Synopsis (according to AFI):
Kubrick's science fiction epic puts mankind in context between ape and space voyager. The film created a stir for its special effects, the computer HAL, and the debate about the meaning of the film's final sequence.
LET ME EXPLAIN...
The only other time I watched this movie was in an 8th grade classroom. I was confused by it way back then, and after another viewing I still think it's a trippy movie. The effects are great and groundbreaking for 1968 (that's nine years before Star Wars came to theaters and wowed audiences with its special effects). But there really seems to be no clear thread of connection throughout the movie except for the big black slab.
I have been to a rave before (believe it or not, but there was a rave on campus while I was in college and my friends and I checked it out), and it was pretty weird. The ending of this film reminded me of the rave for one reason alone: you have to be on acid to appreciate either.
What makes this a "Top 100" Movie?
Well, it's considered to be the first "real" science-fiction movie, so that right there would be a major reason. Also, as I mentioned above, the special effects (for which this film won its lone Academy Award) are quite impressive. And I'll admit - somewhat begrudgingly - that perhaps the absolutely crazy ending which spawns so much debate over its meaning adds to this film's acclaim.
Complaints:
I'm with the popular opinion here that the film is too slow. Yes, I realize things take awhile in space, but show us once that it takes a long time to get from A to B as opposed to showing us EVERY time. Other complaints I mentioned earlier: connect the story more and don't be so entirely off-the-wall with the ending. It's no use to me to even analyze what it might mean if I don't think the creators even bothered to think about what it might mean (this is the exact same reason I hate "modern art").
LET ME SUM UP...
Impressive special effects, but a slow moving film with a ridiculously weird ending. Too ludicrious to even try to analyze.
MY RATING: 4/10 (2 lower from my previous rating)
3 comments:
"It's no use to me to even analyze what it might mean if I don't think the creators even bothered to think about what it might mean"
KUBRICK: Well, I can tell you
what literally, at the lowest level of plot, happens. Bowman is drawn into a stargate. He is taken into another dimension of time and space, into the presence of godlike entities who have transcended matter and who are now creatures of pure energy. They provide an environment for him, a human zoo, if you like. They study him. His life passes before him. He sees himself age in what seems just a matter of moments, he dies, and he's reborn, transfigured, enhanced, a superbeing. I don't believe that anyone is terribly far from understanding it. What people sometimes mean is that they want some confirmation of what they've seen happen, and what they think. Some people who are used to the conventions of realistic theater and the three-act play are surprised when a new form is presented to them, no matter how intensely they react to it, and no matter how much pleasure they get from it.
EYE: People are intrigued not only by the implications but the essence of the ending. Could you give us your own interpretation?
KUBRICK: I don't want to because I think that the power of the ending is based on the subconscious emotional reaction of the audience, which has a delayed effect. To be specific about it, certainly to be specific about what it's supposed to mean, spoils people's pleasure and denies them their own emotional reactions.
EYE: Can you be general about what you intended?
KUBRICK: Well, I can tell you what literally, at the lowest level of plot, happens. Bowman is drawn into a stargate. He is taken into another dimension of time and space, into the presence of godlike entities who have transcended matter and who are now creatures of pure energy. They provide an environment for him, a human zoo, if you like. They study him. His life passes before him. He sees himself age in what seems just a matter of moments, he dies, and he's reborn, transfigured, enhanced, a superbeing. I don't believe that anyone is terribly far from understanding it. What people sometimes mean is that they want some confirmation of what they've seen happen, and what they think. Some people who are used to the conventions of realistic theater and the three-act play are surprised when a new form is presented to them, no matter how intensely they react to it, and no matter how much pleasure they get from it.
In case you can't tell, I didn't agree with your analysis. I think there is a solid connection in the film of humanity's evolution through time and man's place in the universe. We open fittingly enough with the apes, humanity at its most unevolved and primitive, and finish with the Star Child, a new form of humanity that has unlimited potential.
I have never used acid, and I can appreciate the ending. I think it is intended to test your capacity for abstract thinking. If you read the novel, it does make more sense - the point is basically to represent everything humanity cannot comprehend at its present stages. Bowman is being dragged through the universe in a stargate, seeing things previously unseen by humankind - but the Star Child is a new form of humanity that possibly has the potential to understand.
Post a Comment