I don't care how revolutionary it was. If you're putting your audience to sleep, then it is bad film making. Period.
The Top 376 Films Of All Time So Far, Mostly Ten By Ten
- Thread starter Rowdy Roddy McDowall
- Start date
It wasn't putting its audience to sleep. It was inspiring them to make the next 30 years of science fiction films. (Including Lucas) It's putting you to sleep. Maybe that says more about you than it does about the film
I'm not being personal here, I'm just pointing out the lack of objectivity
When talking about film, or any other art, objectivity is impossible. There is no scale by which these things are measured. It comes down to preference. I know I'm in the minority on this film, but I know I'm not alone.
You bring up an interesting point though. When looked at from the perspective of its time, yes you can see the appeal of 2001. But isn't the mark or a great film how it stands the test of time? Take Casablance, for instance. It's a film decades older than 2001, yet it remains universally loved. It's themes are timeless, it's humor still funny all these years later. Just because something was the first to do something, doesn't mean it was the best. Quite the opposite, usually. That which came afterwards perfected it.
You bring up an interesting point though. When looked at from the perspective of its time, yes you can see the appeal of 2001. But isn't the mark or a great film how it stands the test of time? Take Casablance, for instance. It's a film decades older than 2001, yet it remains universally loved. It's themes are timeless, it's humor still funny all these years later. Just because something was the first to do something, doesn't mean it was the best. Quite the opposite, usually. That which came afterwards perfected it.
A slight contradiction there, & I don't agree that it's the only mark by which to measure a film's greatness. How it affects the culture imo is equally as important in recognizing its greatness, & in many cases stands in complete isolation as to how it stands the tests of time
Examples, Citizen Kane & Bridge On The River Kwai. I defy a modern American audience to sit through every minute of those movies, on their couch, without that they get bored, which imo is more a statement about our current culture, as these are also great films, but Bridge On The River Kwai is certainly Saving Private Ryan... not. That does not remove its greatness
Fine. Then it's a terrible film.
I think it's a great movie. I'll grant that it doesn't have the sensibilities of a conventional narrative, and as a result has been known to bore a significant portion of the audience (especially on home video, where it doesn't impress like a 70mm projection does), but I've seen the movie a half dozen times and always been engaged by it.
Considering the movie's mastery of the technical aspects of filmmaking -- visual effects, cinematography, editing, and sound design -- calling it a "terrible film" seems rather hyperbolic.
Of course, if 2001: A Space Odyssey is the movie that convinces you that art cinema is equatable to terrible cinema, count yourself lucky that you didn't have to sit through something like Stalker. (Which I also think is a masterpiece, but it's hard to see it having anything but the effect of Kubrick's movie, only multiplied several times.)
Considering the movie's mastery of the technical aspects of filmmaking -- visual effects, cinematography, editing, and sound design -- calling it a "terrible film" seems rather hyperbolic.
Of course, if 2001: A Space Odyssey is the movie that convinces you that art cinema is equatable to terrible cinema, count yourself lucky that you didn't have to sit through something like Stalker. (Which I also think is a masterpiece, but it's hard to see it having anything but the effect of Kubrick's movie, only multiplied several times.)
I've never been a fan of of 2001. In fact, heresy coming up here, I much prefer 2010.
2001 has a lot of spectacle, but its so lifeless and clinical, and I realise that may have been the point, but it just turned me off. To be honest I think it's less a problem with the era of the film than it is with Kubrick, like Soderburgh he's just a director I don't get.
2001 has a lot of spectacle, but its so lifeless and clinical, and I realise that may have been the point, but it just turned me off. To be honest I think it's less a problem with the era of the film than it is with Kubrick, like Soderburgh he's just a director I don't get.
2001 is a great film. It's lifeless and clinical, sure but that was its intention. It's not a film to pop into the dvd player for a good time.
Ever have one of those nights when all the idle chitchat is over and you begin to ponder the simple things like your place in the universe, or how breathing is a strange way to keep yourself alive.. or any otehr ponderous topic? It's that kind of state in whcih 2001 can be best enjoyed, when you give yourself the space to ponder things without the need to move to something with exactness in its meaning.
It's almost as if humanity was being observed with some detatchment, and we are the observers when we wathc the movie. We are separated clinically from what happens. In conventional films this would be a no-no, but the producers of the film wanted this detatchment. When Floyd speaks with hsi baby daughter on the telephone, it's only cute in the most generic sense, but the conversation is so simplistic and generic that we are kept (purposefully) from being emotionally involved. They wanted us to observe humans as if they ere in a zoo, and we aren't supposed to really become emotionally attached.
And notice all the time - the endless slow scenes of space travel. Normally these are the deathknell for any tight narrative. However, here, the producers are giving us mankind's greatest adversary: space itself. In real life, it would take a lot of time to cross any expance of space.. Kubric is making us consider this time as one thing mankind must overcome to move to the next level. These scenes force the viewer to ponder the time, the distance, and man's place in all of it, and this would not be accomplished by quick cutting or spoon feeding.
Ever have one of those nights when all the idle chitchat is over and you begin to ponder the simple things like your place in the universe, or how breathing is a strange way to keep yourself alive.. or any otehr ponderous topic? It's that kind of state in whcih 2001 can be best enjoyed, when you give yourself the space to ponder things without the need to move to something with exactness in its meaning.
It's almost as if humanity was being observed with some detatchment, and we are the observers when we wathc the movie. We are separated clinically from what happens. In conventional films this would be a no-no, but the producers of the film wanted this detatchment. When Floyd speaks with hsi baby daughter on the telephone, it's only cute in the most generic sense, but the conversation is so simplistic and generic that we are kept (purposefully) from being emotionally involved. They wanted us to observe humans as if they ere in a zoo, and we aren't supposed to really become emotionally attached.
And notice all the time - the endless slow scenes of space travel. Normally these are the deathknell for any tight narrative. However, here, the producers are giving us mankind's greatest adversary: space itself. In real life, it would take a lot of time to cross any expance of space.. Kubric is making us consider this time as one thing mankind must overcome to move to the next level. These scenes force the viewer to ponder the time, the distance, and man's place in all of it, and this would not be accomplished by quick cutting or spoon feeding.
When David Lynch got thumbs down from Siskel and Ebert, he made a point of quoting that verdict in his movie ads. I
don't remember which film specifically......but now, in the spirit of that, I'm picturing a big color poster for 2001 reading in huge letters:
''GREAT.......LIFELESS''
----Flying Spaghetti Monster, TREK BBS
I never felt confused about the movie. In fact, I read the oversize Marvel comics adaptation by Jack Kirby a year or two before, and it actually seemed to help my understanding of it. But the 2001 we know is actually 20-25 minutes shorter than the original cut. That version which Kubrick reduced might in fact be boredom-inducing. But until we get the deleted scenes of them-----and not just on BluRay, please-----the world may never know.
Feel free to continue debating about 2001 even after this quickie announcement below.
10. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939)
don't remember which film specifically......but now, in the spirit of that, I'm picturing a big color poster for 2001 reading in huge letters:
''GREAT.......LIFELESS''
----Flying Spaghetti Monster, TREK BBS
I never felt confused about the movie. In fact, I read the oversize Marvel comics adaptation by Jack Kirby a year or two before, and it actually seemed to help my understanding of it. But the 2001 we know is actually 20-25 minutes shorter than the original cut. That version which Kubrick reduced might in fact be boredom-inducing. But until we get the deleted scenes of them-----and not just on BluRay, please-----the world may never know.
Feel free to continue debating about 2001 even after this quickie announcement below.
10. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939)
Based on what? That it bored you & some people you know, who prefer watching Men In Black? You seem to have skipped over the part where I wrote art film, which is to be differentiated from pop media
I can accept some criticism of Kubrick. I wouldn't call him the greatest director ever either.
But if I were to suggest the most pronounced aspect of Kubrick, it's his unabashed brazenness which results in his films being very different than one another, because he is quite unrelenting about the uniqueness of how they're presented, a trait which is shared by many of the greatest film artists, but sometimes means he had a tendency to be thought of as a Prima Donna
However, in the last 40 years of his life, from age 30 to 70, he only directed 9 films. Of those films, 6 of them are iconic in American culture, Spartacus, Dr. Strangelove, 2001, A Clockwork Orange, The Shining & Full Metal Jacket. That's legendary, frankly
If there is no scale by which to measure, how can one say which films stand the test of time?
It's not universally loved, I have seen people on this very board call it "overrated."
I don't think remaining popular longer is a very good criteria for judging an old movie, because so much of movie taste is just fashion. How can a director anticipate what movie audiences decades in the future will like? A western by John Ford is just as stylistically and thematically sophisticated as one by Sergio Leone or Sam Peckinpah, but the latter are more fashionable to the tastes of today's audiences. But how could Ford have done anything about that? Directors make the movies they make for the audiences of their day.
As far as 2001 goes, I would submit that to try and convey the idea of a truly alien intelligence, with absolutely nothing mankind can relate to, giving the viewer a disquieting, unconventional cinematic experience that messes with their sense of pace and continuity is a pretty good route to take.
Justin
My point was that saying you have to look at a film from the perspective of when it was made is a bogus argument. If it cannot hold up from the perspective of any time, then it's not fit to be a great film.
I know that so many love 2001. They're entitled to. I hate it. I'm entitled to.
I know that so many love 2001. They're entitled to. I hate it. I'm entitled to.
That's a rather narrow vision, that is fairly irreverent to motion picture as an art form, instead of just being a medium of entertainment
That's like saying Beethoven sucks because he doesn't sound good in a techno club. Of course the era in which art was created must have a bearing on how it is perceived, if film is to be an art in any historical sense. It's called art appreciation
Directors make films to suit their audience, but that still provides room for variation. Compare the Westerns of Howard Hawks with those directed by John Ford, for example.
(And, of course, John Ford directed Westerns for several decades; there's marked differences between his approach to Stagecoach and his approach to The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, even though both are black and white Westerns that starred John Wayne. Indeed, Ford made films for so long that for a few years he and Peckinpah were directing films at the same time.)
Last edited:
Yet a few posts above you said that there were no objective standards, just personal preferences. So why is the opinion of someone who takes into consideration the context of a film's time more "bogus" than one that doesn't? And again, what criteria determine whether a film "holds up?"
I doubt you'll find anyone argue otherwise.
Of course; I could have used Hawks instead of Ford as an example. My point being, I see a lot of discs of A Fistfull of Dollars and The Good, the Bad and the Ugly in the local department store, not Red River or She Wore a Yellow Ribbon. And I've much more often heard expressions of appreciation for Leone by "mainstream" viewers than for Ford, Hawks or Anthony Mann. No recent sitcom episodes styled after their films, either. Does this mean the Leone films are of higher quality? I would say no, they just appeal more to modern sensibilities.
Yes, "Liberty" and Ride the High Country are two favorites from the same year with some comparable themes. I keep telling myself I'll watch them back to back but never find time.
Justin
I don't know if being referenced on an episode of Community really constitutes a useful example of "mainstream" viewership. It's a show with a rather small audience that often makes obscure pop culture references (including a good one to 2001: A Space Odyssey in the latest season).
I'm not sure if the department store example is particularly indicative of "mainstream" popularity either; Red River was issued on DVD in 1997, Leone's trilogy of Westerns with Clint Eastwood was issued on Blu-Ray in 2010. I've seen Stagecoach on the shelves of several local department stores where I live (admittedly, Los Angeles), not because it's Ford's best film, but because the Criterion release was issued in 2010. (I've also seen plenty of copies of the recent Blu-Ray of The Searchers).
I'd agree that nobody is discussing the Westerns of Anthony Mann (or any of the films he directed, for that matter). For whatever reason, he hasn't been rescued by critics like some other directors, perhaps because he died in 1967 before he could be interviewed by the auteurists of that period.
Hmmm.
I never realized how many Mann films I had in my collection until I checked his IMDB resume. I have T-MEN, WINCHESTER 73, THE TALL TARGET, THE NAKED SPUR, THE FAR COUNTRY and THE TIN STAR. SPUR is the only one I haven't seen yet.
If you want ''dark'' Jimmy Stewart, Anthony Mann's the first place to go.
Number nine.......number nine......number nine.......
9. Beauty and the Beast (1991)
Robby Benson aside, they didn't just cast generically popular celebrity favorites for the key animated voice roles. I wish more of the ones we have today followed its lead.
I never realized how many Mann films I had in my collection until I checked his IMDB resume. I have T-MEN, WINCHESTER 73, THE TALL TARGET, THE NAKED SPUR, THE FAR COUNTRY and THE TIN STAR. SPUR is the only one I haven't seen yet.
If you want ''dark'' Jimmy Stewart, Anthony Mann's the first place to go.
Number nine.......number nine......number nine.......
9. Beauty and the Beast (1991)
Robby Benson aside, they didn't just cast generically popular celebrity favorites for the key animated voice roles. I wish more of the ones we have today followed its lead.
One of, if not the, finest Disney movies. I can pop that one in any time, and still enjoy it. I think perhaps I enjoy it even more as an adult, than I did when I was a kid.
Similar threads
- Poll
