My opinion of 2001: A Space Odyssey

People, people, why are we fighting?

~ Mick Jagger, from the concert film 'Gimme Shelter', 1970

The way you feel about Citizen Kane is probably how I feel about Apocalypse Now. The latter has flashes of brilliance, yes, but it's a broken-back "masterpiece" with a lousy third act and plenty of anti-entertainment. And I've watched it over ten times.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

Agreed here as well.

I've seen it once

I thought it was great, but the third act is a bit of a bore. Gotta love that Ride of the Valkyries sequence, though.

__________________
"Puns are the highest form of literature." -Alfred Hitchcock

I wouldn't really call any of Kubrick's or Coppola's work "personal".

B'cause our apelike ancestors learned how to use bones as a weapon.

__________________
Right now, all I'm wearing is a mustard-stained wife-beater T-shirt, no pants & a massive sombrero.

I have Kubrick interviews that prove otherwise

I have watched 2001 more times than I can tell, easily more than fifty times. It is, in my opinion, the greatest film of all time. I mean this in terms of craft. In terms of story it is not so esoteric after watching it several dozen times. The film has, for me, very clear meaning. Admittedly, the meaning is complex and would require a rather involved essay to explain. In a nutshell, it deals with the evolusion of consciousness, from stages of lower cognitive thought (the australopithecine sequence) to modern Homo sapiens, to a type of omniscience that relates to Universal Field Theory. Amongst this we have HAL and his (its) cognitive evolution. Finally, we have humanity juxtaposed with the Universe (the embryo & the planet). "A Space Odyssey" is the perfect title.


On another note, to describe Kubrick as "pretentious" is absurd. "Magnificent" is a much better adjective for Stanley. Generally speaking, I find the use of the word "pretentious" to be lame, and uttered most often by people striking a pose.

&feature=related

__________________
Have you ever held a lion in your arms? I have. He smelled funky.

It's fine to disagree with someone who calls it "pretentious," but what's supposed to be inherently lame about it? It seems like a fair criticism, innately.

Also, isn't saying the people using it are "striking a pose" awfully close to calling them pretentious?

Personally, I think some films can be rightfully categorized as pretentious. But 2001 isn't one of them.

I think any film that features long, laborious shots of spaceships docking or men turning knobs accompanied by a grandiose classical score at least opens itself up to that criticism. I'm not sure where I come down on it, since I love some parts and could do without others, but I'm plenty sympathetic to that view. At the very least, I think it should be discussed, rather than dismissed.

Despite the fact that the word is becoming unpopular here, I think it's fair to call anything "pretentious" if you can back it up with some real reasons. The problems I have with most people who blast 2001 as pretentious, boring, etc. is that I don't believe they've watched the film enough to discuss it intelligently. The reasons I feel this are that they either exaggerate their claims of how long something takes or what actually happens in the film. Many haters even say complete untruths about what's in the film. I know it's a kneejerk reaction to call anything you don't understand "pretentious", but in 2001's case, it doesn't seem that difficult to grasp what's happening since it's all told chronologically and the evolution of Man seems directly related to the Monolith appearances. Now, who's responsible for the Monoliths and what the ultimate act of evolution (if any) is, that's open to interpretation and what makes the film complex and personal.

My problem with the critical use of "pretentious" is that it tends to focus us on the personality of the film-maker to the exclusion of the film. I also think that because it's such a speculative rhetorical tactic, it can't tell us much about said personality anyway. The film-maker doesn't live up to the image (you think) he would like to project onto the world? That probably describes everyone I've ever met.

I guess it often just feels like a cheap shot, where saying something like "this movie is trite" and then describing why would be both more informative and more to the point.

For what it's worth, I'm not really accusing you specifically of overusing pretentious without going into cogent detail, Yoda, I just think a (very) little goes a long way. Most of the time I see it used as a blunt instrument to cudgel vague stylistic tics that the user associates with "snobs."

I get what people are saying about "striking a pose" but I don't really have a generalized problem with that either. If you think style is important that's just a no-brainer, no?

Yoda - exactly, using the word pretentious is pretentious, but I dodged it so as not to sound pretentious - you caught me.

But seriously, the word is thrown around and really doesn't mean anything to me at all. It's a catch word, and as such it is rubbish. The word it far too often used to dismiss or criticise without going into specifics about the work.

2. characterized by assumption of dignity or importance.
3. making an exaggerated outward show; ostentatious.

from that, if I was going to use a word like pretentious I would use it to describe something like Transformers or Iron Man, films that cost into the hundreds of millions and are of no social or artistic value and that are surrounded by massive amounts of hype.

All that aside - when I see the word "pretentious" I immediately think "generic" and "poser" but in regard to the individual who is using the word. When people think a movie is "pretentious" they should just be honest and say "it wasn't dumbed down enough for my taste." Or, in the case of Transformers and Iron Man, "it was dumbed down plenty, but boy did they make a big deal of it." Then again, I guess I'm something of a pretentious poser myself... dang it! I hate when that happens.

But really, what is pretentious in relation to film? You could accuse anything beyond the superficial as being pretentious. You could call The Fountain pretentious, or Ivie's Childhood, or Paths of Glory, or I am Cuba or Citizen Kane. If a film strives to be more than 90 minutes of light diversion I don't think it should be surmised as being pretentious. I admire excellence in craft and I am thankful for films that make me think. A Space Odyssey certainly has excellent craft and it makes you think. I love that film for those two reasons most of all.

- Just for the record, I thought Iron Man was fun.

"...who are you doubling Pete?"
"I'm gonna be doubling Stanley Kubrick." Peter Jackson (set of The Hobbit)

That's fine, but the fact that a word is often used carelessly, or used by people for the wrong reasons, doesn't invalidate its use in any one instance. Though it's worth pointing out that your reasons for objecting it are directly at odds with linepalsy's reasons for not liking the word--because it involves value judgments about people's mental states, rather than the film itself. Not that you can't have the same opinion for different reasons.

Well, Transformers being "hyped" is not the same thing as assuming an air of dignity or importance. If Transformers tried to inject some hamfisted social commentary into its narrative, acting as if it could be more than giant robots smashing into each other, that would be pretentious, but the fact that it has such modest, base aspirations (for which it has value, I think) makes it the polar opposite of pretentious.

Or they could just honestly think it's pretentious. It's not just a word for stupid or lazy people, and assuming that gives more weight to the accusations of pretension to begin with.

Yep, you sure could. But you could also accuse literally any performance of being badly (or overly) acted, but it doesn't mean such things don't exist. That's why I was advocating actually tackling specific complaints, rather than declaring the word somehow off-limits, or always indicative of lazy thinking.

As for what I think is pretentious in relation to film: it's hard to describe, but I use the word to describe a film that I think has far greater thematic and artistic aspirations than it can justify. If a film is clearly attempting to be deep or thoughtful, but is actually just boring and self-important, then I think it is pretentious.

The use of the word is, in my opinion, a response to the type of film critic or fan who insists on finding deeper meaning in all things, whether it is there or not. Even if you disagree in most instances, I'm sure we've all seen examples of it. An intelligent, dedicated person can weave meaning into the basest or most boring of films if they really want to.

Anyway, to each their own. To be fair, just as I think it unfair to dismiss all accusations of pretension out of hand, I think it's generally pretty pointless to just toss the word out there without much elaboration, as well, unless it's pretty obvious without being explained.

I wish that there are more ,,pretentious,, films like 2001.

Me too. Pretentious films seem to be better.

“A film is - or should be - more like music than like fiction. It should be a progression of moods and feelings. The theme, what's behind the emotion, the meaning, all that comes later.” -- Stanley Kubrick

To me, that's what he did with 2001.

__________________
Under-the-radar Movie Awesomeness.
http://earlsmoviepicks.blogspot.com/

I've actually warmed to Keir Dullea's (Dave) performance a lot. Like all the other actors in 2001, he's very withheld, but there's a subtle ferocity when he goes to kick HALS ass. Of course the movie would be better with Daniel Day Lewis playing all characters.

__________________

Agreed.