Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“Close to tears, he left at the intermission”: how Kubrick upset Clarke (2017)

newstatesman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 169 posts

Re: “Close to tears, he left at the intermission”: how Kubrick upset Clarke (2017)

#21

Post by interfixus »

arca_vorago wrote: post #18
interfixus wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 .

What did you think of the ending difference between the book and the movie in ACO?

Conflicted, actually, as I would have to aggree with the American expurgation of the last chapter from the novel, but I sort of feel I have to take the author's view as canonical - and Burgess famously disliked the redaction.

Anyway, I gave up on deeper meaning in Burgess' work a long, long time ago. I still read him with great pleasure, but that's for the linguistic fireworks and his steamrolling, gutpunching flair for telling a story so you hear the sounds and smell the smells.

Re: “Close to tears, he left at the intermission”: how Kubrick upset Clarke (2017)

#22

Post by interfixus »

duncanawoods wrote: post #19
interfixus wrote: post #5

Earlier 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.

> I watch the thing in awe up till and including "My God, it's full of stars" Interestingly, this isn't actually said in 2001. It is in the novelization but its only said in the sequel 2010. It surprised me re-watching 2001 in the cinema a few years ago to not see it said, so I thought I might be watching a weird recut, but no. How the mind plays tricks.

My God, I think you may be right.

By the way, as touched upon in Moorcock's article, Clarke would not have appreciated you calling his novel a novelization.

Re: “Close to tears, he left at the intermission”: how Kubrick upset Clarke (2017)

#24

Post by DEFCON28 »

interfixus wrote: post #5
andrewflnr wrote: post #4

I 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 don't know where you downloaded your copy of the movie from, but I don't think that line is really in the movie. (See http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/my-god-its-full-of-stars )

Re: “Close to tears, he left at the intermission”: how Kubrick upset Clarke (2017)

#25

Post by dang »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #20
interfixus wrote: post #5

Earlier 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.

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 envy you the progress you'll make when you get around to re-examining some of your faulty assumptions (as we all eventually must, or at least should). Most of us…

Personal attacks will get you banned here. Please don't post like this, regardless of how much another comment annoys you.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: “Close to tears, he left at the intermission”: how Kubrick upset Clarke (2017)

#26

Post by mkl »

DEFCON28 wrote: post #23

I didn't quite get why Kubrick kicked Moorcock off the set. Anyone care to explain?

It wasn't spelled out, but I think Kubrick didn't know who he was, and just didn't want anyone extra on the set. Given how behind and over-budget the movie was, and how many people wanted to visit such an unusual (for the time) film production, I can understand that.

Re: “Close to tears, he left at the intermission”: how Kubrick upset Clarke (2017)

#27

Post by terminado »

interfixus wrote: post #22
duncanawoods wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I watch the thing in awe up till and including "My God, it's full of stars" Interestingly, this isn't actually said in 2001. It is in the novelization but its only said in the sequel 2010. It surprised me re-watching 2001 in the cinema a few years ago to not see it said, so I thought I might be watching a weird recut, but no. How the mind plays tricks.

My God, I think you may be right. By the way, as touched upon in Moorcock's article, Clarke would not have appreciated you calling his novel a novelization.

And 2010, the sequel, is pretty unwatchable. It is a bad movie.

The worst part about the movie is Roy Scheider's fatherly internal monologue narration, which tediously explains-like-i'm-five for half the movie.

So maybe that gives us a hint, about what Clark's narration would have done to 2001.

That little sound bite also chimes in over and over again, sounding forced, poorly performed and with a corny distortion effect layered on top, in some presumptive attempt to resonate an idea with the audience. Maybe to remind you once more that the movie is supposed to be a sequel, despite an almost total discontinuity with 2001.

It draws a lot of parallels with Stephen King and The Shining, which had provoked Stephen King to exert more creative control over movie adaptations, often with laughable (or maybe unintentionally comedic) b-movie results.

Re: “Close to tears, he left at the intermission”: how Kubrick upset Clarke (2017)

#29

Post by CamperBob2 »

dang wrote: post #25
CamperBob2 wrote: post #20

Earlier 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. I envy you the progress you'll make when you get around to re-examining some of your faulty assumptions (as we all eventually must, or at least should). Most of us…

Personal attacks will get you banned here. Please don't post like this, regardless of how much another comment annoys you. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Personal attacks? What personal attacks? I'm on record (although it would require a pretty exhaustive Google News search to find it) as saying pretty much the same thing as the OP, right after I watched 2001 for the first time.

In that case, other people on rec.movies were patient enough to give me some good advice, which was to set the Clarke book aside for the moment, give the film another try in a better viewing environment, and move past my prejudices and knee-jerk first impressions.

It sounds like HN's goal is somehow to create an even less open-minded environment than 1990s-era Usenet, which will be quite a trick. But if anyone can pull it off, it'll be you guys.

Re: “Close to tears, he left at the intermission”: how Kubrick upset Clarke (2017)

#30

Post by duncanawoods »

terminado wrote: post #27
interfixus wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My God, I think you may be right. By the way, as touched upon in Moorcock's article, Clarke would not have appreciated you calling his novel a novelization.

And 2010, the sequel, is pretty unwatchable. It is a bad movie. The worst part about the movie is Roy Scheider's fatherly internal monologue narration, which tediously explains-like-i'm-five for half the movie. So maybe that gives us a hint, about what Clark's narration would have done to 2001. That little sound bite also chimes in over and over again, sounding forced, poorly performed and with a corny distortion eff…

For sure its no 2001 but I don't find it bad - it has many quality scifi moments I enjoy e.g. Heywood and Russian comforting each other during aerobraking, the brutally tense traversal between the spacecraft and the interactions between Chandra and Hal are interesting if uncomfortable.
Post reply on HN