"In a linear movie, you never ask why John Wayne wants to kill the bad guys (although perhaps you should)." Great quote.
"2001": The Monolith and the Message (Roger Ebert, April 21, 1968)
11–20 of 38 posts
Re: "2001": The Monolith and the Message (Roger Ebert, April 21, 1968)
#12Ebert never mentions Arthur C. Clarke, who wrote the short story that the movie is derived from, who wrote the script with Kubrick, and who also wrote a first-class sci-fi novel with the same name and basic plot as the movie. The Clarke novel is far more literal in spirit than Ebert's interpretation of the film. The most important difference is probably the bedroom. In the novel, it's a place where the aliens try to…
Similar comments also apply, I think, to Kubrick's adaptation of Stephen King's The Shining. Several critics talk about how it has hidden meanings about the massacre of American Indians.
Re: "2001": The Monolith and the Message (Roger Ebert, April 21, 1968)
#13One thing I always found slightly sad about this movie is the idea that humans can only advance through outside intervention. I don't believe that at all!
Re: "2001": The Monolith and the Message (Roger Ebert, April 21, 1968)
#14"Man is a curious animal. He is uneasy in the face of great experiences, and if he is forced to experience something profound, he starts immediately to cheapen it, to bring it down to his own level. Thus after a great man is assassinated, lesser men immediately manufacture, buy and sell plastic statues and souvenir billfolds and lucky coins with the great man's image on them."
I had to read this paragraph several times. First I had to figure out that the word 'curious' here meant 'remarkable for his incuriosity'. Then I wondered who the great man was and remembered the publish date.
Re: "2001": The Monolith and the Message (Roger Ebert, April 21, 1968)
#15"Man is a curious animal. He is uneasy in the face of great experiences, and if he is forced to experience something profound, he starts immediately to cheapen it, to bring it down to his own level. Thus after a great man is assassinated, lesser men immediately manufacture, buy and sell plastic statues and souvenir billfolds and lucky coins with the great man's image on them." I had to read this paragraph several tim…
curious means "strange" here.
Re: "2001": The Monolith and the Message (Roger Ebert, April 21, 1968)
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
Kubrick's version makes no sense at all unless you read the book, and it left me with a lasting dislike of all of his works and a bafflement that people consider him such a great director. It's a story first, and a work of art second. I suppose some (lots?) of people like art that makes no sense, but not me. And I think Ebert never mentions Arthur C. Clarke because Ebert didn't read the book either, and like everyone…
Makes no sense at all? That's rather unfair. Would you say that abstract art makes no sense at all unless the author explains it to you? Who says that film is story first, art second? Frankly, I don't want to live in a world where film is limited to works of literal dictation. You are free to dislike someone's work, but to say it makes no sense is an objective statement about communication. There is an abundance of s…
Poets say science takes away from the beauty of the stars - mere globs of gas atoms. Nothing is "mere". I too can see the stars on a desert night, and feel them. But do I see less or more? The vastness of the heavens stretches my imagination - stuck on this carousel my little eye can catch one-million-year-old light. A vast pattern - of which I am a part... What is the pattern or the meaning or the why? It does not do harm to the mystery to know a little more about it. For far more marvelous is the truth than any artists of the past imagined it. Why do the poets of the present not speak of it? What men are poets who can speak of Jupiter if he were a man, but if he is an immense spinning sphere of methane and ammonia must be silent?
Feynman
Re: "2001": The Monolith and the Message (Roger Ebert, April 21, 1968)
#17"In a linear movie, you never ask why John Wayne wants to kill the bad guys (although perhaps you should)." Great quote.
Uhm, because they are the bad guys? John Wayne films are pretty clear on why the bad guys are considered bad. I realize that these films are not high brow entertainment, but factual honesty is always a bonus. Witty false statements playing on a cliche kind of irritate me.
Re: "2001": The Monolith and the Message (Roger Ebert, April 21, 1968)
#18Ebert never mentions Arthur C. Clarke, who wrote the short story that the movie is derived from, who wrote the script with Kubrick, and who also wrote a first-class sci-fi novel with the same name and basic plot as the movie. The Clarke novel is far more literal in spirit than Ebert's interpretation of the film. The most important difference is probably the bedroom. In the novel, it's a place where the aliens try to…
Kubrick's version makes no sense at all unless you read the book, and it left me with a lasting dislike of all of his works and a bafflement that people consider him such a great director. It's a story first, and a work of art second. I suppose some (lots?) of people like art that makes no sense, but not me. And I think Ebert never mentions Arthur C. Clarke because Ebert didn't read the book either, and like everyone…
I believe the book in question is "The Sentinel", http://econtent.typepad.com/TheSentinel.pdf
or are you speaking of something different?
Re: "2001": The Monolith and the Message (Roger Ebert, April 21, 1968)
#19Ebert never mentions Arthur C. Clarke, who wrote the short story that the movie is derived from, who wrote the script with Kubrick, and who also wrote a first-class sci-fi novel with the same name and basic plot as the movie. The Clarke novel is far more literal in spirit than Ebert's interpretation of the film. The most important difference is probably the bedroom. In the novel, it's a place where the aliens try to…
Kubrick's version makes no sense at all unless you read the book, and it left me with a lasting dislike of all of his works and a bafflement that people consider him such a great director. It's a story first, and a work of art second. I suppose some (lots?) of people like art that makes no sense, but not me. And I think Ebert never mentions Arthur C. Clarke because Ebert didn't read the book either, and like everyone…
I know there's really no point in arguing about matters of taste, but I've seen the film and read the book, and vastly prefer the film. Kubrick's film is a work of genius, if you ask me, and the book was mediocre at best. In my mind, it read like a bad novelization of the film (even if it wasn't written as one.)
And no, you absolutely do not need to read the book to have a clue as to what is happening in the film. As Ebert points out, you just need to sit back and watch, and enough will be revealed.
Re: "2001": The Monolith and the Message (Roger Ebert, April 21, 1968)
#20"In a linear movie, you never ask why John Wayne wants to kill the bad guys (although perhaps you should)." Great quote.
Uhm, because they are the bad guys? John Wayne films are pretty clear on why the bad guys are considered bad. I realize that these films are not high brow entertainment, but factual honesty is always a bonus. Witty false statements playing on a cliche kind of irritate me.
Yes, that's understood. But what are the gunslinger character's motivations behind wanting to kill the bad guys? After all, we encounter really bad guys all the time in our lives, e.g. Jared Lee Loughner. If he were out in the wild, would you be willing to seek out and kill him. It takes a certain kind of person to be motivated to do this. What are those motivations? For being a Western that delves into some of these issues, I love The Unforgiven.