What are your favorite shots in a movie?

[Naïve Old Fart 9,490]

18 hours ago, Marian Schedenig said:

 

Seeing that in 70mm tomorrow.

Bastard.

 

 

Enjoy. The first and only time I've watched 2001 in 70mm, was in 2001. It was a truly humbling experience.

I don't often feel privileged to be in the presence of cinematic greatness, but this was one of those times. I've only felt it twice more, this century.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

I've had the blu-ray for years but never watched it. Maybe I'll give it a go. I've only seen it on VHS.

[Marian Schedenig 8,159]

 

The suddenness of this handheld sequence (and a few later on) after the otherwise static camerawork in the film produces a quite urgent, immediate feeling.

 

It's certainly an experience in 70mm. Sadly, there were audio issues at first; they started later than planned, then had no sound over the main titles, stopped, continued after a break, still had no sound during the early scenes, then took a longer break and finally continued with sound one hour after the scheduled start time. After the intermission, the projectionist apologised and explained why they couldn't simply start over from the beggining, which I think was fair enough.

 

It wasn't the cleanest copy, although considering the film's age, I don't know how pristine analogue prints can get. Plus I was sitting rather close (10th row) to the huge screen. Still, I think technically a good home theatre setup with a huge screen (basically filling a whole wall, possibly with 4K) and no neighbours so you can turn up the volume could be comparable to a 70mm screening, perhaps even superiour in quality to the print I've seen (which had the occasional scratch, and wasn't too sharp in some of the details - perhaps that's the source material, but at least it shouldn't lose anything in a high res scan). But short of that, even a 2m+ wide screen at home coupled with a reduced audio volume cannot compare to the impact and immersiveness of seeing it on a huge screen with an audio volume that comes close to splitting your ears with the shrill alarm signals and the wilder Ligeti bits.

 

[Naïve Old Fart 9,490]

6 hours ago, Marian Schedenig said:

 

It wasn't the cleanest copy, although considering the film's age, I don't know how pristine analogue prints can get. 

 

The print that I saw in 2001, was a print that had premiered at the BFI, just a few weeks earlier, and had been struck from the original negative.

Believe me, it was pristine.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Such a glorious film!

[John 2,032]

2001 is Kubrick's finest film!

2001 is the greatest science fiction film ever!

2001 has one of the greatest soundtracks ever!

2001 is one of the most beautiful and best-shot films ever!

2001 has one of the greatest movie villains ever!

 

2001 is one of the greatest movies of all time!

[Holko 9,491]

Yeah, that's about right.

[Nick1Ø66 4,687]

19 minutes ago, John said:

2001 is Kubrick's finest film!

2001 is the greatest science fiction film ever!

2001 has one of the greatest soundtracks ever!

2001 is one of the most beautiful and best-shot films ever!

2001 has one of the greatest movie villains ever!

 

2001 is one of the greatest movies of all time!

 

Probably, no, well sure but.., absolutely, perhaps, indeed.

[Nick Parker 3,040]

11 minutes ago, John said:

2001 is Kubrick's finest film!

2001 is the greatest science fiction film ever!

2001 has one of the greatest soundtracks ever!

2001 is one of the most beautiful and best-shot films ever!

2001 has one of the greatest movie villains ever!

 

2001 is one of the greatest movies of all time!

 

Alright, ya'll, time for the classic film snob debate. 

 

People who defend Kubrick's use of music claim North's score would've dated the film. However, music such as the Blue Danube Waltz sounds very much of its time as well. Would you make the argument that the pieces ultimately used date 2001 in its own way? Is "dating" in this context even a bad thing? Whatch'all think?

[Nick1Ø66 4,687]

No, the music doesn't date 2001, and yes North's score would have.  In fact the "score" is part of what's made that film timeless.

 

It's impossible at this point to separate 2001 from the music. If the music is dated, then the whole film is (and there's plenty to date that film other than the music).

[Nick Parker 3,040]

5 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

No, the music doesn't date 2001, and yes North's score would have.  In fact the "score" is part of what's made that film timeless

 

May you elaborate on this paragraph, if that's not too dull a task? What makes something like a 19th century waltz or tone poem more "timeless" than what Alex North did? Would it really lessen the film if it was more easily placed in the decade it was made and released in?

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

No idea why a film being "dated" is necessarily a bad thing. How far into the future are filmmakers meant to foresee to ensure their film remains relevant and contemporary for as long as possible?

[Holko 9,491]

Blue Danube and Zarathustra have become parts of our culture, pieces everyone knows (though Zarathustra probably because of 2001, so it doesn't count that much). Blue Danube probably seemed about just as "distant" in 1968 as it does today, its classic status hasn't changed a bit, one can connect to it in the exact same way as when the movie was released.

 

A '60s score would have been a product of its time (and was), and by now would sound dated. It would never have become as standard and known as Blue Danube even in 150 years' time, since it's only attached to that one movie and is very '60s, we have moved on from that soundscape. 

 

Blue Danube has had time until 1968 to prove we won't move on from it and will remember it for a while.

[Nick Parker 3,040]

3 minutes ago, Holko said:

Blue Danube and Zarathustra have become parts of our culture, pieces everyone knows (though Zarathustra probably because of 2001, so it doesn't count that much). Blue Danube probably seemed about just as "distant" in 1968 as it does today, its classic status hasn't changed a bit, one can connect to it in the exact same way as when the movie was released.

 

A '60s score would have been a product of its time (and was), and by now would sound dated. It would never have become as standard and known as Blue Danube even in 150 years' time, since it's only attached to that one movie and is very '60s, we have moved on from that soundscape. 

 

Blue Danube has had time until 1968 to prove we won't move on from it and will remember it for a while.

 

My thoughts as well, for the most part. (What would you say about Ligeti's stuff, though?)

 

As a counterexample, though, we have the film that introduced many of us to this forum's namesake: Star Wars. While we all can clearly hear the deep influence of Williams' forebearers in a lot of his score, when I hear the music I also hear a very "typical" '70s John Williams score as well (in that sense I would say the same of Close Encounters). Yet it's considered a timeless classic (as is Close Encounters).

 

So what's the difference? 

[Holko 9,491]

To me, Ligeti's Requiem, for example, is "out there" enough that it doesn't immediately jump into one category with Magnificent Seven, 007 Takes the LEKTOR, Planet of the Apes or other very 60s stuff.

 

Star Wars, just as you said, probably has enough of the DNA of classics in it to make it click and be subconsciously more than just a 70s score. Empire is worse to me, it sometimes definitely sounds like the 80s trying to kill the 70s which doesn't want to die yet. Don't make me post examples because I'll go crazy looking for stuff I thought was there but isn't.

[SteveMc 2,674]

Every era has its own particular style.  The Blue Danube was only one of multitudes of waltzes written by Strauss and others for popular entertainment.  Most sound hopelessly attached to their place and time.  Some have transcended space and time. 

This is true of all eras.  Rozsa's Ben-Hur or North's Spartacus sound very much like golden age scores, but have a quality to them that speaks to all generations.  These, I think, will continue to stand in time.  Same with CE3K.  Definitely 70s Williams, but that is like saying 70s Wagner or 80s Tchaikovsky. 

 

As for North's 2001 score, I have this to say.

North's artistic language was different from the artistic language Kubrick was using.  The film, though a product of its time, was supposed to portray the future and send a message about art and humanity, for that time and all time.  Thus, the most brilliant thing to do would indeed be to use music that looks considerably back, and music of the contemporary time that seeks to look to the future.    

 

[Marian Schedenig 8,159]

5 hours ago, Holko said:

Blue Danube and Zarathustra have become parts of our culture, pieces everyone knows (though Zarathustra probably because of 2001, so it doesn't count that much). Blue Danube probably seemed about just as "distant" in 1968 as it does today, its classic status hasn't changed a bit, one can connect to it in the exact same way as when the movie was released.

 

Probably yes. But there's also the matter of spotting. Part of what makes 2001 so distinct is it's non-use of music (and dialogue, and in fact, most other sounds) for long stretches of film. The bulk of North's score is for scenes that don't have any music at all in the finished film. Just the idea of having rather heavy underscore in those sequences seems dated to me.

[John 2,032]

North's score makes space seem whimsical and inviting. With the original soundtrack, it is cold and magnificent.

[SteveMc 2,674]

1 hour ago, Marian Schedenig said:

The bulk of North's score is for scenes that don't have any music at all in the finished film. Just the idea of having rather heavy underscore in those sequences seems dated to me.

Just having underscore there would not necessarily constitute dating the film, but it certainly would completely change the tone of things considerably.

Having music playing for long stretches can certainly be done in a way that ages well.  But only if there is something on screen that would be enhanced with underscore.  2001 is enhanced by not having it during those stretches.  

I do agree that older films tended to follow an often unwarranted "wall-to-wall" approach to scoring.   

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

As opposed to modern films? What?

[Marian Schedenig 8,159]

21 hours ago, Steve McQueen said:

Having music playing for long stretches can certainly be done in a way that ages well.  But only if there is something on screen that would be enhanced with underscore.  2001 is enhanced by not having it during those stretches.

 

 

Yes, I think that's what I was trying to put into words.

[Holko 9,491]

 

3:27 and 3:42 show seeds of what could have been my favourite shot of the entire movie, which I have imagined since I first saw it. A massive pullback with either a big crane in the back or a dolly on the ceiling comehow showing off the entire set, starting at a full figure of Mola Ram next to that skull between Kali's legs, the doors opening and the guy starting to be lowered as soon as they come into frame, and him reaching the hole when we get to the back wall ceiling above the crowd, underscored with two repeats of the section starting at 3:40.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,490]

Geez, that is genuinely sick. How on earth did it get past the MPAA?

[Holko 9,491]

By revising the entire rating system? If they're blocking the goal, move the goalpost. And it's awesome!

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

I don't understand why adults think kids can't take violence in film. I wasn't anywhere near as squeamish as a child as I am today as an adult.

[Nick1Ø66 4,687]

1 hour ago, Richard said:

Geez, that is genuinely sick. How on earth did it get past the MPAA?

 

Well the MPAA did change their rating system and created the PG-13 classification within a couple months as a direct result of this film.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,490]

54 minutes ago, Cherry Pie That'll Kill Ya said:

I don't understand why adults think kids can't take violence in film. I wasn't anywhere near as squeamish as a child as I am today as an adult.

Jerry, you've just answered your own question.

 

2 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

 

Well the MPAA did change their rating system and created the PG-13 classification within a couple months as a direct result of this film.

Tbh, I was aware of that at the time. What with that and the LP of PURPLE RAIN, 1984 was quite a year for changing the rules on what was and what was not permissible.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Just now, Richard said:

Jerry, you've just answered your own question.

 

Well shouldn't the ratings reflect what adults can't take? So a PG-13 rating means anyone over the age of 13 needs to be accompanied by a child who is much stronger stomached than the adult?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

1 hour ago, Cherry Pie That'll Kill Ya said:

I don't understand why adults think kids can't take violence in film. I wasn't anywhere near as squeamish as a child as I am today as an adult.

 

as long as they don't show any nuddy bits!

[Holko 9,491]

This is not necessarily for sheer aesthetics or compositional value, but what work and creativity it represents:

 

 

A live-action native throws a spear, a stop-motion Kong on a miniature set captures it, he picks up a miniature club, hits a live action actor off the miniature scaffolding, throws the miniature club which lands in live-action and full-scale on the silhouetted extra in the foreground, then picks up the stop-motion miniature counterpart of the villager he just knocked off and puts it in his mouth. This is feckin' 1933.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,490]

Someone should have shown this clip to Peter Jackson, and said "Ok, beardy, top that!" 

He didn't.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

King Kong (1976 edition):

 

 

So many JL glam shots in this masterpiece, but this is a personal fav moment.

[KK 3,307]

 

 

 

 

 

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I thought you said it looks too...."tv"?

[The Illustrious Jerry 3,356]

First Man can be crazy and shaky, but when the camera steadies it's quite gorgeous. Chazelle's film making is gripping, and the cinematography is up there in my book.

[Holko 9,491]

Liza the Fox-Fairy has some magnificent framings:

Spoiler

 

 

 

[John 2,032]

 

 

[KK 3,307]

7 hours ago, Stefancos said:

I thought you said it looks too...."tv"?

 

Some of it does, yes.

 

Doesn't mean it's not a well-composed film.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,490]

3 hours ago, John said:

 

 

Tsk, tsk. Neither THE SHINING nor THE EXORCIST were in 2.35:1.

Must try harder.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Pazuzu!

[Naïve Old Fart 9,490]

Your mother cuts socks in hell, Karas!

[Disco Stu 15,495]

A few from The Ballad of Buster Scruggs that I liked

 

Spoiler

 

 

[KK 3,307]

Hey, looks like we agreed on one shot at least!

[Dixon Hill 4,232]

Should I check that one out?

[Disco Stu 15,495]

Yes

[John 2,032]

 

 

 

[Naïve Old Fart 9,490]

On 11/18/2018 at 4:44 PM, The Illustrious Jerry said:

 

Ready, slo-mo. And take, slo-mo.

[A24 4,326]

On 11/24/2018 at 3:39 AM, John said:

 

 

 

 

 

The whole world keeps on raving how great this movie is, but in all honesty, the cemetery scene is the only thing about it that I remember. 

[Chen G. 3,942]

It’s called build-up.

 

The entire movie’s the build-up to the cemetery showdown. Were it not for that buildup, you wouldn’t remember that scene.

 

Sergio Leone is the master of build-up.

[A24 4,326]

33 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Were it not for that buildup, you wouldn’t remember that scene.

 

 

 

Assumption! Even a 'bad' film can have its moments. No, I'm not saying it's a bad film, but to me there is a shortage of memorable scenes.

 

45 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

It’s called build-up. The entire movie’s the build-up to the cemetery showdown.

 

This could be one of the reasons why it's never been a favorite of mine. I had to wait until the climax before I started to feel engaged in the movie.