Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 36 of 36

Thread: 44th Anniversary of 2001

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,466
    Quote Originally Posted by Disinfo Agent View Post
    I watched the first film. I wouldn't rush to judge Clarke's words without knowing more about the context in which he said them. For example, even though no context is provided by the author of the documentary, my interpretation of Clarke's words was somewhat different from the one you seem to have made: not that hippies should exterminate themselves because he didn't like them, but that he saw no point in "tuning out" from the world (a hippy motto), and thought one might as well commit suicide.

    As an aside, I think the documentary overstates the differences between the movie and the book. While there are obvious differences in scenes, places, and so on, the overall themes and even the basic plot are very much the same, except that Kubrick's ending is more open to interpretation. Even there, Clarke's novel is also open-ended, though not as mystical.

    Thanks all the same for the reply and the link.
    Thanks for responding and thanks for taking a different view. It was actually the second video clip that showed more of Clarke's views of arrogance toward humans in the view of Rob Ager. My own personal view wouldn't match completely with either his nor yours but that is irrelevant. It was all his other videos that brought out the evidence of the difference between the two works and how they viewed their works.

    This doesn't make Clarke's work as being something terrible in my opinion but does show major differences in how Kubrick tends to create dream states, leaving his audience disoriented and noticing voids that they must fill in. Clarke tends to lean toward communicating like Star Trek while Kubrick tends to communicate with expectancy violations that are very subtle, making his audience a detective. The number of science mistakes by Clarke do not come close to the number in the film.

    The Shining was far deeper than 2001 in my opinion and one can pick up Kubrick's intentions in all his films far easier by watching the videos Rob created concerning that film. It forced me to take a second look at 2001 and to pay attention with my eyes more.

    Just scroll down to the following video and click on each of the short videos showing a heap of evidence of how Kubrick works. He was much less interested in reality than creating subtle distortions of reality.

    http://www.collativelearning.com/Dr%...0chapter3.html

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,466
    "If you want to communicate something, even if it's just an emotion or an attitude, let alone an idea, the least effective and least enjoyable is directly. It only goes in about a half an inch. But if you can get people to the point where they have to think a moment what it is you are getting at, and then discover it...the thrill of discovery goes right through the heart."

    SK talking to Catch-22 author Joseph Heller - p.363 - Stanley Kubrick Archives Book

    I just received my copies of DVDs "Kubrick Decoded" from Rob Ager containing about 8 hours of detailed analysis of 2001,
    A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket, Dr. Strangelove, The Shining and Eyes Wide Shut", including some 2012 updates. He is going to be adding Barry Lyndon to the collection. He is an independent film maker and has received a lot of mail from people in the film industry supporting his views about the role of the monolith in 2001 and how the plot of the film and the plot of the book are quite different. To Clarke the monolith represented a sun powered teaching device that inspired humans to discovery. To Ager the monolith represents the cinema screen itself, rotated 90 degrees from a proper horizontal position, and the rotating space station represents a film reel. The primates in the beginning of the film represent us, the audience, bewildered at what we were looking at. Clarke wrote the book without ever viewing the film according to Kubrick. It is just one opinion just as Ager's is another.
    Last edited by blueshift; 2012-May-10 at 03:13 AM.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    5,432
    Quote Originally Posted by blueshift View Post
    To Clarke the monolith represented a sun powered teaching device that inspired humans to discovery. To Ager the monolith represents the cinema screen itself, rotated 90 degrees from a proper horizontal position, and the rotating space station represents a film reel. The primates in the beginning of the film represent us, the audience, bewildered at what we were looking at. Clarke wrote the book without ever viewing the film according to Kubrick. It is just one opinion just as Ager's is another.
    Does he think Kubrick read the story before making the movie?

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,466
    Quote Originally Posted by grapes View Post
    Does he think Kubrick read the story before making the movie?
    No and Kubrick stated that. The book even states it was based upon the film and the film makes no mention at all of the book in the credits or Kubrick would have had to include it as he did with The Shining, A Clockwork Orange, and Full Metal Jacket. Even Clarke admitted later the that Stanley took a different journey with the film than the book did and when the two worked on the screenplay, each worked independent of the other. In fact, he even took very different journeys from the novels in all the above mentioned films.

    What is most disturbing is that the symbols in many of his films suggest that something very disturbing was done to Stanley as a child by an adult when he was a small child. The topic cannot repeated here as the forum rules prohibit it. I will PM that to you.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    5,432
    I meant The Sentinal

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,466
    Quote Originally Posted by grapes View Post
    I meant The Sentinal
    He did read the Sentinal before making the film but it appears he used it and hired Clarke as a marketing gimic. His film prior to 2001, Dr. Strangelove, was very controversial and he would have never received so much money from so many corporations had he decided to not water things down quite a bit by making the film look like a good advertisement for the space program. Having a big named author and corporate backing brought in a lot of money. As Rob Ager put it, "Arthur Clarke's book may as well be considered the first critique of the film."

    Clarke admitted in an interview that everything he brought to Stanley to read was met with sarcastic looks or remarks. Kubrick thought all of science fiction classics were rubbish. Clarke didn't share that view.

    2001 was supposed to be narrated with the voice of Douglas Rain explaining everything that was going on in the film. Kubrick took away all the narration at an economic point were it was too late for others to do anything about it. Several NASA scientists along with Clarke objected.

Similar Threads

  1. Happy Anniversary! 50th Anniversary of...
    By Blackhole in forum Space Exploration
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 2011-Apr-12, 09:10 PM
  2. 2001: I don't get it
    By Glom in forum Small Media at Large
    Replies: 123
    Last Post: 2007-Jul-12, 11:03 PM
  3. '2001' Ba
    By Grand_Lunar in forum Small Media at Large
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 2005-Dec-20, 03:27 PM
  4. 2001 BA
    By zrice03 in forum Small Media at Large
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 2005-Aug-01, 01:03 AM
  5. BA in 2001
    By Wiley in forum Small Media at Large
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 2001-Nov-04, 12:19 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: