6 ms·

I love Kubrick movies, but my one bit of criticism I'd give (from me - a random guy on the internet, who's never made a movie), is that both 2001 and The Shinin

• mateus1 2y ago
  I do not think you have to fully rationally grasp the ending for 2001 to be an impactful film. I’d argue it is a masterpiece _because_ of that uneasiness and befuddlement and that is one of the ways it leaves a mark on you.
  • onemoresoop 2y ago
    I agree with the befuddlement aspect that makes the mind rummage on it from time to time long after watching the movie. It's an incomplete resolution that causes us to think about the movie. It could be frustrating at times but I guess that's the whole point.
• ghusto 2y ago
  Agreed, and I’d be comfortable calling this incompetence. Triggers cinemaphiles to hear a director that’s supposed to be ome of the finest being called incompetent, but I can’t see how it’s defendable. He failed at the _one thing_ a film is supposed to do.
  • bondarchuk 2y ago
    Cinemaphiles TRIGGERED by this simple critique! (come on man...)
  • latexr 2y ago
    > Agreed, and I’d be comfortable calling this incompetence. You do know that in the case of 2001, the movie and book were done simultaneously, right? There’s no failure of adaptation because it wasn’t one. It makes no sense to fault the movie by comparing with the book in this case. > He failed at the _one thing_ a film is supposed to do. Which is what? Entertain? Make a profit? Be culturally relevant to an extent that is still felt decades later? There is no rule which says a movie has to be a coherent linear story that spoon feeds you to be significant, good, or artistically relevant.
    • ghusto 2y ago
      > You do know that in the case of 2001, the movie and book were done simultaneously, right? There’s no failure of adaptation because it wasn’t one. It makes no sense to fault the movie by comparing with the book in this case. Yes, I know that. I don't see how it makes it a nonsensical comparison though. One form was done well, the other incompetently. It's not like they marketed it as "hey, you really need both for the full experience". >> He failed at the _one thing_ a film is supposed to do. > Which is what? Entertain? Make a profit? Be culturally relevant to an extent that is still felt decades later? To convey something in the audio/visual format. It doesn't get more basic. Whether that's for pure entertainment, artistic intent, whatever. > There is no rule which says a movie has to be a coherent linear story that spoon feeds you to be significant, good, or artistically relevant. Neither is there anything saying that you're safe from criticism if your work isn't coherent either. There was a very clear, coherent story to 2001, and Kubrick failed to convey it.
  • garyrob 2y ago
    > but I can’t see how it’s defendable Perhaps the key here is what YOU don't see, not the merit of the film. 2001 was ranked the 6th greatest movie of all time in the Sight and Sound poll, which is probably the world's most respected poll of industry professionals. And it was ranked #1 by their poll of directors: https://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-and-sound/directors-100-greatest-films-all-time#rank-9 https://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-and-sound/directors-100-greates... Could it possibly be that these directors know something you don't? For my own part, it's been my favorite movie since I first saw it in 1968 and I've probably seen it 20 times since then.
    • ghusto 2y ago
      Appealing to authority doesn't negate what I said. There was a clear narrative to the story, Kubrick failed to convey it. That is poor film making.
      • garyrob 2y ago
        Ooookay. You are the world's greatest expert in film-making. Thank you.
      • runsfromfire 2y ago
        He wasn’t trying to convey the story you wanted him to convey so it’s poor filmmaking? I’m not sure I understand your position. He’s a bad filmmaker because you preferred the book’s ending?
      • singleshot_ 2y ago
        I’ve seen the movie a few times and no part of it is confusing. The movie and the story it tells is coherent and, I dare say, pretty obvious. It’s unfortunate that you were not able to follow it, both because of your obvious dissatisfaction and because now you’re making a lot of bad posts.
        • ghusto 2y ago
          This film is definitely a trigger for me, so I'll concede that I'm over-reacting. However, I do not believe the ending was easy to follow, not just because I didn't understand it, but because I've never heard anybody who's only seen the film say they understood it either.
  • WalterBright 2y ago
    I've heard that 2001 was very much enjoyed by people who would come to the theater high. The visuals were a great trip for them, and helped make the movie a big success! P.S. I've seen the movie countless times (never high), and sometimes I'll put it on as simply moving wallpaper.
  • tacocataco 2y ago
    Art is subjective. There is nothing wrong with having your own interpretation
• tambourine_man 2y ago
  “Leaving things out” is sometimes one of cinema's greatest strengths. I’ll never forget a documentary I saw on martial arts film editors. They will deliberately cut the very frame where a fist would touch an actor's face. And not at all because it was badly choreographed. Instead, they realized that the strongest punch is the one you never see. It’s the one you complete with your imagination. And there’s no competing with that. Likewise, leaving some of the plot to be inferred by the audience is a powerful narrative mechanism.
• eggoa 2y ago
  It would have been tough since the book and movie for 2001 were created concurrently.
• pinewurst 2y ago
  I’m pretty sure Clarke’s 2001 book was post-screenplay and possibly post-movie.
  • munchler 2y ago
    No. It was developed concurrently with the film version and parts of it were even based on Clarke's earlier short stories (e.g. The Sentinel).
  • WalterBright 2y ago
    The book was written concurrently with the movie. See the book "The Lost Worlds of 2001" for various versions of it. https://www.amazon.com/Lost-World-2001-Arthur-Clarke/dp/0451096339 https://www.amazon.com/Lost-World-2001-Arthur-Clarke/dp/0451...
  • amanzi 2y ago
    I listened to a podcast about it ages ago, and if my memory serves me correctly - the book was started first but wasn't finished until after the movie had been completed. Kubrick couldn't wait for Clarke to finish the book, so he carried on with the production of the movie. I think Clarke wanted to release the book first, but Kubrick wasn't going to wait for him!
• munchler 2y ago
  I have to disagree with you about 2001. Both endings were epic, but Clarke's vision in the book was more rational and scientific, while Kubrick's is more impressionistic and mystical. As a result, the two effectively diverge at the end and the book doesn't really "explain" the movie. (Although I certainly do encourage everyone to read the book as well.)
  • bubble12345 2y ago
    Reminds me of Solaris, the same thing holds there (Lem's "rational" book vs. Tarkovsky's "impressionistic" movie)
• slibhb 2y ago
  Those movies don't require you to read the books. They leave something to the imagination, which some people don't like. But other people do like it!
• freejazz 2y ago
  >is that both 2001 and The Shining both require the viewer to have read the respective books to fully appreciate them. They do not in any way require that, at all.
• southernplaces7 2y ago
  The Shining movie is different enough from the book in key elements as to go in a completely different direction. Also, though it's an enormously famous, atmospheric horror movie, Stephen King disliked it, especially because it changed certain key elements. The odd thing about it is how it conserved the atmosphere of the book superbly, while also deviating so drastically in a very selective way. Now, specifically: In the book, the hotel itself is much more of a living thing of its own, with its own sentience, not just a haunted building. In the movie, it's more just a sinister building with a terrible past, now filled with malevolent ghosts. The Wendy of the book is a tough, scrappy fighter who shows enormous resourcefulness in protecting her son both from his increasingly deranged father and also the deeply evil hotel that wants to eat the boy's soul. In the movie, Kubrick, for fuck knows what reasons, turned her into a partly hysterical, mousy shrew that saves herself and her son more by luck than by tough effort. This was one of the two things Stephen King most hated about the movie version, he felt that one of his good, tough characters was destroyed by Kubrick for no good reason at all.. The other thing King most hated in the film was the characterization of Jack Torrance. He tried to convince Kubrick not to use Nicholson because he felt the guy had far too sinister a presence in general. The novel Jack on the other hand was a mostly normal, likable guy slowly made insane by the hotel. The movie version was more of an already unpleasant man with repressed insanity trying to preserve some goodness, and failing horribly with the help of the hotel's evil spirits.
  • scarecrowbob 2y ago
    I think King is a stranger to his own writing. Having read a lot of his writing about writing, and having spent a lot of time (especially in my formative years) reading his writing, I think my understanding of his writing would sound totally foreign to him. Like, I think he's got a lot of issues with father's and sex, to be blunt. I think Kubrick found a similar reading and built an excellent film around it. I think that King wrote an excellent novel about those themes precisely because he could do that with no self-consciousness, completely unburdened by that reading. He focuses on craft, which is great and has made some terrific literature. At the same time, I think he too-easily dismisses reading text at any deeper level. That's great for writing but less helpful for digging up what makes the writing good. Similarly, it's helpful for living our day to day lives but less helpful for getting us out of dysfunctional patterns.