Classic Cinema

[jacob Raver, sinTempter]

It's amazing to me...HAL wasn't really onscreen all that long, and he was a murderer...and yet we cared and sympathised with him as he dies.

[Montresor]

Very true. It's deliberate, of course. All the humans in that movie deliver their lines in monotones, displaying very little emotion for the most part. Like the machines which assist and advance them, humanity has become robotic. HAL is the only 'character' whose personality develops in the film . . . a deliberate irony that needs no elaboration. It is only with the evolution climax that we see a hint of humanity being reborn, and evolving into something greater (much like the apes at the start of the feature).

All in all, 2001 is one of the greatest triumphs of cinematic art of all time. The only science fiction movies which rival its beauty, depth, and originality are Tarkovsky's Stalker and Solaris (the Russian original), in my opinion.

Re: Strangelove, for the first half of the year I taught American History Through Film at a university. One of the films we considered was Strangelove. I dug out an old review by Bosley Crowther (uggh!) to put the film's reception in context in 1964:

Stanley Kubrick's new film, called Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, is beyond any question the most shattering sick joke I've ever come across. And I say that with full recollection of some of the grim ones I've heard from Mort Sahl, some of the cartoons I've seen by Charles Addams, and some of the stuff I've read in Mad magazine.


For this brazenly jesting speculation of what might happen within the Pentagon and within the most responsible council of the President of the United States if some maniac Air Force general should suddenly order a nuclear attack on the Soviet Union is at the same time one of the cleverest and most incisive satiric thrusts at the awkwardness and folly of the military that has ever been on the screen. It opened yesterday at the Victoria and the Baronet.

My reaction to it is quite divided, because there is so much about it that is grand, so much that is brilliant and amusing, and much that is grave and dangerous.

On the one hand, it cuts right to the soft pulp of the kind of military mind that is lost from all sense of reality in a maze of technical talk, and it shows up this type of mentality for the foolish and frightening thing it is.

In a top-level Air Force general, played by George C. Scott with a snarling and rasping volubility that makes your blood run cold, Mr. Kubrick presents us with a joker whose thinking is so involved with programs and cautions and suspicions that he is practically tied in knots.

It is he who is most completely baffled, bewildered, and paralyzed when word comes through to Washington that a general in the Strategic Air Command has sent a wing of bombers off to drop bombs and that the planes cannot be recalled. It is he who has to answer to the President for this awesome "accident" when the President gathers his council in the War Room at the Pentagon. And it is he who looks the most unstable and dubious in the cause of peace when it begins to appear that the Russians have a retaliatory "doomsday device."

Some of the conversations in that War Room are hilarious, shooting bright shafts of satire through mounds of ineptitude. There is, best of all, a conversation between the President and an unseen Soviet Premier at the other end of a telephone line that is a titanic garble of nuttiness and platitudes.

Funny, too, in a mad way, is the behavior of the crew in one of the planes of the airborne alert force ordered to drop the bomb. The commander is a Texan who puts on a cowboy hat when he knows the mission is committed. Slim Pickens plays this role. He and Keenan Wynn as a foggy colonel are the funniest individuals in the film.

As I say, there are parts of this satire that are almost beyond compare.

On the other hand, I am troubled by the feeling, which runs all through the film, of discredit and even contempt for our whole defense establishment, up to and even including the hypothetical Commander in Chief.

It is all right to show the general who starts this wild foray as a Communist-hating madman, convinced that a "Red conspiracy" is fluoridating our water in order to pollute our precious body fluids. That is pointed satire, and Sterling Hayden plays the role with just a right blend of wackiness and meanness to give the character significance.

But when virtually everybody turns up stupid or insane—or, what is worse, psychopathic—I want to know what this picture proves. The President, played by Peter Sellers with a shiny bald head, is a dolt, whining and unavailing with the nation in a life-or-death spot. But worse yet, his technical expert, Dr. Strangelove, whom Mr. Sellers also plays, is a devious and noxious ex-German whose mechanical arm insists on making the Nazi salute.

And, oddly enough, the only character who seems to have much common sense is a British flying officer, whom Mr. Sellers—yes, he again—plays.

The ultimate touch of ghoulish humor is when we see the bomb actually going off, dropped on some point in Russia, and a jazzy sound track comes in with a cheerful melodic rendition of "We'll Meet Again Some Sunny Day." Somehow, to me, it isn't funny. It is malefic and sick.

I think we can sometimes forget just how controversial this film was, especially now that what it was warning against seems so remote. An undoubted masterpiece. It's interesting that Crowther says he doesn't know what the film is trying to prove. I think he knows exactly what the film proves...he just doesn't feel comfortable with what it has to say.

[Cagliostro]

As much as I do not enjoy 2001 as a whole, HAL's death scene is particularly good.

2010 is a more "traditional" movie, and I have to say that I enjoyed it considerably more.

Don't get me wrong - I do really like Kubrick, and am one of the few that really likes Eyes Wide Shut. I just feel like Kubrick climbing into his own butt a bit with 2001. And movies that do similar things (like The Fountain) also annoy me.

[jacob Raver, sinTempter]

Eyes Wide Shut is a wonderful work of art...just not a favorite of mine...if that makes sense.

...

Just watched Solyaris. Wonderful, thoughtful, very well acted, for '72 very well shot. Some groundbreaking stuff for cinema. There are many very memorable, unique scenes, including the very poetic ending, and a use of the film medium that is quite unique and at times amazing. Though very dated, this movie is a true gem and a work of art, but IMO it's not quite on the level of Kubrick's 2001.

My primary issue, besides some mediocre editing (along with some great editing), and that last shot switch from the plant on the station to the plant on "earth", is the dialogue. It was...annoying at times, as the characters would all the sudden start expositioning on a dime, then back to character, then more philisophical expositioning. I thought maybe it was cultural differences at first, but after it kept happening I decided it's just Tarkovsky cheating...or using his characters to deliver 'poetry' to the audience. Of course the characters might discuss philosophy...but it didn't resemble a discussion. Sometimes Hari would even say something the character couldn't possibly have knowledge of...I dunno...maybe it's Tarkovsky's 'way'? His own style? Or maybe it's a russian cinema thing. I'll have to watch Stalker and find out.

Another thing that annoyed me was...umm,, the lack of confidence in his audience. Every time I'd 'get' what he was trying to convey (hehe...meme) two seconds later the character would exposite what the previous scene meant...it was annoying and somewhat redundant...still, maybe a cultural thing again.

I've read that Tarkovsky doesn't bully the audience into thinking or feeling a certain way, and he doesn't...but Kubrick didn't telegraph philosophy through his character's dialogue, and that among a couple other things, is why I believe 2001 is a superior work, though Solyaris is superb in it's own right.

[Cagliostro]

I've read that Tarkovsky doesn't bully the audience into thinking or feeling a certain way, and he doesn't...but Kubrick didn't telegraph philosophy through his character's dialogue, and that among a couple other things, is why I believe 2001 is a superior work, though Solyaris is superb in it's own right.

I'd like to try a film experiment. I am going to create a movie that has some stuff that kinda holds together into something resembling a plot, and at the end, I will just throw in a ton of freaky images filmed very slowly that really has no point or connection in my own mind. Then I will see what those that love 2001 and The Fountain can make of it.

[Montresor]

Nice review, Jacob. I agree with you that 2001 is the better film, but I compare the two because they're both mature science fiction films which also attempt to be expressions in pure art.

Tarkovsky is very heavy on philosophical dialogue. Stalker is even more so than Solaris, with characters having conversations in their mind, being answered by people who couldn't have heard it, and continuing without a second thought. It might seem out of place and unbelievable, but Tarkovsky is making a comment as much on the medium of film as on what the film is about...and in Stalker's case, on the weird effects of The Zone.

Although there is some of what seems like over-explanation in Solaris, some of that is misleading. There are also plenty of character traits and visual clues which receive no explanation and are up to us to work out...personally, I love this.

I think, in Solaris's case (though these are just random thoughts) - the seeming illogicality of character knowledge and some dialogue is an indication of the unnatural situation in which they find themselves. The exposition also fits the theme of isolation. Even though there are three men on the station, there may as well be one (from their own perspectives), and they are analysing their own circumstances in the way people are wont to do when left to themselves for a long time.

Stalker is far, far more ambiguous than Solaris and I think it is the better film (if only because I find it so utterly absorbing). Tarkovsky is not for everyone, though - those who don't like 'slow' movies should steer clear. And those after a conventional plot and narrative, don't bother

I look forward to reading what you have to say about Stalker

[Usivius]

Very true. It's deliberate, of course. All the humans in that movie deliver their lines in monotones, displaying very little emotion for the most part. Like the machines which assist and advance them, humanity has become robotic. HAL is the only 'character' whose personality develops in the film . . . a deliberate irony that needs no elaboration. It is only with the evolution climax that we see a hint of humanity being reborn, and evolving into something greater (much like the apes at the start of the feature).

All in all, 2001 is one of the greatest triumphs of cinematic art of all time. The only science fiction movies which rival its beauty, depth, and originality are Tarkovsky's Stalker and Solaris (the Russian original), in my opinion.

Re: Strangelove, for the first half of the year I taught American History Through Film at a university. One of the films we considered was Strangelove. I dug out an old review by Bosley Crowther (uggh!) to put the film's reception in context in 1964:

Stanley Kubrick's new film, called Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, is beyond any question the most shattering sick joke I've ever come across. And I say that with full recollection of some of the grim ones I've heard from Mort Sahl, some of the cartoons I've seen by Charles Addams, and some of the stuff I've read in Mad magazine.


For this brazenly jesting speculation of what might happen within the Pentagon and within the most responsible council of the President of the United States if some maniac Air Force general should suddenly order a nuclear attack on the Soviet Union is at the same time one of the cleverest and most incisive satiric thrusts at the awkwardness and folly of the military that has ever been on the screen. It opened yesterday at the Victoria and the Baronet.

My reaction to it is quite divided, because there is so much about it that is grand, so much that is brilliant and amusing, and much that is grave and dangerous.

On the one hand, it cuts right to the soft pulp of the kind of military mind that is lost from all sense of reality in a maze of technical talk, and it shows up this type of mentality for the foolish and frightening thing it is.

In a top-level Air Force general, played by George C. Scott with a snarling and rasping volubility that makes your blood run cold, Mr. Kubrick presents us with a joker whose thinking is so involved with programs and cautions and suspicions that he is practically tied in knots.

It is he who is most completely baffled, bewildered, and paralyzed when word comes through to Washington that a general in the Strategic Air Command has sent a wing of bombers off to drop bombs and that the planes cannot be recalled. It is he who has to answer to the President for this awesome "accident" when the President gathers his council in the War Room at the Pentagon. And it is he who looks the most unstable and dubious in the cause of peace when it begins to appear that the Russians have a retaliatory "doomsday device."

Some of the conversations in that War Room are hilarious, shooting bright shafts of satire through mounds of ineptitude. There is, best of all, a conversation between the President and an unseen Soviet Premier at the other end of a telephone line that is a titanic garble of nuttiness and platitudes.

Funny, too, in a mad way, is the behavior of the crew in one of the planes of the airborne alert force ordered to drop the bomb. The commander is a Texan who puts on a cowboy hat when he knows the mission is committed. Slim Pickens plays this role. He and Keenan Wynn as a foggy colonel are the funniest individuals in the film.

As I say, there are parts of this satire that are almost beyond compare.

On the other hand, I am troubled by the feeling, which runs all through the film, of discredit and even contempt for our whole defense establishment, up to and even including the hypothetical Commander in Chief.

It is all right to show the general who starts this wild foray as a Communist-hating madman, convinced that a "Red conspiracy" is fluoridating our water in order to pollute our precious body fluids. That is pointed satire, and Sterling Hayden plays the role with just a right blend of wackiness and meanness to give the character significance.

But when virtually everybody turns up stupid or insane—or, what is worse, psychopathic—I want to know what this picture proves. The President, played by Peter Sellers with a shiny bald head, is a dolt, whining and unavailing with the nation in a life-or-death spot. But worse yet, his technical expert, Dr. Strangelove, whom Mr. Sellers also plays, is a devious and noxious ex-German whose mechanical arm insists on making the Nazi salute.

And, oddly enough, the only character who seems to have much common sense is a British flying officer, whom Mr. Sellers—yes, he again—plays.

The ultimate touch of ghoulish humor is when we see the bomb actually going off, dropped on some point in Russia, and a jazzy sound track comes in with a cheerful melodic rendition of "We'll Meet Again Some Sunny Day." Somehow, to me, it isn't funny. It is malefic and sick.

I think we can sometimes forget just how controversial this film was, especially now that what it was warning against seems so remote. An undoubted masterpiece. It's interesting that Crowther says he doesn't know what the film is trying to prove. I think he knows exactly what the film proves...he just doesn't feel comfortable with what it has to say.

fasntastic post.

[jacob Raver, sinTempter]

***WARNING: The following is a very negative, reactionary and emotional RANT***

Spoiler

I just tried to watch 2010. F*CK EVERYONE INVOLVED with THIS FILM! -- Revive HAL? ... possibly the greatest death scene in cinema history and one of it's most memorable characters? negated to make a 2001 for dummies? ?? Are you kidding? Why did Kurbrick allow this, why did Clarke allow this, or write it? It's a travesty!!! Why not just pull 2001 and burn every copy? It's nearly the same thing!?!

It's well acted and well shot, there's some witty dialogue, but overall the dialogue is expositional garbage thinly veiled by decent characters and situational conversation. I had to turn it off after the Russians started expositioning the 'political' happenings on earth, after the SAL dialogue which was also exposition, after the opening scene which was also exposition. Let's just explain everything instead of developing a story. Ugg!!! Wtf?! Oh well...I know the better parts are probably later on in the film, but if you're going to start this bad, with such a blasphemous, money=grubbing, "we don't give a sh*t about the initial film, we just want to make some money" Hollywood fagettry...it's not as bad as the initial parts of Ghostbusters 2, but it's almost...

Sorry to those that like this film...but it's truly disgusting existence is...

...I mean, the book was really good (according to my dad)...and Clarke's a decent writer, but this ain't Clarke...and this ain't Kubrick...it's like Jaws meets Day of the Dolphin meets Alien, just without the scariness, suspense or good script!

Again...I know some people like this film, and can get past the exposition, or at least the first half of the film...sorry if I've offended you...it's just (sigh)...this films existence is just...wrong.

[matrixman]

Your review made me chuckle...I mean in a good way. You call it as you see it, and I have to respect that.

I like 2010, but I don't feel offended by your comments about the film, because I think I understand where you're coming from. I try not to compare 2010 directly with 2001 (I know that's next to impossible). As Cag said in an earlier post, 2010 is more of a "traditional" movie, with conventional exposition. I'm able to enjoy it as such. It's different enough from 2001, in every way, that I think it has its own identity. I give Peter Hyams credit for "daring" to set up shop in the world Kubrick created. Given how much Hyams worked under the shadow of Kubrick and 2001, I don't think he did too badly. Does 2010 scale the same heights as 2001? Nope. Kubrick's movie was a "once-in-a-lifetime" thing, for me at least. In my eyes, very few movies - sci fi or otherwise - have measured up to 2001 in the three decades since I first saw it. 2010 certainly didn't blow my mind as 2001 did. But I saw 2010 as a plucky movie that went about its own way, doing its own thing.

As for Kubrick's reaction to 2010...that's a good question. I've read various Kubrick interviews (rare as they are), but I don't recall him ever having offered an opinion on 2010, at least not in print. I'm sure he deliberately withheld saying anything. If anything, he may have sympathized with Hyams as a fellow filmmaker. On the other hand, Kubrick had ordered all the blueprints, props and models from 2001 destroyed precisely because he didn't want them turning up in another movie. (Personally, as a movie buff and especially as a fan of 2001, I thought that was an appalling, overly paranoid act on Kubrick's part.)

[Loredoctor]

***WARNING: The following is a very negative, reactionary and emotional RANT***

Spoiler

I just tried to watch 2010. F*CK EVERYONE INVOLVED with THIS FILM! -- Revive HAL? ... possibly the greatest death scene in cinema history and one of it's most memorable characters? negated to make a 2001 for dummies? ?? Are you kidding? Why did Kurbrick allow this, why did Clarke allow this, or write it? It's a travesty!!! Why not just pull 2001 and burn every copy? It's nearly the same thing!?!

It's well acted and well shot, there's some witty dialogue, but overall the dialogue is expositional garbage thinly veiled by decent characters and situational conversation. I had to turn it off after the Russians started expositioning the 'political' happenings on earth, after the SAL dialogue which was also exposition, after the opening scene which was also exposition. Let's just explain everything instead of developing a story. Ugg!!! Wtf?! Oh well...I know the better parts are probably later on in the film, but if you're going to start this bad, with such a blasphemous, money=grubbing, "we don't give a sh*t about the initial film, we just want to make some money" Hollywood fagettry...it's not as bad as the initial parts of Ghostbusters 2, but it's almost...

Sorry to those that like this film...but it's truly disgusting existence is...

...I mean, the book was really good (according to my dad)...and Clarke's a decent writer, but this ain't Clarke...and this ain't Kubrick...it's like Jaws meets Day of the Dolphin meets Alien, just without the scariness, suspense or good script!

Again...I know some people like this film, and can get past the exposition, or at least the first half of the film...sorry if I've offended you...it's just (sigh)...this films existence is just...wrong.

Jesus Christ, do you ever think about not getting so worked up over a movie you don't like?

So much hyperbole my head hurts.

[StevieG]

Flicks has come alive!! You're right Loremaster, hyperbole is rife. It's entertaining to read, but maybe sometimes just a tiny bit ... much.

[Menolly]

Flicks has come alive!!

As has General Literature Discussion with the Lovecraft thread. Some really decent posts being made.

hmm...
I may just decide to Spotlight the Lovecraft thread, even though I've never read him.

[Usivius]

excellent rant and all good points. And although in my opinion it does not hold a candle to 2001, 2010 is a pretty neat film -- it does what a basic good film should: be visually appealing and entertain.
It did both for me.

[Cail]

Your review made me chuckle...I mean in a good way. You call it as you see it, and I have to respect that.

I like 2010, but I don't feel offended by your comments about the film, because I think I understand where you're coming from. I try not to compare 2010 directly with 2001 (I know that's next to impossible). As Cag said in an earlier post, 2010 is more of a "traditional" movie, with conventional exposition. I'm able to enjoy it as such. It's different enough from 2001, in every way, that I think it has its own identity. I give Peter Hyams credit for "daring" to set up shop in the world Kubrick created. Given how much Hyams worked under the shadow of Kubrick and 2001, I don't think he did too badly. Does 2010 scale the same heights as 2001? Nope. Kubrick's movie was a "once-in-a-lifetime" thing, for me at least. In my eyes, very few movies - sci fi or otherwise - have measured up to 2001 in the three decades since I first saw it. 2010 certainly didn't blow my mind as 2001 did. But I saw 2010 as a plucky movie that went about its own way, doing its own thing.

As for Kubrick's reaction to 2010...that's a good question. I've read various Kubrick interviews (rare as they are), but I don't recall him ever having offered an opinion on 2010, at least not in print. I'm sure he deliberately withheld saying anything. If anything, he may have sympathized with Hyams as a fellow filmmaker. On the other hand, Kubrick had ordered all the blueprints, props and models from 2001 destroyed precisely because he didn't want them turning up in another movie. (Personally, as a movie buff and especially as a fan of 2001, I thought that was an appalling, overly paranoid act on Kubrick's part.)

I don't have the reverence for 2001 that most people seem to have, but otherwise I agree with your assessment.

[Montresor]

Ebert's review of both 2001 and 2010 are very close to my own. He calls 2001 one of cinema's true masterpieces, and I agree with that. 2010 he calls a good film, technically competent and well constructed...however, it has none of the greatness of the original and, most importantly, none of the genuine mystery. Frankly, that US/Soviet "we can all be friends" dialogue is just plain terrible too.

[lucimay]

i myself, like cail, don't hold the reverence for 2001 that others seem to hold. [godalmighty if i never hear the friggin blue danube again in this life it'll be too soon. ugh, i detested that whole walking through the ship in zero grav sequence. (i have to say that my favorite parts of this film were the very beginning and the very end)]
i do, however, L O V E 2010, both the book and the film (was sorry they left the whole Chinese bit out of the film.) (also agree with cag's assessment) i appreciate the vigor of your rant, jacob, but i relished the continuation of Hal's "story" and the explanation of Hal's actions that 2010 provided.
plus i loved the casting in 2010 and getting keir dullea and douglas rain was a freakin coup!

as to Kubrik's response to 2010, wiki had this:

When Arthur C. Clarke published 2010: Odyssey Two in 1982, he phoned Stanley Kubrick, and jokingly said, "Your job is to stop anybody making it so I won't be bothered."[5] MGM made a deal to make the film, but Kubrick had no interest in directing it. Peter Hyams, however, was interested in making 2010 and he approached both Clarke and Kubrick for their blessing:

"I had a long conversation with Stanley and told him what was going on. If it met with his approval, I would do the film; and if it didn't, I wouldn't. I certainly would not have thought of doing the film if I had not gotten the blessing of Kubrick. He's one of my idols; simply one of the greatest talents that's ever walked the earth. He more or less said, 'Sure. Go do it. I don't care.' And another time he said, 'Don't be afraid. Just go do your own movie.'"

[jacob Raver, sinTempter]

? ...

Okay. Fine. I'll tell you what. I understand why Clarke wrote the second book and why the film was made...

But. What if, twenty years from now, SRD has passed away...and I write the fourth Chrons.

Now. You know when it happens? The time after Foul's Creche and the Illearth Stone is destroyed. And you know what it's about? There's a magic shield, called the llirk, which in the right hands can revive the living. So...our heroes, along with a new person from the real world embark through a new battle with the Ravers to what's left of Foul's Creche...to revive Foamfollower...and find out exactly what did happen.

Now, as books, go, a specific scene or happening, like FF's death is not as impactful to the medium as the death of HAL was for cinema, but still...wouldn't reviving FF somewhat arbitrarily to fulfill a story base for the sequel negate the power of his sacrifice or what he did in the original work and be a little shallow and degrading also?

While you might be interested, wouldn't it somewhat infurierate you?

------

And on another note. There is a personality 'system', the Enneagram which I wholeheartedly believe is very, very accurate (and I've looked at a lot of them)...this system has three different 'harmonics', ways in which one will instinctually and automatically react. One third of people will react by always thinking/viewing in the most positive light - the positive harmonic, one third will react to the situation with competency, becoming very objective in judging the situation - the competency harmonic, and finally, there is the harmonic I reside in, the intensity harmonic.

Take a look at how each reacted to my post, then read up...I'd bet it's a dead ringer. Not to corner each person, but it's always interesting to me how people react and why.

[lucimay]

interesting indeed!

i couldn't find myself until i looked into the intensity group. six.
i'd say i'm a six in the intensity group.

[Loredoctor]

Take a look at how each reacted to my post, then read up...I'd bet it's a dead ringer. Not to corner each person, but it's always interesting to me how people react and why.

I'm a psychologist, so I have a lot of understanding on personality. I hate to tell you this but the Enneagram 'test' is considered not a valid or reliable way to test people - their personalities or reactions. To narrow people into three groups is far too simplistic. Now my response is probably to say that your enneagram system is spot on. But you're dealing with internet personalities, and judging people by posts is simply inaccurate.

I consistently disagree with you because we just have different views on movies, but you also have the tendency to be more emotional in your views.

[jacob Raver, sinTempter]

Yeah...the positives have a hard time with the intensity's...err, intensity at times. And the comptencys usually sit back and wait to comment, being objective of the situation. :p

Just finished Rear Window. I was absolutely mesmerized by the first half of the film. Very, very funny and witty dialogue, very well acted by Stewart and Burr, very thought inducing in a reflective, Kurbresque way for Hitchcock - I just loved how the characters banter would almost turn into a full on arguement, "now just shutup will yah?!". LOL!!! oh , loved it! Very wonderful film, though the second half somewhat digressed into a standard Hitchcokian thriller. (lol). Overall a great film with a suprising amount of commentary on different things. Though, I never really understood what the ending 'said' or meant in reference to all the previous social commentary...almost like Hitchock's whodunnit ending negated much of the pathos of the film.