Classic Cinema

[Orlion]

Just to comment on one aspect on your review of 2010, Jacob. I agree that something is missing from it (both film and book) that was in the first one, but I was not as impacted by the revival of HAL as you were, for this main reason: HAL is a computer. He was disconnected, not destroyed, I can believe that HAL could be rebooted, and this would not have negated what happened to him in 2001.

[jacob Raver, sinTempter]

Just to comment on one aspect on your review of 2010, Jacob. I agree that something is missing from it (both film and book) that was in the first one, but I was not as impacted by the revival of HAL as you were, for this main reason: HAL is a computer. He was disconnected, not destroyed, I can believe that HAL could be rebooted, and this would not have negated what happened to him in 2001.

I understand what your saying as far as the literal goes. But still. It was a death scene. That was the philisophical/spiritual point of the scene - what it meant to the greater themes Kurbick was getting across to the audience. It's not about the literal. Of course it negates 2001 entirely because 2001 is not about the characters, it's about the greater ideas and concepts conveyed by what happens in the film. HAL's death scene is an integral step in the very specific construction of the film. It's the death of our creation, a creation that 'evolved' (in the film) like we did and is trying to stay alive, like we did, a child making it's own decisions - a wonderful theme, the weight of being a creator, among others, followed by the amazing climax and an enigmatic ending to a true work of art.

[Cail]

2010 is a phenomenal book (and the movie losing the Chinese mission was a real shame). Montressor, the film is (for better or worse) a victim of its time. The "let's be friends with the Soviets/we're not that different" meme was all over the place then.


I blame Sting and that awful "Russians" song.

[Cagliostro]

Another thing that added to 2010 for me was a sexy Helen Mirren and the following:



Apparently she was in several bands, and died recently of cancer.

[matrixman]

Sad to hear she died from cancer, Cag. I had no idea. As for Mirren, I wouldn't say I had the hots for her, but she did look pretty good in her uniform. I thought Soviet attire was supposed to be ill-fitting. (Just kidding!)

Frankly, that US/Soviet "we can all be friends" dialogue is just plain terrible too.

I'm not sure I understand. The dialogue itself was terrible? Or the whole "let's be friends" aspect of the story? That was one of the feel-good things I liked about 2010, people working together despite their differences.

godalmighty if i never hear the friggin blue danube again in this life it'll be too soon.

i loved the casting in 2010 and getting keir dullea and douglas rain was a freakin coup!

Yes, ma'am. Even though it was only 2 members from the original, their presence was enough to make 2010 feel like a family reunion. Seeing Dullea with Roy Scheider was so cool, and hearing Doug Rain's voice again gave me goosebumps. I only wished Dullea had more screen time than he got.

I'm with Cail and luci in praising 2010 the novel. I think the first two books of the series were far and away the best. The third, 2061: Odyssey Three, was unremarkable. The fourth, 3001: The Final Odyssey, had some good moments, but was ultimately disappointing for a book meant to be Clarke's last word on that space saga.

Apologies for continuing on this "odyssey" track. It might better belong in the Sequels thread.

[Montresor]

Frankly, that US/Soviet "we can all be friends" dialogue is just plain terrible too.

I'm not sure I understand. The dialogue itself was terrible? Or the whole "let's be friends" aspect of the story? That was one of the feel-good things I liked about 2010, people working together despite their differences.

The dialogue. The notion is admirable, but the script is awful. The handling of that part of the story lacks any subtlety, I think.

Cail's right, though - a symptom of its times.

I'll watch almost anything with Mirren in it - she's been my favourite actress ever since I saw her as Morgana (Excalibur) when I was a little boy, so 2010 wins some points for that.

[Rigel]

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

Then what's the problem?

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

If you do a good job, more power to you. However, you'd be crippling your own work by binding it to SRD's world. Creatively, you'd be better off working on something uniquely yours.

? ...
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.

There's a striking difference between reviving Foamfollower and reviving HAL. Namely, FF is dead. HAL is not.

Remember, he's just a computer. "Reviving" him amounts to flipping a switch.

[Rigel]

Of course it negates 2001 entirely

I believe you said you didn't watch the whole movie (and that's OK - life's too short to spend on things you don't like), but you should be aware that the ending of 2010 does tie in thematically with the ending of 2001. It doesn't negate it at all; rather, it continues where the first left off.

[jacob Raver, sinTempter]

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

]Then what's the problem?

The dialogue is sickeningly terrible for such a large production, with such good actors, good directing, decent cinematography, based on such a great previous film, based on a good author's reportedly great novel. And the reason for their going back is disgusting to me.

If you do a good job, more power to you. However, you'd be crippling your own work by binding it to SRD's world. Creatively, you'd be better off working on something uniquely yours.

You know as well as I do that the point of the statement did not lye here.

There's a striking difference between reviving Foamfollower and reviving HAL. Namely, FF is dead. HAL is not.

I completely disagree. HAL's memory chips (or cassettes! - lol), were each being pulled, "separated", from the overall whole that was HAL's self/memory. HAL thought he was dying. If HAL knew he could be 'revived' in a cohesive whole, why would he be afraid of dying? He did mention that he didn't want deactivated because the mission was too important to leave up to the others, but he didn't state it with the same fear as when he was afraid of death. Again, it wasn't a deactivation scene.

Remember, he's just a computer. "Reviving" him amounts to flipping a switch.

Firstly, I don't think the point was that he was just a computer at that...point. Secondly, in combination with the first, you couldn't revive the HAL that chose to do what he did...(IMU). But then, again, I haven't seen the rest, so I may be dancing in the dark here.

I believe you said you didn't watch the whole movie (and that's OK - life's too short to spend on things you don't like), but you should be aware that the ending of 2010 does tie in thematically with the ending of 2001. It doesn't negate it at all; rather, it continues where the first left off.

This I can't deny...but I just couldn't stand the dialogue anymore. There has to be more than exposition.

[Orlion]

There's a striking difference between reviving Foamfollower and reviving HAL. Namely, FF is dead. HAL is not.

I completely disagree. HAL's memory chips (or cassettes! - lol), were each being pulled, "separated", from the overall whole that was HAL's self/memory. HAL thought he was dying. If HAL knew he could be 'revived' in a cohesive whole, why would he be afraid of dying? He did mention that he didn't want deactivated because the mission was too important to leave up to the others, but he didn't state it with the same fear as when he was afraid of death. Again, it wasn't a deactivation scene.

And here, we see a difference: HAL had never been turned off; him being deactivated is like a man that has never slept being tranquilized, to such a person, sleep and death do not appear all that different and would fear both equally.

[jacob Raver, sinTempter]

And here, we see a difference: HAL had never been turned off; him being deactivated is like a man that has never slept being tranquilized, to such a person, sleep and death do not appear all that different and would fear both equally.

But that's not the purpose of the scene within the context of the original film. 2001 is kind of like slow poetry to me.

[Rigel]

And here, we see a difference: HAL had never been turned off; him being deactivated is like a man that has never slept being tranquilized, to such a person, sleep and death do not appear all that different and would fear both equally.

I think there was even an episode of ST:TNG where they played on that with Q. He'd been turned into a human for some infraction he committed, and it totally freaked him out the first time he fell asleep. Made some comment about how horrible it must be to endure it every day of one's life

[Orlion]

And here, we see a difference: HAL had never been turned off; him being deactivated is like a man that has never slept being tranquilized, to such a person, sleep and death do not appear all that different and would fear both equally.

But that's not the purpose of the scene within the context of the original film. 2001 is kind of like slow poetry to me.

I think it fits perfectly well, it still shows a computer that is self aware and it still shows a computer that is afraid. Clarke was an inteligent enough writer to know that disconnecting HAL would not be equivelent to killing him, also that in this context HAL would not know the difference, thus making him humanish and something that you could be sympathetic for.

[Montresor]

What Clarke may or may not have thought about the death of HAL is not that relevant for 2001 (the film). I have to agree with Jacob that, despite how we can tease out the logic of switching computers on and off, the whole intent of Dave taking HAL offline was a death scene. It's irrelevant that HAL can be turned back on, and the audience is clearly meant to feel that someone is going to die. This is even more poignant when we realise that, quite deliberately, HAL is the only character in the film which comes across as having individuality. Logically, I know that a computer can be rebooted, but emotionally and artistically, I understand that HAL is supposed to be dead.

What we have to remember is that, when 2001 came out, hardly anyone in the cinema understood anything about computers. Today we're so used to taking them apart ourselves, or dropping them in for repairs, that the mystery and wonder of the device escapes our imagination.

To be honest, though, what happens in 2010 is completely irrelevant to me when I watch 2001. This is not just because 2010 is a vastly inferior film, but that I always feel that films exist in their own right. I don't think of Aliens when I watch the ending of Alien; or the useless expansion of the mythos of Highlander 2 vs Highlander.

[Menolly]

What Clarke may or may not have thought about the death of HAL is not that relevant for 2001 (the film). I have to agree with Jacob that, despite how we can tease out the logic of switching computers on and off, the whole intent of Dave taking HAL offline was a death scene. It's irrelevant that HAL can be turned back on, and the audience is clearly meant to feel that someone is going to die. This is even more poignant when we realise that, quite deliberately, HAL is the only character in the film which comes across as having individuality. Logically, I know that a computer can be rebooted, but emotionally and artistically, I understand that HAL is supposed to be dead.

[matrixman]

Very good points, Montresor.

I have my foot in both camps regarding HAL. In other words, I'm fudging...

To be honest, though, what happens in 2010 is completely irrelevant to me when I watch 2001.

Same here. Also, I'd be the first (or second, behind you) to say that 2001 was not a movie in any desperate need of a sequel. But once the sequel did arrive, it was interesting enough in its own way (in my opinion) that I found I really didn't mind its existence.

[Montresor]

Same here. Also, I'd be the first (or second, behind you) to say that 2001 was not a movie in any desperate need of a sequel. But once the sequel did arrive, it was interesting enough in its own way (in my opinion) that I found I really didn't mind its existence.

I agree with that completely. I've watched it a couple of times, and always enjoyed it despite some reservations and annoyances. In its own right, it's a good film that stands in the shadow of another kind of monolith (2001).

[jacob Raver, sinTempter]

I just watched Lolita...it was alright. Must have been shocking back in the 60s. The thing that struck me the most however was...if that was the norm as far as style in film, 2001 a couple years later must have been truly in everyway unlike anything that had ever been done: style, subject, feel, cinematography, etc. It's so so so far ahead of it's time...watch the beginning to Planet of the Apes in the ship, then watch 2001. Unbelievable. If someone said that 2001 was filmed in '78, I'd've believed 'em!
-----
I was just forced to watch Pillow Talk with Rock Hudson and Doris Day. I thought it would be just a cheesy classic dumb/happy film from way back. It was funny, witty, well acted, interesting, a little long, but really good overall.
-----
Finally watched Psycho. Very good film - must have been just mesmerizing and terrifying in the 60s - but, alas, many 'cheats' by Hitchcock. The opening scene has his usual expositional dialogue seated within a solid scene, which though the effort still doesn't sit well with me. The second last scene really annoyed me, but mainstream audiences at the time must've needed everything explained.

The 'cheats':

Spoiler

- A dead body cannot stand up in a window (two examples)
- A body that's been rotting for ten years doesn't have fleshly, full-water
legs (Bates carrying Mother down the stairs to the cellar)
- The voice of the mom didn't really sound anything like a male voice
in any way (various examples)
- Norman wouldn't leave the bath without a new shower curtain, though
he may have forgotten about it at first
- Norman wouldn't have left the register with her name in it, having
a scene where he deliberately looks at her name in the register seems
to show he would remember it, and remove it or replace the register at
least - yes, this one can be chalked up to his "issues", but still
- Bates' clothing switch, or just pulling off the wig and dress, was far to
quick at times

Perkin's Bates performance was easily a decade ahead of its time, the story structure, change of protagonist, misdirections and some of the cinematogrphy were absolutely stunning...and of course the 'twist' of twists. Very good film. I'd have to say though that I agree with Ebert in that the brilliant scene by Oakland shouldn't have been there.

[jacob Raver, sinTempter]

Tarkovsky's Stalker is...a very, very special film. I've never experienced anything quite like it. The textural visuals are absolutely astounding and beautiful in ways most other films never ever reach..I'm just awe. Simply the most visually amazing film I've ever seen - the train scene going into the Zone (somewhat like the freeway scene from Solaris), the bedroom, the building where they first get into the small railway car, the house that gets fogged over.

The acting is pitch perfect - Stalker in particular was really good (I read that the film had to be reshot, Tarkovsky having Stalker as a stronger character in the first filming, which makes his weaker performance all the more amazing in the reshoot). I love how the Zone became a character through certain scenes, the dog, even the rain near the end.

The sound. Aaahhhh, the sound of the film added soo much to creating the character of the Zone and the tone and feel of the film. The shots were set up so that the sounds of everything around you affected how you perceived the film...and I'm an audio learner first and was wearing headphones watching the film, which made the sound even more involving. Stalker has easily the best use of sound I've ever experienced in film.

The dialogue was very philisophical and deliberate, almost to the point of annoyance - as if Tarkovsky just moved his characters to a different place in the Zone and then said, "explain your story and dilemma". Move, "now your turn", move, etc. It was less annoying than in Solyaris, for me...I think because the characters in Stalker speak like this half the time, whereas the characters in Solyaris only about one quarter. This is Tarkovsky's style though, and after Solaris, to be expected.

The twists and unusual happenings, the open interpretation one has of the meanings and resolutions of the film all are a wonderful thing I'm coming to enjoy more and more with cinema - and Stalker is chalk full of them, especially the rumbling train scene at the end.

While it's slow going with almost no direction the viewer is aware of, Stalker never quite bores as the visuals, wonderful scenes and interesting dilemma's happen just as it might get boring. In particular, two scenes, above all the rest stand out in my memory, both of which I don't fully understand - one scene where we see what looks like a human being inside a broke-down car (if I remember correctly) with another possible human in the background next to a tree, and the other focusing into a hallway, past the dog, and focusing on something intangible that ends up being

Spoiler

a human next to a skeleton.

I don't fully understand the import of the second scene, while the first is spoken about by the characters, the second is a revelation for the audience, not the characters, which leads me to believe it is more a philisophical scene rather than a literal one. This is something I love about the film because unlike any other film I've ever seen as an adult, I actually have to watch it again to grasp the whole.

As I collected my initial thoughts, I came to the conclusion, though needing to sit and sift a while, that Stalker was a good film with amazingly visceral cinematography and sound, though a little too enigmatic and somewhat without point. But after a couple days Stalker just lingers in my mind unlike anything I've ever experienced. A true masterpiece, unique, not for all, second only to 2001 in the scifi genre.

[Montresor]

Excellent review, Jacob. You capture the spirit of the film very well, especially in regards the essential enigma of the story...which I feel relates to the enigma of humanity (at least as Tarkovsky sees it).

You've made me want to watch the film with headphones on now.

Stalker is simply beautiful, with possibly the best use of colour in film history. Colour, so often taken for granted in film becomes an essential part of the narrative and atmosphere of this movie.

I read a review somewhere that Stalker is about anything you want it to be...of course that would diminish the film's value, but I think it is strongly open to interpretation.

A science fiction masterpiece.