Quote:
Originally Posted by Chula Vista
Ok. Before we go any further you need to read the novel by Clarke. It was written while he and Kubrick worked on the screenplay for 2001. In it he fills in all of the holes. Kubrick decided (as he always does) to make the film hugely ambiguous. But Clarke spells it all out in the novel.
Those were nuclear space ships. The earth was on the brink of an all out nuclear war (extinction). And the aliens intervened.
So why did they bury the monolith on the moon?
|
No, I don't need to read the novel. We're discussing the movie, and quite frankly, I think if Kubrick decided to omit things from their collaboration that blatantly revealed the existence of guiding aliens, he did it for a
reason. And since it's his vision that we're reviewing, not Clarke's, I think you have to admit that Kubrick's ambiguity is much more important to the movie than Clarke's specificity.
And stop asking why the monolith was on the moon. I already said that my interpretation is that the monoliths are just a symbol for intellectual achievements/development. In my opinion, the monoliths are wherever/whenever they need to be to best exemplify the metaphor behind them, being shown at every turning point (when we developed tools, when we achieved space flight, when we approached transcending reality, etc. Didn't they even find one on Jupiter right when a robot developed by humanity gained sentience (HAL)?).
Quote:
Originally Posted by grindy
Do you generally dislike long shots, or did they just not work for you in this one?
What do you think of Andrey Tarkovsky or Bela Tarr?
|
I grew up watching Sergio Leone flicks. Long shots don't phase me in the slightest, as long as there's something meaningful or emotional going on. Also, this might reveal that i'm not really much of a film buff, but I don't know those two people you mentioned.
