2001: Can this end well?

[Harvey]

I listened to some or perhaps all (I don't remember now) of Confused Matthew's review of the film when he posted it months ago. It was obvious he had no patience for the film (nor, to be honest, much of an understanding of it, as his comments suggest a desire that the film be something it isn't*).

As for the comments about age and appreciation of 2001: A Space Odyssey, I wouldn't be surprised if they were true. I haven't met many young people who like the movie, though, being young myself (23), I'd love to.

EDIT: If I had read more closely, I'd have seen that the article was about Inception. Oops.

*Lord, that sounds pretentious.

 

[Myasishchev]

Most 23 year olds don't like 2001 either.

The 2001 one review is wrongheaded, but it doesn't matter because as was pointed out upthread, it's hilarious.

I think it's often forgotten that reviewers, first and foremost, are entertainers themselves.

 

[Teelie]

I've never really been able to watch 2001. Every time I try it just bored me to sleep, one time literally. I'll have to give it a try again sometime and have a coke or something caffienated to keep me awake until it's over. That's just my way of saying I think the movie is overrated but it's not fair given I haven't been able to stay awake watching it either.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume you're too young to have seen 2001 in a theater, on the big Cinerama screen, when it premiered in 1968. It was AWESOME.

It's roughly 20 years before I was born so short of a revival screening or something like that I'll never see it how it "should be" as they always say.

I finally did see it the other night. It was overrated but not as bad as I was expecting. There are a lot of slow, plodding scenes that today would've been cut and while I'm no fan of cutting movies for time, this movie would definitely be an exception. A lot of scenes just seemed extraneous and stretched out and I've read they actually trimmed this too.

I've read interviews too where Kubrick said if you understood the movie then they've failed which to me sounds pretentious and that they didn't know what the movie was about in places. I understood enough to get the idea; man is aggressive by nature from the beginning, life is precious, there's other life in the universe that can teach us to be peaceful, blah, blah, blah. The whole theme felt like it was a protest against war and mankind's irresistable need to develop weapons.

Maybe I'm wrong and the movie is meant to be something else or seeing it out of the correct context and time period just makes it seem like a anti-war protest.

 

[Kegg]

^
The quote is if you understand the movie on the first viewing they've failed. The idea is the film is intended to be viewed more then once by design.

Most 23 year olds don't like 2001 either.

I'm 23 and I love it. But then I've loved it since I was 12. What the hell do i know?

The 2001 one review is wrongheaded, but it doesn't matter because as was pointed out upthread, it's hilarious.

It's excruiating. Confused Matthew, as an entertainer, is pretty low on the totem pole of the more 'notable' internet reviewers (whatever the hell that means). He comes off as unbearably whiny, petulant and annoying - and that's when I agreee with him. Repeating the same comment again and again ('THAT'S JUST RETARDED!' in a loud voice, for example) is not humour. Nor is it entertainment. It does not even vaguely resemble wit and I will not pretend that most of his reviews even pass for such (he's had a couple that were good, but by and large most are awful - and that includes his dismal Star Wars prequel reviews.)

That said, this other guy. I couldn't make it through one or two minutes of his monologue. He semeed to be trying a little to hard, really.

 

[WHF]

I can't find the quote but I think Woody Allen said that the first time he watched 2001 he didn't think it was very good. The second time he watched it he thought it was pretty good and the third time he watched it he thought it was genius.

This really resonated with me. Every time I watched this movie my opinion of it became more positive.

The first time I watched it was because it was science fiction and I was interested in the hardware. I thought it was a little dull but still OK. I didn't understand it. Then I read the novel. The second time I watched it I didn't think it was boring at all. The third time I watched it I thought it was a fantastic movie. I still can't say that I completely understand this movie but I do love it. It's almost like a Leonard Cohen song: every time you experience it, it gives you a little more.

Unfortunately, if one doesn't like a movie the first time it will probably never be watched again. This is a movie that needs to be watched multiple times.

 

[Nardpuncher]

It's Confused Matthew's style I don't like...he constantly speaks haltingly, curses (but not in a funny way, more like a gamer swearing at his Warcraft buddies) and yells too much.

 

[Gary Mitchell]

The 2001 one review is wrongheaded, but it doesn't matter because as was pointed out upthread, it's hilarious.

It's excruiating. Confused Matthew, as an entertainer, is pretty low on the totem pole of the more 'notable' internet reviewers (whatever the hell that means). He comes off as unbearably whiny, petulant and annoying - and that's when I agreee with him. Repeating the same comment again and again ('THAT'S JUST RETARDED!' in a loud voice, for example) is not humour. Nor is it entertainment.

Thanks. I was beginning to think that I was the only one who didn't find him hilarious.

 

[DarylCarpenter]

I saw 2001 when I was 13, liked it, understood it, and somehow I don't have an internet cult-of-personality. Anybody wanna be my fanboy?

Matthew and Chase both ought to be driven away in a whaaambulance...to RedLetterMedia's basement.

 

[zakkrusz]

Wow, another 2001 debate.

I mean serious, the movie isn't even worth watching, let alone arguing over.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

On the contrary, it may be the best film ever made.

 

[Pilot Ace]

On the contrary, it may be the best film ever made.

Definitely among the most overrated.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Not really.

I'll say this, if you want a film with a traditional narrative, with human characters and character arcs, of densely woven plots, then 2001 is the wrong film. And I'll agree that those things I listed are great things to be featured in a film.

2001 works on an altogether different level. It works on the kind of level where you have to wonder about it all on a real abstract, almost simple level. In the film, space is shown as truly the immense place it is. Since Star Wars, showing space in a film has become common place that the immensity ot it, its true vastness, has become lost on the viewer. Think of mankind as the protagonist and the immensity of the universe and the past and future of humanity as the obstacles and you will appreciate it. In most films, if there is a space station orbiting the earth and another space station on the moon, then a traditional film would show the protagonist arriving at these places within a minute, a quick scene and that's it. Not 2001. Despite the implication that these places are not unusual to visit, the time needed to get there, and the great expanses that would need to be transerved, are great, and the film is the only film that has really made space to seem as big as it was.

In a way it's the difference between watching a new film where the characters go from NY to LA in one scene, and an older film n which the journeyy across that expanse is arduous and challenging.

Overrated? no... just different

 

[zakkrusz]

On the contrary, it may be the best film ever made.

If all you want is to see good sci-fi, ruined by a pointless light show, then perhaps.

 

[Pilot Ace]

Not really.

I'll say this, if you want a film with a traditional narrative, with human characters and character arcs, of densely woven plots, then 2001 is the wrong film. And I'll agree that those things I listed are great things to be featured in a film.

2001 works on an altogether different level. It works on the kind of level where you have to wonder about it all on a real abstract, almost simple level. In the film, space is shown as truly the immense place it is. Since Star Wars, showing space in a film has become common place that the immensity ot it, its true vastness, has become lost on the viewer. Think of mankind as the protagonist and the immensity of the universe and the past and future of humanity as the obstacles and you will appreciate it. In most films, if there is a space station orbiting the earth and another space station on the moon, then a traditional film would show the protagonist arriving at these places within a minute, a quick scene and that's it. Not 2001. Despite the implication that these places are not unusual to visit, the time needed to get there, and the great expanses that would need to be transerved, are great, and the film is the only film that has really made space to seem as big as it was.

In a way it's the difference between watching a new film where the characters go from NY to LA in one scene, and an older film n which the journeyy across that expanse is arduous and challenging.

Overrated? no... just different

Still sounds immensely overrated to me, especially when you have to segregate the film from 'traditional' criteria in order to justify its praise.

But, hey, I'm just one of those people that wholeheartedly agrees with Confused Matthew on 2001 and often other times as well. No, he's not very funny, but I usually find myself nodding along with his logic.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Still sounds immensely overrated to me, especially when you have to segregate the film from 'traditional' criteria in order to justify its praise.

I don't have to segregate anything. But there are factors that should be considered when considering art. This is why not all music is lumped into one category "music" at the music store.

Chase was off base in the first video and in his rebuttal to LOTR and Howard the Duck, but he was right on for the rest of it. Notice what he said about Charlie Chaplin films. We might not be able to appreciate the genius, but it is there.

As a science fiction fan, however, you might understand that the universe is a grand place.

 

[Pilot Ace]

I don't have to segregate anything. But there are factors that should be considered when considering art. This is why not all music is lumped into one category "music" at the music store.

Right, which is why if you said '2001 may be the greatest sci-fi art film' I'd shrug and not have much to say. Best film, however, overrates it beyond words to me.

Chase was off base in the first video and in his rebuttal to LOTR and Howard the Duck, but he was right on for the rest of it. Notice what he said about Charlie Chaplin films. We might not be able to appreciate the genius, but it is there.

I have to wait until Confused Matthew quotes him in his rebuttals, because I could not stand watching/listening to that guy's videos by themselves. I was astonished by how grating he was and the thought of sitting through an hour and a half of that noise made me shudder.

Hah, it's probably how many of the people in this thread feel about Confused Matthew.

As a science fiction fan, however, you might understand that the universe is a grand place.

I do, which is why calling it 'best film' makes me want people to look beyond it. There's so many more worthwhile films out there, science fiction or otherwise.

Like Confused Matthew, perhaps I value the narrative (if you want to call it 'traditional' or not) in film too much to appreciate 2001.

 

[Myasishchev]

Most 23 year olds don't like 2001 either.

I'm 23 and I love it. But then I've loved it since I was 12. What the hell do i know?

Hey, I'll even go one further and say most people of any age do not or would not like 2001. 2001 is one of those works that is not for everyone. Other examples, I suppose, are Funny Games, Primer, Tape, or the full-length version of Lawrence of Arabia.

Despite being extremely well-made entries into their respective genres (horror, sci-fi, drama, and action-adventure epic), each employs extremely unconventional means that are bound to rub some members of an audience the wrong way. In Funny Games, it's the killers as literal god-mode sues; in Primer, it's the glitchless but maddening Escheresque they make out of time travel; in Tape, it's confining the film to essentially a single long conversation between three people in one room; and in Lawrence of Arabia, while the film has great action pieces, many are nonetheless going to be a little put off by the endless shots of people walking or riding somewhere in the desert.

2001 has the most in common with Lawrence of Arabia, cinematically. And it has much less interest in its characters than LoA. 2001 is a difficult film for many, a film that is most obviously about its own sense of aesthetics.* I'm not surprised at all that many find it unbearable, because even though I might love it, I can understand what others find objectionable.

In that regard, CM's review is actually probably not even wrongheaded, really, simply that he isn't wired to find the film beautiful, whereas I am.

*Of course it's also about our destiny and shit. But in a way I really do think it's primarily about its own imagery. That the imagery means something is a bonus.

Edit: it strikes me a little late that Eyes Wide Shut is probably the example par excellence--now that's definitely a movie not for everyone, that I still love. Indeed, it's a lot like 2001, only rather than investigating a monolith out by Jupiter, Dave Bowman is trying to bang a hooker in a mask.

It has very much the same distant, sterile aesthetic as 2001, and I wonder if this similarity is the reason EWS is roundly despised in many circles--it obviously doesn't include the awesome science fictiony stuff, which precludes nerds from loving it out of a sensawunda, and more mainstream audiences who didn't like 2001 at all, really hated a 2001-style film set in a dreary version of New York that centers around fucking, or (more precisely) not fucking. (Personally, I think that EWS' major failing is that it didn't go far enough and the orgy scene should have been longer and just straight-up Dark Brothers-level hard core, but maybe I'm weird for wanting a feature-length Stanley Kubrick-directed porno.)

The 2001 one review is wrongheaded, but it doesn't matter because as was pointed out upthread, it's hilarious.

It's excruiating. Confused Matthew, as an entertainer, is pretty low on the totem pole of the more 'notable' internet reviewers (whatever the hell that means). He comes off as unbearably whiny, petulant and annoying - and that's when I agreee with him. Repeating the same comment again and again ('THAT'S JUST RETARDED!' in a loud voice, for example) is not humour. Nor is it entertainment. It does not even vaguely resemble wit and I will not pretend that most of his reviews even pass for such (he's had a couple that were good, but by and large most are awful - and that includes his dismal Star Wars prequel reviews.)

YMMV, I guess. I've found him to be entertaining and occasionally thoughtful. His Minority Report review, for example, was pretty good--and on rewatching the film afterward, I had to agree with him on most points, although I still find it enjoyable for its action and inspirational in its amazing world-building (except for the 3D movie player, which is such a terrible piece of technology that I cannot be convinced anyone outside of a few enthusiasts would ever purchase it).

CM's not the best of the best, I concede, but I've always found him pretty funny. Then again I occasionally like to hear folks just screaming incoherently at shit, so this may just be a reflection on me.

 

[Pilot Ace]

Announcement: Chase Response Cancelled
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WAWMYDPEFE

Kind of a bummer, but it makes sense why he is stopping.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

It might make sense, for the reasons that Matthew gave. Save for the fact that it doesn't make sense. His first reason was that Chase hasn't responded to CM's request for permission to use clips. That's a BS to stop, because it's all protected under fair use, and Chase used clips from CM's review under the same statute. Secondly, any good debate, even with family, has some kind of intensity, back and forth attacks that, to a shallow person, comes across as personal attacks. They aren't- it's just that the intensity of a debate can lead to idle not-necessarily-sincere "insults" that are only the manifestation of the debate itself and not really are personal attacks. If I say to you "you are a liar and a bullshit artist" in the debate, I'm just responding to the point and am not trying to assassinate your character.

I think, CM wimped out. He was actually doing good. I was surprised by some of the counter arguments in the first two videos of his response. However, I think that Chase really hits a stride near the end, and, well Matthew doesn't want to admit that his review of the film is just as shallow as Chase states it is.

It's a real shame. This is the kind of debate about films that could serve as a microcosm of the study of film, just as a debate between Hitchens and De Souza serves as one about faith versus facts, etc.

 

[Pilot Ace]

It might make sense, for the reasons that Matthew gave. Save for the fact that it doesn't make sense. His first reason was that Chase hasn't responded to CM's request for permission to use clips. That's a BS to stop, because it's all protected under fair use, and Chase used clips from CM's review under the same statute. Secondly, any good debate, even with family, has some kind of intensity, back and forth attacks that, to a shallow person, comes across as personal attacks. They aren't- it's just that the intensity of a debate can lead to idle not-necessarily-sincere "insults" that are only the manifestation of the debate itself and not really are personal attacks. If I say to you "you are a liar and a bullshit artist" in the debate, I'm just responding to the point and am not trying to assassinate your character.

I think, CM wimped out. He was actually doing good. I was surprised by some of the counter arguments in the first two videos of his response. However, I think that Chase really hits a stride near the end, and, well Matthew doesn't want to admit that his review of the film is just as shallow as Chase states it is.

It's a real shame. This is the kind of debate about films that could serve as a microcosm of the study of film, just as a debate between Hitchens and De Souza serves as one about faith versus facts, etc.

I figured someone would pull the 'wimp out' card.

Sad, but I'm not surprised.