“Close to tears, he left at the intermission”: how Kubrick upset Clarke (2017)
1–10 of 169 posts
Re: “Close to tears, he left at the intermission”: how Kubrick upset Clarke (2017)
#2Here's the original article sans google AMP:
https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/books/2017/01/close-tea...
Re: “Close to tears, he left at the intermission”: how Kubrick upset Clarke (2017)
#3Here's the original article sans google AMP: https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/books/2017/01/close-tea...
Yes, we changed to that from https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newstatesman.com/culture/bo....
Re: “Close to tears, he left at the intermission”: how Kubrick upset Clarke (2017)
#4I can't blame Kubrick for cutting all the voice-overs, which probably would have made the movie unbearable to watch. At the same time, it's maddening in its ambiguity. Seeing it as a product of this enormous gulf between creative approaches explains a lot.
Re: “Close to tears, he left at the intermission”: how Kubrick upset Clarke (2017)
#5I can't blame Kubrick for cutting all the voice-overs, which probably would have made the movie unbearable to watch. At the same time, it's maddening in its ambiguity. Seeing it as a product of this enormous gulf between creative approaches explains a lot.
It certainly does.
Being much, much more Clarke than Kubrick, I watch the thing in awe up till and including "My God, it's full of stars", and then usually switch off, as I know from then on the masterpiece will be descending into lava lamps and nonsense.
Re: “Close to tears, he left at the intermission”: how Kubrick upset Clarke (2017)
#6I can't blame Kubrick for cutting all the voice-overs, which probably would have made the movie unbearable to watch. At the same time, it's maddening in its ambiguity. Seeing it as a product of this enormous gulf between creative approaches explains a lot.
It certainly does. Being much, much more Clarke than Kubrick, I watch the thing in awe up till and including "My God, it's full of stars", and then usually switch off, as I know from then on the masterpiece will be descending into lava lamps and nonsense.
"Descending into lava lamps and nonsense." is hardly what I'd call it. Kubrick is all about subtext.
Re: “Close to tears, he left at the intermission”: how Kubrick upset Clarke (2017)
#7This article CONSTANTLY refreshes on mobile, even after several minutes, making it next-to-impossible to read
Re: “Close to tears, he left at the intermission”: how Kubrick upset Clarke (2017)
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
It certainly does. Being much, much more Clarke than Kubrick, I watch the thing in awe up till and including "My God, it's full of stars", and then usually switch off, as I know from then on the masterpiece will be descending into lava lamps and nonsense.
"Descending into lava lamps and nonsense." is hardly what I'd call it. Kubrick is all about subtext.
I know I am supposed to find it deep and like it to the bitter end. And boy have I tried.
There'a lot of Kubrick I don't get. I have actually read A Clockwork Orange, the novel, and liked it despite its Burgessian lapsed catholic babble, but I intensely dislike the movie.
And don't get me started on The Shining.
Re: “Close to tears, he left at the intermission”: how Kubrick upset Clarke (2017)
#9I can't blame Kubrick for cutting all the voice-overs, which probably would have made the movie unbearable to watch. At the same time, it's maddening in its ambiguity. Seeing it as a product of this enormous gulf between creative approaches explains a lot.
It certainly does. Being much, much more Clarke than Kubrick, I watch the thing in awe up till and including "My God, it's full of stars", and then usually switch off, as I know from then on the masterpiece will be descending into lava lamps and nonsense.
I was very let down when I watched it some years ago--I was like, 'where's the climax?' But I've watched a few more arty ambiguous movies lately ('Under the Skin', 'The Neon Demon', 'Mother!') and recently liked 'Annihilation' despite its slow pacing and ambiguity, so I've been thinking maybe I'll like '2001' better this time if I check it out again...
Something I've noticed about '2001' in the meanwhile is that its aesthetics seem very future-proof. It doesn't seem dated or plastic-y like other stuff from that era.
An interesting article about the setting and social environment: 'HAL, Mother, and Father: Watching the sixties and seventies through 2001 and Alien.' https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2015/01/09/hal-mother-an...
Re: “Close to tears, he left at the intermission”: how Kubrick upset Clarke (2017)
#10>Explanations were his forte. He was uncomfortable with most forms of ambiguity.
One can enjoy good explanations without necessarily enjoying them in movies. I think it's more fun like to try to explain what's going on by oneself from the few clues available. It seems to me that many works of art are polysemic. For example, a passage of Shakespeare can light up several different ideas in one's head thereby creating a stimulating, almost psychedelic experience. It makes the bare plot worthwhile (and worth explaining).