It's a movie geek's film to watch and to enjoy. But when I reached the end, I had no idea what to take from it.
Some of the ideas are amazing, the visuals, and the lines (I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that) are brilliant. But why is it considered such a great film, while at the same time having no defined meaning or interpretation?
As discussed on Wikipedia, Kubrick stated:
You're free to speculate as you wish about the philosophical and
allegorical meaning of the film—and such speculation is one indication
that it has succeeded in gripping the audience at a deep level—but I
don't want to spell out a verbal road map for 2001 that every viewer
will feel obligated to pursue or else fear he's missed the point.
And Clarke:
I still stand by this remark, which does not mean one can't enjoy the
movie completely the first time around. What I meant was, of course,
that because we were dealing with the mystery of the universe, and
with powers and forces greater than man's comprehension, then by
definition they could not be totally understandable. Yet there is at
least one logical structure—and sometimes more than one—behind
everything that happens on the screen in "2001", and the ending does
not consist of random enigmas, some simpleminded critics to the
contrary.
Freeman Dyson urged:
"After seeing Space Odyssey, I read Arthur Clarke's book. I found the
book gripping and intellectually satisfying, full of the tension and
clarity which the movie lacks. All the parts of the movie that are
vague and unintelligible, especially the beginning and the end, become
clear and convincing in the book. So I recommend to my middle-aged
friends who find the movie bewildering that they should read the book;
their teenage kids don't need to."
So is it a case of just having to read the book to 'get it'?
No comments:
Post a Comment