So for our first film we watched 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Okay, so maybe it's just me but I thought this movie was really strange. Don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed it but it was just really random. To begin with, the film had a somewhat creepy vibe to it. For example, the closing scene where the astronaut is foreshadowed to be regenerated was slightly weird. In a way, it seemed like a sort of cliffhanger. Speaking of the ending, I think we should talk about the "monolith" object seen throughout the film. I feel like it was a sort of MacGoughan. It was important to the storyline, but I didn't really care about it.
Another particular scene I think we should talk about would be the evolutionary scene where the plant-eating apes learn how to get meat, etc. I thought that scene was very haunting, with the dark background and few sounds except for the crickets chirping and the apes growling. Then the monolith object comes with the type of singing background, adding even more the strange aspect of the scene. Despite it's very haunting elements, I thought it was interesting that Kubrick included this scene (and a long one at that) of evolution.
Finally, I would just like to comment on the lack of sound throughout the film. Up until the astronauts join the film, the film is mainly silent with only sounds of animals talking and other natural noises (see above). Obviously, I know that the animals couldn't talk for the film to be somewhat realistic but the film is very out there already, so why do you think Kubrick kept the film mainly silent?
Yeah the movie is very visual in that there are almost 20 minute gaps between conversations. Because of that, almost everything that we need to pay attention to is what we are seeing and not hearing (although the music can be very suspenseful). Such as when the computer (HAL) is killing the other astronaut and the people in hibernation. Not a single word is said, but we keep seeing things that should not be happening, such as the space pod turning and moving on its own or the vital signs of the hibernating people going all haywire, and then we would see a shot of HAL's creepy red eye and we then know that he was controlling everything. So basically everything that is important in the movie happens without dialogue.
I agree. I think that this movie is a perfect example of one that tells its story through the visuals rather than dialogue. This movie is known more for the amazing special effects, such as all the shots of outer space that nobody in 1968 had really seen before. This is what made the movie so popular. I also think that the "monolith" object that appears in the film could be called a MacGuffin. I think this because the film is essentially based around the idea of the monolith, but not much is really said about it. We know that it is a mysterious extra terrestrial object but we dont know much further than that. I think this monolith could be replaced with another object given a weird name and it would have had the same effect.
Yeah overall I think it was a good film. I was looking up how the film did in theaters and was surprised that the film was nominated for a bunch of awards. I feel like even though the film was amazing due to that time's standards, we today wouldn't realize it because of the types of special effects we are used to. However, I did like the silent aspect of the film. It was a lot different than what I'm accustomed to so it was a refreshing change. Despite being very strange and haunting (especially the astronaut scene Dan referred to) I would probably recommend it. Did you guys like it in general?
I guess I liked it, but i think since the special effects of the time period are different than what we are used to, I feel like it was sort of cheesy. I know it wasn't cheesy in the time period, but being used to "Avatar" makes quite a difference in watching the movie. I think it sends a thought provoking message, implying that bad things could happen if we become too dependent on technology. I think Kubrick chose to show technology in an evil way, such as HAL's creepy voice and his disobedience to human instruction. Overall, this was an entertaining film, even if the special effects are not up-to-date.
yeah I liked it too. The silence was really suspenseful and I thought that was pretty interesting.
And I agree with John in that the portrayal of HAL as a feeling, emotional, and totally independent computer is a commentary on how we can get too independent on machines and that they can have disastrous affects if something goes wrong.
I think that I liked this film a lot more than 2001: A Space Odyssey. This movie was a lot more realistic and didn't have the cheesy special effects that the other film had (though I'm sure they were good for the time). I liked the heroic aspects of this film. My favorite character was definitely Spartacus. I thought he really embodied the hero archetype. He's honorable and cunning, while also being the reluctant hero that was in "Rear Window". However, I did have a few issues with him because at some times it seemed like he was romanticized too much, you know?
Overall this film reminded me slightly of Murakami in "Stray Dog". As noted before, he is a reluctant hero who is more or less thrust into a situation unwillingly. However, like Murakami, Spartacus thrives on his heroic odyssey while also experiencing emotional turmoil (which for Spartacus would probably be the separation from his love).
I liked this movie a lot more than 2001 as well. It had a plot that was much easier to follow along with actual talking and conversations taking place.
I also agree that Sparticus embodies many of what we would consider to be heroistic qualities. He is simply disgusted with how the Romans were simply raising other men to fight and die for their own gratificatio, and it is this feeling of remorse over his fellow man that led him to take the course of action that he did.
I agree with Avery because I think that Spartacus is a much better movie than 2001 A Space Odyssey. I think this for similar reasons, because this is more historically accurate than the other movie was, and I thought it was a lot more entertaining. I don't know if it was just the DVD that did this but both 2001 A Space Odyssey and Spartacus had a long period of orchestral music with a blank screen before the movie. This could be how Stanley Kubrick liked to start his movies, however i think it is just annoying. I also think that even though Spartacus doesn't have as many special effects as the other movie does, there is still a focus on image rather than dialogue. Spartacus does not have many lines in the movie, especially at the beginning, but he is the focus of almost all of the scenes. I also think Spartacus falls into the "reluctant hero" because he is thrown into this situation and has to deal with it.
I think it's interesting that we all thought thus movie was a lot better, just for the reason that I know a lot of people who think 2001 is a masterpiece. What I also found interesting was, when I was looking at some articles about Kubrick, it said that Spartacus had won many awards. Apparently, the film was critically acclaimed and won Kubrick a lot of fame. The main reason I was surprised us because I didn't know that he was so well known! So that was a fun fact.
I was also wondering what you guys thought about the scene where everyone claims they are Spartacus to support him. I thought that was a very powerful scene, one probably often recreated.
I agree. That scene felt like one of the most triumphant of the movie and I could see how a lot of filmmakers could get ideas from that scene. I think the reason that we all liked it so much more was that its something more easily imaginable. We have all heard that gladiators existed, and it's cool to explore what it maybe was like for them. The other movie, 2001 A Space Odyssey, has an interesting plot but as I said before I could never really get into it because i thought that the special effects were cheesy, whereas in Spartacus there was little that I could criticize.
I also think that this was a really powerful scene because it was pretty much the climax where you see sparticus emerge as a true leader and hero. He had appeared as pretty much a savior to all the slaves that he liberated, and he did it basically for the purpose of helping his fellow man.
And all the qualities are finally embodied in this scene.
I think of the three films we watched, this one would come in second for which one I liked most, nehind Spartacus. Although it was definitely entertaining and I thought, very creepy, the premise was a little too out there for me.
On a more general note, watching this film has just reiterated to me how Kubrick as a director is very unique. He does not seem to focus on only one genre and instead dabbles in many different types of films. In our film study, we progressed from a science-fiction film, to a historical epic, to a horror film. Clearly, Kubrick has many different tastes when it comes to film.
Finally, I thought it might be interesting to compare the protagonist in this film to Spartacus. To me, they are very different. Spartacus is a hero, a well-to-do man who cares not just about himself, but others as well. On the other hand, Jack is a man concerned more with ridding himself of his writer's block than the welfare of his family. Obviously, Jack is developed through the film as basically the villain. Why do you guys think Kubrick's characters and films are so different from each other?
I think that the difference in characters can come from the difference in genres that you mentioned. Spartacus is set up to be an epic film where the hero saves hundreds of people.
However, the Shining is set up to be a very disturbing horror movie, and I think that that is the reason why the main character is such a disturbing guy who gets progressively worse throughout the film.
I think this is why the two characters are so different from each other.
Yes I thought that the genre difference was why the two characters were so different. But going off of differences, why do you think kubrick's choice of genre range so widely. I believe he chooses different films because those films happen to be the ones that interest him. Unlike someone like Woody Allen, Kubrick touches on many different areas, making quality films out of each one.
Anyway, I overall liked Kubrick. His style was noticeable and his subject matter is was always risky and artistic. He seems to be a true auteur, and one of the more unique ones at that.
I agree. I liked Kubrick because of the variety in each one of his movies. The first, 2001 A Space Odyssey was interesting but very weird. The second was my personal favorite Spartacus, which as previously stated is an epic about ancient gladiators, and the third which is the Shining which is regarded as one of the creepiest movies of modern cinema. I also liked Spartacus more than i did this because the whole time watching The Shining i felt creeped out and it gave me an uncomfortable feeling watching it. I agree that Kubrick had incredible range in the type of movie he made, and to be honest, there are not too many similarities between them i don't think. Maybe this is just because of the variety of movies we watched though.
I also liked the variety of genres as well. I think it says a lot about Kubrick's talent in he was able to make good movies in three very different areas.
I also got the feeling that his 'trademark' in a sense is his ability to create films that broke from the norms of what we usually see. Such as in 2001 and the Shining. Those two films were part of two established genres, but they were both completely unique and were able to create that creeped out feeling in it's viewers.
I agree with that i think that every one would have been a groundbreaking new movie in its time. 2001 because of its exploration into the universe that everyone is curious about, then Spartacus which is an in depth illustration of Gladiator life and glory, and then the Shining, a powerful and scary story of an unstable man.
All of these plots are things that arent made every day. There are directors out there that go for the same types of movies, but what sets Kubrick apart is his variety and his effectiveness in a diverse variety of genres.
This is my seventh year teaching film, and ninth overall. I got my B.A. in journalism in 1998 from the University of Minnesota, then worked as a sports writer at The Star Tribune for awhile. I eventually went back to the U for my master's degree in English education, and started teaching in 2001.
I live in Minneapolis with Susan (wife, works at General Mills), Jack (son, born in August '08), and Gunnar (dog, a PBGV -- look it up).
18 comments:
So for our first film we watched 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Okay, so maybe it's just me but I thought this movie was really strange. Don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed it but it was just really random. To begin with, the film had a somewhat creepy vibe to it. For example, the closing scene where the astronaut is foreshadowed to be regenerated was slightly weird. In a way, it seemed like a sort of cliffhanger. Speaking of the ending, I think we should talk about the "monolith" object seen throughout the film. I feel like it was a sort of MacGoughan. It was important to the storyline, but I didn't really care about it.
Another particular scene I think we should talk about would be the evolutionary scene where the plant-eating apes learn how to get meat, etc. I thought that scene was very haunting, with the dark background and few sounds except for the crickets chirping and the apes growling. Then the monolith object comes with the type of singing background, adding even more the strange aspect of the scene. Despite it's very haunting elements, I thought it was interesting that Kubrick included this scene (and a long one at that) of evolution.
Finally, I would just like to comment on the lack of sound throughout the film. Up until the astronauts join the film, the film is mainly silent with only sounds of animals talking and other natural noises (see above). Obviously, I know that the animals couldn't talk for the film to be somewhat realistic but the film is very out there already, so why do you think Kubrick kept the film mainly silent?
Yeah the movie is very visual in that there are almost 20 minute gaps between conversations. Because of that, almost everything that we need to pay attention to is what we are seeing and not hearing (although the music can be very suspenseful). Such as when the computer (HAL) is killing the other astronaut and the people in hibernation. Not a single word is said, but we keep seeing things that should not be happening, such as the space pod turning and moving on its own or the vital signs of the hibernating people going all haywire, and then we would see a shot of HAL's creepy red eye and we then know that he was controlling everything. So basically everything that is important in the movie happens without dialogue.
I agree. I think that this movie is a perfect example of one that tells its story through the visuals rather than dialogue. This movie is known more for the amazing special effects, such as all the shots of outer space that nobody in 1968 had really seen before. This is what made the movie so popular. I also think that the "monolith" object that appears in the film could be called a MacGuffin. I think this because the film is essentially based around the idea of the monolith, but not much is really said about it. We know that it is a mysterious extra terrestrial object but we dont know much further than that. I think this monolith could be replaced with another object given a weird name and it would have had the same effect.
John C. Hour 6
Yeah overall I think it was a good film. I was looking up how the film did in theaters and was surprised that the film was nominated for a bunch of awards. I feel like even though the film was amazing due to that time's standards, we today wouldn't realize it because of the types of special effects we are used to. However, I did like the silent aspect of the film. It was a lot different than what I'm accustomed to so it was a refreshing change. Despite being very strange and haunting (especially the astronaut scene Dan referred to) I would probably recommend it. Did you guys like it in general?
I guess I liked it, but i think since the special effects of the time period are different than what we are used to, I feel like it was sort of cheesy. I know it wasn't cheesy in the time period, but being used to "Avatar" makes quite a difference in watching the movie. I think it sends a thought provoking message, implying that bad things could happen if we become too dependent on technology. I think Kubrick chose to show technology in an evil way, such as HAL's creepy voice and his disobedience to human instruction. Overall, this was an entertaining film, even if the special effects are not up-to-date.
John C. Hour 6
yeah I liked it too. The silence was really suspenseful and I thought that was pretty interesting.
And I agree with John in that the portrayal of HAL as a feeling, emotional, and totally independent computer is a commentary on how we can get too independent on machines and that they can have disastrous affects if something goes wrong.
So for our second film we watched Spartacus.
I think that I liked this film a lot more than 2001: A Space Odyssey. This movie was a lot more realistic and didn't have the cheesy special effects that the other film had (though I'm sure they were good for the time). I liked the heroic aspects of this film. My favorite character was definitely Spartacus. I thought he really embodied the hero archetype. He's honorable and cunning, while also being the reluctant hero that was in "Rear Window". However, I did have a few issues with him because at some times it seemed like he was romanticized too much, you know?
Overall this film reminded me slightly of Murakami in "Stray Dog". As noted before, he is a reluctant hero who is more or less thrust into a situation unwillingly. However, like Murakami, Spartacus thrives on his heroic odyssey while also experiencing emotional turmoil (which for Spartacus would probably be the separation from his love).
I liked this movie a lot more than 2001 as well. It had a plot that was much easier to follow along with actual talking and conversations taking place.
I also agree that Sparticus embodies many of what we would consider to be heroistic qualities. He is simply disgusted with how the Romans were simply raising other men to fight and die for their own gratificatio, and it is this feeling of remorse over his fellow man that led him to take the course of action that he did.
I agree with Avery because I think that Spartacus is a much better movie than 2001 A Space Odyssey. I think this for similar reasons, because this is more historically accurate than the other movie was, and I thought it was a lot more entertaining. I don't know if it was just the DVD that did this but both 2001 A Space Odyssey and Spartacus had a long period of orchestral music with a blank screen before the movie. This could be how Stanley Kubrick liked to start his movies, however i think it is just annoying. I also think that even though Spartacus doesn't have as many special effects as the other movie does, there is still a focus on image rather than dialogue. Spartacus does not have many lines in the movie, especially at the beginning, but he is the focus of almost all of the scenes. I also think Spartacus falls into the "reluctant hero" because he is thrown into this situation and has to deal with it.
I think it's interesting that we all thought thus movie was a lot better, just for the reason that I know a lot of people who think 2001 is a masterpiece. What I also found interesting was, when I was looking at some articles about Kubrick, it said that Spartacus had won many awards. Apparently, the film was critically acclaimed and won Kubrick a lot of fame. The main reason I was surprised us because I didn't know that he was so well known! So that was a fun fact.
I was also wondering what you guys thought about the scene where everyone claims they are Spartacus to support him. I thought that was a very powerful scene, one probably often recreated.
I agree. That scene felt like one of the most triumphant of the movie and I could see how a lot of filmmakers could get ideas from that scene. I think the reason that we all liked it so much more was that its something more easily imaginable. We have all heard that gladiators existed, and it's cool to explore what it maybe was like for them. The other movie, 2001 A Space Odyssey, has an interesting plot but as I said before I could never really get into it because i thought that the special effects were cheesy, whereas in Spartacus there was little that I could criticize.
I also think that this was a really powerful scene because it was pretty much the climax where you see sparticus emerge as a true leader and hero. He had appeared as pretty much a savior to all the slaves that he liberated, and he did it basically for the purpose of helping his fellow man.
And all the qualities are finally embodied in this scene.
So for our final film we watched the Shining.
I think of the three films we watched, this one would come in second for which one I liked most, nehind Spartacus. Although it was definitely entertaining and I thought, very creepy, the premise was a little too out there for me.
On a more general note, watching this film has just reiterated to me how Kubrick as a director is very unique. He does not seem to focus on only one genre and instead dabbles in many different types of films. In our film study, we progressed from a science-fiction film, to a historical epic, to a horror film. Clearly, Kubrick has many different tastes when it comes to film.
Finally, I thought it might be interesting to compare the protagonist in this film to Spartacus. To me, they are very different. Spartacus is a hero, a well-to-do man who cares not just about himself, but others as well. On the other hand, Jack is a man concerned more with ridding himself of his writer's block than the welfare of his family. Obviously, Jack is developed through the film as basically the villain. Why do you guys think Kubrick's characters and films are so different from each other?
I think that the difference in characters can come from the difference in genres that you mentioned. Spartacus is set up to be an epic film where the hero saves hundreds of people.
However, the Shining is set up to be a very disturbing horror movie, and I think that that is the reason why the main character is such a disturbing guy who gets progressively worse throughout the film.
I think this is why the two characters are so different from each other.
Yes I thought that the genre difference was why the two characters were so different. But going off of differences, why do you think kubrick's choice of genre range so widely. I believe he chooses different films because those films happen to be the ones that interest him. Unlike someone like Woody Allen, Kubrick touches on many different areas, making quality films out of each one.
Anyway, I overall liked Kubrick. His style was noticeable and his subject matter is was always risky and artistic. He seems to be a true auteur, and one of the more unique ones at that.
I agree. I liked Kubrick because of the variety in each one of his movies. The first, 2001 A Space Odyssey was interesting but very weird. The second was my personal favorite Spartacus, which as previously stated is an epic about ancient gladiators, and the third which is the Shining which is regarded as one of the creepiest movies of modern cinema. I also liked Spartacus more than i did this because the whole time watching The Shining i felt creeped out and it gave me an uncomfortable feeling watching it. I agree that Kubrick had incredible range in the type of movie he made, and to be honest, there are not too many similarities between them i don't think. Maybe this is just because of the variety of movies we watched though.
John C.
Hour 6
I also liked the variety of genres as well. I think it says a lot about Kubrick's talent in he was able to make good movies in three very different areas.
I also got the feeling that his 'trademark' in a sense is his ability to create films that broke from the norms of what we usually see. Such as in 2001 and the Shining. Those two films were part of two established genres, but they were both completely unique and were able to create that creeped out feeling in it's viewers.
I agree with that i think that every one would have been a groundbreaking new movie in its time. 2001 because of its exploration into the universe that everyone is curious about, then Spartacus which is an in depth illustration of Gladiator life and glory, and then the Shining, a powerful and scary story of an unstable man.
All of these plots are things that arent made every day. There are directors out there that go for the same types of movies, but what sets Kubrick apart is his variety and his effectiveness in a diverse variety of genres.
Post a Comment