Recent Posts
Helloooo....
if you like reading my usual fare here, maybe (and I know this is a BIG maybe) you might like to pop over and see what I've written on my new film review site, Screentrek...Pretty Please???
Okay, enough with the crawling and the pathetic snivelling, I just updated my take on 2001: A Space Odyssey, and I hope you enjoy it.
I trust this message finds you all having a lovely day, and if not, may your lot in life improve and you can smile again.
Read my review, it might cheer you up, or at least lift your present consciousness into another thought provoking plane.
LINK:
2001 A Space Odyssey
cheers everyone,
fog
Original film poster by Robert McCall
A Classic Cinema Review
by fog
2001: A Space Odyssey, was a ground breaking science fiction film; directed by Stanley Kubrick and inspired by an original story by Arthur C. Clarke, entitled, The Sentinel.
The film script is credited to both Clarke and Kubrick, and the book, which came out a few months after the film's release, Arthur C. Clarke stated, should also have had Kubrick's name on it as a co-author. 2001 was first released in April 1968, to mixed reviews, but a healthy box office take, making it one of the most successful films of all time, pleased the producers and the distributors. On reflection, I believe the petty egos of some reviewers, who couldnt grasp its full meaning, may have been their reason for panning the film, or it unnerved, or challenged their religious beliefs.
2001 has stood the test of time and stands today as an extraordinary masterpiece of cinema making which revolutionised film techniques, setting a benchmark for the science fiction genre that few films, if any, have surpassed for its realism and impact. The complexity of the message(s) in the film, and various elements within it, still causes debate to this very day.
Kubrick shot the film in an epic way, (using a huge amorphic lens on a single camera holding a 70mm negative, instead of the usual three camera technicolour system, which enabled him to capture clarity and vastness, and added to this, a projection system (through the camera) onto reflective backgrounds, eliminating the obviousness of rear projections used at the time.
Kubrick was responsible for driving the technicians to create what could not have been done before. A perfectionist, Kubrick never settled for a compromise, the result being, for the first time in cinema history, the audience got a realistic sense of space travel, the immense grandeur and the infinite distance of space.
To my mind, great art makes one wonder, ponder and reflect, it should educe many differing interpretations from an individual and cause new insightful discoveries, each time it is viewed. Great art reflects the mood of the viewer at the time; it tests the tenets of an individual and the social mores of the day.
To my mind, 2001 is an example of a great work of art, a true cinematic masterpiece.
Unlike popular science fiction films of more recent times, Kubrick did not falsify the experience of being in space; he made it very real and based it on scientific fact, which was why the exterior scenes in space were silent and why you heard, from the astronaut's perspective, only his breathing inside his helmet, when he wasn't speaking.
This reality base helped Kubrick suspend disbelief in the more technologically advanced concepts (or not as yet science fact mechanisms) such as the super computer HAL 9000, which had a synthesised intellectual reason and free will, a sentient computer that could plot, lie and murder, in order to perform its functions as originally planned.
Since its release in 1968, the film has had controversy associated with it, because of the differing interpretations of what the monolith represented, what the 'psychodelic' space journey was about, what the place of arrival meant (the room with the astronaut as an old man) and the ending, with the foetus "star child" staring back at Earth.
Arthur C. Clarke actually spells out the interpretations in his book, which he was finishing writing at the time of the film's production. Kubrick refuses to be literal and explanatory, probably because he is the artist that he is, and leaves his work to be viewed, felt and pondered by individuals, leaving it to them to either imprint their own socio-religious beliefs upon it, and/or more hopefully, allow them to ponder beyond their normal scope of intellectual parameters, to possibly open up their minds to other potential realities, thereby releasing the grip of dogma and thereby receiving the gift of objective and unprejudiced contemplation.
When I saw this film, soon after its release in 1968, I was 12, and attended with my mother. I remember feeling uneasy, because no film I had seen, up to that time, had caused me to think and not find an easily digestible answer. In addition, the enormity of space, so brilliantly demonstrated by Kubrick, made me feel the insignificance and vulnerability of mankind and his tiny orb ark, the planet Earth.
I saw the monolith as a manifestation of Gods will, when I first saw it as a 12 year old. That was to be expected, as I had been raised in a strictly Catholic private boys' school environment. But, even then, I was made to feel uneasy about its presence, for it had, through its appearance and effects, a connotation of an object from an alien world, an impenetrable, all powerful and unknowable presence.
Clarke stated; "If anyone understands it on the first viewing, we've failed in our intention." Kubrick did not like his comment, and tried to dismiss it as Clarke being facetious; however, Clarke stood by his comment and further enforced it, by saying;
"What I meant was, of course, that because we were dealing with the mystery of the universe, and with powers and forces greater than man's comprehension, then by definition they could not be totally understandable. Yet there is at least one logical structureand sometimes more than onebehind everything that happens on the screen in "2001", and the ending does not consist of random enigmas, some simpleminded critics to the contrary."
So, in essence, both Kubrick and Clarke agreed with each other; for the experience of seeing the film formed a matrix upon which to further explore ones own personal understanding of man's place in the universe, and how we are intrinsically connected with it, the past and future, all on the one plane.
All these years later, 2001: A Space Odyssey still leads the pack, as a catalyst for open minded thought about our commonality and the need for cooperation with each other, to reflect upon our evolution and our possible future which, hopefully, brings us all to consider that we must first respect the rights and needs of the common person, beyond the desires of economic and technical superiority.
IMAGE CREDIT: POSTER DESIGN BY ROBERT McCALL.
ORIGINAL COPYRIGHT 1968 Turner Entertainment Co. (Now Time Warner)
FAIR USE RATIONALE: Low Resolution image not meant for reproduction. Image used here for illustration of film's identity and public promotional image for film review purposes only. Please advise me if as copyright owner you wish image removed.
Hello folks, I have taken on the onerous duty of writing film reviews on ScreenTrek. Matt, who started the blog, has taken over the reigns of 20/20 for Cibby. My intention is to mix it up a bit, with reflecttions and recollections from my time working in film, with film reviews of currently released movies, to classic films of yesteryear.
I hope you will drop by for a read and maybe leave a comment.
cheers
fog
Site link here: screentrek
SCREAM official poster
This Wes Craven film is perfect for teenagers grouped together for a night of giggles and scares. It was effective even for me, the first time I saw it, all those years ago. It poked fun at the clichés of horror films and then delivers some graphic and surprisingly effective murder scenes, while keeping the suspense driven whodunit aspect alive
[ Click here to read more ]
The following Ode is for a man that I greatly admired.
Ian Cookesley was an enormous source of support and encouragement for many students at NIDA and he continued that support throughout his long professional career, particularly at The Melbourne Theatre Company. I think Ian would have been surprised to know just how many people really appreciated him.
Personally, I am forever in Ian's debt, not just for his thoughtful support at NIDA, but also for gaining me my first professional engagement.
[ Click here to read more ]
Official Poster
This film has more than a few thrilling moments. It caused my friend to throw her hands over her eyes and gasp, numerous times. I kept looking, but will admit to a few gasps too
[ Click here to read more ]
Cheri played by Rupert Friend
What does a doting, yet also distraught mother do, when she sees her only son hell-bent on a dissolute and debilitating life of debauchery? Arising from slumbers late, hung over and surly, Chéri, (played by Rupert Friend) behaves like a lot of 19 year olds who are spoiled rotten and maternally (financially) dependant; he is egocentric and presumptuous; he gives little and takes a lot
[ Click here to read more ]
|
|
|
Add Comments
Comments (2)
Read More
Comment by Mountain Fog
on Fog's Film Reviews
Infognito
Screen Trek
QUOTE ME NO QUOTES!
tanx and I have a post on Kubrick's 2001 up already!
cheers
fog