With all the “Alien” and “Predator” talk on the Forum lately, I watched “Alien” this weekend and was able to sneak in “2001: A Space Odyssey”. Both still great films. Both brought back memories. One interesting observation, though.
“Alien” came out in 1979. The PLANNING of “2001” began in 1964, and it made it to theaters in 1968. Yet the graphics (especially computer) and animation of “2001” look more modern than even today’s standards! While the graphics in “Alien” (almost 11 years AFTER the planning of “2001”) look like they are on an old, dilapidated 8088’s! (Or older). Geez…”Mother’s” screen on the “Nostromo” must have been about 12”, and her input looked like it may have been “DOS” or something…amazing!
Can this all be related to the genius and vision of Kubrick? Or is it something else?
Kubrick has never gotten the credit he desirved. People dont seem to get his movies until many years after they have been released. I think all his movies are timeless peices that can be watched over and over with every viewing understanding the movie more.
Stanley Kubrick was a true genuis. I admit I’m a big fan now. I’ve been studying the man himself, the way he makes films, and decifering his films for awhile now. Kubrick put such attention to detail into “2001: A Space Odyssey” that it surprised the entire world at the end result. His intelligence was extraordinary. During the making of 2001: A Space Odyssey some guys from NASA (who were working on the film with Kubrick) incorrectly made a mathmatical equation. Kubrick thne proceeded ot fax them the correct answer. One of them stated that “I hate it that he’s always right!”
Incidnetly, Eyes Wide Shut appears to be a “failure”. However as with so many of hids films it takes years for veiwers to fully appreciate his work. One day I hope to get an essay on "The Shining "published. May he rest in piece. (just my 2 cents)
And it was like for a moment, O my brothers, some great bird had flown into the milkbar and I felt all the malenky little hairs on my plott standing endwise and the shivers crawling up like slow malenky lizards and then down again. Because I knew what she sang. It was a bit from the glorious Ninth, by Ludwig van.
There was me, that is Alex, and my three droogs, that is Pete, Georgie, and Dim. And we sat in the Korova Milkbar trying to make up our rassoodocks what to do with the evening
Regarding Kubrick’s brilliant Space Epic 2001: A Space Odyssey he quite frankly change science fiction as we know it. Before Stanley Kubrick sci-fi was never created on a large scale budget (or at least very rarely) and certainly failed to achieve anywhere rear the creative effects delivered in 2001: A Space Odyssey. Also sci-fi was rarely taken seriously as a genre beforehand to any significant degree. But after the release of the film it inspired a generation of up and coming filmmakers (I’m restricting this to sci-fi) such as Ridley Scott, James Cameron, George Lucas (frankly I fail to understand what people see in Star Wars), Steven Spielberg etc. However none of them came anywhere close to Kubrick as filmmaker IMO.
At the beginning of the story the Monolith came to earth. When the proto-human touched it, it triggered something innate to him (or altered him outright) . He was then inspired to use the bone as a tool. Then, it went into hiding on Io, where it would remain until mankind became technologically sophisticated enough to find it again. This would mean that we not only would have to develop machines and computers, but also join together for a common cause. THEN, we found it again, and it repeated what it did in the first scene. The Starchild is a symbol of the next step in human development.
Got my details confused. The first monolith found in the space age was on the moon, and that discovery was covered up. The next one was found in orbit around Jupiter.
I like A Clockwork Orange for a few reasons. First off it dealt in part with media exploitation, corrupt politicians and totalitarianism in relation to the usage of mind control to “control crime”. Also it asked the question, “Is one deprived of personal liberty if he has even his thoughts controlled even if that person is as dreadful a human being as Alex is?”
In the film (ACO) a totalitarian government begins to take control under the promise of “cutting down crime”. The masses are desperate enough to deprive themselves of personal libery and freedom and are in favor of this system (albeit a very corrupt one). Patrick McGee’s character in the film makes this clear when he states over the telephone that, “They will sell their liberty for a quieter life”.
Kubrick, who had tremendous knowledge of World War II, is asking "Is it better to have a free society with several heartless thugs such as Alex roaming the streets or for totalitarianism (a nazism archtype) to rule but risk possible evil on a far more massive scale than Alex could ever achieve.
Also during the film Alex’s former “droogs” become policemen just as “brutal young roughs” were recruited into the nazi-machine (the nazi brown shirts) to strong-arm the citizenry. Once again in this particular scene however he is questioning even the usage of such tactics to stop thugs (although this mainly a secondary effect to the overall effect on the general populace. In totalitarian governments they don’t stop at brutalizing thugs).
Lastly many see Kubrick himself actually pandering to the young thugs; thus promoting violence (as,for example, in the very latest review at amazon.com). Somehow some filmgoers seem to miss the point entirely. Kubrick is not telling the story, Alex is. Thus you shall get a sympathetic picture of Alex and will insist on everyone but himself look cartoonized as does not take authority seriously (and remember this is seen through a teens eyes; thus the adults seen as caricatures. Also Alex feels himself above these authority figures). Alex has no sympathy for anyone but himself and this causes the slanted view of the people involved. Those who eventually do feel for Alex are seduced by Alex, NOT by Kubrick.
As Dave appraoches the monolith the next sequence is “the stargate” with which Dave travels to “another world”. Albert Einstien theorized that you cannot travel beyond the speed of light. However if this was achieved you might enter another ‘dimension’. Kubrick took this theory and applied it to the stargate sequence in 2001.
Dave enters a room that eerily resembles familiarity. As one notices that two Daves almost briefly appear simultaniously three times one also can observe his apparent rapid aging. This place is partially beyond physical laws and is sort of a “cage” for him by the “aliens” as we witness a seeming transformation (or rebirth).
This film ironically desmises pure evolution in relation to knowledge (and partially to physical evolution) and instead relates itself to an outside power for not only this transformation but the one involving the apes early in the film. You’ll notice that after the apes come into contact with the monolith they are standing more upright; more of a humanoid characteristic.
As Dave Bowman dies and is then transformed to the starchild this concludes mankinds next step to "a higher state of being". Also notice this is a transforamtion not evolution in the purist sense. He is then sent to Earth. What effect will this have on mankind? How will he be recieved? What vast knowledge will he bring after a period of time? Will this rebirth be repeated with other possible human contact with the monolith? It's partially Nitschkian in its philosophy.
Lastly these “aliens” are not a god nor are they men green men from Mars as some have proposed. However, Kubrick stated that were we to come into contact with beings infinitly advance of us thwey would appear god-like in their power and knowledge. Kubrick also left it open (and smartly so) as to their appearence, delivering an awesome mystery to woh and what they are. This intelligence is not explained either because as Kubrick rightly stated, “How can an inferior inteligence explain a superior intelligence?”.
[Strangely enough some consider this film “pretentious” despite the proceeding statement. Kubrick was very unpretentious about this nad did not have the arrogance to “explain” this knowledgable and powerful race]
kubrick would never explain “the meaning” of his film. to him and all the great auteurs, cinema was a artform that allowed everyone a different interpretation.
btw i watched “Barry Lyndon” the other day for the first time. although, not his best work, what a great fuckin mooovie.