Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Star Trek
»
General Trek
»
Extremely Interesting...
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by mrneutron: [QB] re Previous Comments on 2001 and ST:TMP: 2001 is a maddening film for people who expect a traditional narrative. For good or bad, we're all conditioned with narrative rules and rules for what movies are supposed to be. Movies are treated like a genre novel, with its own specific conventions: three act structure, protagonist with problem to solve, character development, etc. But there's no reason a film has to be that. It's just what we're used to, and what the market finds sells the best. And when the genre conventions in American film are effectively reduced to "action, comedy and tragedy," it doesn't leave room for anything else. (Thank goodness we don't expect paintings to all fit into such narrow confines, or we'd have a country where on every wall hangs a bucolic Norman Rockwell-esuqe scene or some other singular style.) 2001 doesn't fit into the "entertainment film" genre. The dialogue conveys only the deadness of the souls of the people (which is the point)...their lack of essential life and humanity. The real story of 2001 is all in the images. When I stopped trying to be "entertained" by the film and just let the visuals wash over me, then I "got" it. Getting back to Star Trek: The Motion Picture, the film wants to be 2001 on one level, but it also wants to be that typical genre film on another level. It's not willing to surrender the audience to the visuals and let their power alone drive the story, and it's not willing to let the characters drive the story either (as in the traditional Hollywood film). That it tries to be both is part of the reason it doesn't quite work. How's that for bringing it all back on topic? :D P.S. After reading 2010 and 2061, it became clear to me that even Arthur C. Clarke never understood what Kubrick was aiming for in 2001. Clarke was too wrapped up in the gee whiz science and missed the whole odyssey aspect of it. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3