tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24144743.post8118684537349243336..comments2024-02-20T02:40:59.760-06:00Comments on Blogged Down At The Moment: Reading isn't always fundamental...Mariann Simmshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17974827167853824792noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24144743.post-40826848112933751222008-03-25T18:46:00.000-05:002008-03-25T18:46:00.000-05:00Well, let me tell you of at least one case where l...Well, let me tell you of at least one case where literally "reading the book" would have made a big difference: "2001 A Space Odyssey". I loved this film, but if I'm acting as an honest, fair minded critic, I'd have to say it was just an interesting, albeit technically groundbreaking and mesmerizing, collection of images with very sketchy connections between image chapters. Anyone, who had never seen the film before or who had never read the book and could still piece together the message of the story from the movie alone deserves a Nobel Prize for physics. What was intended by the screenplay and the book, however, was a carefully thought out, clearly outlined, and clearly written tale, that any ten-year-old could understand and appreciate, about the coming of age of humankind in a cosmos teeming with highly advanced intelligences. It's also a tale with very definite and logical chapter separations. But if you've seen "2001 A Space Odyssey" and can't explain how you can go from an ear-piercing squeal from a mysterious obelisk buried on the moon to the middle of an interplanetary journey to the planet Jupiter aboard a giant spaceship, you are definitely not alone. However, if you read the book, there is an unambiguous explanation for the squeal and its connection to a journey to Jupiter. And this is just one example of many ambiguities in the film that the book reduces to mere triviality. There really is no good reason, other than pretense, I can think of for having them. When artistic license can find no real merit, it just becomes pretense and should be abolished in favor of simple clarity. If all else fails, just go for clarity.<BR/><BR/>I don't think Stanley Kubrick was as good a filmmaker as he thought he was. "Spartacus": yes. "Paths of Glory": yes. "Dr. Strangelove": yes. "2001 A Space Odyssey": a reluctant, no. But there is no reluctance in my affection for a film that fired the imagination of an impressionable kid who was far to young to understand it.<BR/><BR/>I haven't seen "No Country For Old Men" yet, so I can't talk about its merits or lack of them. But if, as you describe, there is such a wide variety of explanation for nuances and motivations for characters and themes, etc., it makes you wonder if the filmmakers are trying too hard to manufacture artistic merit in favor of simple clarity. I'll have to see for myself. Or should I just save myself the trouble and read the book? Tough call.<BR/><BR/>Peace...<BR/><BR/>Clarity...<BR/><BR/>Cynicism...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24144743.post-88263659469511099662008-03-23T21:18:00.000-05:002008-03-23T21:18:00.000-05:00Ok, I finally saw the movie, and it wasn't bad...I...Ok, I finally saw the movie, and it wasn't bad...I just felt it was inconclusive at the end. It's kinda like the elusive threesome that men seek. Nice idea to try to do, but once you're there...it's a lot of hard work for the same result you get with two people. Well, it's nothing like that really now, is it? Oh well, at least I got to talk about a threesome.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com