Well no, I just saw the film again for the first time in years and the psychedelic montage seemed like a self-indulgent hodgepodge of effects that were fashionable at the time.
This tells me that you've grown up into a adult that's never abused drugs to any real degree.
Seriously, good storytelling is difficult and I understand that these types of montages that leave questions is a cheap way out. But IMO, if you're going to charge money for a story, let's make it understandable.
It shouldn't be a chore for the viewer to be entertained, which is the whole point of movies.
The real shame of this film is that it's beautifully filmed, wonderfully acted, and the special affects are still astounding after all these decades. Everything is wonderful until the end. Too bad the last 30 minutes crashes and burns.
To me, this would be analogous to watching Shawshank Redemption for 2 hours, and in the last twenty minutes, have the inmate, warden, and guards do a West Side Story dance number, or pretending to row boats in pantomime.
I enjoy 2010 more. [spoiler] It doesn't answer the questions but at least Dr. Floyd's letter to home says they don't have a clue what the monolith is or the exact purpose of the two suns.[/spoiler]
reply
share
Otter (24464)
6 years ago
'This tells me that you've grown up into a adult that's never abused drugs to any real degree. '
Got it in one!
But even if I had, I still wouldn't understand the point of an LSD trip at that point in the story. If that's the moment he leaves the reality he's known, why the LSD effects - did he take a hit before getting into his spaceship? If Kubrick's intent was to show unreality, things Dave saw but did not understand because they weren't part of his reality, Kubrick really should have used less fashionably psychedelic imagery.
reply
share
TheBlackWaffle (226)
6 years ago
I already told you exactly what the scene is about, and no, it’s not just my opinion. That is literally what is happening in the scene. Dave is being transported. The “psychedelic imagery” is a “gate” through both space and time which Dave is passing through. You see it because Dave sees it, because it’s actually there. It has nothing to do with drugs or being “fashionable”. Sure, Kubrick and Clarke don’t spoon feed you, but they’re also not being ambiguous.
reply
share
TheBlackWaffle (226)
6 years ago
“The whole point of movies” is to entertain? Let me ask you this...when you go to a museum, are you of the opinion that the paintings/sculptures/photography/whatever else is there solely to “entertain” you? I don’t mean this in a condescending way, but if your answer is yes, then I think you need to examine the role of art a little more thoroughly. “2001: A Space Odyssey” is not a Jackie Chan action comedy. While many scenes are indeed entertaining, the film is functioning on a far more cerebral level, and will only reward you if you’re willing to be patient and question the artist’s intent.
reply
share
strntz (11295)
6 years ago
Let me ask you this...when you go to a museum, are you of the opinion that the paintings/sculptures/photography/whatever else is there solely to “entertain” you?
Apples and oranges. Movies and museums are quite different IMO. Still, I concede that if there was no entertainment value in museums I certainly wouldn't go to them unless I was doing research. Look, I have two advanced degrees, one in engineering. When I pays my monies to sit in a theater with sticky floors and some dude hacking up a lung because he won't give up his ciggies, then yes, I insist on being entertained.
I've tortured my gray matter enough in my life doing research and development. I simply don't want this during my down time. If someone finds enjoyment in scratching their heads wondering what the hell the story is about, then I have no problem with that. I'm just convinced that majority of movie watchers feel as I do.
For my final thought on this subject, let me relate a very true story. When my wife was in college, one of her classes included required trips museums and foreign films and such. One night, I drove her to the Wadsworth Atheneum in Hartford CT to see a required film in the basement of the museum (I believe it was Hiroshima mon amour). Getting there about an hour early, we trolled about the museum and came to a room with some "art" from one artist (whose name I never knew nor cared to). The pictures were literally white paper stock with one or two what appeared to be charcoal streaks in random strokes, mostly horizontal. There must have been two dozen of them of various sizes in simple flat black metal frames. I said to my wife (too loudly I guess) "I see Mrs. O'Leary's kindergarten class has an exhibit here".
That was the last time she asked me to go with her.
reply
share
TheBlackWaffle (226)
6 years ago
In my opinion, 2001 is among only a handful of films that could literally be projected onto the wall of a museum, played on a neverending loop and be perfectly at home amongst the greatest works of the 20th century (regardless of artistic medium).
As for the film’s plot, I’m genuinely curious...what is it that you don’t understand/find entertaining? I honestly can’t think of any other film that is more ambitious, awe-inspiring and just straight-up gorgeous in terms of its visuals. In fact, I do my best to be first in line every time it plays in an actual theater.
reply
share
strntz (11295)
6 years ago
As for the film’s plot, I’m genuinely curious...what is it that you don’t understand/find entertaining?
That's easy; the end. I watch this every time it's on because I love it - right up until it crashes and burns. I could cite a dozen websites dedicated to explaining or otherwise offering interpretations, but I'm sure you know most of them.
I could also get specific about what I personally don't understand, but it's been decades since I last watched the ending so let answer your question by simply quoting Arthur C. Clarke:
"If anyone understands it on the first viewing, we've failed in our intention."
There it is. Boom....
Such a great, great film that was intentionally hobbled by it's own writer.
I would have been happier if the SFX were something like the Discovery being a Packard hubcap on a string and the ending logically concluded. The SFX, sets, actors, direction, etc. are both satisfying and astounding, right up to the point they're not. That's what makes this so frustrating to me. What it could have been is a sin in my opinion.
reply
share
TheBlackWaffle (226)
6 years ago
I don’t know the websites you’re referring to, but I remember thinking the film was pretty cut and dry upon first viewing. Not cut and dry in the way that The Nutty Professor is cut and dry, but things are pretty clear if you pay attention. The black monolith affects change. It allows the person/species touching it to progress to the next evolutionary step at a much faster rate than they would have on their own.
But alright, you’re not a fan. To each their own, I guess. That said, you should still read the book. Because it’s great.
reply
share
TaRaNRoD (1579)
6 years ago
Okay indeed your degrees are for engineering and not appreciating art... Each his own.
reply
share
Owlwise (1513)
4 years ago
Why can't works of art that are challenging also be entertaining? They can be both, you know.
The ending isn't a failure, but a triumph. Bowman (and by extension, all of humanity) is plunged into an experience far beyond his comprehension, something far greater & overwhelming than he could ever begin or hope to understand. The viewing audience is supposed to feel that as well. Yet as the audience, we have just enough distance to understand that Bowman is undergoing an astonishing transformation because of that experience. He's making a leap as vast as the leap between that primal man-ape tossing the bone into the sky & instantly cutting to the orbiting weapon station. We can't hope to comprehend what Bowman has become & can now understand, any more than the man-ape could have understood the world of 2001. Yet there's a linking thread of growth that connects that man-ape to the ascended Bowman. And who knows how much more he will change & grow in the future?
reply
share
[deleted]
6 years ago
"never abused drugs to any real degree. "
Are you implying that the psychadelic tunnel effect thingy is like taking LSD?
reply
share