it's objectively his best, for many of the reasons you mention, and yes, it's not really possible to overstate praise for it.<br /><br />The falling bone "becoming" the space shuttle is one of my favorite cuts I've ever seen in a film.Loren Rosson IIIhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15002312216839280976noreply@blogger.com