2001: Meet Dave from Jesse on Vimeo.
Showing posts with label 2001: A Space Odyssey. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2001: A Space Odyssey. Show all posts
1/13/10
1/10/10
2001: A Space Odyssey- The Dawn Of Man
On the DVD the actors reveal that the shots of Africa used were all still photographs enlarged and backlit on a sound stage. The reason? Kubrick hated flying and would not film in Africa.
2001: A Space Odyssey- Documentary
A condensed version of a featurette from the 2 disk DVD version of the film.
2001: A Space Odyssey
Watched the DVD today, with commentary by Gary Lockwood and Keir Dullea. A very good commentary on one of the greatest and most profound films (and works of art) ever made.
Here is the official trailer:
Here is the official trailer:
10/20/09
Disney Not Only Sucks; They’re Hypocrites!
Okay, so I already discussed how great art ripped into Disney, but here I’ll discuss how Disney simply ripped off great art. There’s a significant difference between the two.
OK, so now it should be obvious where the ripoff occurred. The difference is that South Park actually skewered and satirized Disney, while conveying something of actual depth re: p.c., political censorship, and intolerance of all stripes—even p.c. stripes. In other words, it completely turns Disney’s usage of it on its head and it’s not only satire and tweaking, but outright pastiche.
Disney, on the other hand, merely stole the techniques that Stanley Kubrick used so brilliantly in 2001: A Space Odyssey, for no particular reason, aside from the hippies of the late ’60s and early ’70s. In 2001, it conveys intergalactic, and possibly interdimensional travel; thus it serves a very basic narrative purpose, despite claims to the contrary by naysayers—Kubrick simply didn’t like condescending to his audiences and wrapping every aspect of a story up in a nice little bow. In Disney, it’s a gimmick.
OK, so now it should be obvious where the ripoff occurred. The difference is that South Park actually skewered and satirized Disney, while conveying something of actual depth re: p.c., political censorship, and intolerance of all stripes—even p.c. stripes. In other words, it completely turns Disney’s usage of it on its head and it’s not only satire and tweaking, but outright pastiche.
Disney, on the other hand, merely stole the techniques that Stanley Kubrick used so brilliantly in 2001: A Space Odyssey, for no particular reason, aside from the hippies of the late ’60s and early ’70s. In 2001, it conveys intergalactic, and possibly interdimensional travel; thus it serves a very basic narrative purpose, despite claims to the contrary by naysayers—Kubrick simply didn’t like condescending to his audiences and wrapping every aspect of a story up in a nice little bow. In Disney, it’s a gimmick.
10/13/09
Paths Of Glory
This is the original trailer for the first great film Stanley Kubrick ever directed.
Often, it gets lost in the parade of other great films he made. Also, it was made before Kubrick really became an A List director, with Spartacus.
That film's star, Kirk Douglas, also starred in this film, made when Kubrick was an independent filmmaker. He gives a hell of a performance
Perhaps my favorite moment comes when one of the doomed soldiers is bemoaning the unfairness of life when he sees an insect that will be alive the next day when he won't be. Another prisoner swats the insect dead and tells him at least he's one up on the bug.
Yet, despite its neglect, this film may be Kubrick's best. It's certainly one of the five best war films made. Was Dr. Strangelove really better? Funnier, but, as Woody Allen says, drama is sitting at the grownups table. 2001, of course, is great, but it's so cosmic that it's almost antipodal to this gritty film. A Clockwork Orange is great, but, again, so different from this that a comparison is inapt. It's certainly better than The Shining, and Full Metal Jacket is half a great film, and half a very good one, while this is great from start to finish.
And, while I was amongst the first to argue for Eyes Wide Shut's greatness, a position that a decade later, can now be seen as prescient, after the initial mindshits of most critics, it is , again, so different a film that it is an inapt comparison.
This guy asks the same questions I just did.
Oh, and here's a famed scene from the film's end:
10/12/09
Recut Trailer for 2001
An interesting reimagining that, ironically, more readily captures the film than the official trailer.
2001's Trailer
This is actually an interesting trailer.
In a sense it's almost a precursor to mashup trailers, since the trailer really gives no sense of the film itself.
To look at this one would think it is a more conventional sci fi film from the 1980s.
Look at the mix of images from differing points in the film and the narrative overlaid it.
Last year a new 2 disk DVD version of the film was released, with a commentary. I'll have to get that and rewatch the film.
This film also gives a good example of fine acting in a truly minimalist style. Often the word minimalism is used to convey an acting job where one is playing a person with psychological problems, but when one realizes how deep a narrative is conveyed in scenes that are so light on real dialogue, it changes the conception of what 'drama' really is.
The same goes for screenplay and 'drama.' After all, most folk I know who've seen the film get choked up during the scene where Bowman scrambles HAL's circuitry. Yet, think about this. HAL is merely a voice and a camera lens. Yet, one is moved at its plaintivenes.
Those who say Kubrick did not connect well with the hum,an condition are wrong. He simply did not do it in a trite and Lowest Common Denominator fashion.
10/11/09
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)