| Author |
 Topic  |
|
BaftaBaby 
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
 Posted - 11/19/2013 : 10:46:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by MguyXIV
BULLSHIT! Sharks DO have grievances against/and therefore attack, specific people. 
But we are SO glad you managed to escape!!  
|
 |
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 11/19/2013 : 12:09:11
|
Neil deGrasse Tyson -- a national treasure -- went after some of the points you bring up, Sean, after being careful to say he enjoyed the movie. [He's the astrophysicist who never tires of reminding Jon Stewart that his DAILY SHOW opening-sequence globe is spinning in the wrong direction!]
I have a friend, an M.D., who watched ANOTHER EARTH with me at Sundance and was mortified at how dumb it was scientifically. Stuff like this just throws him out of the picture, but not me. Whatever faults it may have, the story is not about a mirror-image Earth, but its relationship to some tormented human beings on our own mundane world.
Likewise, my willing suspension of disbelief has been working overtime ever since I saw my first Godzilla movie. You, the filmmaker, have plenty of wiggle room with me. I know there can be no sound in the vacuum of STAR TREK's opening credits, or that warships in STAR WARS can't bank and roll like they could in an atmosphere, much less make their own noises. But I've enjoyed 'em all despite these impossibilities. [Hey: how would a giant ant be able to move, or breathe? SHUT UP!]
The important effects in GRAVITY are (1) everything is relative, and (2) once a motion commences in space, it will continue until somehow countered, and these principles are depicted accurately -- in fact, that's the major part of the excitement of newness we get watching this picture. In other words, whether we could actually see the coming debris or not is not germane to the story; for the film's purposes, we have to. Clooney's jabbering when he could have saved his own life? That's just the strange parallel world of the movies. In the immortal words of Eli Wallach's Tuco, "When you have to shoot, shoot. Don't talk."
Finally, re 2001, I agree with both of you. It is slow and languid, benj, and that has put some people off since 1968. But it's also magnificent, Sean, and the middle section -- particularly the shuttle penetrating the whirling space station -- is to me comforting and soothing. If I have to find any fault, it's in the cold, unnatural dialogue, which sounds in general as if it was written by a machine. |
Edited by - randall on 11/19/2013 12:12:02 |
|
|
|
benj clews 
"...."
|
Posted - 11/19/2013 : 12:47:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by randa14
Finally, re 2001, I agree with both of you. It is slow and languid, benj, and that has put some people off since 1968. But it's also magnificent, Sean, and the middle section -- particularly the shuttle penetrating the whirling space station -- is to me comforting and soothing. If I have to find any fault, it's in the cold, unnatural dialogue, which sounds in general as if it was written by a machine.
I wonder if perhaps a lot of the wow factor with 2001 is a). seeing it at a more formative age and b). seeing it in a cinema? Neither of which I can claim to.
Still... don't get me started on the depiction of computers in 2001. Not least of which is: why does HAL's voice slow down as it's being shutdown? Like someone slowly suffering a stroke. No- it'd simply be on one second and then off the next. But then... how would that scene be anywhere near as poignant if it were at all realistic? |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 11/19/2013 : 13:07:20
|
Not only did I see it for the first time in a cinema at age 18, but also in Cinerama [curved screen, three projectors, speakers all over the theater, etc.]. When the leopard jumps on the apemen in the first reel, it appeared and sounded as if it came from over my left shoulder. The voice of HAL took up the whole theater, as opposed to the humans, whose sounds came from their positions on screen. Then there's the last reel; the stargate appeared to waft off past the area of my peripheral vision, as if I was in the pod with Keir Dullea.
So yes, I was astounded immediately.
P.S. I almost forgot: in the original 1968 roadshow engagement there was a 10-minute "overture" of spacy sounds...in other words, the film was rolling, and acclimating you to the sound design, before you realized it. That strange "music" is on the Blu-Ray edition, and just hearing it reminds me how pumped I was for the show: my favorite director had turned his attention to science fiction! Also, there was an intermission, common in those days, just after we discover that HAL can read Dave's and Frank's lips. |
Edited by - randall on 11/19/2013 13:13:03 |
|
|
|
Sean 
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 11/19/2013 : 21:16:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by randa14
Neil deGrasse Tyson -- a national treasure -- went after some of the points you bring up, Sean, after being careful to say he enjoyed the movie.
I said that at the end (6.5/10, which means I enjoyed it but wasn't blown away and/or found things wrong with it). Likewise, most (all?) of the other critics I've read who've aimed at the liberties taken have said they enjoyed it.quote:
I have a friend, an M.D., who watched ANOTHER EARTH with me at Sundance and was mortified at how dumb it was scientifically.
The title tells me to suspend disbelief. I did, and enjoyed the movie.quote:
Likewise, my willing suspension of disbelief has been working overtime ever since I saw my first Godzilla movie. You, the filmmaker, have plenty of wiggle room with me. I know there can be no sound in the vacuum of STAR TREK's opening credits, or that warships in STAR WARS can't bank and roll like they could in an atmosphere, much less make their own noises. But I've enjoyed 'em all despite these impossibilities. [Hey: how would a giant ant be able to move, or breathe? SHUT UP!]
I love fantasy and sci-fi as much as anyone. STAR WARS tells me to suspend disbelief right at the beginning with the immortal words "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away..." So I did. LOTR tells me from the outset that we're in fantasy-land (they call it Middle Earth) so I'm quite happy with skyping Sauron via crystal ball and invisibility etc. Same with anything involving time-travel; I know it's full of paradoxes but I don't care.
My gripe with GRAVITY is precisely because they didn't ask anyone to suspend disbelief, it's implicit in the premise and setting that you shouldn't have to. NASA astronauts are on a space shuttle repairing the Hubble telescope during a spacewalk and the ISS is also in orbit. Sound familiar? That's because it is, that stuff is regularly in the news as those things exist and have happened or could be happening at any time (OK forget the fact the shuttles have been retired). Nothing tells us that it's in a parallel universe with alternative laws of physics. If they'd used a different spaceship (not the shuttle), were wearing pink spacesuits, were repairing a stargate / wormhole generator / inverse-neutrino-temporal-gravitron detector or whatever then I'd have been happy to suspend disbelief and ignore the other episodes of fantasy.
Think of it this way... someone makes a war movie, say WW2, Vietnam, hell set it in the present in Afghanistan. It looks great, is exciting, great acting and tension and drama... and some sniper is doing headshots from 10km. The unsophisticated will lap it up as they know no better, some will suspend disbelief because they want to, and others will scoff and wish they'd used plausible weaponry. I'm the latter. I'm happy with 10km headshots on Tatooine, but not on earth in 2013.
quote:
The important effects in GRAVITY are (1) everything is relative, and (2) once a motion commences in space, it will continue until somehow countered, and these principles are depicted accurately -- in fact, that's the major part of the excitement of newness we get watching this picture.
...and (3) a motion may begin as a result of an invisible inexplicable force (Clooney's separation from Bullock and the ISS). This scene was pivotal, yet they got it more wrong than anything else in the movie.
quote:
In other words, whether we could actually see the coming debris or not is not germane to the story; for the film's purposes, we have to.
I disagree we have to. People are shot in movies quite a lot, sometimes from a non-visible gunman, and seeing the bullet coming is not necessary for maintaining tension or plot development. Neither was seeing that space debris coming.quote:
Finally, re 2001, I agree with both of you. It is slow and languid, benj, and that has put some people off since 1968. But it's also magnificent, Sean, and the middle section -- particularly the shuttle penetrating the whirling space station -- is to me comforting and soothing. If I have to find any fault, it's in the cold, unnatural dialogue, which sounds in general as if it was written by a machine.
I think that cold dialogue was probably deliberate, it was set 33 years in the future; the use of contemporary or 'familiar' dialogue would not have helped here. It could be harder to feel like you're in the future if the personalities feel too familiar. |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 11/19/2013 : 21:47:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by randa14
Not only did I see it for the first time in a cinema at age 18, but also in Cinerama [curved screen, three projectors, speakers all over the theater, etc.]. When the leopard jumps on the apemen in the first reel, it appeared and sounded as if it came from over my left shoulder. The voice of HAL took up the whole theater, as opposed to the humans, whose sounds came from their positions on screen. Then there's the last reel; the stargate appeared to waft off past the area of my peripheral vision, as if I was in the pod with Keir Dullea.
Now I'm jealous.  I saw it aged 10 in the cinema, but not in Cinerama. I'm imagining how amazing this would be in modern-3D. |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 11/19/2013 : 23:01:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sean
quote:
Finally, re 2001, I agree with both of you. It is slow and languid, benj, and that has put some people off since 1968. But it's also magnificent, Sean, and the middle section -- particularly the shuttle penetrating the whirling space station -- is to me comforting and soothing. If I have to find any fault, it's in the cold, unnatural dialogue, which sounds in general as if it was written by a machine.
I think that cold dialogue was probably deliberate, it was set 33 years in the future; the use of contemporary or 'familiar' dialogue would not have helped here. It could be harder to feel like you're in the future if the personalities feel too familiar.
I must not have explained myself very well. To me, the dialogue feels obligatory, unadorned, as if earnestly written by a bright lower-school child. [Sir Arthur Clarke was probably no help in this single regard.] Was Kubrick trying to paint a future bereft of emotion? Well, he uses his own adorable daughter when daddy perfunctorily phones home, so if that's the idea, he fails. 2001 is largely wordless, thank God, and falls short only in those rare moments when words are unavoidable.
I thought Kubrick's screenplay for A CLOCKWORK ORANGE was brilliant, especially in its voiceover/dialogue, but then it was another intellectual exercise for him: make "Nadsat" intelligible to an unschooled audience. |
Edited by - randall on 11/19/2013 23:20:01 |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 11/19/2013 : 23:14:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sean
quote:
Originally posted by randa14
Not only did I see it for the first time in a cinema at age 18, but also in Cinerama [curved screen, three projectors, speakers all over the theater, etc.]. When the leopard jumps on the apemen in the first reel, it appeared and sounded as if it came from over my left shoulder. The voice of HAL took up the whole theater, as opposed to the humans, whose sounds came from their positions on screen. Then there's the last reel; the stargate appeared to waft off past the area of my peripheral vision, as if I was in the pod with Keir Dullea.
Now I'm jealous. I saw it aged 10 in the cinema, but not in Cinerama. I'm imagining how amazing this would be in modern-3D.
The answer: not as good.
I lived in Jackson, MS at the time. I, and my mates, had to drive several hours to catch the initial engagement at the Martin Cinerama in New Orleans, LA. So eager were we that we had pre-bought our tickets by mail -- reserved seats!!! -- after a newspaper ad in far-off Jackson. We were RIVETED at what amounted to a multimedia performance, the likes of which we never even knew existed. We got up from our seats and drove the several hours back to Jackson. Couldn't even afford to stay the night. But we were babbling the whole way back.
It was worth it. |
Edited by - randall on 11/19/2013 23:20:43 |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 11/20/2013 : 01:17:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by randa14
quote:
Originally posted by Sean
quote:
Finally, re 2001, I agree with both of you. It is slow and languid, benj, and that has put some people off since 1968. But it's also magnificent, Sean, and the middle section -- particularly the shuttle penetrating the whirling space station -- is to me comforting and soothing. If I have to find any fault, it's in the cold, unnatural dialogue, which sounds in general as if it was written by a machine.
I think that cold dialogue was probably deliberate, it was set 33 years in the future; the use of contemporary or 'familiar' dialogue would not have helped here. It could be harder to feel like you're in the future if the personalities feel too familiar.
I must not have explained myself very well. To me, the dialogue feels obligatory, unadorned, as if earnestly written by a bright lower-school child. [Sir Arthur Clarke was probably no help in this single regard.] Was Kubrick trying to paint a future bereft of emotion? Well, he uses his own adorable daughter when daddy perfunctorily phones home, so if that's the idea, he fails. 2001 is largely wordless, thank God, and falls short only in those rare moments when words are unavoidable.
I believe I understood you. The dialogue was obligatory and unadorned for a reason. I believe Kubrick wasn't exactly aiming at a future 'bereft' of emotion, but certainly diminished or suppressed. It's common enough in futuristic movies (in particular dystopias) to show people who are either emotionally stunted or the society requires them to keep their emotions bottled up; they only speak when necessary and keep it cold, simple and clinical. If that was Kubrick's purpose then I believe he achieved it. The phone-daughter conversation was a nice thread that shows that even though these guys are dedicated professionals they are still human; the 1968 viewers would have appreciated something they can relate to (but the video hookup kept it sufficiently detached c.f. cut-to-earth). [Remember how much we loved Commander Chris Hadfield's cover of Space Oddity, astronauts must be professionals but it's even better if they're human professionals.] Without that daughter scene the detachment (between viewer and characters) would have been too severe.
In particular, the two on the Jupiter mission were utterly single-minded, their focus was on the mission and nothing else. They're men of few words who speak when necessary. I took it that these guys were the cr�me de la cr�me of those who'd passed through the Right Stuff programme with flying colours, they were prepared to leave their probably-limited emotions on the earth and devote their entire waking hours to the mission and nothing but the mission for the entire duration of the mission. The only crack I saw appear in their emotionless professionalism was when Bowman was locked out of the ship and became aware of the dire peril that he (and the mission) was in. Even that was only for a brief moment (after all, it was simply a computer malfunction, wasn't it?) before the clinical professional reappeared. Dave Bowman is just the kind of guy you'd want and expect on such a mission, there's no room for a hyperventilating panicker like Bullock in GRAVITY. |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 11/20/2013 : 01:32:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sean
quote:
Originally posted by randa14
quote:
Originally posted by Sean
quote:
Finally, re 2001, I agree with both of you. It is slow and languid, benj, and that has put some people off since 1968. But it's also magnificent, Sean, and the middle section -- particularly the shuttle penetrating the whirling space station -- is to me comforting and soothing. If I have to find any fault, it's in the cold, unnatural dialogue, which sounds in general as if it was written by a machine.
I think that cold dialogue was probably deliberate, it was set 33 years in the future; the use of contemporary or 'familiar' dialogue would not have helped here. It could be harder to feel like you're in the future if the personalities feel too familiar.
I must not have explained myself very well. To me, the dialogue feels obligatory, unadorned, as if earnestly written by a bright lower-school child. [Sir Arthur Clarke was probably no help in this single regard.] Was Kubrick trying to paint a future bereft of emotion? Well, he uses his own adorable daughter when daddy perfunctorily phones home, so if that's the idea, he fails. 2001 is largely wordless, thank God, and falls short only in those rare moments when words are unavoidable.
I believe I understood you. The dialogue was obligatory and unadorned for a reason. I believe Kubrick wasn't exactly aiming at a future 'bereft' of emotion, but certainly diminished or suppressed. It's common enough in futuristic movies (in particular dystopias) to show people who are either emotionally stunted or the society requires them to keep their emotions bottled up; they only speak when necessary and keep it cold, simple and clinical. If that was Kubrick's purpose then I believe he achieved it. The phone-daughter conversation was a nice thread that shows that even though these guys are dedicated professionals they are still human; the 1968 viewers would have appreciated something they can relate to (but the video hookup kept it sufficiently detached c.f. cut-to-earth). [Remember how much we loved Commander Chris Hadfield's cover of Space Oddity, astronauts must be professionals but it's even better if they're human professionals.] Without that daughter scene the detachment (between viewer and characters) would have been too severe.
In particular, the two on the Jupiter mission were utterly single-minded, their focus was on the mission and nothing else. They're men of few words who speak when necessary. I took it that these guys were the cr�me de la cr�me of those who'd passed through the Right Stuff programme with flying colours, they were prepared to leave their probably-limited emotions on the earth and devote their entire waking hours to the mission and nothing but the mission for the entire duration of the mission. The only crack I saw appear in their emotionless professionalism was when Bowman was locked out of the ship and became aware of the dire peril that he (and the mission) was in. Even that was only for a brief moment (after all, it was simply a computer malfunction, wasn't it?) before the clinical professional reappeared. Dave Bowman is just the kind of guy you'd want and expect on such a mission, there's no room for a hyperventilating panicker like Bullock in GRAVITY.
It still feels phony, written, to me, and that includes Floyd's non-candid "executive conference," the impromptu meeting with the Soviets, and even unwrapping the sandwiches on the way to the anomaly, the way obsequiousness manifests itself in tiny syllables. You hear it as clinical behavior, I hear it as something that drags us down, gets in the way: an inability to convincingly express human interaction through verbiage. You see a gemlike facet; I see a flaw. |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 11/20/2013 : 01:45:34
|
Ah well, next time I watch it I'll try and fault the dialogue.  I hadn't managed every other time I watched it (although I never tried). It's always been one of my 'perfect' movies and there's probably always a part of that blown-away kid left in me when I hit the play button. |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 11/20/2013 : 02:01:43
|
When, gentlemen, when has Kubrick - whom I consider one of Anerican's finest directors - when did he ever manage to get dimensional performances from anyone? Never, that's when. randall's probably right that Dullea was a face more than a character. But I've never seen him be anything but bland. Most of the actors he chooses either can't act or are OTT. I think he deliberately repressed any genuine character portrayal by Kidman and Cruise. The Shining's best performance was from the hotel - everyone else was a kind of cartoon-of-horror. I think his genius as a filmmaker is his ability to, as randall experienced, and so did I in 2001 - his ability to envelop you into the film itself.
All of which is to say I believe it doesn't quite lead anywhere to compare Kubrick's space with Cuaron's. And which is why I'm convinced that Gravity is a character film before it's anything else.
|
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 11/20/2013 : 03:12:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by 14Babe
I think his [Kubrick's] genius as a filmmaker is his ability to, as randall experienced, and so did I in 2001 - his ability to envelop you into the film itself.
I guess this is achieved in no small part by not giving you a protagonist to follow. Kubrick's characters are there to do a job, not to take the viewer through the movie from a character's POV. They're often 'detached': astronauts, soldiers, future psychopaths, pedophiles, or somehow 'larger than life'. Kubrick doesn't do conventional dramas. I've never had a problem with any of his characters or actors. I even liked Eyes Wide Shut with the exception of the boring/irritating first half hour.
quote:
All of which is to say I believe it doesn't quite lead anywhere to compare Kubrick's space with Cuaron's.
I made the comparison as one space is realistic and one isn't. But sure, the two are aiming at different targets. |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 11/20/2013 : 10:48:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sean
quote:
Originally posted by 14Babe
I think his [Kubrick's] genius as a filmmaker is his ability to, as randall experienced, and so did I in 2001 - his ability to envelop you into the film itself.
I guess this is achieved in no small part by not giving you a protagonist to follow. Kubrick's characters are there to do a job, not to take the viewer through the movie from a character's POV. They're often 'detached': astronauts, soldiers, future psychopaths, pedophiles, or somehow 'larger than life'. Kubrick doesn't do conventional dramas. I've never had a problem with any of his characters or actors. I even liked Eyes Wide Shut with the exception of the boring/irritating first half hour.
I bow to no one in my admiration for Stanley Kubrick, who is to me what Kurosawa is to you. Three of his pictures are on my favorite 100, and all the rest, beginning with PATHS OF GLORY and including EYES WIDE SHUT [and its languid/dreamlike first half hour], would be in a second hundred. He above all other filmmakers still rewards me after multiple viewings, and his work seems resistant to dating, existing out-of-time in its own space. My favorite of all is 2001, but just because I adore it doesn't make it perfect. As I've already said, I have one minor problem with it. Thank God that problem only manifests itself for about half an hour in total.
And you "never had a problem" with Patrick Magee in A CLOCKWORK ORANGE and BARRY LYNDON? |
Edited by - randall on 11/20/2013 12:45:36 |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 11/20/2013 : 21:28:59
|
I think we're all agreed on Kubrick's greatness. He has two in my Top 100 and three more in my next 100, so they're all what I call 'great'. The other six (from THE KILLING up to EYES WIDE SHUT) I've scored 8/10 (which I call 'pretty damn good', not quite 'great').
quote:
Originally posted by randa14
And you "never had a problem" with Patrick Magee in A CLOCKWORK ORANGE and BARRY LYNDON?
Patrick Magee was OTT in CLOCKWORK ORANGE (I see no problem there, most characters in that movie were OTT, they were 'characters' rather than 'people'). It was such a long time ago I saw BARRY LYNDON (probably 30 years) that I don't recall him in that at all.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Gravity
