Confused matthew does 2001 a space odyssey

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

at confusedmatthew.com

H eis right about every point he makes but he is absolutely wrong.

He is looking for a narrative, something most films have. 2001 admittedly has apretty thin one. i'ts not about that at all.

I'll demonstrate. The beginning, before the opening titles, is an overture. It asts a long time. I can't imagine an audience today tolerating anything similar attached to a film (indeed I watched "Oliver!" recently - a classic - and that, too had a long musical overture). Anyway the point I am making is that purpose of the overture was to put people into a differnt mood of mindset before watching the film/

I remember one time I was a t a buddy's house. It was almost 5am, and we had been up all night. We were tired, but going to bed never occured to us. We talked about a lot of randome philosophical stuff. Eventually we even wondered about the rythmic nature of breating, drawing in a breath and exhaling. We wondered about how color is formed.

My point: Absence of any narcotics, that kind of mood is essential in order to get the most out of 2001. Sure it takes like eight shots of landscape to get to anything in the film, but those shots add to the mood, to the wonderment. Establishing a desolate near waterless place could have been done with ONE shot in a modern film, and that would have been effective. But by taking his time, we are supposed to really BE there, thinking about what a world like this would be like. Same with the long docking scene. The idea of BEING in SPACE is more important to Kubric than why he is actually in space. What Matthew doens't understand is that the film's narrative is not the important thing, what is important is our role as humans set againt the grandiose nature of the cosmos.Most films ARE interested in narrative, they care about either the plot or the characters or both. 2001 cares really for neither. It cares more about the placement of our species in the context of the universe itself.

So watch it when you are pondering the seemingly smaller details about life and why things work, at the times when those observations turn into big questions that seem significant. That's the time to watch this movie and really get it.

 

[Kirkman1987]

^

Agreed.

2001 is one of the greatest films ever made, but only if you are open to the fact, and are okay with, that a movie can be a work of art more akin to a painting than a narrative story, which is what most films are like.

Some films just aren't about narrative, watch Eraserhead for another great example of visual beauty and psychological atmosphere. (apparently a film Kubrick said that he wished he had made.)

 

[Pilot Ace]

I'm in 90-95% agreement with him so far and I've been saying very similar things about the film for years. I giggled with glee when I saw he was doing a review, hoping for just this sort of critique.

It's a terrible film that I think should only be recognized for its technical merit. The near 10 minute space trip out scene is especially embarrassing.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

I think the point that confused matthew is missing is that, while not made very often the "non-narrative" movie is something that can purposefully exist, that all the long shots of travel in which no story points are extrapolated on IS the very point of the film.

I kind of compare it too musicals. They, like the non-narrative films, work in their own little niche, while alienating all those whop don't understnad the artform. I can't really reconcile while people would spontanously start singing in unison, as that would never happen in real life, but it's part of the type ot film.

 

[J.T.B.]

I know that with the interwebs and all anyone can set themselves up as a critic, but jeez... That was one of the most pathetic reviews I've ever seen about anything. For all the time he spent talking about it not being about him "not getting it," I didn't hear anything in the review that indicated that he had a clue about the big questions the movie was addressing.

He did swear a lot, though, that was so cool!

--Justin

 

[davejames]

^

Agreed.

2001 is one of the greatest films ever made, but only if you are open to the fact, and are okay with, that a movie can be a work of art more akin to a painting than a narrative story, which is what most films are like.

Some films just aren't about narrative, watch Eraserhead for another great example of visual beauty and psychological atmosphere. (apparently a film Kubrick said that he wished he had made.)

Agreed. I've alway seen 2001 as kind of a tone poem. Terrence Malick makes a lot of those kinds of movies too (the most recent being The New World), and I just find them absolutely mesmerizing to watch.

Although even apart from that, I still think 2001 tells a really cool and interesting story. Which probably wouldn't have been as effective if it was told in just a standard, matter-of-fact way like every other movie.

 

[Broccoli]

2001 is very much an art film, where the central focus was on the SFXs and the realistic take on space travel. It also relies heavily on themes, specifically that of evolution and man with his tools (which was the point of the first segment).

The movie isn't for everyone, that is for sure, but to go on a fanboy rant about it is a little silly. It almost seems like he is using it as a way to bash "Kubricians" (a term I have never heard before).

I also can't help but notice that he never once mentioned Arthur C. Clark in his bashing of the story.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

^

Agreed.

2001 is one of the greatest films ever made, but only if you are open to the fact, and are okay with, that a movie can be a work of art more akin to a painting than a narrative story, which is what most films are like.

Some films just aren't about narrative, watch Eraserhead for another great example of visual beauty and psychological atmosphere. (apparently a film Kubrick said that he wished he had made.)

Agreed. I've alway seen 2001 as kind of a tone poem. Terrence Malick makes a lot of those kinds of movies too (the most recent being The New World), and I just find them absolutely mesmerizing to watch.

Although even apart from that, I still think 2001 tells a really cool and interesting story. Which probably wouldn't have been as effective if it was told in just a standard, matter-of-fact way like every other movie.

I agree completely.

Maybe it's a generational devide. Matthew is in his 20's and he is pretty smart. For most films aimed at popular culture, he knows a good story from a bad one. Even when I hate a film he likes, I can understnad what he means. But with 2001 it's different. it wasn't meant to be approached in the same way. And by general divide, I mean that "instant gratification" is commonplace. Movies are often over edited, and those that aren't are deemed slow and pondering. But with 2001, it was absolutley intentional. It wasn't like the editor and Kubrick took the day off.

 

[Kirkman1987]

^

I miss slower editing. Fast paced editing has it's place, and can be very exciting, but isn't it great to see a single uninterrupted 5 minute take of two great actors just acting. For action, wasn't that parachute jump in the opening of The Spy Who Loved Me made so much more breathtaking without cuts.

and I'm always suprised that people can possibly claim 2001 isn't about anything. It deals with the whole of Human Evolution, man's relationship with his technology (which in itself is about tools used for violence, The fear mankind has of overpowering technology, and most importantly, that it is courage and human cleverness that allow us to triumph over it), and possibly Alien Life.

No, there's not a lot of plot there, but what is there, and is magnificently told...no...experienced....by the audience is worth far more than the plots of ten shoot 'em up crime films or romantic sob stories.

 

[davejames]

Yeah, Kubrick-slow is a very different thing from most other directors. It's not just a matter of not being able to cut out a bunch of bloated story crap like we usually see; with him every shot is very purposeful and clearly planned out. He creates a real sense of unease and has you watching every inch of the screen in anticipation of something happening, or for some kind of hidden subtext.

I just love that shit. M Night has the same skill, but unfortunately he hasn't exactly been putting it to good use recently.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Meh, it's his loss. I suspect he lacks a sense of perspective on his significance, or, more accurately, insignificance. It's hard to feel awe if you believe you're immortal.

On the other hand, I didn't get anything out of "Eyes Wide Shut" at all--hated it in fact--but other people apparently did. Horses for courses...

 

[Harvey]

No kidding about M. Night Shyamalan. He's one of the few directors out there today who is willing to use long, uninterrupted takes and avoids heavy reliance on the close-up. If only his writing could match his sense of visual style and editing.

On the subject of 2001: A Space Odyssey, I love it, and I'm speaking as a member of the 20-something generation. Kubrick's obsessive attention to detail in all aspects of the production elevate it to greatness. I've seen it twice projected in 35mm, and it's one of the few films I own (so far) on Blu-Ray. Simply spectacular.

 

[Kirkman1987]

Meh, it's his loss. I suspect he lacks a sense of perspective on his significance, or, more accurately, insignificance. It's hard to feel awe if you believe you're immortal.

On the other hand, I didn't get anything out of "Eyes Wide Shut" at all--hated it in fact--but other people apparently did. Horses for courses...

Yeah, Eyes Wide Shut didn't do it for me. I was suprised, because I usually like dark sexual stories. Blue Velvet is a favorite of mine. I haven't seen in in a long time, but I always thought it was his worst. Barry Lyndon is Underrated, not to mention perhaps the most beautiful film ever to look at.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

^

I miss slower editing. Fast paced editing has it's place, and can be very exciting, but isn't it great to see a single uninterrupted 5 minute take of two great actors just acting. For action, wasn't that parachute jump in the opening of The Spy Who Loved Me made so much more breathtaking without cuts.

and I'm always suprised that people can possibly claim 2001 isn't about anything. It deals with the whole of Human Evolution, man's relationship with his technology (which in itself is about tools used for violence, The fear mankind has of overpowering technology, and most importantly, that it is courage and human cleverness that allow us to triumph over it), and possibly Alien Life.

No, there's not a lot of plot there, but what is there, and is magnificently told...no...experienced....by the audience is worth far more than the plots of ten shoot 'em up crime films or romantic sob stories.

I agree completely with everything you said.

I keep thinking of the first scene of 2001, with it's six or seven slow establishing shots of the desert. Instead of just "establishing a desert" and getting right to the point, he is allowing us, the reader to meditate on the idea, to have it sink in, that the fact there is little water (save for one water hole) is so important to the story. As you indiciated, Kubrick's style of storytelling isn't "telling" us anything, it's allowing us to "experience" it.

Good phrasing, my friend!

 

[Kegg]

I'll demonstrate. The beginning, before the opening titles, is an overture. It asts a long time. I can't imagine an audience today tolerating anything similar attached to a film (indeed I watched "Oliver!" recently - a classic - and that, too had a long musical overture).

As did Lawrence of Arabia, and many other films (including Star Trek: The Motion Picture). Like the entr'acte, it's something consciously operatic and sadly no longer done today.

Yeah, Eyes Wide Shut didn't do it for me. I was suprised, because I usually like dark sexual stories. Blue Velvet is a favorite of mine.

I love both of these movies. But then I do value Kubrick generally very highly.

Barry Lyndon is Underrated, not to mention perhaps the most beautiful film ever to look at.

This is probably my favourite Kubrick film, actually. It's oddly enough one that affects me on an emotional level - it may be a distant film, and Lyndon is an amoral boor, but damnit, he's still an Irishman trying to succeed in an Englishman's world.

Maybe it's a generational devide. Matthew is in his 20's and he is pretty smart.

I'm younger than Confused Matthew, so I don't think so. It is a conceptual divide, though. Matthew implicitly rejects that a film should be anything more than a straightforward, rapid moving and explicable narrative. In simple terms that's sort of a rejection of most art and experimental cinema in favour of more direct, commercial storytelling.

I, however, am not of this opinion. There's ample room for both. (On the subject of long takes: Russian Ark is awesome, very Tarkovsky-esque, and also literally a single take.)

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Kegg, thank you for clarifying!

Yu are correct indeed, in what you said about "conceptual design" and Matthew's belief about an explicit narrative.

Thanks!

 

[J.T.B.]

Movies are often over edited, and those that aren't are deemed slow and pondering. But with 2001, it was absolutley intentional. It wasn't like the editor and Kubrick took the day off.

Indeed, and, one might have hoped, obviously so. The reviewer clearly felt that time was passing slowly in the opening "landscape" scenes, could he not take it a step further and consider that the director was trying to make him aware of time passing slowly? And another step to consider why the director might be doing that? To say something about the place of that "landscape" (the Earth) over the vastness of time, maybe?

A good critical review, whether you agree or not, can make you look at something in a new way or see something you never noticed before. Confused Matthew, on the other hand... Well, I get that he didn't like the movie.

I miss slower editing. Fast paced editing has it's place, and can be very exciting, but isn't it great to see a single uninterrupted 5 minute take of two great actors just acting.

Boy, I am sure with you there. Or even just one actor. John Ford was great at that, just letting a scene be for a few minutes. It forces the viewer to think about the character more closely.

I agree with what others have said about 2001, it is a brilliant contemplation of vastness, human insignificance, and the unknowable. As Kubrick movies go, I love them all. "Strangelove" is my favorite, and today I would probably put Paths of Glory at number two. Eyes Wide Shut is at the bottom of the list, but it's still plenty good.

--Justin

 

[Harvey]

Not only are those opening establishing shots long, they're actually still images shot by a camera crew Kubrick sent to Africa. But I must admit, I didn't notice that until it was pointed out in the commentary track on the Blu-Ray.

 

[USS Mariner]

Maybe it's a generational devide. Matthew is in his 20's and he is pretty smart.

I'm younger than Confused Matthew, so I don't think so. It is a conceptual divide, though. Matthew implicitly rejects that a film should be anything more than a straightforward, rapid moving and explicable narrative. In simple terms that's sort of a rejection of most art and experimental cinema in favour of more direct, commercial storytelling.

I, however, am not of this opinion. There's ample room for both. (On the subject of long takes: Russian Ark is awesome, very Tarkovsky-esque, and also literally a single take.)

I'm going to be 20 in February. I hated the new Trek film. I'm the antithesis to generational divides.

As for the review, this is probably the first time he's totally bombed in a review like this (though he came pretty close during his Spirited Away review, where he declares anime as a one-trick-pony after admittedly not watching much of anything).

It's pretty clear he had some sort of agenda when he started this, given his frequent use of "Kubrickians" (which he seemed to make up on the spot, and randomly alternated between using "-ians" and "-ites"). He also created some laughable moments when he declares "NOTHING IS HAPPENING" when either the Pan-Am transport or the space station flies into view, or when he complained about the lift doors taking too long to open, when the doors are about 6 feet wide each (I've been in three-person lifts that take twice as long on average).

I got some of the main themes of the film right away, and I had no problem with the lack of dialogue. That's the difference between radio and cinema: You don't always need to be told what is going on because you can see it. Apparently, he needs characters to speak in order for him to register them as characters, which is the only reason I can think of for him describing the trip to Flavius Base as "more crap floating in space."

 

[Morfius]

^

I miss slower editing. Fast paced editing has it's place, and can be very exciting, but isn't it great to see a single uninterrupted 5 minute take of two great actors just acting. For action, wasn't that parachute jump in the opening of The Spy Who Loved Me made so much more breathtaking without cuts.

and I'm always suprised that people can possibly claim 2001 isn't about anything. It deals with the whole of Human Evolution, man's relationship with his technology (which in itself is about tools used for violence, The fear mankind has of overpowering technology, and most importantly, that it is courage and human cleverness that allow us to triumph over it), and possibly Alien Life.

No, there's not a lot of plot there, but what is there, and is magnificently told...no...experienced....by the audience is worth far more than the plots of ten shoot 'em up crime films or romantic sob stories.

Our attention spans have definitely gotten shorter. It was easier for me to sit through when I first saw it at age 6 and again at age 11, than it is today. I can see why it might be agony for a young person to sit through . . . just like I sometimes find the action scenes of modern movies to be too fast for me to understand what is going on. (Like in the new Star Trek)