|
Go  |
New |
Find |
Notify |
|
Reply |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
Freshman
|
You just backed up my argument with your "evidence" that 2001 is silly pretentious nonsense. SO PRETENTIOUS! As is your explanation. As far as my evidence goes, feel free to look at my previous posts on the late pretentious Kubrick, I have no interest in repeating myself for someone like you. quote:
Originally posted by ZuluCom:
As I said before, you need evidence to back up your opinion. 2001, for example, is a very simple film to understand (I don't understand who said they needed the book to understand the film, that's total crap). Just look at what happens, and how Kubrick makes it happen; for example, look in the beginning. The apes roam around aimlessly, until they are given intellect, and the ability to use tools. Then what do they do with such tools? Kill other apes. Then, as the ape throws the bone into the air, it dissolves and we see the spaceship: man's ultimate tool.
What is Kubrick trying to say? Think about it. In my opinion, the film is very transcendental; Kubrick is saying that the intellect is an foreign thing and is out of place among nature (observe, also, how the apes, prior to the obelisk, live side by side with the pig things, but post-obelisk the apes eat the pig things). This idea is furthered by the creation of HAL; the ultimate extension of intelligence all the way to point where man has created another living thing. But what does HAL do? Tries to kill man. As soon as the astronaut leaves HAL behind, he is transported. What is this psycadelic journey? Maybe enlightenment, maybe becoming one with nature as Emerson often described.
Finally think of the last scene, the "star child;" well, thoreau did say that he wished he were as smart as teh day he was born; the child represents a pure figure, untainted by man's intellect.
What makes this film so great? It is the fact that it is done using purly what cinema offers: images and sound. He leaves behind the norms of drama and literature that have carried over to cinema. Really, if you think about, what would have happened if 2001 did employ the standard amount of dialogue? There wouldn't be the ape scene for sure, and an ending true to teh themes wouoldn't have worked, becasue the astronaut in the end would need a buddy to explain everything to. This shows Kubricks true genius, a lesser director would have made an Armaggedon-style thriller filled with technobabble. Just image the astronauts talking to each other: "HAL's lux capacitator is overloading. We need to shut down his sensory overrides modules..." A big explosion, then one of them says "that was close."
This is an example of supporting your opinion with evidence.
|
| |
|
Freshman
|
Look, I don't know what to tell you. Any good film has a purpose for being made (ie, to express the filmmakers philosophy, make a political statement, etc.); that purpose is then supported by the events in the plot. In a good film, this evidence is not exposed, but neither is it hidden (doing so would defeat the purpose of making the story). Any quality film can be observed in this fashion, and, I guess, according to Cypher, sound boring.
Now, maybe you watch films for a different reason than I do. It may sound corny, but I genuinely like to experience art in order to expand my view of the world. I would rather see 2001 a hundred times in a row than The Fast and the Furious a second time; that movie put me to sleep.
So, if you want my reasons why you should see 2001, here they are. I'll start witht the superficial: the cinematography is fantastic, the editing is rousing, the music is perfect. On a deeper note, the themes are brilliantly conveyed in an entirely original fashion, without employing cliches or anything ever used before. What's even more, the themes are not obscure. It's main theme is, perhaps, the braodest theme ever filmed: humanity. If you cannot relate to, and respond to the themes in this film, then you are not a human.
If that isn't good enough for you, return to the world of movies where formulaic plots, big explosions, one-liners, and plot twists equal excitment.
|
| |
| Posts: 160 | Location: Colorado | Registered: February 22, 2003 | |
|
Freshman
|
I agree! And there you go Zulu assuming people that don't like Kubrick "don't get him." You Kubrick people are really hilarious. Try seeing some real films. Check out Ozu, Truffaut, Bresson, Murnau for example. quote:
Originally posted by Cypher:
ZuluComm, i'm sorry but that long post you made gave me plenty of reasons NOT to see 2001. Even you make it sound boring, and you apparently love it.
|
| |
|
Freshman
|
"If you cannot relate to, and respond to the themes in this film, then you are not a human."
That's crazy! Anyone with an uncluttered mental disposition can see that Kubrick was one of the coldest most inhuman film-makers ever to waste a roll of film.
|
| |
|
Freshman
|
First of all, getting something and liking something are different, I get that. I don't expect anybody to like Kubrick, but damn it, you should probably understand them before you make that decision. Understanding of Kubrick: something you have not shown.
"Anyone with an uncluttered mental disposition can see that Kubrick was one of the coldest most inhuman film-makers ever to waste a roll of film."
Maybe Kubrick was a bit cold-hearted maybe he wasn't: I never knew him, did you? Only someone with a cluttered mental disposition could be so superficial in their analysis of a person and art. First, let's say that Kubrick was a cold-hearted person. So what! He has the right to be cold-hearted, and he also has the right to make a film showing his cold-heartedness. Second, get real! If you knew as much as you claim to know about Kubrick, maybe you would take the time to see Paths of Glory. What do you think the German girl at the end of the movie is all about? She is a blazing symbol of hope for humanity among all the death, destruction, and corruption. Even 2001, the "star child" shows hope for humanity.
You say I should see some real films and "Check out Ozu, Truffaut, Bresson, Murnau" well I have seen them, and I can appreciate them. If you really even knew what "real films" were, you could at least appreciate the artistry of Kubrick, but I don't believe you are even capable of such knowledge.
|
| |
| Posts: 160 | Location: Colorado | Registered: February 22, 2003 | |
|
Freshman
|
"If you knew as much as you claim to know about Kubrick, maybe you would take the time to see Paths of Glory. What do you think the German girl at the end of the movie is all about? She is a blazing symbol of hope for humanity among all the death, destruction, and corruption." Once again assuming I didn't see something. It's amazing how an emotional writer like Jim Thompson could have all of the emotion wasted by the soul-less Kubrick. "Paths of Glory" and "Full Metal Jacket" are two of the most emotionless war films ever made. (The one notable exception is the scene in Full Metal Jacket with Vincent D'Onofrio.) As far as knowing Kubrick (I did not, but you didn't know that) I could give a crap what he was like as a person, and you know damn well that I was talking about him as a film-maker. HIS FILMS LACK EMOTIONAL DEPTH. HE IS AFRAID TO GET NEAR HIS CHARACTERS. THEY ARE TOO ONE DIMENSIONAL. As far as being cold hearted as a person who the **** cares. But if you want to make emotionally cold films, they need to actually have emotions, real characters with emotions, so forth and so on. Otherwise you make vacuous emotionally bankrupt films. David Lynch can be cold-hearted sometimes as a film-maker, but his films have emotional depth. Same with Herzog and many many others. Kubrick is given too much credit. His technical skill was great, but you really need to do better than that. Making emotionally hollow films that are technically well made encourages emotionally bankrupt people like you MUST BE (based on opinions you've shared)to continue the pattern of creating emotionally bankrupt films. Kubrick is the film version of Damien Hirst. He's hoaxed a good part of the world. Its funny and sad at the same time. quote:
Originally posted by ZuluCom:
First of all, getting something and liking something are different, I get that. I don't expect anybody to like Kubrick, but damn it, you should probably understand them before you make that decision. Understanding of Kubrick: something you have not shown.
"Anyone with an uncluttered mental disposition can see that Kubrick was one of the coldest most inhuman film-makers ever to waste a roll of film."
Maybe Kubrick was a bit cold-hearted maybe he wasn't: I never knew him, did you? Only someone with a cluttered mental disposition could be so superficial in their analysis of a person and art. First, let's say that Kubrick was a cold-hearted person. So what! He has the right to be cold-hearted, and he also has the right to make a film showing his cold-heartedness. Second, get real! If you knew as much as you claim to know about Kubrick, maybe you would take the time to see Paths of Glory. What do you think the German girl at the end of the movie is all about? She is a blazing symbol of hope for humanity among all the death, destruction, and corruption. Even 2001, the "star child" shows hope for humanity.
You say I should see some real films and "Check out Ozu, Truffaut, Bresson, Murnau" well I have seen them, and I can appreciate them. If you really even knew what "real films" were, you could at least appreciate the artistry of Kubrick, but I don't believe you are even capable of such knowledge.
|
| |
|
Freshman
|
But you obviously DON'T know!!! A good filmaker utilizes every aspect of film, including the emotional depth. Take Full Metal Jacket for example; you said it yourself, it is one of "most emotionless war films ever made" with the "one notable exception is the scene in Full Metal Jacket with Vincent D'Onofrio." That is exactly the point. Kubrick creates a pathetic character like Private Pyle in order to garner an emotional reaction from the audience: in this case, sympathy. But by the end of the training period, D'Onfrio is, essentially, a killing machine, without any empathetic qualities. The training stripped away teh boys individuality, and therefore, humanity. This segways into the war, where chaos runs rampant.
The first half of the film follows a group of sympathetic human beings, the second half meets up with a group of dehumanized killers.
The point is, Kubrick did not portray these cold-hearted people for fun, he did it for a specific purpose.
As for the emotional deoth of Kubricks characters, take a look at Nicholson in The Shining, Cruise and Kidman in Eyes Wide Shut, or Douglas in Paths of Glory. Just because Kubrick doesn't always chose to illustrate empathetic people, he still creates deep characters. Even if characters don't have great depth in Kubrick's films, like in Dr. Strangelove for example, such one dimensionalness is utilized by Kubrick to enhance the meaning of the film.
|
| |
| Posts: 160 | Location: Colorado | Registered: February 22, 2003 | |
|
Freshman
|
Kubrick has hoaxed the film world, Damien Hirst and Tracey Emin have hoaxed the art world, and George W. Bush has hoaxed the whole world, cutting money for war veterans for his tax cut while distracting people with a unnecessary war and *****ing about supporting the troops if you're opposed. You've been had, I've been had and the whole world's been had. Also your statement on black and white film is one of the most foolish, ignorant comments about film-making I've seen on this board. Don't use "student" as an excuse for ignorance. You're really up there with Kubrick77 in the ignorance department unless of course, you are one and the same! quote:
Originally posted by ZuluCom:
But you obviously DON'T know!!! A good filmaker utilizes every aspect of film, including the emotional depth. Take Full Metal Jacket for example; you said it yourself, it is one of "most emotionless war films ever made" with the "one notable exception is the scene in Full Metal Jacket with Vincent D'Onofrio." That is exactly the point. Kubrick creates a pathetic character like Private Pyle in order to garner an emotional reaction from the audience: in this case, sympathy. But by the end of the training period, D'Onfrio is, essentially, a killing machine, without any empathetic qualities. The training stripped away teh boys individuality, and therefore, humanity. This segways into the war, where chaos runs rampant.
The first half of the film follows a group of sympathetic human beings, the second half meets up with a group of dehumanized killers.
The point is, Kubrick did not portray these cold-hearted people for fun, he did it for a specific purpose.
As for the emotional deoth of Kubricks characters, take a look at Nicholson in The Shining, Cruise and Kidman in Eyes Wide Shut, or Douglas in Paths of Glory. Just because Kubrick doesn't always chose to illustrate empathetic people, he still creates deep characters. Even if characters don't have great depth in Kubrick's films, like in Dr. Strangelove for example, such one dimensionalness is utilized by Kubrick to enhance the meaning of the film.
|
| |
|
Freshman
|
I've gotten tired of trying to convince a pinhead that he's been had. You'd fit right in with the majority of the LA crowd; all pose, no original thought. Good luck to you. I really mean it. quote:
Originally posted by ZuluCom:
Well, it likes you ran out of arguements Richards. Come on, ranting on about Bush is for another discussion.
|
| |
|
Freshman
|
quote:
Originally posted by ZuluCom:
BTW, why not post your attacks on my discussion on the use of Black and White in the proper discussion board.
(see subject line)
PS
I am not Kubrick77
(sure, I believe you. seriously. I mean it. Lover's with him perhaps? Never mind, don't wanna know.) |
| |
|
Freshman
|
I still find it amusing that, with all your disdain for Kubrick, you have yet to give one scrap of evidence to support your belief that Kubrick hoaxed the whole world. What in his movies shows that he is a bad director (not a cold-hearted one, mind you, but a bad one), what, in the broader scheme of all cinema and all art, makes him a bad director?
You know what? Screw this. I was writing this when i read your first reply. then i find your lovely second reply; I mean what are you, in the seventh grade? I tried to give you the benefit of thte doubt, I ASSUMED you were an intelligent individual who wished to dscuss Kubrick, but all I have been conversing with is a sophmoric fool who resorts to outrageous attacks when they fail to support their opinion.
|
| |
| Posts: 160 | Location: Colorado | Registered: February 22, 2003 | |
|
Freshman
|
Learn spelling. A-R-G-U-M-E-N-T-S. Arguments. Ignorance in one thing sometimes indicates ignorance in another thing. quote:
Originally posted by ZuluCom:
Well, it likes you ran out of arguements Richards. Come on, ranting on about Bush is for another discussion.
|
| |
|
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
© Studentfilms.com, Inc. 2008
|
|
