Between Reviews: Forget what it means… Just see what it is
FORGET WHAT IT MEANS… JUST SEE WHAT IT IS
APR 20, 2008 - I’VE BEEN MEANING TO REVISIT 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY for a while, but every time there was an opportunity to concretise intention to action, some other DVD would inevitably find its way into the player. So much has been expounded about this sci-fi classic, so much extrapolated from it, that reading it all – at least, whatever I could lay hands on – had made me slightly terrified of going back to the film. With all those nuggets of information orbiting my head like so many space shuttles, would the abstractness of the viewing experience still exist? Would I be able to simply watch the film – without pausing every second to reflect on how this frame corresponded to that theory, and how that take on this scene was so totally off the mark? And then I began reading a compilation of interviews of Stanley Kubrick (Stanley Kubrick: Interviews, edited by Gene D. Phillips), and this time, I did revisit the film, with the clarity of purpose provided by the director himself. (2001, by the way, just turned 40. It was released on April 6, 1968 – so now’s as good a time to talk about it as any.) In one of the conversations, Kubrick gets into what he calls a “straightforward explanation of the plot.”
An artifact is left on earth four million years ago by extraterrestrial explorers, in order to influence the evolutionary progression of the man-apes of the time. A second artifact is buried on the lunar surface and programmed to signal word of man’s first baby steps into the universe, “a kind of cosmic burglar alarm.” And, finally, a third artifact is placed around Jupiter, waiting for the time when man has reached the outer rim of his own solar system. When Bowman, the sole survivor of the Jupiter mission, reaches the planet, this third artifact – or monolith, if you will – sweeps him into a force field that “hurls him on a journey through inner and outer space and finally transports him to another part of the galaxy, where he’s placed in a human zoo approximating a hospital terrestrial environment drawn out of his own dreams and imagination. In a timeless state, his life passes from middle age to senescence to death. He is reborn, an enhanced being, a star child, an angel, a superman, if you like, and returns to earth prepared for the next leap forward of man’s evolutionary destiny.”
Reduced to these barest essentials – and shorn of all the theorising of the intervening four decades – this is such a simple, transparent film, and it makes you wonder how reactions to 2001 would have been had this little synopsis been scribbled onto the backs of movie tickets then. Just imagine: no trying to figure out what this could mean, and what that could represent. With the plot known in advance – and this, really, is a film that loses nothing with the plot given away in advance – you’d be free to see the how, rather than the what and the why. You’d be able to focus solely on how Kubrick had, with his awesome skills, translated these dramatic storylines into cinema, pure cinema – and just the opening twenty-odd minutes are proof enough. Some three minutes of a black screen with nothing, apparently, but ambient noise – though it’s actually a composition we’re hearing, György Ligeti’s Atmospheres. Then, the MGM logo, as the camera rises from behind the moon to see earth, and further on, the sun – all set to the opening of Also Sprach Zarathustra.
And then, one of Kubrick’s most literal shots. The morning sky turning red and orange and finally yellow: the dawn of a new day over the caption, The Dawn of Man. And as the sun rises, a series of still lifes of barren landscapes. Then the first glimpse of man-apes, two of them in silhouette, in front of a giant rock formation that looks like something’s rotting innards. Then a leopard, its eyes glowing as if illuminated by lightbulbs, pounces on an ape. Fade to black. Apes at a watering hole screech upon sighting a rival tribe of apes. Fade to black. The leopard with incandescent eyes lies near the carcass of what looks like a zebra. As the man-apes rest, huddled together, one of them seems to sense something out there. He snarls at the unknown. Fade to black.
Then, morning. An ape sees the artifact, the monolith – and we, the audience, properly hear for the first time the signature sound associated with it, a sound born from the apparent ambient noise of the first three minutes of the film, when the screen was all black, a sound now amplified to resemble a disembodied chorus being borne by an unsteady wind. A sudden cut, and landscape again. Only, this time, thanks to the monolith, a man-ape discovers that a bone can be used as a weapon and a tool. The watering hole again, the tribes meet again. This time, the man-ape with the bone wins, beating his rival dead. A slow-motion victory roar later, the bone is tossed in the air. It rises higher and higher and jump-cuts to a spaceship. A more civilised time, we realise – not just because of the space travel, but because the sharp, primal bursts of brass from Also Sprach Zarathustra are now replaced with the gentle cadences of The Blue Danube waltz. And so far, not a word is spoken. It’s just cinema, pure cinema.
Copyright ©2008 The New Sunday Express. This article may not be reproduced in its entirety without permission. A link to this URL, instead, would be appreciated.
Dedicated to Vijay… after yesterday’s rant
This is what I call film appreciation, pure film appreciation
2001 has a special personal significance for me. The evolution of Man parallels my evolution from “what a crap movie, no one even speaks for half of it” to “Man, Kubrick had cojone’s to make a movie where no one speaks half the time” to “Oh so this is what they mean by show don’t tell” or “thats how one uses sound in movies” etc… No one can say that one level of experiencing a movie is better than the other, in the same way to say that the apes weren’t happier than Homo sapien sapien. But this movie shall remain a benchmark, enigma and experience all rolled into one, like that perfect bite of sushi.
My first post here.
I was very dissatisfied with this movie the first time i watched it (though i appreciated some things - like the ‘purity’ of cinema and the scientific realism), essentially because I didn’t get some of the movie. And, of course, it tested my patience like few others have. Then i read some articles on the Web, got to appreciate the soundtrack more and started to appreciate the movie in general a lot more. Still, the dissatisfaction lingers on.
I can appreciate the cinematic beauty in a couple of celebrated scenes in ‘charulata’ or ‘The 400 Blows’ without anyone telling me they’re beautiful - but the waltzing space shuttles didn’t do anything for me till someone told me
they are beautiful.
Similar feelings, as Raghav Bansal, about the movie…
1st time I saw the movie, after having heard rave reviews about it, I found it too tiresome… Then read stuff on the net… and I’m currently on the stage, where I just consider it a good movie, or rather a v.good movie, but dont have the patience to revisit it… Will do some other time… Maybe… and that would probably be the Evolution of me as Depauk M says (assuming I understand/like it this time).
Actually during the viewing, I kept making theories of what this meant, and what that meant. But, every sometime, I forgot what my theory was… as i was so bored of the movie… Since then, I consider it to be a problem due to my short attention time…
I didn’t know too much about the movie when I first saw it about two years ago.
My jaw fell open during the sequence you describe–the visuals, the music!–and I stayed stunned and entranced throughout. I thought to myself, so cinema can be like *this*.
I had the good fortune to see it an old, atmospheric Melbourne theatre. I often wonder if my reaction would’ve been different had I seen it on tape.
All I can say is that it is highly doubtful whether I would ever watch this movie fully in one sitting, now that watching it in a theater is almost ruled out. And I think Kubrick is mostly acquired taste for a lot of people(especially desis) since they have already read a lot about him earlier and they try hard to like his works. This is from my own psychoanalysis of bloggers/reviewers :-))
You want proof? Just read what Raghav wrote
“Then i read some articles on the Web, got to appreciate the soundtrack more and started to appreciate the movie in general a lot more. Still, the dissatisfaction lingers on.I can appreciate the cinematic beauty in a couple of celebrated scenes in ‘charulata’ or ‘The 400 Blows’ without anyone telling me they’re beautiful - but the waltzing space shuttles didn’t do anything for me till someone told me
they are beautiful.”
This is what I am talking about
They feel that somehow they are inferior for not getting the pseudo-intellectual self-indulgent stuff that Kubrick throws at the audience and they HAVE to somehow like it in order to be considered a serious movie fan. Bullcrap. Same with few other Kubrick films too. Iam proud of not being suckered into this phenomenon. 2001 might boast technical accomplishments, but as a movie overall it fails to entertain or engage.
As an aside, why dont you list movies that you have disliked despite them being critically acclaimed? I am sure there must be some. Maybe you can post a piece exclusively for this blog. Sometimes being a reviewer for a paer means being objective to a fault, politically correct and all that. Screw that. I am sure you must be opinionated too(although you cant show that in print all the time) and not necessarily like every movie that receives 80% or more on rottentomatoes. I am curious
c’mon Vijay, i don’t feel inferior for not getting the movie - i just read up stuff to know why so many people like it. and it turned out they have good reasons to like it. e.g., i had completely missed the significance of music in the movie. i have already mentioned i liked some aspects of the movie during the first viewing, and i don’t like the movie fully even after reading stuff on the Web. i still don’t get some aspects of the movie, it’s still very slow-paced and i still find waltzing space shuttles unimpressive. it’s just that i can now appreciate why some people might find that appealing. my love for the movie (or the lack of it) hasn’t changed after reading other people’s views.
And i haven’t even re-watched the movie to try and like it some more. i know my earlier post seems to suggest i’ve watched it more than once.
c’mon vijay. don’t u get the impression from my post that i’m still very dissatisfied with this movie? i did appreciate some aspects of the movie on first (and the only) viewing and read stuff on the Web to know why other people like it so much. and it turned out they had good reasons (to me, at least) for liking it. e.g., i had completely missed the significance of music in the film. But the movie overall is still far from great, to me. it’s just that now i can appreciate why some people didn’t mind seeing the moving space shuttles with apparently nothing else happening.
My closing comment in the earlier post - “but the waltzing space shuttles didn’t do anything for me till someone told me they are beautiful” - was meant to be a gripe. i prefer movies like ‘charulata’ where long dialogue-free scenes don’t have to explained by critics before i find them beautiful. If you notice closely, i put the word purity in quotes in my first post - it was meant to be sarcastic
I totally agree with both of your comments, Vijay.
Madhubala is an acquired taste for me - I read Shobha Day’s musings about her first and then watched Mughal-E-Azam. I totally love MAdhubala now, and she is THE MOST BEAUTIFUL according to me and all that, though somewhere deep down I know she may not appear Venus or the goddess of beauty to everyone.
But I wonder, how many of your tastes are NOT acquired ones?
Reviewers recommend movies, friends recommend movies/books/music, even when you buy something on the shelf, you read the one-line-praises about it which are printed on the cover… Acquired taste is nothing to be frowned upon, if you do not happen to like *everything* that is recommended to you.
Shining next: Thanks.
Deepauk M: “perfect bite of sushi” — don’t care for the dish at all, but the analogy’s awesome
RaghavBansal / rbehemoth: regarding understanding and “I didn’t get some of the movie” But that’s kinda what this post is about, that once you know that synopsis, there *is* nothing much to get other than the filmmaking.
Suchi: In a theatre? Wow.
Vijay: I get that this is a matter of personal preference for you, but I don’t see what being “desi” has got to do with enjoying this or Taxi Driver (as you mentioned in my Guru review) or Jethro Tull (as you mentioned in that post) or anything else. There are a lot of tastes that could be “acquired” as you put it — Carnatic music, to name a “desi” art form. I doubt that anyone used to, say, light music, can summon up the patience to sit through a half-hour raga elaboration in a concert, but there are those who’ve acquired that taste — either by learning or through prolonged exposure to the art form — and that’s not to be discounted. Art isn’t always about what you “naturally” enjoy. Sometimes — if you’re willing to make the effort (and I fully understand if you don’t) — it’s also about “acquiring” a taste, and being “desi” has nothing to do with it. About your other comment, that’s a great idea for a future Between Reviews post. Thanks. And no, my job doesn’t require nme to be “objective” at all. I’m pretty much free to write whatever I want. Wonder what made you think that…
Chaitanya: I guess I just missed your comment, having covered pretty much the same points
Vijay: interesting “psychoanalysis”, though you might also want to consider that there could be a few people in the world who genuinely like Kubrick’s work - not because it’s pseudo-intellectual or self-indulgent but because they are entertained/engaged by it. Personally speaking, I think the Internet and the blogosphere has far more people who keep ranting against what they perceive as “pseudo-intellectualism” than people who actually indulge in “pseudo-intellectualism” for acceptance.
And what’s with this suggestion that Baradwaj is too objective and not opinionated enough? I think he’s one of the most opinionated writers around and he himself makes a point of stressing the subjectivity of all his reviews.
But all that aside, the suggestion to list films we don’t care much for despite their being highly acclaimed is a good one. Baradwaj, why don’t you start? I might put up a short list too sometime.
Jai: As I mentioned in my comment to Vijay, I’ve already earmarked that suggestion for a future Between Reviews column. And about that earlier part of your comment, that point about being “entertained slash engaged” is a good one, because a film could still be worthwhile even if it doesn’t enetrtain you in the expected ways, i.e. making you laugh, cry, etc. Sometimes, it’s nice to see something that engages you enough to just make you *think*
Baradwaj: I dunno - I tend not to make much of a distinction between “entertain” and “engage”, or “entertainment” and “art” for that matter. The way I see it, if a film engages me for long enough, well, in that case it’s “entertained” me for the time that I was watching it (even if the entertainment in this case comes from cerebral stimulation). I’m not too sure about this business of associating “entertainment” with only a certain type of cinema (mostly lighthearted films). Have elaborated on some of this in my Om Shanti Om post.
Also, surely “a film that you enjoy” and “a film that makes you think” needn’t be mutually exclusive. (I’m tempted to argue that they can’t be mutually exclusive, but won’t go down that route just yet!)
oops…posted twice the same thing earlier…thought the first one didn’t go through.
i completely agree with Jabberwock - engagement *is* entertainment. and i found ‘2001′ less than engaging in parts.
Jabberwock, about the distinction between “entertainment” and “art.” I think a better category than “entertainment” is “commerce.” “Art” and “commerce” often overlap, though usually one can categorize films as such by their intent rather than their effect.
Even purely commercial films contain implicit truths about the society in which it was made. Popular films tap into the psyche of the audience and reinforce their values. How/why people react to a film is just as interesting as what the filmmakers were trying to say.
For all the back and forth regarding the film, I must say the portions with HAL were very very good and entertaining as well. Though brangan focussed on the other portions of the film lets not forget, that section is taut and very edge of the seat(i.e. if you havent read the book already and know what is going to happen). No pseduo-intellectuality required there, unless you are trying to understand how he shot those scenes.
@ brangan: Regarding sushi, you dont know what you’re missing, but to each his own :).
btw, when Shatrugan Sinha commented about baaps influencing chances and awards for betas, a certain Mr Bachchan reacted strongly though he was never mentioned by Mr Sinha. Now, let aside the fact that Sinha is no angel himself. What amuses me is the “my father is not inside the haystack” reaction of Mr Bachan.
I was just thinking - a very similar thing has happened with Vijay’s statement here. Someone feels they are being addressed by vijay, ha ha! Your father is not in the haystack, Jabber
I’ve often wondered the same (that shout about desi bloggers/reviewers). But I don’t really care about it. Sometimes my attention deficit disorder might make films (like 2001 SO) less engaging (often find it difficult to follow myself, but in time I got used to it). I realize this inflates one’s ego to reject them as pseudointellectual self-indulgent stuff etcetra. I used to bitch as a matter of sour grapes, soon I realized its a very judgmental attitude when I began to appreciate such films.
I think we’re fed with only mainstream cinema is one possible reason for this reaction, and that has greatly reduced our responsiveness to anything that sets out to challenge our “comfort-zone”. We(as a consumer than lover/evaluater of art) always have the liberty to reject products(narratives in this case) at slightest deviation to the normative.
Wow. What an interesting mix of responses to the movie and brangan’s praiseworthy perception of a part of it. The pendulum swings from “what a crap movie, no one even speaks for half of it” to “Man, Kubrick had cojone’s to make a movie where no one speaks half the time” to “the waltzing space shuttles didn’t do anything for me” to “Oh so this is what they mean by show don’t tell” to “I found it too tiresome” to “My jaw fell open” to “I kept making theories of what this meant, and what that meant but every sometime, I forgot what my theory was…” to “I stayed stunned and entranced throughout” to “dont have the patience to revisit it” to “cinema can be like *this*.”
Seems to me that one person’s “perfect bite of sushi” (or samosa!) is another’s perfect-bite-of-a-slab-of-brick!
(And oh, not to imply that the sushi-lover is Japanese or the samosa-lover, Indian. When it comes to matters of taste, isn’t eclectic the universal constant?).
brangan: Such a beautiful write-up…it was pure pleasure reading it. I’ve not seen this movie yet but I now know *exactly* what the first 20 or so minutes feel like. The moment I arrived at the end of the third para, I felt myself taking slower deeper breaths — the way one would when sitting in a theater watching something so visually stunning it sends you straight up to the stratosphere and you start breathing in ozone as opposed to the much-thinner oxygen…An out-of-body experience, this! Thanks.
brangan: I’m convinced that you and the folks at NYT have some kind of psychic (or should we stick to the context and stay extra-terrestrial?)correspondence.
Remember their simultaneous medium musing? And now this Arthur C. Clarke obit…Looks like the co-creator of 2001: A Space Odyssey passed away last month at 90. And here we have your obit to the father of Science-fiction-as-we-know-it, under the guise of a birthday celebration: “2001, by the way, just turned 40…so now’s as good a time to talk about it as any”…Wow. If this isn’t uncanny, what is? 
huh: ADD is definitely a factor when it comes to our appreciating these films. Heck, even our on art films we don’t have much patience for.
Sagarika: This reads like an obit (disguised or otherwise)? I intended it more along the lines of a “2001 turns 40″ kinda thing. That’s what triggered this piece.
brangan: No this does *not* read like an obit. It does read like what it was intended to be. I guess the point I was trying to (but perhaps didn’t) drive home was its coincidence with Clarke’s passing away, in a sort of inadvertent nod to the book he wrote (and the script he co-wrote with Kubrick). That’s all. I do admit that my drawing a direct parallel to the “Musings” piece is an apples to oranges comparison — I take it back.
Baradwaj, the Melborne theatre I saw it at is having a special screening for the 40th anniversary. They’ve put up the original paper ad and the youtube trailer on their website: Astor Theatre”: 2001
Did I mention they always run old trailers before they show the movie?
Some Late responses:
“But I wonder, how many of your tastes are NOT acquired ones?
Reviewers recommend movies, friends recommend movies/books/music, even when you buy something on the shelf, you read the one-line-praises about it which are printed on the cover… Acquired taste is nothing to be frowned upon, if you do not happen to like *everything* that is recommended to you”
Chaitanya, by acquired taste I mean what Raghav suggested earlier. Beating yourself up for not being able to like something that a few others praise and trying to watch it or listen to it repeatedly in order to be able to like it. No, I dont have any such acquired taste like that. I think some of it is just hypocrisy and snobbery, in order to join the club that likes those films and think they are superior because of it. Believe me I have seen this happen atleast in desi circles.
“but I don’t see what being “desi” has got to do with enjoying this or Taxi Driver (as you mentioned in my Guru review) or Jethro Tull (as you mentioned in that post) or anything else. There are a lot of tastes that could be “acquired” as you put it — Carnatic music, to name a “desi” art form. I doubt that anyone used to, say, light music, can summon up the patience to sit through a half-hour raga elaboration in a concert, but there are those who’ve acquired that taste — either by learning or through prolonged exposure to the art form — and that’s not to be discounted. Art isn’t always about what you “naturally” enjoy. Sometimes — if you’re willing to make the effort (and I fully understand if you don’t) — it’s also about “acquiring” a taste, and being “desi” has nothing to do with it.”
Tastes are acquired, you are not born automatically with an inclination to listen to Ilayaraja and watch Mani Rathnam’s films. I understand that and I am not addressing that.
I am talking about a slightly different phenomenon. That of desi behavior when it comes to Hollywood films or distinctly alien music/films/art.And the snobbery and hypocrisy I witness. I honestly believe that you cannot beat yourself up into liking a film. You might be able to appreciate a few things when pointed out and might have an academic interest. But holding it close to your heart?
Its like..
“I didnt like that song at all despite giving it a try few times, but after someone pointed out the chord progressions and the underlying raga usage suddenly the song seems melodious and great ” :-))
Taxi driver talks about American issues like urban decay, loneliness, post-war depression and so on. I dont necessarily expect every desi, to identify with and empathize with or even understand De Niro’s character in that film. And that directly affects the impact the movie has on you. I become less engaged(I’ll avoid using entertained) with the proceedings.
There might be better examples to illustrate how cultural divide/language barrier affects movie appreciation but maybe later. It might not be easy for an American movie critic, who might have watched a lot of Tamil films and might even know the Tamil language very well(without the help of captions) to instantly appreciate and identify with Bharathiraja’s characters and his films like Mudhal mariyaadhai or 16 vayadhinile. Films that are firmly rooted in our culture and some of which might seem silly to them or even unfathomable.
To a certain extent every desi has the same handicap too while attempting to watch and analyse Hollywood films or other World cinema.
But nevertheless, they read up stuff on the net, read Ebert’s reviews and act like as if they got everything about the movie and that they talk in a tone like as if were mentally conditioned to naturally appreciate those kind of movies. I was only ridiculing that.
To me, there are a lot more engaging ways that I could stimulate myself to think about life, evolution, universe and so on than watching 2001 space odyssey. It is as simple as that.
“I think we’re fed with only mainstream cinema is one possible reason for this reaction, and that has greatly reduced our responsiveness to anything that sets out to challenge our “comfort-zone”.”
I have watched and lked some really offbeat films and films that move as slow if not slower than 2001. So attention deficit or not being able to appreciate offbeat stuff is certainly not the reason for disliking 2001. Comments like yours are examples of classic snobbery that exist in reviewer circles.
Vijay: I’m not goiing to argue, but just one point about “Taxi driver talks about American issues like urban decay, loneliness, post-war depression and so on.” Even if you don’t know about any of that, it’s still possible to enjoy the film as a loner’s odyssey. One man’s story. That’s as universal as it gets. And beyond that, there’s the filmmaking. At least IMO, you don’t appreciate foreign films — both films made in foreign countries and films that are “foreign” to you in every way — because you understand/identify everything that goes on in them. The best such films work because there’s something universal in them. This again goes back to the whole “you take from a film what you want to take or see, not what the filmmaker wants you to take or see” aspect. But I’ll shut up now
I think what Vijay saying is here not about film appreciation per se. The crowd reading up ebert, rangan et al and pretending they understood it