Movies you just didn't "get".

[Groundbeef]

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.

.

You are reading WAY too much into my post. Beyond the actual meaning of the thought. By it's very essence photography hasn't changed a whole lot since it's inception. Now I realize that there have been worlds of technological advances since the very first picture was taken. I get that. But the end result is the same.

A picture. That remains static. Put aside all the other stuff. You point, shoot, develop, print. The process has changed, but the end result has not.

This is not to sugget that any mope can take great pictures. Just like a piano that hasn't really changed in hundreds of years. Not just anyone can pick up and play Bach.

[audio amateur]

Personally, i think part of what made it a masterpiece at the time was perhaps due tu its technical superiority, in which case part of its overall rating will have gone down since, as GB was saying.
However I do believe that a lot of what makes it so great (personally i've no doubt that it's a great piece of work and i'm eager to watch it again after all this talking), is in fact its content, i.e it's good for what it is not for what it looks like.

Surely it looks a bit dated and will look it even more as time goes, but it's what is at its heart that makes it so great, and that's what will make it stand 'the test of time'.

[Worf101]

Munch, munch... don't know quite how my thread wound up here BUT I do like the spirit and passion of the arguements on both sides. Play on!!!!

Da Worfster

[Groundbeef]

Surely it looks a bit dated and will look it even more as time goes, but it's what is at its heart that makes it so great, and that's what will make it stand 'the test of time'.

I think that some people are having difficulty separating great storytelling from "groundbreaking" film-making.

I will conceed, and in fact have already stated that there are several films that tell great stories that will be/are classics today. But most of the early efforts don't rely on "special effects" to tell the story. King Kong as noted did, but most did not.

Flash forward to 1968, and 2001 was introduced. At the time, a stunning film in both story telling, and technological advances. Or consider 1977 when Star Wars was introduced to the world. I can remember as a young man going to the theater with my Aunt and watching it. I was entralled at the exciting action, and spell bound by the special effects.

Now, I ask you if either of those films were released today for the first time (pretend there was a time warp), would you still hold them up to as high regard. I think not. The effects are dated, Star Wars in particular is not much of a story (comon, it IS just a Western that just happens to be in space). What was "groundbreaking", "breathtaking", is now....ho-hum.

Now, think of Beethoven's 5th. If it was to be introduced today (again, the time warp) for the first time, it would still be a great work. Time would not affect how the music would be either heard, or transmitted. The instruments are fundementally the same. The passage of time does not cause people to think..."wow, that was a really old piano". It is timeless.

I think that is the difference.

[Auricauricle]

RR6: I never meant to imply that the designation of Masterpiece was one that is set in stone or subject only to the whims of a panel of "experts"; in fact I agree with you in many respects. Especially important is comprehending and respecting the fact that what I may hold as an example of high artistic achievement may not conform to your model. Aside from the presence of certain individuals who are interested in the potential lucrative rewards of the art market and flood the bookstores, record shops and galleries with every possible product imaginable, is the reality that what is considered "good" is highly personal and arbitrary. While I may like a picture of a street scene on my wall, you may like a rendering of a sad-faced clown and his balloon. I would not deign to denigrate your decision (well, maybe I would in private), for that is your appraisal, pure and simple.

On the other hand, I think there has to be some paradigm to what constitutes successful and distinctive application of a medium and what doesn't. I may be stepping out onto an elitist limb here, but I think that there is a general consensus of opinion that is in accord as to what is "good" and what is "banal". While certainly the dictates of the mainstream is indicative of something, I don't reckon that most folks are informed or canny enough to discern a labor of whim from a labor of love.

For example, here in Charleston there is an enormous population of artists, many of whom have opened up galleries for their wares. Among these is a crowd who sell products to the throng of folks who descend upon the city once a year for the annual Wildlife Exposition. They paint pictures of Labrador Retrievers and ducks and shotgun shells. They do all right, sales-wise, but the work is hackneyed and has as much substance as yesterday's peanutbutter and jelly sandwich.

There are other artists who not only paint pictures of something different, but whose labor stretches the medium to amazing limits. I wish I was knowledgeable enough to articulate these thoughts clearly, I haven't the education or erudition to do so, but there are works of art--be they music or painting or what not--that are vastly important. No panel of "experts" may be in accord with such criteria, but these artists transcend the banal and trite and create work that is luminous and transcendant. There is a reason, a valid reason, why names like El Greco, Monet and Wyeth are remembered and continue to be called upon as masters of the form.

In the same sense, I think this is part of what makes, IMHO, 2001 such an enduring film. Part of its appeal is story related: 2001 is a fable, much like the story of Odysseus, which is not constrained to the experiences of one man's adventure in outer space, but of Mankind's adventure in Life itself. In constructing the visual context and content of the story, Kubric cannily applied his brush to create shots not only of great artistic merit and moment, but with purpose. Kubric was a keen observer of human psychology (perhaps this is why he was a recluse), who knew that our perceptual apparatus works in peculiar and important ways. Knowing this, Kubric's films were shot masterfully. Very few directors have such a gift: Wells, Scott, and Greenway are among a few. In short, Kubric pushed the medium to its limit.

The comment, "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" (Post 75) seems to indicate that because film-technology is ever changing, so too must our considerations, which includes appraisals that account for the quality of the medium. As you and others point out, music and painting have reamined somewhat static (not something I really cotton to), for the woods and pigments employed in the manufacture of instruments and paints are very similar to those used long ago. Because we live in an age where film-work has changed (analog to digital, e.g.), we can look at films like 2001 and, knowing that it was shot with archaeic equipment, and make the certain, smug appraisal that it is an inferior movie.

I hope this long-winded apology impels you to consider an alternative point of view.

[Troy]

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).

No no no no.

The critical thing you are missing here is context. When Leonardo painted it, oil was pretty much the only medium he could use to create it. If cameras were available in the 16th Century, that portrait would have been a photograph, I assure you.

If affordable color film was available, all the great movies of the 1930s would have been in color. If sound was available before 1929, all those silent films of the teens and 20s would have been talkies. Artists will always gravitate towards the latest technology and tools.

Sure, artists will continue to use the old tools when they are looking for a specific look. I still shoot film when I'm after extreme exposure length where the image I'm creating calls for it. But generally artists are always striving to move beyond where other artists have worked. To find their own voice. It's human nature.


Caravanserai- 2009
60 minute exposure (composite of 2 30 minute exposures)

But I digress. 16th century painters worked in oil for very different reasons that 21st century painters do, so doing a painting like the Mona Lisa today would be completely different.

Now, I ask you if either of those films (2001 / Star Wars) were released today for the first time (pretend there was a time warp), would you still hold them up to as high regard.

2001, yes, Star Wars, no. SW is just empty-headed pop entertainment. It will be remembered for it's deep cultural impact on a generation, but when that generation dies, its importance will vaporize. 2001 is a much deeper film with huge philosophical implications, and the things that made it so provocative are timeless. For those that want to argue the point, there have been millions of more erudite words than I could ever come up with written about this film, only a google search away.

Now, think of Beethoven's 5th. If it was to be introduced today (again, the time warp) for the first time, it would still be a great work.

As an orchestral piece? No one would even notice it today because classical music is culturally dead. The passage of time would have a tremendous impact on it! It would be considered a throwback, so I doubt it would have much impact. The only way it would make a ripple is if a popular rock band created it, released an album of it, and toured it in a big rock show. Imagine Radiohead today, or Pink Floyd in the 70s creating that piece of music.

See, just like the popularity of Star Wars or Batman, people today want form over content. They get lost in style and filigree, not in what the piece is actually saying. No one wants to hear orchestras anymore, but a popular (and visionary) rock band could bring orchestral style music to the masses. See: progrock in the 1970s. Star Wars is a poorly acted and juvenile story, but people were mesmerized by the visual style. Now that the style is old hat, people can see through the smoke and mirrors to find a naked emperor standing there. 2001 suffered the same problem (My god, the monkey suits look bad), but it still has all that content in the story and concept to fall back on.

In the same sense, I think this is part of what makes, IMHO, 2001 such an enduring film. Part of its appeal is story related: 2001 is a fable, much like the story of Odysseus, which is not constrained to the experiences of one man's adventure in outer space, but of Mankind's adventure in Life itself. In constructing the visual context and content of the story, Kubric cannily applied his brush to create shots not only of great artistic merit and moment, but with purpose. Kubric was a keen observer of human psychology (perhaps this is why he was a recluse), who knew that our perceptual apparatus works in peculiar and important ways. Knowing this, Kubric's films were shot masterfully. Very few directors have such a gift: Wells, Scott, and Greenway are among a few. In short, Kubric pushed the medium to its limit.

This intelligent and measured response is precisely why the masses can't be the final arbiters of defining art. The masses wouldn't know Greek mythology if they're hit over the head with it, even though so much of what we consider the art of storytelling is a direct offshoot of it. The masses think the LOTR trilogy, Iron Man and the last 2 Batman movies are high art, but in 20 years people will be saying the same things about those movies as Beef is saying about Star Wars. The masses are brainwashed by the media, who's job it is to sell you the idea that these films are "important" when the fact is they are simply disposable entertainments.

[Groundbeef]

No no no no.

The critical thing you are missing here is context. When Leonardo painted it, oil was pretty much the only medium he could use to create it. If cameras were available in the 16th Century, that portrait would have been a photograph, I assure you.

If affordable color film was available, all the great movies of the 1930s would have been in color. If sound was available before 1929, all those silent films of the teens and 20s would have been talkies. Artists will always gravitate towards the latest technology and tools.

You assure me? Really? So, I guess all those great painters of today live in caves and are not aware that photography exists? That's a bold statement grounded in fantasy.

The later statements perhaps, but only because they are all related to the same medium. Color, sound, green screens, blue screens, CGI, all related to the same medium...film. Saying a great painter would rather be a great photographer is rather ignorant.

2001, yes, Star Wars, no. SW is just empty-headed pop entertainment. It will be remembered for it's deep cultural impact on a generation, but when that generation dies, its importance will vaporize. 2001 is a much deeper film with huge philosophical implications, and the things that made it so provocative are timeless. For those that want to argue the point, there have been millions of more erudite words than I could ever come up with written about this film, only a google search away.

I like your dismissive attitude towards SW. I'm not going to argue the relative merits of the story itself (again, a cowboy movie in space). But certainly you are not going to dismiss the direction of George Lucas and the groundbreaking direction of the film itself. From Wiki: "They developed a computer-controlled camera rig called the "Dykstraflex" that allowed precise repeatability of camera motion, greatly facilitating travelling-matte compositing. Degradation of film images during compositing was minimized by other innovations: the Dykstraflex used VistaVision cameras that photographed widescreen images horizontally along stock, using far more of the film per frame, and thinner-emulsion filmstocks were used in the compositing process. The effects crew assembled by Lucas and Dykstra was dubbed Industrial Light and Magic, and since 1977 has spearheaded most effects innovations."

So the story may not be a "classic" but the film itself was groundbreaking at the time.

As an orchestral piece? No one would even notice it today because classical music is culturally dead. The passage of time would have a tremendous impact on it! It would be considered a throwback, so I doubt it would have much impact. The only way it would make a ripple is if a popular rock band created it, released an album of it, and toured it in a big rock show. Imagine Radiohead today, or Pink Floyd in the 70s creating that piece of music.

If they produced it for a piano, it would sound the same as it did 200+ years ago.

See, just like the popularity of Star Wars or Batman, people today want form over content. They get lost in style and filigree, not in what the piece is actually saying. No one wants to hear orchestras anymore, but a popular (and visionary) rock band could bring orchestral style music to the masses. See: progrock in the 1970s. Star Wars is a poorly acted and juvenile story, but people were mesmerized by the visual style. Now that the style is old hat, people can see through the smoke and mirrors to find a naked emperor standing there. 2001 suffered the same problem (My god, the monkey suits look bad), but it still has all that content in the story and concept to fall back on.

That's been my point for most of this discussion. As films get older, the effects get dated, and has much less relevance today than it did yesterday.

[Auricauricle]

But the "datedness" of a film has no bearing on the film's relevance! Grrrrr!

FWIW, George Lucas should get his due, but in reference to your Wiki-quote, Dykstraflex was the innovation of Dick Dykstra, whose innovative use of camera and film was also seen in Blade Runner and...2001!

BTW: Lucas is overrrated (more salt, anyone?).

[Groundbeef]

But the "datedness" of a film has no bearing on the film's relevance! Grrrrr!

FWIW, George Lucas should get his due, but in reference to your Wiki-quote, Dykstraflex was the innovation of Dick Dykstra, whose innovative use of camera and film was also seen in Blade Runner and...2001!

BTW: Lucas is overrrated (more salt, anyone?).

1. The quote does credit Dick Dykstra...read the whole thing.

2. I think that Lucas in the abstract is overrated. But you can't deny the impact his direction and innovation has had on film.

3. Your first statement is NOT true. Depending upon the film, the "datedness" of the work can directly affect the relevance. Let's do the opposite. What if Kubric had found himself a time machine, and went back to 1914. Rather than casting Charlie Chaplin in his first film "Making a Living", he made 2001. But was limited to using ONLY BW film, and the effects available in 1914. No sound, no color, and almost no "special" effects.

Tell me now, would that version of 2001 have the SAME impact as the 2001 of 1968? I think not. That would be the difference.

So, a dated film does not project the same impact as a film of current technology. Good story or not.

[RoadRunner6]

Auricauricle, never any need for a long-winded apology among friends here. As usual my response is mixed with some seriousness but includes dabs of humorously intended comments.

We are mired here in semantics which I feel guilty for starting with my wreckless use of the word masterpiece.

You guys can continue this discussion ad nauseam while I go start a thread on Michelle Obama's sleeveless dresses.

RR6

[Troy]

You assure me? Really? So, I guess all those great painters of today live in caves and are not aware that photography exists? That's a bold statement grounded in fantasy.

Heck Beef, this whole thread is grounded in fantasy! You can't have it both ways to suit your argument.

The later statements perhaps, but only because they are all related to the same medium. Color, sound, green screens, blue screens, CGI, all related to the same medium...film. Saying a great painter would rather be a great photographer is rather ignorant.

No because you are missing an important point because of your lack of historical knowledge: 16th century formal portraiture, and virtually all portraiture up until the advent of photography, was contract work. The rich hired painters to paint them and their families the same way that they hire photographers to make family portraits today. The Mona Lisa was just another contract job for Leonardo to pay the rent and finance his other endeavors. That is a fact.

If photography existed in the 16th century, the Mona Lisa would have been a photograph. Fact.

I like your dismissive attitude towards SW. I'm not going to argue the relative merits of the story itself (again, a cowboy movie in space). But certainly you are not going to dismiss the direction of George Lucas and the groundbreaking direction of the film itself.

So the story may not be a "classic" but the film itself was groundbreaking at the time.

We agree here, so I'm not sure why you sound angry. I didn't dismiss the technical merits of SW. Lucas, Dykstra and Doug Trumbull were all technical visionaries that changed the way movies were made. That technology today is outmoded, so it's easy to see through the FX and find what is essentially a children's movie. Agreed?

If they produced it for a piano, it would sound the same as it did 200+ years ago.

Not to call you out again, but Beethoven's 5th was a big symphonic piece for an orchestra, and never intended as a solo piano piece.

And yes, it would sound the same, but that's not the argument. In your fantasy for argument's sake, if Beethoven's 5th was written today, no one would pay any attention to it. Unless it was played on modern instruments by a popular artist and it had a big push behind it from the record companies and their media influencers.

That's been my point for most of this discussion. As films get older, the effects get dated, and has much less relevance today than it did yesterday.

And as a blanket statement it's just plain wrong, because movies like King Kong and 2001 transcend their let down in FX over time with superior story, character and pathos.

I think that Lucas in the abstract is overrated. But you can't deny the impact his direction and innovation has had on film.

Agreed, but that's not the argument. While he's great with the technical aspects of film making, he hasn't got a clue for how to write natural sounding dialog or directing actors. His movies are visually stylish . . . crap.

Your first statement is NOT true. Depending upon the film, the "datedness" of the work can directly affect the relevance. Let's do the opposite. What if Kubric had found himself a time machine, and went back to 1914. Rather than casting Charlie Chaplin in his first film "Making a Living", he made 2001. But was limited to using ONLY BW film, and the effects available in 1914. No sound, no color, and almost no "special" effects.

Tell me now, would that version of 2001 have the SAME impact as the 2001 of 1968? I think not. That would be the difference.

Talk about bold statements grounded in fantasy!
I'm willing to play with going back and forth in time for the creation of these pieces of art for the purposes of this discussion, but this one is just doesn't make sense. The whole concept of 2001 would have been utterly incomprehensible to the public of 1914.

I've heard that old line many times over the years: "Only now can the story of (insert title) be told!" because of technical advances in movies.

But again, that's not the argument. The argument is "Can movies stand the test of time even when their FX look hopelessly outdated?" and I'm saying it's a case by case situation. Your argument is that NO film can stand the test of time, especially if it's FX driven, even when presented with films that are generally considered classics, like 2001 and King Kong.

Like most things in life it's simply not black and white.

[Groundbeef]

Heck Beef, this whole thread is grounded in fantasy! You can't have it both ways to suit your argument.

Yes I can.

No because you are missing an important point because of your lack of historical knowledge:

No, I think that is speculation on your part. You don't know what I know.

16th century formal portraiture, and virtually all portraiture up until the advent of photography, was contract work. The rich hired painters to paint them and their families the same way that they hire photographers to make family portraits today. The Mona Lisa was just another contract job for Leonardo to pay the rent and finance his other endeavors. That is a fact.

And has nothing to do with the premise that he would have used a Cannon instead of a brush if he were to do it today. No more than you would start painting watercolors for your commercial endeavors today. Again, just because he was a painter then, doesn't make him a photographer today. Unless of course, all painters are just closet picture takers.

If photography existed in the 16th century, the Mona Lisa would have been a photograph. Fact.

And if Lenardo had been alive only 2000 years prior, the Mona Lisa would have featured her riding a mastadon. On a cave wall.

Talk about bold statements grounded in fantasy!
I'm willing to play with going back and forth in time for the creation of these pieces of art for the purposes of this discussion, but this one is just doesn't make sense. The whole concept of 2001 would have been utterly incomprehensible to the public of 1914.

I've heard that old line many times over the years: "Only now can the story of (insert title) be told!" because of technical advances in movies.

But again, that's not the argument. The argument is "Can movies stand the test of time even when their FX look hopelessly outdated?" and I'm saying it's a case by case situation. Your argument is that NO film can stand the test of time, especially if it's FX driven, even when presented with generally considered classics like 2001 and King Kong.

Now you are trying to have it both ways by hedging. Now it's a case by case basis. And my point is that if it really is a "classic" it would be a classic filmed at ANY point in time. It's not a classic because it can only be done at one specific time. That makes it an antique.

The story would have made sense in 1914. People have always wondered about space, the future, our past, etc. Hal might have been a little disconcerting, but so what.

[Troy]

And has nothing to do with the premise that he would have used a Cannon instead of a brush if he were to do it today. No more than you would start painting watercolors for your commercial endeavors today. Again, just because he was a painter then, doesn't make him a photographer today. Unless of course, all painters are just closet picture takers.

Here's what you're missing: Leonardo didn't paint that because he wanted to create "art." He didn't do it because he wanted to. He did it because he was paid to do it. It became art with the passage of time.

If photography existed in the 16th century, Leonardo would have never been contracted to paint it! The family would have just hired a photographer.

And if Lenardo had been alive only 2000 years prior, the Mona Lisa would have featured her riding a mastadon. On a cave wall.

Only if you believe in that crazyass Intelligent Design nonsense . . .

Now you are trying to have it both ways by hedging. Now it's a case by case basis. And my point is that if it really is a "classic" it would be a classic filmed at ANY point in time. It's not a classic because it can only be done at one specific time. That makes it an antique.

What do you mean now? I've been saying that all along! Pretty much everything in life is a case by case situation. Do you agree?

The story would have made sense in 1914. People have always wondered about space, the future, our past, etc. Hal might have been a little disconcerting, but so what.

No way. The film was packed with hundreds of concepts besides computers that would have made even the most sophisticated citizen of 1914's head explode in confusion. They barely had electricity!

[Groundbeef]

Here's what you're missing: Leonardo didn't paint that because he wanted to create "art." He didn't do it because he wanted to. He did it because he was paid to do it. It became art with the passage of time.

If photography existed in the 16th century, Leonardo would have never been contracted to paint it! The family would have just hired a photographer.

You know what. I think you are right. I googled "Mona Lisa". Plain as day along the bottom it says in small print. "This would have been a photograph had we known what a camera was". I conceed your point.

What do you mean now? I've been saying that all along! Pretty much everything in life is a case by case situation. Do you agree?

I've never changed my story. My feelings this entire thread have remained constant. Films today, due to the very nature of the changing technology are not "classics" in the same way that other works of art are "classics".

And that very change in technology can very much change the feelings that people have with regards to each particular piece of art (film). And the older the film gets, particularly films that utlize "special effects" have an effect of lessening the impact of the message. The very nature of the "special effects" losing their lustre over time serve as a distraction to the message. What was cutting edge in 1968 (along with a good story), will over time become less and less...special. Whereas movies that simply use the medium to tell a story will wear much better. Sure the clothing will become dated, but the story won't suffer for it.

What I saw in 1977 in SW was cutting edge. When I watch it again, I know that it was done with little models. And the effects are no longer engrossing. The story is lost because of the distractions. It is not enhanced.

Or think of it this way. If you were to watch 2001 now, but it was only filmed in BW, no sound, and used cardboard for the ship would it have as much impact as it did in 1968? Probably not. So, really it isn't only the story that carries the film. The visual plays an important part as well. And 50 years from now, the effects in play then might
make 2001 appear as though it might as well been filmed in BW, no sound and a cardboard ship.

No way. The film was packed with hundreds of concepts besides computers that would have made even the most sophisticated citizen of 1914's head explode in confusion. They barely had electricity!

Ok, maybe 1914 would have been a bit early. Perhaps in 1926 when Buck Rodgers ruled the cosmos?

[Auricauricle]

Just a few thoughts:

a. I think that what needs to be emphasized is that there is a certain criterion for a work of art's placement on the Classic Roster: namely that that work has lasting value. Classics like 2001 transcend the zeitgeist. Star Wars run alongside of it. Beethoven's 9th will be listened to and revered in the future, just as it is now. Gershwin's American in Paris will be a footnote (wink).

b. The proposition that a movie such as 2001 would be incomprehensible to audiences in 1914 is nonsense. Aside from the special effects and use of gadgetry that was not in existence in 1914, 2001 is a tale that is as old as the ages. If we look at the elements of the movie as archetypal or as symbolic representations and metaphors, we can see that most of the movie was comprehensible (see thought a).

c. There is a stumbling point that needs to be stepped over: When I speak of a film's relevance I refer to the vehicles that drive the show. In 2001, those elements were related to story; hence 2001 is highly relevant. Other movies are more interested in image, including special effects and props: in this respect, Star Wars does rather well.

d. Science fiction is generally not a genre that is interested primarily in positing innovative futures and the machines that will be employed, but in addressing sociological and psychic problems that may present themselves and how they might be addressed. Again, the medium is not the message. Verne's 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea is not about submarines propelled by mad captains, but as a cautionary tale about abuse of power, obsessive indignation and other stuff...

e. Your quote does mention Dykstra, but only by last name. I was just bringing out the first to show off.

f. If the technological ramifications of a movie are so distracting, maybe you're missing the point.

g. Who knows what DaVinci would have done? There're plenty of portraitists who still prefer the brush over the aperture.

h. A classic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbGd_240ynk

[Groundbeef]

f. If the technological ramifications of a movie are so distracting, maybe you're missing the point.

I resent that. I watched Transformers for the deep underlying theme of world peace. Snazzy robots had nuttin' to do with it.

d. Science fiction is generally not a genre that is interested primarily in positing innovative futures and the machines that will be employed, but in addressing sociological and psychic problems that may present themselves and how they might be addressed. Again, the medium is not the message. Verne's 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea is not about submarines propelled by mad captains, but as a cautionary tale about abuse of power, obsessive indignation and other stuff...

No, it was about the dangers of giant squid.

[Auricauricle]

Got me.

[Troy]

You know what. I think you are right. I googled "Mona Lisa". Plain as day along the bottom it says in small print. "This would have been a photograph had we known what a camera was". I conceed your point.

You guys can't let go of the portrait thing, can ya?

"Who knows what DaVinci would have done?" is right. Point is, he probably wouldn't have gotten the gig.

Sure, there's plenty of painters today that would be begging for a commission. I know several personally who would paint anything for anyone, right now. Today. All you have to do is pay them. Problem is, no one hires painters for portraits anymore because photography is better/more accurate than most painters, and it's a fraction of the cost.

I never said that DaVinci would have opted to photograph instead of paint if the technology existed, but based on how innovative and brilliant he was, I'm sure he'd have been all over the latest technology of everything.

My feelings this entire thread have remained constant. Films today, due to the very nature of the changing technology are not "classics" in the same way that other works of art are "classics".

And me and Auri are saying that it's not a simple "yes/no" answer. It's a "maybe" answer. It depends on how the rest of the movie is handled. Your analogies of moving films back and forth in time don't work because of all the other factors involved with the concept of moving them.

If you were to watch 2001 now, but it was only filmed in BW, no sound, and used cardboard for the ship would it have as much impact as it did in 1968? Probably not. So, really it isn't only the story that carries the film. The visual plays an important part as well. And 50 years from now, the effects in play then might
make 2001 appear as though it might as well been filmed in BW, no sound and a cardboard ship.

I understand your reasoning, but it's just not as cut and dry as that. The implication that B&W movies are somehow "not classic" because they are B&W doesn't hold water. Is Dr. Strangelove not a classic because it was filmed in B&W in 1963, when color film was the norm? Nein!

So while a cardboard cut-out 2001 that was made by Ed Wood would suck horribly (and might be a different kind of classic), the fact is, it was made by Kubrick with a tremendous amount of TLC. No, it isn't only the story that carries the movie. Like King Kong or the civil war photography of Matthew Brady, the technical aspect of the item looks appropriate for it's time, which, in fact, enhances the quality of the piece!

The proposition that a movie such as 2001 would be incomprehensible to audiences in 1914 is nonsense.

I'm not gonna fall on my sword over this one, but . . . While some audiences of 1914 may have understood the basic story of 2001, they just wouldn't be able to get their heads around what they were seeing on the screen. The milieu would just be way too far out for them. And movies had barely even adopted the idea of the montage by that point. The audience just would have had a hard time pulling the story together. The thrown bone turning into a spaceship? The monolith? Hell, a large % of the 1968 audience didn't even get it! Clearly, there's people in this thread that still don't get it in 2009, so what makes you think that people from 1914 would?

[nightflier]

Whoa, this conversation sure grew fast. Leave it for just a few hours and....

I'd like to add a couple of points:

1. The reason that the Mona Lisa would have been a photograph is because even in highfalutin artsy-fartsy circles, it is considered mediocre for a "masterpiece." Yes, many paintings we now consider masterpieces were posed portraits but it is what the artists succeeded in adding to the painting that makes it notable. Rembrandt's portraits weren't just about the subject, but also about the mood, the psychology, the thoughts that a viewer could possibly discern from the subject. There are many 16-17th century paintings that are similar portraiture worthy of antique-status but that fall far short of being masterpieces. The Mona Lisa is more than a portrait, of course, and consequently is priceless in value, but it lacks the visceral emotion that art critics will lavish over a Jackson Pollack (to pick on something on an opposite end of that spectrum).

2. Did I hear someone say that Star Wars didn't have a decent storyline? I remember when I saw it the first time, I was actually drawn to the mystery, the symbolism, and the depth of the storyline. I immediately noticed the parallels with the LOTR, which apparently is being maligned here as well. Are we forgetting the scope of that tale, the cultural impact it had, and the allegorical nature of it? WWI & WWII ring a bell? The Nibelung, maybe? Maybe everyone missed that in the movies, but for those who actually read the books, the movie did a pretty friggin' bang-up job in bringing out these themes, IMO.

3. Special Effects, even the most cheesy ones (by our standards) can contribute to making a movie a masterpiece. What would Citizen Kane be w/o the play of shadow and light? What would Metropolis be without Maria? What would the 5th Element be without flying Taxis? What would Hellraiser be without the "artistic" use of gore? Perhaps not all special effects make a masterpiece, but let's not now dismiss them as cheesy just because they are common-place in movies.

4. Beethoven's 5th is actually a rather simple composition by many of today's standards of classical composition. Yet it endures because of how this simple theme is carried through for the length of the whole symphony. Much more complex symphonies like Mahler's 8th, the "Symphony of 1000" doesn't at all have the same appeal. It was Beethoven's genius in bringing this to our ears. To suggest that it would not succeed today unless it was played on an electric guitar is absolute nonsense. Actually one can argue that much of today's pop music actually plagiarizes themes from much older classical themes. Their commercial success is largely indebted to classical melodies that have been rooted in our subconscious through years of repeated exposure. Is any form of art really "new"?

5. Not to belabor the point, but the answer to that question is likely the reason people continue to make art. There was a time about 125 years ago when painting was appearing to stagnate. Classical portraiture, even of the Rembrandt variety was seen as too representative. It was considered, ironically like some here have said about photography, static. Once the painting was complete it no longer changed which was entirely out of character with nature which was always changing. So a few revolutionary thinkers began to try and capture change which lead to expressionism, impressionism, abstract art, and ultimately art that is entirely non-representational. The discussion above seems to forget the fact that all art is always changing, growing, and exploring new ideas, even if it should sometimes do so in spurts rather than a consistent and predictable evolution of the medium.

6. For all it's wonderful allegory and it's artistry, let me be one to say that the storyline of 2001 was OK, but far from revolutionary. What captivated audiences so much in this movie were concepts that had already been explored in art, literature, and music. Perhaps the medium (film) was significant, but the concepts of Hal, the bone-wielding ape, the Star Gate, etc. are all very old. Actually the influences of C.S. Lewis, Verne, Darwin and others are quite obvious. Even Strauss' eponymous score predates the movie by some 70 years and that was inspired by Nietsche's early novel. To presume that Clarke and Kubrick did not "borrow" from other artists is a bit short-sighted. Why this movie was so revolutionary is perhaps more of an embarrassing testament to our own lack of education rather than evidence of the movie's greatness.

OK, let the crap fly....

[Auricauricle]

Troy: Okay, maybe I stepped outside the ring on this one. Your statement, "I'm not gonna fall on my sword over this one, but . . . While some audiences of 1914 may have understood the basic story of 2001, they just wouldn't be able to get their heads around what they were seeing on the screen. The milieu would just be way too far out for them. And movies had barely even adopted the idea of the montage by that point. The audience just would have had a hard time pulling the story together. The thrown bone turning into a spaceship? The monolith? Hell, a large % of the 1968 audience didn't even get it! Clearly, there's people in this thread that still don't get it in 2009, so what makes you think that people from 1914 would?" is probably accurate, but my point was not meant to be taken literally.

My point was to echo a previous point that 2001 was and is a story with deeper meaning and significance. If we look at 2001 not as a show about bones and spaceships and supplant these elements with objects more relevant to the people of 1914, the point would be just about the same....Then again, I also said I still don't "get" everything.

[Groundbeef]

Sure, there's plenty of painters today that would be begging for a commission. I know several personally who would paint anything for anyone, right now. Today. All you have to do is pay them. Problem is, no one hires painters for portraits anymore because photography is better/more accurate than most painters, and it's a fraction of the cost.

Well that's rather subjective. I'm not sure people hire painters because they are looking for the most "accurate" representation of whatever they are having commissioned to be painted.

I never said that DaVinci would have opted to photograph instead of paint if the technology existed, but based on how innovative and brilliant he was, I'm sure he'd have been all over the latest technology of everything

If photography existed in the 16th century, the Mona Lisa would have been a photograph. Fact.

Here is what we like to call Revisionist History..... (Those were both your quotes Troy. )

And me and Auri are saying that it's not a simple "yes/no" answer. It's a "maybe" answer. It depends on how the rest of the movie is handled. Your analogies of moving films back and forth in time don't work because of all the other factors involved with the concept of moving them.

No, it works because you are arguing that the "effects" don't make the movie, it's the story. I'm saying that many times it IS the 'effects" that make the story. And as time goes on, the effects look dated (sometimes to the absurd) and that takes away from the story.

I understand your reasoning, but it's just not as cut and dry as that. The implication that B&W movies are somehow "not classic" because they are B&W doesn't hold water. Is Dr. Strangelove not a classic because it was filmed in B&W in 1963, when color film was the norm? Nein!

I NEVER said that B&W movies are not classic. I used 12 Angry Men, and To Kill A Mockingbird in one of my early posts to show that lots of old BW movies are "classic" and will hold up to the test of time. You need to read all the posts. Not just bits.

I'm not gonna fall on my sword over this one, but . . . While some audiences of 1914 may have understood the basic story of 2001, they just wouldn't be able to get their heads around what they were seeing on the screen. The milieu would just be way too far out for them. And movies had barely even adopted the idea of the montage by that point. The audience just would have had a hard time pulling the story together. The thrown bone turning into a spaceship? The monolith? Hell, a large % of the 1968 audience didn't even get it! Clearly, there's people in this thread that still don't get it in 2009, so what makes you think that people from 1914 would?

And you are missing the point. If 2001 is sold as a "Masterpiece" of storytelling, then it should be relevant to all times. Much like you suggested that many of today's stories are simply old re-telling of Greek mythology or Shakespeare re-packaged. Audiences of 1914 would surely enjoy a good story no? And it shouldn't matter if 2001 was told using 1914 technology. The story should stand for the story.

And if it doesn't, then perhaps in 50 years from now, or maybe 100 years, people will look back at 2001, and instead of seeing a story, they will see outdated thechnology, and not see it for what it is.

[Auricauricle]

Okay, I'm calling. Here're the cards:

a. While I would agree that the Mona Lisa is not the greatest example of a truly great work of art (in fact I like Rembrandt very much), it is considered very highly and is of great, enduring value. This being the case, I used it as an exemplar of what can be considered a “Masterpiece”. I don’t think, yet, that it is reasonable to impugn the ML for its less than sanguine psychology or visceral impact; in fact, I would say that the great strength of the painting lies in its opaque mystique.

b. I won’t argue that SW lacks a great number of symbolic elements and has a coherent narrative structure: this is a given. Again, I think 2001’s elevation over SW is by virtue of its subtlety. Some may argue that 2001 is hopelessly abstruse and favor the more accessible SW. That’s well and good, but I think the abstract nature of 2001 befits the movie more so than having everything within reach. What’s your pleasure: zinfandel or grape juice?

c. Nor will I say or have I said that special effects necessarily mar a movie. Whether they are state of the art or cheesy matters not one whit to me. What matters is how they are used and why. What really matters is ascertaining what drives the movie. Is it story, as in 2001 or is it effects, like A.I. If they contribute to supporting the narrative, well and good; if they distract or are used as a ruse to disguise a poor script or story, they are a nuisance.

d. Great works of music are not classic because they have been “rooted in our subconscious through years of repeated exposure”, but because they are great, period. I have little doubt that Gershwin’s American in Paris will last, but I don’t consider the work a classic one. On the other hand, Beethoven’s 9th is a monument whose appeal is epic. We could launch a whole new diatribe on this matter, and I know I am on slippery ground here, but this is the way I see things now. Catch me in five years; I may feel differently, but I don’t think so.

e. I am not saying that art is stagnant; in fact, I point out that photography and painting are—to use Beef’s expression—“in flux”. In fact this was a major point and is exemplified by Kubric who successfully pushed the medium to its limit. In contrast, Lucas was a clever model maker (more salt?).

f. Lastly, I will not contend that the storyline of 2001 is revolutionary. In fact, 2001 falls along a line of other favorites of mine, including Blade Runner and Runaway Train that take up a similar theme: that of Fate and the consequences of Man’s relationship with Fate. Yet it is the fact that this story is old, as old as time, that makes 2001 and such films so enduring. Yes, SW also uses archaic elements; but its delivery is a blunt instrument in comparison. Call me a snob, but there is a reason I don’t really like John Wayne movies.

Okay, I am spent. Anybody wanna beer? This has been fun, eh? Whoo!

[Groundbeef]

Okay, I'm calling. Here're the cards:

I've had a fun time as well. Although I can't call this thread done though. No one played either the Nazi card, or called anyone dirty names.

[Troy]

I gotta be shorter.

Nightflier
1. Agreed the ML is a dull painting. It's too small as well. Lets not forget that those admirable traits you list need to be present in any portrait for it to be good, even photographic.

2. The problem with SW and LOTR is that the parallels to other works and mythologies are too obvious. They view like comic books to me. No deeper than a Spiderman movie. It's an argument for another day.

3. agreed.

4. Actually you missed what I was trying to say. I dig: "One can argue that much of today's pop music actually plagiarizes themes from much older classical themes." Modern U.S. culture doesn't want classical music. Joe sixpack has never been to a symphony. If they are seeing live music at all, they go to rock shows, festivals and clubs and they see bands. Orchestral music is a hard sell in 2009. The audience is tiny.

SO, if you want to make an impact (the original context of the concept) with simple, bold melodies and big fat arrangements, you do it in a rock context. It's just business, man.

6. 2001 took from a bazillion things and set it into a modern/futuristic context. Nietsche? Why not, I trust ya. The movie works on many, many levels. Read the book, it really helped me to understand the subtleties and nuances in the story. It's a genre classic.

Truth be told, there are a couple of other Kubrick movies I like a lot more than 2001.


Auri: I'm a literalist. Cheers.

Well that's rather subjective. I'm not sure people hire painters because they are looking for the most "accurate" representation of whatever they are having commissioned to be painted.

The position isn't worth defending.

Here is what we like to call Revisionist History..... (Those were both your quotes Troy. )

Does the name DaVinci appear in the second reply? You're just messing with me now, right? Are you here for the 5 minute argument or the full half hour?

No, it works because you are arguing that the "effects" don't make the movie, it's the story. I'm saying that many times it IS the 'effects" that make the story. And as time goes on, the effects look dated (sometimes to the absurd) and that takes away from the story.

I never said that. Why does everything have to be one way or the other for you? The best movies have good story AND effects. And cinematography, and art direction and editing and acting etc etc.

I NEVER said that B&W movies are not classic. I used 12 Angry Men, and To Kill A Mockingbird in one of my early posts to show that lots of old BW movies are "classic" and will hold up to the test of time. You need to read all the posts. Not just bits.

I picked up the implication in your statement: "If you were to watch 2001 now, but it was only filmed in BW, no sound, and used cardboard for the ship would it have as much impact as it did in 1968? Probably not."

Ok, fair enough, I could see that maybe I jumped to conclusions here.

And you are missing the point. If 2001 is sold as a "Masterpiece" of storytelling, then it should be relevant to all times. Much like you suggested that many of today's stories are simply old re-telling of Greek mythology or Shakespeare re-packaged. Audiences of 1914 would surely enjoy a good story no? And it shouldn't matter if 2001 was told using 1914 technology. The story should stand for the story.

And Auri understood me on this same subject, why can't you? Read his posts to me and you'll see that we're approaching this from 2 very different angles, but ultimately we agree.

And if it doesn't, then perhaps in 50 years from now, or maybe 100 years, people will look back at 2001, and instead of seeing a story, they will see outdated thechnology, and not see it for what it is.

But 2001 is loaded with mythology too. It's just less obvious and more surreal than most movies, so people aren't finding the story because they're not being hit over the head with it. The ADD generation has to see something blow up every 4 minutes or they zone out. I know some people who find this movie a crushing bore. I get why they feel that way, but I kinda feel sorry for them. If that's the way the world is headed than I suppose history won't be kind to it . . . and that makes me sad too.

Like I said before I think Dr. Strangelove and Clockwork Orange are better, more visionary and more important movies than 2001, so I'm done talking about that.

The only reason why I butted into this thread in the first place was because I am tired of the hating on some great movies going on here. Don't crap on stuff you don't know anything about, or choose to not take the time to learn and understand. It doesn't make you look good.

How's that for keeping it short? Now where's that beer?

[Auricauricle]

Comin' right up!