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

31–40 of 169 posts

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

#31

Post by jccooper »

dudul wrote: post #11

Kubrick was fairly known for heavily adapting the novels he used for inspiration. There are huge differences between the novel "Lolita" and Kubrick's adaptation. Same with "Shining" or "Clockwork Orange". TBH, I'm really happy we didn't get a version with voice-overs and all. Hard to imagine a concept of "documentary" would have been better than what we ended up with.

Stephen King is publicly critical of Kubrick's treatment of "The Shining", mostly about its unchanging and one-dimensional characters. While I expect "2001" would not have been improved by a lot of explanatory voiceovers, I think "The Shining" would be seriously improved by Jack not being obviously crazy right from the first.

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

#32

Post by [deleted] »

interfixus wrote: post #14
firasd wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I see I'm getting hammered for my negativity, but I certainly meant it when I said in awe about the first part. It's magnificent, never mind the lunar gravity problem, which I've never seen well done on film. It's only a couple of months since I last tried - and gave up on - watching 2001 to the end. Probably my own shortcoming entirely - I see nothing but pretentious late sixties posing from the stargate and onwards…

[deleted]

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

#34

Post by jlg23 »

coupdejarnac wrote: post #33

Having read 2001, A Clockwork Orange, and Lolita, I'd say Kubrick's end products justified his changes. Imagine A Clockwork Orange having a happy ending... Well, that's how the book ends.

Not sure which cut you watched, it does have a happy ending for the protagonist. He enjoys Beethoven again.

EDIT: A friend who read the book initially just said it was not happy, but agreed it is when you only know the movie.

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

#36

Post by mieseratte »

coupdejarnac wrote: post #33

Having read 2001, A Clockwork Orange, and Lolita, I'd say Kubrick's end products justified his changes. Imagine A Clockwork Orange having a happy ending... Well, that's how the book ends.

As a former disaffected youth I've very much come to appreciate the original ending of A Clockwork Orange as I've gotten older.

While I am a bit of a fan of Kubrick, I think he did the story a great disservice by ending it as he did.

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

#37

Post by Crontab »

mkl wrote: post #26
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.

This was my thought as well.

As an aside, I would personally love to meet Michael Moorcock. He is one of my favorite authors.

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

#38

Post by klenwell »

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.

The last time I saw my grandmother was the last time I saw 2001. It was a few years ago. She was bedridden but living at home with a full-time caregiver. Hospice care had been initiated. Her bed, a full-size hospital bed, was located in the room that used to be the den. There was a large TV in the room that she spent most the day watching. It was early afternoon.

When I walked in, for reasons both mysterious and comical to me, the TV was tuned to a cable channel showing 2001. It was the start of the psychedelic wormhole scene.

The room was decorated, as it had been since I was a kid, in a style I'll call organic American kitsch. Her caregiver and my aunt were in the room. My grandmother was half-sleeping. She smiled when she saw me. Then she fell back to sleep. The others left the room. Standing next to her bed, I watched the movie to the end as my grandmother snored lightly beside me. I don't remember if there were commercial breaks. When it was over, I said goodbye to my grandmother and left her sleeping.

I still can't figure out who turned on 2001. The caregiver usually turned the channel to Fox News. I think my aunt preferred to turn the TV off. If my dad had been there, it might have made sense. He hadn't. It was a very uncanny experience.

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

#40

Post by lnrdgmz »

coupdejarnac wrote: post #33

Having read 2001, A Clockwork Orange, and Lolita, I'd say Kubrick's end products justified his changes. Imagine A Clockwork Orange having a happy ending... Well, that's how the book ends.

A Clockwork Orange is supposedly loyal to it's source material, the American edition of the novel.

> This plot discrepancy occurred because Kubrick based his screenplay upon the novel's American edition, its final chapter deleted on insistence of the American publisher.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clockwork_Orange_(film)#Diff...

Post reply on HN