Originally Posted by Woodsprite
(Post 137466)
Well, I have been educated in the art of film (and rightly so, considering my major is related to it), and I'd rather rely on actual, empirical reasons behind storytelling than vague references that signify imagery and random thought about the universe. I'm not trying to be pretentious or anything, but I am saying that just because a message may be behind the whole thing doesn't make it "correct" in film. There's a reason why no other film has done the same thing. My contention is: it's because it simply doesn't work.
Kubrick made "Eyes Wide Shut," which I thought was a terrible film. Was it because I "didn't understand it" or "didn't possess enough of a 'mental capacity' to appreciate it?" Was it because I "have a lack of seasoned movie-going experience to draw a proper opinion of it?" I've been accused of all of these for criticizing both "Eyes Wide Shut" and "2001." I resent that, coming from others.
Storytelling... Stephen King is a storyteller. Steven Spielberg is a storyteller. Christopher Nolan is a storyteller. Cameron Crowe is a storyteller. Frank Herbert was a storyteller. James Cameron is a storyteller.
Kubrick... is more of a visionary, but not a storyteller. I realize how many people -- educated people -- I'm going against in this assertion. I realize my bounds, but I stand by what I say, nevertheless. No offense taken from anyone who may enjoy/like Kubrick's films (particularly "2001"); I'm not against anyone for liking any film. But what I am against is praising a film as "a great work in the history of filmmaking" when there are clearly fundamental mistakes with it. Where's the plot? Where's the storyline? Where's the intrigue? You can get a mind-blowing sci-fi film like "Moon," which possesses many elements of "2001," but more-importantly, contains a story and plot, along with characters you care about.
I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm simply referring to the many films before and since that have been rightly praised for their storytelling ability. "2001" contains almost none of the fundamentals of filmmaking. Was this because it was and is "ahead of its time?" I don't believe so. I think it's because Kubrick was merely invisioning his idea of the future on screen, and had absolutely no plan to turn it into a story. To my knowledge, he just filmed some footage and spliced it together in chronological order in a way he thought "meaningful." I've read the script to "2001;" it's as absorbing as reading stereo instructions. There's no point except to contemplate the idea it presents; that's not, according to the many books I've read, what film is about. Film is the visual art of storytelling. That's what it is. That's its primary purpose. You may have ideologies presented in them, but they're still stories.
As far as Kubrick's reasons may go, I don't personally know them. From what I can deduct, however, is that the reasons he may have done certain things may have been "good reasons" for him, but not according to the other great storytellers of the world. Many of them have praised "2001," I understand. But it comes to reason that such praise may be hypocritical, considering how no one else will ever do the same thing.
|
