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

"2001": The Monolith and the Message (Roger Ebert, April 21, 1968)

rogerebert.suntimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 38 posts

Re: "2001": The Monolith and the Message (Roger Ebert, April 21, 1968)

#21

Post by huxley »

garyrob wrote: post #3

Ebert 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…

I don't know if it is the "making of" book you mean, but there is a good book called "The Lost Worlds of 2001"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lost_Worlds_of_2001

I found one at a used bookstore ages ago and it was a fascinating look at the partnership and conflict between Kubrick and Clarke as well as a look at the different ideas and plots they discarded.

Re: "2001": The Monolith and the Message (Roger Ebert, April 21, 1968)

#22

Post by kleiba »

(Sorry, this is a bit off-topic)

For some reason I always seem to have exactly the kind of people around me in the theater that Ebert describes, whether the movie is a sophisticated one like "2001" or just your ordinary Hollywood junk. And I've heard others complain about the same thing.

Going to the movies used to be a very special thing (at least to me). The big screen, the darkness, the comfortable seats, the sound, fresh popcorn... These days, you can get almost all of these things at home, sans annoying people making phone calls in the row behind you. Movie lovers now often prefer to spend their money on home entertainment system, even though they'd have to go a lot of movies until they've spent the same kind of money.

Does anyone have a theory why this changed? I mean, the experience of seeing a movie in a theater? Or is it just me?

Re: "2001": The Monolith and the Message (Roger Ebert, April 21, 1968)

#23

Post by iwwr »

DanI-S wrote: post #13

One 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!

Humans advance on their own accord. The monoliths direct nothing, they're just intriguing objects that arise curiosity.

Re: "2001": The Monolith and the Message (Roger Ebert, April 21, 1968)

#24

Post by rev_null »

DanI-S wrote: post #13

One 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!

Yeah, the last time I watched 2001, it struck me that it essentially advocates intelligent design.

Re: "2001": The Monolith and the Message (Roger Ebert, April 21, 1968)

#25

Post by pasbesoin »

kleiba wrote: post #22

(Sorry, this is a bit off-topic) For some reason I always seem to have exactly the kind of people around me in the theater that Ebert describes, whether the movie is a sophisticated one like "2001" or just your ordinary Hollywood junk. And I've heard others complain about the same thing. Going to the movies used to be a very special thing (at least to me). The big screen, the darkness, the comfortable seats, the soun…

I think that movies used to be a viewing event. Now, they're a social event. They're where you go when Micky D's or Chipotle is too bright.

Recently, I've read (not confirmed to me) that some theatres have developed problems with bedbugs. That's the final nail in the coffin, for me. I'll stay home, where I can still have an undisturbed viewing experience and, ya know, like, actually enjoy the film.

Re: "2001": The Monolith and the Message (Roger Ebert, April 21, 1968)

#26

Post by grandpa »

mhb wrote: post #16
bradleyland wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 d…

Feynman is saying that explanations do not detract from enjoyment, not that they are necessary to it.

Re: "2001": The Monolith and the Message (Roger Ebert, April 21, 1968)

#27

Post by akkartik »

trevelyan wrote: post #15
akkartik wrote: post #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 tim…

curious means "strange" here.

Yes I was aware of that.

Re: "2001": The Monolith and the Message (Roger Ebert, April 21, 1968)

#28

Post by philwelch »

ars wrote: post #4
garyrob wrote: post #3

Ebert 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've never read the book in my life, and 2001 is one of my favorite films, even if it confused me at first.

Kubrick is considered a great director because he forces the audience to confront film as something other, and perhaps more, than simply a narrative vehicle. A Kubrick film is a visual experience, more like a photograph or a painting than a novel, and almost any given still frame from 2001 is beautiful enough to frame it and put it on your wall. (It seems important here to note that Kubrick started as a photographer before becoming a filmmaker.) In most of his films, but especially 2001, Kubrick composes these striking images together with just enough of a narrative to form an emotional impression on the audience without making it too overly familiar.

Consider some of the themes of 2001. Do you really think it makes sense to convey those ideas in a way that isn't somewhat opaque? How do you convey the mystery and terror of genuinely mysterious and terrifying themes by turning them into commonplace intellectual concepts and making the audience fully comfortable with them?

2001 conveys more than you can simply put into words. That's why it's a film, not a novel. The novel offers a more literal interpretation of the events depicted, but I think Clarke himself would be the first to tell you they are separate works of art and should be evaluated as such.

Re: "2001": The Monolith and the Message (Roger Ebert, April 21, 1968)

#29

Post by bwanab »

garyrob wrote: post #3

Ebert 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 films before 2001 (Spartacus, Paths of Glory, etc) tended to tell the story with words and pictures. From 2001 on, with the notable exception of Barry Lyndon, he seemed to become obsessed with imagery, or as you say, creating visual poems (and even Barry Lyndon with its simple plot was a visual powerhouse), but I'm afraid his storytelling became secondary.

For those of you who haven't read Clarke's book 2001, you should consider putting it on your list. As garyrob has implied, it's very different from the movie - very concrete - and yet, possibly as a result, almost more hallucinogenic than the film could ever be.

Re: "2001": The Monolith and the Message (Roger Ebert, April 21, 1968)

#30

Post by mhb »

grandpa wrote: post #26
mhb wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 d…

Feynman is saying that explanations do not detract from enjoyment, not that they are necessary to it.

He's saying that explanations produce a net gain in enjoyment since they add another dimension to an experience without affecting the ability to enjoy it in an unexplained fashion.
Post reply on HN