Movies you just didn't "get".

[3-LockBox]

You know, I've found the discussions about most of Stanley Kubric's movies more engaging than the actual movies themselves.

I think someone mentioned Eyes Wide Shut, which was a pretty straight forward movie for Kubric, but the cinematography and direction were just so surreal...its one of my fave movies, and of course it contains Kubric's greatest contribution to film...Nichole Kidman, full monty.

[Auricauricle]

Thanks for reelin' me in there, 3LB....aa, we can continue this in another room if you like. But now, if you excuse me a minute, I need to ponder upon somethin' that just came up....

[RoadRunner6]

[QUOTE=audio amateur]I'm not sure I could watch that movie over and over again/QUOTE]

Just remember that this flick is 40 years old. Even when I watch it now, it seems somewhat dated. In 1968 it was a masterpiece.

[audio amateur]

But now, if you excuse me a minute, I need to ponder upon somethin' that just came up....

I want to know what!

[Auricauricle]

RR6: Your comment is like saying that the Mona Lisa is no longer relevant: a great work of art, if I follow you, can only be appreciated within the context of its time and/or origin. I disagree. A masterpiece is always relevant, simply because it transcends time; it has enduring value. This is what makes Beethoven's oeuvre as relevant today as it did when it was first performed. Likewise, 2001 was a masterpiece when it came out in '68, and is now...(anybody else feel the birthpangs of another thread around here?).

[audio amateur]

We're still somewhat in the context of the thread

[Auricauricle]

....and yet even the best intentioned spool will not mend the entangled line!

[Groundbeef]

A masterpiece is always relevant, simply because it transcends time; it has enduring value. This is what makes Beethoven's oeuvre as relevant today as it did when it was first performed. Likewise, 2001 was a masterpiece when it came out in '68, and is now...(anybody else feel the birthpangs of another thread around here?).

I think there are 2 different art "forms" at work here. I would be more apt to agree with both art (paintings) and music (specifically piano, and to a greater extent orchestra).

I am less apt to belive that with film (movies specifically).

Here is my rational.

1. Both paintings, and music (see above notation) have not radically changed in the hundreds of years since they were introduced. The methods to painting the Mona Lisa, or playing Beethoven's Oeuvre haven't changed since they were created. The work stands as is.

2. Movies are different. In many cases, particularly today many movies rely on "special effects" to tell a story. What was groundbreaking in 1968 isn't today. In fact, the difference in technology between 1968 and today serves as a distraction rather than an enhancement to the story line.

However, films such as "12 Angry Men" will stand the test of time, as will "To Kill a Mockingbird". They don't rely on technology to tell the story, but rather, film is simply the medium to tell a great story. Nothing flashy, no technology to age, and appear antiquated. Other than film now being in color, the story still stands today.

I would imagine, that in another 20 years, there will be film geeks who still blow a wad thinking about 2001, but for the most part it will be relegated to the nostalgic corner of old films.

Make sense?

[Auricauricle]

I think you have a point here, Beef, but let me assert here that I think that movie making is not only about what you shoot but how you shoot....

For this reason, directors pay meticulous attention to details such as how an actor is shot and how cameras can be used to put that shot within a frame--or a frame of reference. I agree with you, that story is generally the vehicle that drives a movie, but movies don't have the ability to use the various devices that books have to inform readers of the subtle things happening that make a good story a great book.

Consider this passage: "But where the telescopist would have been at sea himself was with the other figure on that somber, curving mole. It stood right at the seawardmost end, apparently leaning against an old cannon barrel upended as a bollard. Its clothes were black. The wind moved them, but the figure stood motionless, staring, staring out to sea, more like a living memorial to the drowned, a figure from myth, than any proper fragment of the petty provincial day." --John Foyles, The French Lieutennant's Woman

Now, a movie maker can set up this shot, showing a woman in a black dress, the wind blowing, staring into the ocean. It can be straight, no adornment or anything fancy. It can also be set up with some attention to angle, shadow and form. These considerations, I think now, use the camera to portray metaphor, similie and other devices that are impossible to articulate with dialog alone...

"Special effects", as you correctly point, out can mar an otherwise good film and should not be the primary vehicle of a film (unless its a movie where they are ostensibly used for that purpose). Kubrick's use of such in 2001 was adjunctive. While folks can deride some of the shots that look rather contrived or dated, I think that more lenient critics will point out that Kubric was using the best brush available at the time to paint a story that is timeless (thanks Arthur Clarke!) and a movie that, by virtue of that story and presenting it in his uncanny and inimitable way, is a classic that can rest safely alongside the Mona Lisa, Les Miserables and other works that please and astound us even to this day.

[Groundbeef]

"Special effects", as you correctly point, out can mar an otherwise good film and should not be the primary vehicle of a film (unless its a movie where they are ostensibly used for that purpose). Kubrick's use of such in 2001 was adjunctive. While folks can deride some of the shots that look rather contrived or dated, I think that more lenient critics will point out that Kubric was using the best brush available at the time to paint a story that is timeless (thanks Arthur Clarke!) and a movie that, by virtue of that story and presenting it in his uncanny and inimitable way, is a classic that can rest safely alongside the Mona Lisa, Les Miserables and other works that please and astound us even to this day.

There is the rub for movies. While the book by Arthur Clarke will/may stand the test of time, the movie however will not. As time goes on, the effects will continue to detract from the film. My children, and certainly their children will look back and think "what a silly old film, look at how goofy the effects are". The reason is exactly because it is a film based on "technology".

I'm not suggesting that the film itself isn't good. But unfortunatly, the medium itself will not stand the test of time.

That is exactly why other works of art DO stand the test of time. As much as life marches on and improves, a piano and a violin are....well, still a piano and a violin. Great works of art (paintings) are still painted on canvas with either watercolors, or oil paints.

That is exactly why they are great. Because the tools and methods are essentially the same. We can't say today's violins are "better" because they are not. Stratavarious anyone? The music is timless.

Film is dated.

[Auricauricle]

It is dated, yes; but still, I think that Kubric's use of camera and light is worth its inclusion in the Hall of Fame as an example that students of the craft can use, just as aspiring painters can use examples like Goya or Degas, as examples to describe "what is great". One looks at effects as symbolic representations of reality instead of what is depictions of what really is. Again, wouldn't one think--film-wise--there is a difference between What and Why certain things are done?

[Groundbeef]

It is dated, yes; but still, I think that Kubric's use of camera and light is worth its inclusion in the Hall of Fame as an example that students of the craft can use, just as aspiring painters can use examples like Goya or Degas, as examples to describe "what is great". One looks at effects as symbolic representations of reality instead of what is depictions of what really is. Again, wouldn't one think--film-wise--there is a difference between What and Why certain things are done?

I'd agree with that. But then I am not sure it would still be considered a "masterpiece". For film geeks, and student's of the craft, perhaps.

But for the average viewer, not so much. Anyone can hear Beethoven, and while classical may not be their forte, they can at least appreciate the music. 20 years from now (even now I would argue) the average film viewer will watch 2001, and think...ok movie, but crappy effects. They don't consider what "makes" the movie. They are trapped watching a movie that looks....old.

[Auricauricle]

You're more charitable than I, Beef: I don't think "anyone" can appreciate Beethoven, etc....But that's stuff for another forum, hm?

And so, by extension of your point, what is "classic" is dependent on the dictates of "the masses"? Guess I might as well go the libraries, bookstores, etc., and tell them to throw out their Kipling, Dickens and Tolstoy, because they're old and nobody reads them anymore....

Trapped, indeed!?

[Groundbeef]

You're more charitable than I, Beef: I don't think "anyone" can appreciate Beethoven, etc....But that's stuff for another forum, hm?

And so, by extension of your point, what is "classic" is dependent on the dictates of "the masses"? Guess I might as well go the libraries, bookstores, etc., and tell them to throw out their Kipling, Dickens and Tolstoy, because they're old and nobody reads them anymore....

Trapped, indeed!?

I think appreciate is perhaps the incorrect term.

In a nutshell, here is why I think that I do. Most artforms rely on technology that really hasn't changed much over the ages. Books are still books. The process for making a book has changed, but in essence, a book that was written in 1750 is still the "same" as a book made today.

The message is not affected by innovations related to mass production of bindings for example.

Concerts (classical) are essentially the same as they were in the days of Bach, Beethoven, and others. A piano may have changed, as well as other musical instruments, but the way the music is transmitted (the actual instrument) hasn't fundementally changed. The message isn't affected by the passage of time. The symphony still sounds the same.

The Mona Lisa, if painted today, would rely on pretty much the same technology that was in effect at the time of its original commision. The technology for grinding pigments to make the oil paint is irrelevant, in that the image is essentially the same weather it was painted today, or 500 years ago. Heck, cave paintings relied on the same technology (give or take a brush!).

Film however, is still an art form in flux. What was a marvel in 1968 is NOT a marvel today. And as technology progresses, 2001 will continue to look older, and older. The book notwithstanding, the actual "film" looks dated. And that single fact, separates the "art" of film from other classic "art" mediums. I would argue that any film that uses technology as a basis for it's story telling, will in itself never be a "classic". We may argue that the techniques used in the film were groundbreaking, and Kubric was a great director. I wouldn't disagree.

But the fact is, because film, unlike other mediums continues to evolve it makes classifying something a "classic" a moving target. And I don't think that film will age nearly as well as the other above mentioned "arts".

[Auricauricle]

Lemme ponder on that a spell....

[Troy]

What a load of bollocks so much of this thread is!

There's a whole lot of great films being slagged here. People "not getting" complex and artistic movies that are overwhelmingly critically lauded need to reassess that it's them and not the movie that are at fault.

Hey, you can not like a movie, as if an opinion on a message board means anything. Any monkey with a keyboard and thesaurus can sign up and post here, regardless of their background. Like The Dude said: "That's just, like, your opinion, man." But pontificating about how you don't get it only makes you look . . . shallow, regardless of how many 5 syllable words you use. Bragging about not understanding something . . . wow. Just wow.

And Beef, I'd argue that, 100 years from now, film will undoubtedly be considered one of the great artforms of the 20th century, along with photography and industrial design. The 20th century was a watershed period in human evolution, with dozens of new artistic mediums being invented. Hell, it took 100 years just for photography to finally be accepted by the fine art cognoscenti. It's a slow process, but eventually these new forms will win out and their value will be accepted, just like Abstract Impressionism or 12-tone music was.

2001 will be hailed as visionary, regardless of it's technical faults. The original King Kong looked dated and unrealistic by 1950, yet it's still considered one of the greatest genre films of all time.

[Groundbeef]

And Beef, I'd argue that, 100 years from now, film will undoubtedly be considered one of the great artforms of the 20th century, along with photography and industrial design. The 20th century was a watershed period in human evolution, with dozens of new artistic mediums being invented. Hell, it took 100 years just for photography to finally be accepted by the fine art cognoscenti. It's a slow process, but eventually these new forms will win out and their value will be accepted, just like Abstract Impressionism or 12-tone music was.


2001 will be hailed as visionary, regardless of it's technical faults. The original King Kong looked dated and unrealistic by 1950, yet it's still considered one of the greatest genre films of all time.

I would agree with your first point 100%. I never said that film would not be valued later as an "art form". But I do strongly feel that film, unlike other "art" mediums is more difficult to classify as "classic" simply because of the rapid tech advances make older versions appear well...old and inferior.

And I especially like your input on photography. It is a PERFECT example of what I am talking about. A picture taken 100 years ago, is essentially the same as a picture taken today. The process may be different, but the output is nearly identical. Even if your picture is taken with the old silver nitrate, or etched negatives or poloroid, or now digital, the essence is the same.

That is why pictures, books, paintings etc are so trancendant regardless of age. Film, however is not. And the more directors use technology to enhance their storytelling, the less likely they are going to stand the test of time.

[nightflier]

Beef,

Not to muddy the waters, but your argument for photography doesn't quite wash. Take for example how much it has changed when color became widely available or when digital editing was introduced. One could consider these changes "special effects" as well, but they don't take anything away from the artistic nature or the longevity of it's appeal. Here's another "special effect" in photography that would probably throw many people for a loop: www.beyondlight.com. It's a new dimension in the medium, yet is quite appealing and artistic in the same vein. I think changes such as these actually further the art and help engender further changes for future artists.

[bobsticks]

I'll tellya what "I just don't get"...M. Night Shyamalan movies...'cause they suck. I've seen 'em all and keep watching in hopes that one day I'll see the magic that so many others do. Nada.

On the other hand, I'm pretty sure that American Psycho is the most quotable, funniest movie that I've ever seen and nobody ever gets the allegory.

[Troy]

Yes, nightflier is right, photographic technology has evolved and grown by leaps and bounds in the 150 years since its invention, so saying that "The process may be different, but the output is nearly identical." is patently not true. Heck, the limitations of early photography were so bad that, unless a person stood perfectly still for the seconds-long exposures, they would never even appear in the image. The process has changed so radically in 150 years that photography is virtually unrecognizable from where it began.

And taking the argument in a different direction as well: Many of the locations in the older photographs you see in galleries and museums are gone or radically changed, not to mention all the human subjects being deceased. No, the output CANNOT be identical, by definition.

Here's the thing you're missing WRT movies and photography: Art is not about the medium, it's about the message conveyed by that medium. Time makes a lot of it obsolete, no argument, but for the best work, the passage of time seasons it, and makes it all the more special and important.

2001 is a classic (aside from the mind-blowing philosophical implications) because of its technology on both sides of the camera. Are the FX dated? Sure, but the movie was about a lot more than the FX.

[Groundbeef]

Here's the thing you're missing WRT movies and photography: Art is not about the medium, it's about the message conveyed by that medium. Time makes a lot of it obsolete, no argument, but for the best work, the passage of time seasons it, and makes it all the more special and important.

2001 is a classic (aside from the mind-blowing philosophical implications) because of its technology on both sides of the camera. Are the FX dated? Sure, but the movie was about a lot more than the FX.

I'm not disagreeing with you about the message being conveyed by the medium.

I'm just saying, all things relative, film IMHO doesn't age as well as the others. And aside from the simplistic nature of early photography, it is essentially the same today as it was in the early days.

You take a picture, develop it, and viola, the picture. Except now it doesn't take weeks, and $$ for anyone to do it.

And aside from film buffs, I do think that how the effects age, does affect how a movie becomes a "classic". Thats why 12 Angry Men will be timeless. It really didn't have any effects, just a great story.

[RoadRunner6]

Hell, I can't get a word in edgewise here!

[Auricauricle]

Beefy: Your argument, if I follow it correctly, is an interesting one: It consists of two points, if I follow you:

1. That film, because it is prey to technologically-wrought "flux" (advancement in quality?), can never be considered Classic.

Why? Because the viewer is ever canny of this, which is distracting. Just by knowing that a film "looks dated" invalidates the film--because its datedness is distracting (Post 64).

If this is your point, I disagree. In my opinion, this is Film's strength. Artists like Kubric know that Film is subject to the limits of technology; what makes these films great is the fact that knowing these limitations, Kubric etc., proceeded to push the medium to its limit, utilizing every thing they had to create a product that was representative of the best product that medium was capable of producing. 2001 was and is a monument to Film, just as Beethoven's 9th Symphony or the works of Jackson Pollack are among the best renderings of their media, simply because they found a way of pushing the media available as far as they were capable.

2. I agree with you, that special effects should not drive a story (movie) (Post 59). That being said, I don't think they drove 2001. True, there were some terrific shots (as in the girl in the spaceship who walks upside down). But these are rare; the rest were used in the context of the story, which was the driver of that movie. The rest, as they say, was window dressing! (Amen, Troy!)

* Oh, and one other thing. Photography is now, as it was in days of yore, just as difficult and technologically constrained as any "art form". Although it is now possible for even a monkey to take a snapshot that is reasonably composed and focused, students of photography (or film) will tell you that taking a really good shot--that is well composed and reproduced in a way that is not only aesthetically pleasing but downright artistic--takes years of hard, backbreaking and heart-rending effort. Come to Charleston, and I will introduce you to a man who has taken pictures throughout his life and now runs a gallery of his work. He and his technicians (who are photographers as well) will tell you so....

Take a look, now, and read the pages: http://www.imagingarts.com/

[Troy]

See Beefy, your statements lead me to think you haven't spent as much time creating and studying art as I have. Your simplistic "You take a picture, develop it, and viola, the picture" comment, frankly, rankles me. My photography has hung in galleries and shows all over the US, and appeared in print world-wide. I've had 2 photographic monographs published. I can assure you, it's just not as simple as taking a snapshot.

At least not if you are expecting to create consistently good work. There are 10s of millions of photographs taken every day. 99.9999999% are the casual snapsots you describe, but trust me, the work that appears in galleries and museums is much more considered and thought out than you seem to be aware of. A lot of work goes into creating art, regardless of the medium.

Movies are the same way. Most are crap. While it's not because they are made by amateurs, they are simply just commercial ventures designed to turn a buck from the masses. Very few films aspire to be art. Some, like "Syncadoche, New York" are failures, but at least they aspire for something beyond pablum for the masses.

Some of the movies listed in this thread are great, artistic statements packed with depth, nuance and style, but it sounds like you don't really want to make the effort to grok them on a deeper level. 2001, No Country for Old Men and There Will be Blood stretched the limits of what a mass market movie can be. They are not for everyone, and that's ok, but the old Twain quote "“It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.” really seems appropriate here.

[RoadRunner6]

RR6: Your comment is like saying that the Mona Lisa is no longer relevant

Wow, that is really one long stretch! A painting like the Mona Lisa is created exactly the same then as it is now. There is nothing that has changed (except for maybe an insignificant improvement in paint durability).

Movie creation processes change over time due to the many advances in technology. If AA were to rate 2001 (now at approximately age 20) he might give it a 6 score out of 10 by what he said in his post. If he was alive and at the same age in 1968 I bet he would have given it a 9 out of 10.

IMO, the word masterpiece is subject to the eye of the beholder and all of the factors that affect his evauation of the work, whether it be a painting, symphany composition, movie, sculpture, photograph, etc. It seems that your concept of a masterpiece is a inflexible evaluation that is determined by a group of artistic elitists. It is set in stone and cannot change over time or from different individual perceptions. I don't believe it can be limited by a linear classification that only, for example, considers works on the right side of a set line as masterpeices and those on the left side of this line as not being masterpieces.

My masterpiece might be your simply great movie, or visa versa. However, the fact is that a movie or any other work subject to advances in the tools used can create works that vary in degrees of excellence.

My opinion that 2001 might have been a masterpiece to me in 1968 and perhaps in seeing it now might only garner an excellent rating is entirely reasonable to me.

The Beef is correct in my opinion. Of course he has had this logical thinking ground into him since childhood!

Futhermore (sic), you are obviously not aware of the accepted rating levels of masterpieces.

LLM: Low Level Masterpiece

MLM: Mid Level Masterpeice

HLM: High Level Masterpiece

I read recently that the International Alliance of Masterpeice Rating is in the process of approving the newest SHLM rating.

Now can we move on to more important issues in life like does Michelle look good in sleeveless dresses (or are they even appropriate for the First Sister ... don't get upset at me ... that's what some of my black buddies at work call her).

RR6