God, I actually want to see that now.
Confused matthew does 2001 a space odyssey
- Thread starter Flying Spaghetti Monster
- Start date
Regardless of what you think of James Rolfe (the creator/star of the Angry Video Game Nerd) or AVGN itself, he's far more professional and knowledgeable on cinema (partly due to the fact that's he's made films for most of his life) than Matthew could ever hope to be. He recently made a self-documentary about his life and his history with film, and it's something far more serious than what you've probably seen of AVGN.
Maybe. I'm going here by the two videos of his I've seen as AVGN, which were truthfully rather boring - the TMNT III review and some game I can't remember - and his crossover videos with the Nostalgia Critic, with whom he has no chemistry, but is he really someone that could be reasonably said to be making stuff that's more entertaining than TV?
It's just the sheer audaciousness of the claim. I'm very much a fan of the new wave of internet critics armed with a videocam and good cheer, but not uncritically so (ha ha, I am a gifted comic).
The Angry Video Game nerd actually has a great review of the Star Wars saga that is very knowing and reflective. It's well thought out. It might be listed under cinemssacre on youtube.
Well, I went ahead and watched the Matthew review because I felt I should at this point given the amount of time I've ranted in this thread.
In a nutshell: Even if one accepts basically the entirety of Matthew's argument about narrative cinema... there's an assertion in this review that still makes no sense.
Which is that the story doesn't start until the talking in the space station. How is the sequence with the monkeys not a story? It's a wordless story, but it's a story - the monkeys get influenced by a mysterious monolith to crack some skulls of other monkeys using some bones. Whether it's a bad story is beside the point, it's definitely a narrative. If the film ended right there would he assert there was no story in it at all?
I get the impression that, egad, a narrative cannot be a narrative without dialogue - a ridiculous assertion I know, but without that assumption the claim he's making here makes no sense. Forget Stalker, I want to see him review The Last Laugh, a silent film virtually without intertitles. Will he insist there's almost no story there too?
In a nutshell: Even if one accepts basically the entirety of Matthew's argument about narrative cinema... there's an assertion in this review that still makes no sense.
Which is that the story doesn't start until the talking in the space station. How is the sequence with the monkeys not a story? It's a wordless story, but it's a story - the monkeys get influenced by a mysterious monolith to crack some skulls of other monkeys using some bones. Whether it's a bad story is beside the point, it's definitely a narrative. If the film ended right there would he assert there was no story in it at all?
I get the impression that, egad, a narrative cannot be a narrative without dialogue - a ridiculous assertion I know, but without that assumption the claim he's making here makes no sense. Forget Stalker, I want to see him review The Last Laugh, a silent film virtually without intertitles. Will he insist there's almost no story there too?
Well, did he nerdrage about the number of lens flares in the movie?
If the internet existed back in '68, the "old school" sci-fi fanboys would be fuming about the lens flares, non-aerodynamic spaceships, lack of theramin music, and alien intelligence not represented by men in rubber suits. An astronaut surviving in the vacuum of space for 15 seconds? THAT'S...JUST...RETARDED!!!
You should know as well as anyone that the quality of TV programming is dependent on the show.
Having said that, it's no less worthy of airtime than productions with an actual budget, and it's far more engaging than "reality shows."
If you have to explain the joke, it's not funny.
Watch Oldboy. It's relatively recent. Has what must have been one of the hardest-to-pull-off uninterrupted tracking shots in the history of film.
As for CM, I like him, and think he's got a good radio voice sort of thing going--and he used to have an addictive little theme song which he absolutely fucking butchered--but his taste in movies often fails to coincide with my own, so when I watch him it's ordinarily for the entertainment value.
Edit: hey, the theme song's back! Well, I don't care what he says about 2001 now.
Edit 2: the review is hilarious so far. A bit philistine, sure, but CM yelling is always a pleasure to listen to.
Last edited:
While there's certainly lots of symbolism - that a crude bone club turns into a space ship is certainly no accident - the monoliths weren't hanging around at the dawn of man by coincidence. They caused the transformation.
I have to agree with you here.
While I'm a big fan of Matthew, and agree with most of his reviews (The SW prequels and Matrix Sequels reviews are priceless), his biggest mistake with this review is trying to deflate his critics by saying "Kubrick fans will accuse me of not getting it".
I'm not a Kubrick fan. In fact, I've seen a total of 3 of his films. However, I can say with 100% honesty, he does not get it!
And I am not being a film snob by saying so. Matthew, unfortunately, comes off as one of those people who believe they are right, and will refuse to consider alternative viewpoints. Ironic considering he regularly mocks others for the same sort of behavior.
In my opinion, you have to judge 2001 on the basis of the type of film it is trying to be, not on how you want it to be. Matthew does a good job, for example, in critiquing the Matrix sequels for trying to be philosophical pieces and failing. Similarly with the SW prequels in their attempt to be fun action films.
However, he's clearly attempting to place 2001 in a catagory it isn't mean to be in. Listening to his review feels like standing next to a guy viewing a great painting while shouting "THERE IS NOTHING HAPPENING!!!! I'VE BEEN STANDING HERE 20 MINUTES!!! GET ON WITH THE FUCKING STORY!!!"
QFT:
Very good way of putting it. 2001 is more akin to a painting than a narrative.
I also know that saying all TV sucks sort of renders that moot. This is the problem with sweeping generalisations, which is why I brought that example up to begin with.
But then, neither is AVGN. I couldn't get two minutes into that thing you linked me, tbh.If you have to explain the joke, it's not funny.
Honestly, the guy is kind of aggressively unfunny, I've never got the appeal.
I think what most people miss is The Dawn on Man Sequence is continuous to the Discovery. The dying apes in the opening are also the people in the year 2001. This is why the same actions repeat in both places: eating scenes with the apes and the men in space, the tools (bone/HAL) being used to kill. The famous 4 million year jump-cut from the bone to the satellite bomb implies they are the same thing. We're in the same scene...just time has passed. Man is still a dying ape (that's why the characters are so flat and lifeless) until he symbolically destroys his tools (HAL) and journeys beyond the infinite and becomes something more.
Heck, even the intertitles illustrate this by the absence of any intertitle for the Heywood Floyd sequence:
THE DAWN OF MAN
JUPITER MISSION: 18 MONTHS LATER (18 months after the Dawn of Man?)
JUPITER AND BEYOND THE INFINITE
Heck, even the intertitles illustrate this by the absence of any intertitle for the Heywood Floyd sequence:
THE DAWN OF MAN
JUPITER MISSION: 18 MONTHS LATER (18 months after the Dawn of Man?)
JUPITER AND BEYOND THE INFINITE
Gary Lockwood points out on the commentary that the orbiting satellite that Kubrick cuts to after the bone is supposed to be an orbital weapons platform. Thus, it's a "weapon to weapon cut," as he puts it.
2001 is a film I like in the right mood to watch it. That being to see a film, not go to a big screen comic book, a story with pictures. 2001 can be followed perfectly well without any of the dialogue, I can't think of many films that do that at all since the end of silent films.
Don't take it so seriously. Confused Matthew hates everything. Even the stuff he likes.
Similar threads
