What Is The Last Film You Watched? (Older Films)

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

1 minute ago, crocodile said:

I like most of them.

 

No need to be condescending.

 

Karol

 

But what do those teach you?

[publicist 4,643]

 

I don't care much for the framing story or its never-ending mafia violence (the 04:11 version only comes alive sporadically) but the whole growing up part with the boys is a marvel, probably the best of its kind next to 'Stand by me'.

[crocodile 8,000]

Just now, Stefancos said:

 

But what do those teach you?

You didn't read a singe post of mine, did you?

 

Karol

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Just prepping you for Friday, mate!

[A24 4,331]

Just now, crocodile said:

What did I miss?

 

 

Where to start? When it comes to themes and meaning, these movies are like bottomless pits. It would take you several years to read all philosophical arguments people have written about these two movies. 

[crocodile 8,000]

At least use some lube!

 

Karol

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Just now, crocodile said:

At least use some lube!

 

Karol

 

Spit is cheaper!

[publicist 4,643]

It's all dry humping till that Star Wars disenchantment guy enters.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

He's not invited!

[Chen G. 3,949]

47 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

Who says one can't learn anything new from 2001?

 

2001 isn’t the abstract work it’s said to be: it’s a very straightforward alien encounter film, just told in a none-straightforward way.

 

Its about a race of omniscient aliens who are pushing mankind through its evolutionary steps. Thematically, the whole idea is simply to glorify manned space travel (which, you’ll recall, was just about to begin when 2001 came out), as if it were the stepping stone towards the next stage in our evolution (which it wasn’t).

 

It’s very simple.

 

All the philosophical arguments beyond that are simply the result of a) Kubrick jerking his audience around (“the alien encounter story is only the most superficial level of the movie” or whatever he said on the matter) and b) the brain-child of those filmgoers who make a whole plot out of the carpets in The Shining.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

8 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

All the philosophical arguments beyond that are simply the result of a) Kubrick jerking his audience around

 

But Kubrick doesn't jerk his audience around. If anything he leaves them alone to form their own conclusions.

[crocodile 8,000]

Thanks for taking my shift @Chen G.! Got some stuff to do but should be back later.

 

Karol

[publicist 4,643]

Could we put a ban on discussing certain movies (Star Trek, Star Wars, 2001, Nolan, Bond) for a month? Heck, i would even supply a review for Top Gun:2019 as a bargain...

[crocodile 8,000]

OK. Marvel and DC then.

 

Karol

[A24 4,331]

1 hour ago, Stefancos said:

 

But Kubrick doesn't jerk his audience around. If anything he leaves them alone to form their own conclusions.

 

I agree. What jerking around, Chen? Some viewers are compelled to interpret the images (metaphors) while others are not.  Both are fine, I can perfectly enjoy 2001: ASO for its visual language alone. That's the beauty of visual driven movies, they don't rely on story and dialogue, and allow for the viewer to add their own thoughts.

 

10 minutes ago, publicist said:

 Heck, i would even supply a review for Top Gun:2019 as a bargain...

 

Veto!

[publicist 4,643]

You're right, it's not out before 2020.

2 minutes ago, crocodile said:

OK. Marvel and DC then.

 

😪

[crocodile 8,000]

4 minutes ago, publicist said:

You're right, it's not out before 2020.

 

😪

Hey this conversation started with Tarkovsky. I tried, man!

 

Karol

[publicist 4,643]

I have the Blu. Must admit that i'm not into contemplative movies at all though.

[Brundlefly 2,385]

2 hours ago, crocodile said:

No need to be condescending.

It was by no means meant to be condescending. I was just interested, cause you seem like a very rationally thinking person. So, if you like most Lynch movies, try to watch movies like 2001 and Interstellar like these are Lynch movies. I don't need an explanation for these two. It's all about the experience and a slight notion of reflection is often enough.

31 minutes ago, publicist said:

Could we put a ban on discussing certain movies (Star Trek, Star Wars, 2001, Nolan, Bond) for a month? Heck, i would even supply a review for Top Gun:2019 as a bargain...

How about November as annual non-movies-you-mentioned-discussion-month?

But what the heck does the bolt thing mean?!

[Bilbo 3,709]

4 hours ago, publicist said:

 

Here you get a glimpse of how this was achieved. Kubrick worked like Sir David Lean, who was also a taskmaster and famously forced the Ireland shoot of 'Ryan's Daughter' to stretch well into a year because the weather changed within minutes. But he was right: without those images, this movie would have been a crushing bore.

 

 

 

Fascinating! Thank you for that! 

[Chen G. 3,949]

1 hour ago, Alexcremers said:

Some viewers are compelled to interpret the images (metaphors) while others are not.  Both are fine, I can perfectly enjoy 2001: ASO for its visual language alone. That's the beauty of visual driven movies, they don't rely on story and dialogue, and allow for the viewer to add their own thoughts.

 

Personally, I'm not just going to sit for two-and-a-half hours to look at pretty pictures, for the sake of looking at pretty pictures. I expect there to be some story told through those pictures.

 

Don't ever under-estimate the audience's ability to adapt: no matter how magnificent an image is - present it too long, and the audience will get used to it.

 

1 hour ago, Alexcremers said:

I can perfectly enjoy 2001: ASO for its visual language alone. That's the beauty of visual driven movies, they don't rely on story and dialogue, and allow for the viewer to add their own thoughts.

 

Outside of Cinéma Pur, "visual driven films" do rely on story; they just rely on visuals to tell that story.

 

2001: A Space Odyssey is NOT an abstract work: it just makes you think it is. 

 

It has a clear and deliberate narrative and theme, which cannot be misinterperated.

[A24 4,331]

9 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

Outside of Cinéma Pur, "visual driven films" do rely on story; they just rely on visuals to tell that story.

 

That's what I meant. 

 

9 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

2001: A Space Odyssey is NOT an abstract work: it just makes you think it is. 

 

It has a clear narrative ...

 

It's not abstract and I never thought it was.

 

9 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

and theme, which cannot be misinterperated.

 

Only one theme? 

[Chen G. 3,949]

8 minutes ago, Alexcremers said:

Only one theme? 

 

Not so much theme as meaning, perhaps. It, again, being the idea of glorifying human space travel.

 

That's what its about - nothing else.

[A24 4,331]

8 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

Not so much theme as meaning, perhaps. It, again, being the idea of glorifying human space travel.

 

That's what its about - nothing else.

 

Hmm, what about the theme of evolution? That seems to me the film's most prevalent theme. In fact, I don't see that the movie is glorifying space travel. 

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I miss Morlock.

[Chen G. 3,949]

5 minutes ago, Alexcremers said:

Hmm, what about the theme of evolution? That seems to me the film's most prevalent theme. 

 

True, but what does it mean?

 

Well, it means that Kubrick (and Clarke) saw space travel as the next step (or stepping stone to the next step) in human evolution. Its just an exercise in glorifying space travel. That's absolutely all it means.

 

Its as simple as that.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

And you think thats bad?

 

I think its rather profound in its simplicity.

[Chen G. 3,949]

3 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

And you think that's bad?

 

Not at all!

 

I just think people look at it as an abstract piece, which has no meaning other than what the audience imbues it with - which couldn't be further from the truth. It definitely has a clear and designated meaning.

 

Either that, or people who get immensly anal and philosophical about it and start informing it with complex meanings that are nowhere to be found, if the piece is observed at face value: I've read everything between it being a parody of cinema or of the space program, to it being the prelude to Kubrick staging the fake landing on the moon. Come on...

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Darkest Hour

 

Geez, Gary's aged a lot in the last few years. Hope he's well. But he does these one-man show really good. Gets a bit boring at times with all its blah blah blah. Honestly amazed this didn't end up being some seven-part BBC production. This is why Brexit is important - we will fight the EU in the hills and on the streets, we will never surrender!

[A24 4,331]

19 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Its just an exercise in glorifying space travel.

 

Its as simple as that.

 

To be honest, I certainly never saw it that way. In short, to me, 2001 is more about man and his over-reliance on 'tools', on technology. Yes, it brought him to the top of evolution. However, as man goes to space, he actually has to learn how to walk again. That's when we are introduced to The Star Child, possibly symbolizing 'the next step' in human evolution, or when man is no longer dependent on technology. 

 

 

[Marian Schedenig 8,191]

3 hours ago, Chen G. said:

Its about a race of omniscient aliens who are pushing mankind through its evolutionary steps. Thematically, the whole idea is simply to glorify manned space travel (which, you’ll recall, was just about to begin when 2001 came out), as if it were the stepping stone towards the next stage in our evolution (which it wasn’t).

 

Seems a bit early to say that. Check again in 100 years (if mankind is still around). Manned space travel stopped its explorative advances just a few years after ASO came out. Even so, much of our everyday technology now comes from space travel technology. Also, many of those people who have been to space seem to agree that the experience of seeing Earth from afar has had a profound impact on them. And commercial space travel is only just beginning.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Just like the ending of Star Trek TMP!

[Bilbo 3,709]

20 minutes ago, Norma's Corpse said:

Darkest Hour

 

Geez, Gary's aged a lot in the last few years. Hope he's well. But he does these one-man show really good. Gets a bit boring at times with all its blah blah blah. Honestly amazed this didn't end up being some seven-part BBC production. This is why Brexit is important - we will fight the EU in the hills and on the streets, we will never surrender!

 

It’s a load of pish. 

 

The scene on the tube with the immigrant family is the most un-Churchill thing ever. He was a bloodthirsty alcoholic. 

[Chen G. 3,949]

7 minutes ago, Alexcremers said:

In short, to me, 2001 is more about man and his over-reliance on 'tools', on technology

 

Eh? The inciting incident of the film is the invention of tools (our first evolutionary leap). The movie doesn't criticise that moment - it celebrates it!

[A24 4,331]

11 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

Just like the ending of Star Trek TMP!

 

It's no secret that ST: TMP was influenced by 2001.

 

8 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

Eh? The inciting incident of the film is the invention of tools (our first evolutionary leap). The movie doesn't criticise that moment - it celebrates it!

 

No, 2001 doesn't celebrate technology at all, but man does. In my opinion, of course. It brought man into space but technology is now killing man. That's what happens when you over-rely on tools. Enter The Star Child ...

 

Maybe the movie isn't so clear-cut as you think it is, Chen.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,515]

A couple of thoughts.

Ever since SPARTACUS (which was Kubrick's last "studio" film, and one he inherited, against his will) and whatever genre he worked in - historical drama; SF; war; contemporary horror; whatever EYES WIDE SHUT was all about  - he made, first and foremost, a Stanley Kubrick film. He was among the very few directors to be allowed to do so. I'm not sure that there any "answers" in any of his films, and I'm also pretty sure that that's the way that Kubrick planned it. Sometimes asking the question is a lot more fun than trying to provide the answer.

 

I'm going to stick my neck out and say that although I love the Tarkovsky SOLARIS, I love the Soderberg SOLARIS even more. Its just a personal thing, but Tarkovsky appeals to my head, and Soderberg appeals to my heart, and I'll take heart over head, any day.

[A24 4,331]

7 minutes ago, Richard said:

 

I'm going to stick my neck out and say that although I love the Tarkovsky SOLARIS, I love the Soderberg SOLARIS even more. Its just a personal thing, but Tarkovsky appeals to my head, and Soderberg appeals to my heart, and I'll take heart over head, any day.

 

I definitely prefer Tarkovsky's film. To me, it has the heart of an artist. Soderbergh made his movie without adding any kind of personal signature (which he somehow finds important).

[crocodile 8,000]

2 hours ago, publicist said:

I have the Blu. Must admit that i'm not into contemplative movies at all though.

Than you might want to give it a miss. It's almost 3 hours long. And Tarkovsky has done better stuff than this. Mirror is probably his best. I have yet to watch Stalker though.

 

1 hour ago, Brundlefly said:

It was by no means meant to be condescending. I was just interested, cause you seem like a very rationally thinking person. So, if you like most Lynch movies, try to watch movies like 2001 and Interstellar like these are Lynch movies. I don't need an explanation for these two. It's all about the experience and a slight notion of reflection is often enough.

I never said I'm a rational person. Just that film medium interests me from a technical perspective more than it does as some sort of philosophical art form. It's not that I don't "feel" or "think" anything about films while watching them, I'm just more interested in the process. But there's something about the combination s-f and philosophical ideas that just doesn't work for me. I just find there is something very banal about the metaphors in this particular genre. They probably work work better in more mundane and down-to-earth settings.

 

Having said all that, I'd be more than happy to read some of the writing done on 2001 that @Alexcremers is referring too. Always good to see things from other perspective.

 

7 minutes ago, Alexcremers said:

 

I definitely prefer Tarkovsky's film. To me, it has the heart of an artist. Soderbergh made his movie without adding any kind of personal signature (which he somehow finds important).

The film is at its best when it moves away from the source material, and s-f altogether.

 

Karol

[A24 4,331]

Just now, crocodile said:

 

The film is at its best when it moves away from the source material ...

 

 

The best ones usually do. I know that Stanislaw Lem (the author of Solyaris) didn't like what Tarkovsky did. However, I didn't read it and I don't remember his exact beef with the film. It was mentioned in a Tarkovsky docu.

 

 

[Naïve Old Fart 9,515]

9 minutes ago, Alexcremers said:

 

I definitely prefer Tarkovsky's film. To me it has the heart of an artist.

 

Good answer, Alex, but it's all sauce for the goose.

 

 

 

 

 

15 minutes ago, Alexcremers said:

No, 2001 doesn't celebrate technology at all, but man does. In my opinion, of course. It brought man into space but technology is now killing man. That's what happens when you over-rely on tools. Enter The Star Child ...

 

Maybe the movie isn't so clear-cut as you think it is, Chen.

 Of course 2001 doesn't celebrate technology. In fact, that was Kubrick/Clarke's point; that space travel was as mundane as walking down to the newsagent, to buy a packet of fags.

While the audience is going "Ohh, aah", they're laughing their asses off. Enter the muzak of Strauss- bland, safe, empty. That's the utter brilliance of it. The wool is still being pulled over our eyes, 50 years later!

[A24 4,331]

You forgot to say "Fuck you all", Richard.

[Chen G. 3,949]

27 minutes ago, Alexcremers said:

t brought man into space but technology is now killing man.

 

Fighting to the death is a part of evolution - both in the first step (the evolution from human ancestor to man) and the second (the evolution from man to Übermensch).

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

10 minutes ago, Richard said:

Ofcourse 2001 doesn't celebrate technology. In fact, that was Kubrick/Clarke's point; that space travel was as mundane as walking down to the newsagent, to buy a packet of fags.

While the audience is going "Ohh, aah", they're laughing their asses off. Enter the muzak of Strauss- bland, safe, empty. That's the utter brilliance of it. The wool is still being pulled over our eyes, 50 years later!

 

These people don't understand 2001: ASO like we do!

[The Illustrious Jerry 3,356]

39 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Eh? 

You truly belong here with us, in the North.

[Chen G. 3,949]

And yet I'm way down south.

 

I don't do cold weather very well. Thankfully, there's very little of that here.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

Schindler's List

 

The older I get, the more I find myself agreeing with opinions I'd heard years ago and didn't agree with. I guess it depends on your state of mind how you view something.

 

The "I could have got more" scene is probably too schmaltzy. Williams' music probably shouldn't be in there a lot of the time. The Nazis being mostly portrayed as screaming untranslated psychopaths while everyone else speaks English? I don't know.

 

The focus is on characters that aren't even Jews. While the performances are astonishing, Amon is impossible to take seriously most of the time. I maintain this is Spielberg's funniest film outside of the IJ series. It's loaded with so much black humor, you might question if it's a comedy with scenes of horrific violence inserted.

 

So, yeah. I'm going there. Amon is the hammiest thing ever. When he's not picking people off with his rifle, he's used for comic relief. I don't think I've ever seen a more ridiculous character, especially considering the subject matter. He's like a drunken frat boy. However he could be more over the top in a scene, they found a way. It's glorious, but I don't know what he was going for here.

 

It's a big reason why the movie remains such an enigma to me. For all the uncomfortable scenes of murder, children bathed in shit and a guy playing a piano while everyone in a house is blown away, there's Schindler doing almost anything in the first hour and Amon drinking, his weird relationship with the maid and, well, doing anything aside from killing.

 

It's a strange movie for me, but perfectly orchestrated in that classic Spielbergian way for much of its first couple hours (hour 3 is a slog...coincidentally, not much humor or Amon), from the positions of the cigarettes in every scene to the way the cute dancing girl tries to feed the SS guy in the club to the quick cut of Oksar waving his wife away on the platform. This is the guy who made the 70s and 80s classics we all love, just a bit seasoned. Anyway, I'm rambling.

[SteveMc 2,674]

Well, Hamlet is about as dark as plays come and Shakespeare put in some of the same kind of odd, kind of creepy, humor there.  

I do not find Schindler's List or Hamlet "funny."  All the elements just seem to play off each other, bringing each other into focus for a full human picture.

The focus of the movie is, indeed, on Schindler.  But that is because Spielberg seems primarily interested in exploring the psyche of non-Jews in the situation, with the symbolism of the girl in red for example.

Why was this done?  Why did some not go along with it?  Why did they not do more?

Spielberg's magnum opus in my book.

[publicist 4,643]

 

Good it ain't but you can't really go wrong with a dozen Mini's racing Rome, Michael Caine, Benny Hill (!) and Quincy Jones at his eclectic best. 

[SteveMc 2,674]

7 minutes ago, publicist said:

but you can't really go wrong with a dozen Mini's racing Rome

And the Alfas chasing them!

 

[Chen G. 3,949]

1 hour ago, Horner's Dynamic Range said:

Schindler's List

 

In these parts, Schindler's List isn't treated like a movie. Its hard to explain.

 

Because its so tied to Holocaust memorial day, I don't think I've watched it in years; so I can't recall much about it.