I don't see very many bad movies in the theater each year because I avidly avoid them. However, I usually do end up seeing a handful of terrible films. Last year I suffered through Transformers and the abysmal Waitress. I can't hand out the title, "Worst Movie of the Year", I can only say "Worst Movie I Saw This Year", and the flick that deserves this is Repo! The Genetic Opera. A movie worse than anything I've seen in at least a couple years, and that includes watching Wes Craven's Shocker on TV. Anyways, I wholeheartedly insist that everyone should avoid Repo! at all costs.
In other news, my top ten list of the year's movies is likely to come a little late thanks to The Wrestler not being in theaters here until January 9th. As soon as I see that movie I can finalize the list and post it, so expect it on January 10th.
Until then, happy new year.
December 30, 2008
December 26, 2008
Best of 2008. Music
Last year, there was an obvious choice for best album. Radiohead's In Rainbows stood far above the rest, and it still does. It was again the album I listened to the most this year. Nothing stood alone as the definitive masterpiece of the year, so, I will not be picking a best album this year but instead listing the albums I enjoyed the most. Here they are:
EDIT: if I had a gun to my head I would go with TV on the Radio's Dear Science as the #1
Conor Oberst by Conor Oberst
EDIT: if I had a gun to my head I would go with TV on the Radio's Dear Science as the #1
Conor Oberst by Conor Oberst
Dear Science, by TV on the Radio
Death Magnetic by Metallica
Evil Urges by My Morning Jacket
Fleet Foxes by Fleet Foxes
A Mad & Faithful Telling by Devotchka
Með suð í eyrum við spilum endalaust by Sigur Ros
Modern Guilt by Beck
Narrow Stairs by Death Cab for Cutie
Death Magnetic by Metallica
Evil Urges by My Morning Jacket
Fleet Foxes by Fleet Foxes
A Mad & Faithful Telling by Devotchka
Með suð í eyrum við spilum endalaust by Sigur Ros
Modern Guilt by Beck
Narrow Stairs by Death Cab for CutieAll of these albums have great covers, which is far too rare.
More "Best of 2008" on the way in the coming weeks.
More "Best of 2008" on the way in the coming weeks.
December 24, 2008
December 23, 2008
The Masterpieces Vol II. The Royal Tenenbaums
mas⋅ter⋅piece
–noun
The Masterpieces is an ongoing list of the greatest achievements in cinema from around the world. The only requirement is that no movie released in the last year can be added. These are the films that set the highest standards for their art form and respective genres. They can be important socially and universally or they can resonate on a deeply personal level or they can simply be incredibly entertaining.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Royal Tenenbaums
Written by Wes Anderson & Owen Wilson
Directed by Wes Anderson
The Royal Tenenbaums is a profoundly special work of cinema. Like all of Wes Anderson's films, its value can only be appreciated with multiple viewings. In fact, to be honest, I barely liked it upon it's release in 2001. I think this is because of Anderson's overwhelmingly dominant and unique style. The most common criticism associated with his body of work is "style over substance". Initially, for me, such an accusation seems preposterous. However, after reflection I realize after one viewing of The Royal Tenenbaums, it is the style that makes the first impression. I have seen the film quite a few times now, and with each viewing, it becomes considerably more substantial. Further examination reveals a remarkable complexity and intricacy, like a truly great work of fiction.
Each character is treated with such love and care by Anderson, it can be a wonder to behold. Many of his characters disagree with each other, hate each other and hurt each other. Yet, it is clear that Wes Anderson loves them all fervently and equally. Is this not powerful in itself? Perhaps even important? The Royal Tenenbaums is the best example of this because there are so many key characters, so many unique profiles with an astounding depth.
I'm realizing it doesn't sound like I'm writing about a comedy, but I am. This movie is very funny. The humour found here is so far removed from the typical American comedy that it's off putting. There is a rare level of class wherein the jokes all serve the story or the characters. Anderson himself stated that nearly everything he does in his films serves the purpose of "bringing the characters forward". One might synopsize that the film is about the character Royal Tenenbaum, a deranged father, trying to earn his family back. Yes, it is about that but it is about every single relationship between every single person in the movie. While all aren't given equal screen time, I still see them as important. How heartbreaking is Margot's neglecting of her seemingly infatuated husband? How interesting is the rivalry between Royal and Henry, even if there only a few brief instances that contribute to it? An entire movie could have been devoted to any of the sole relationships and conflicts.
The difficult to penetrate surface contains a uniquely cinematic soul and a heart of gold, with layers of richness, humour and sadness that add up to one of the best films of the current decade. For newcomers to Anderson's work, I find it's best to watch his films chronologically, or at least with his debut film Bottle Rocket, followed by his sophomore piece, Rushmore. With Bottle Rocket, he had a far more constrained budget and was not yet able to fine tune every detail of each frame as he does now. In the case of Rushmore, he displays a much stronger level of attention to detail but it is still not at the profound level of Tenenbaums and later films. I think if you start out in this manner, you can ease into his work, and the initial viewings are all the more rewarding. I don't mean to point out the meticulously crafted production design and costumes and all other aspects of the visuals as flaws. I only mean that at first the flashiness can distract one from the inner workings of this auteur's brilliant works.
It's a shame that some may be turned off, or at least led astray by the balanced and vibrant visual quirks, because Wes Anderson is one of the finer film makers alive today. He is one of America's strongest voices in movies and this is one of his strongest films. And it's not even his only masterpiece.
–noun
| 1. | a person's greatest piece of work, as in an art. |
| 2. | anything done with masterly skill: a masterpiece of improvisation. |
| 3. | a consummate example of skill or excellence of any kind: The chef's cake was a masterpiece. |
The Masterpieces is an ongoing list of the greatest achievements in cinema from around the world. The only requirement is that no movie released in the last year can be added. These are the films that set the highest standards for their art form and respective genres. They can be important socially and universally or they can resonate on a deeply personal level or they can simply be incredibly entertaining.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Royal Tenenbaums
Written by Wes Anderson & Owen Wilson
Directed by Wes Anderson
The Royal Tenenbaums is a profoundly special work of cinema. Like all of Wes Anderson's films, its value can only be appreciated with multiple viewings. In fact, to be honest, I barely liked it upon it's release in 2001. I think this is because of Anderson's overwhelmingly dominant and unique style. The most common criticism associated with his body of work is "style over substance". Initially, for me, such an accusation seems preposterous. However, after reflection I realize after one viewing of The Royal Tenenbaums, it is the style that makes the first impression. I have seen the film quite a few times now, and with each viewing, it becomes considerably more substantial. Further examination reveals a remarkable complexity and intricacy, like a truly great work of fiction.
Each character is treated with such love and care by Anderson, it can be a wonder to behold. Many of his characters disagree with each other, hate each other and hurt each other. Yet, it is clear that Wes Anderson loves them all fervently and equally. Is this not powerful in itself? Perhaps even important? The Royal Tenenbaums is the best example of this because there are so many key characters, so many unique profiles with an astounding depth.
I'm realizing it doesn't sound like I'm writing about a comedy, but I am. This movie is very funny. The humour found here is so far removed from the typical American comedy that it's off putting. There is a rare level of class wherein the jokes all serve the story or the characters. Anderson himself stated that nearly everything he does in his films serves the purpose of "bringing the characters forward". One might synopsize that the film is about the character Royal Tenenbaum, a deranged father, trying to earn his family back. Yes, it is about that but it is about every single relationship between every single person in the movie. While all aren't given equal screen time, I still see them as important. How heartbreaking is Margot's neglecting of her seemingly infatuated husband? How interesting is the rivalry between Royal and Henry, even if there only a few brief instances that contribute to it? An entire movie could have been devoted to any of the sole relationships and conflicts.
The difficult to penetrate surface contains a uniquely cinematic soul and a heart of gold, with layers of richness, humour and sadness that add up to one of the best films of the current decade. For newcomers to Anderson's work, I find it's best to watch his films chronologically, or at least with his debut film Bottle Rocket, followed by his sophomore piece, Rushmore. With Bottle Rocket, he had a far more constrained budget and was not yet able to fine tune every detail of each frame as he does now. In the case of Rushmore, he displays a much stronger level of attention to detail but it is still not at the profound level of Tenenbaums and later films. I think if you start out in this manner, you can ease into his work, and the initial viewings are all the more rewarding. I don't mean to point out the meticulously crafted production design and costumes and all other aspects of the visuals as flaws. I only mean that at first the flashiness can distract one from the inner workings of this auteur's brilliant works.
It's a shame that some may be turned off, or at least led astray by the balanced and vibrant visual quirks, because Wes Anderson is one of the finer film makers alive today. He is one of America's strongest voices in movies and this is one of his strongest films. And it's not even his only masterpiece.
December 21, 2008
List Logic
It's that time of year again and top ten lists of the year's best movies are showing up everywhere. Everybody loves lists. They're simple, they rarely offer any thoughtful writing, and they rank the 10 best movies so that people know what to see, that they haven't already. Some years, there are far more than 10 movies worth mentioning, but too bad for them. It sounds like I might be against such lists, but that is not the case.
I bring this up because critic Roger Ebert has rebelled against the system this year. Instead of posting the normal list, he refused to rank films. His list is a top 20 in alphabetical order. Good for him, right? Ranking films isn't the best way to celebrate cinema, but I believe he has made a mistake. I agree it's silly to rank films but it is necessary to draw people's attention. By making an alphabetical top 20 he has removed the emphasis from any of the movies. Now, it's just a list of movies he really likes, and no one will be as compelled to check out his number one, two or even ten (even though ten is the lowest, simply by being numbered it draws more attention). His list will still have an influence because of his deserved popularity, but if this became a trend amongst all critics, I fear many people would lose some interest.
The top ten list is a means to get anyone, even the most casual of moviegoers to see what deserves to be seen. Even if a hypothetical #11 is just as great as 10, 9 and 8, the top ten list is still important. It is unfair to number 11, yes, but that's the price of grabbing the attention of a reader skimming through a newspaper. Many critics have a method of getting around this. I, like many, have an "honourable mentions" portion that alphabetically lists other great movies. I know it's not as influential, but at least the worthy get mentioned. So I do believe in the top ten list, but one of it's biggest flaws is that for most critics, it loses some relevance. Opinions change, two years later one realizes their number 9 should have been number 3. This is a bit silly. Really, ranking is the method with the greatest impact, but it shouldn't be read into too deeply.
For example, I will post my top ten list from last year, followed by a revised list to see how much has changed in a year.
My top ten list from 2007:
1. Juno
2. Ratatouille
3. There Will Be Blood
4. Superbad
5. Once
6. Hot Fuzz
7. Knocked Up
8. No Country For Old Men
9. Into The Wild
10. Before The Devil Knows You’re Dead/The Savages (Tie)
Honorable mentions…
4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days, Away From Her, The Darjeeling Limited, Eastern Promises, Rescue Dawn, Zodiac
Now, here is a revised list of how I feel now:
1. Juno
2. Ratatouille
3. Once
4. There Will Be Blood
5. No Country For Old Men
6. The Darjeeling Limited
7. Rescue Dawn
8. 4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days
9. Into The Wild
10. Knocked Up
Honourable Mentions…
Away From Her, Before The Devil Knows You’re Dead, Hot Fuzz, The Savages, Superbad, Zodiac
Now, there have been some changes of course, but there isn't a single movie in the top ten or honourable mentions list that wasn't there before. Only the order has changed. This wont always be the case. Ten years from now I might discover a brilliant obscure 2007 picture that makes Juno look like What Happens In Vegas. Whatever. It doesn't matter. My goal, which was to put emphasis on the year's best movies was accomplished. The order has since changed but it's the same movies I wanted to honour in the first place. Top ten lists are important, and should continue to be an end of year event. As long as people take them as a semi-serious guide of what to see, but not a serious guide to which 2007 great movie was better than another 2007 great movie. Just see them both. Please.
All lists published on the Bronze can be found here
I bring this up because critic Roger Ebert has rebelled against the system this year. Instead of posting the normal list, he refused to rank films. His list is a top 20 in alphabetical order. Good for him, right? Ranking films isn't the best way to celebrate cinema, but I believe he has made a mistake. I agree it's silly to rank films but it is necessary to draw people's attention. By making an alphabetical top 20 he has removed the emphasis from any of the movies. Now, it's just a list of movies he really likes, and no one will be as compelled to check out his number one, two or even ten (even though ten is the lowest, simply by being numbered it draws more attention). His list will still have an influence because of his deserved popularity, but if this became a trend amongst all critics, I fear many people would lose some interest.
The top ten list is a means to get anyone, even the most casual of moviegoers to see what deserves to be seen. Even if a hypothetical #11 is just as great as 10, 9 and 8, the top ten list is still important. It is unfair to number 11, yes, but that's the price of grabbing the attention of a reader skimming through a newspaper. Many critics have a method of getting around this. I, like many, have an "honourable mentions" portion that alphabetically lists other great movies. I know it's not as influential, but at least the worthy get mentioned. So I do believe in the top ten list, but one of it's biggest flaws is that for most critics, it loses some relevance. Opinions change, two years later one realizes their number 9 should have been number 3. This is a bit silly. Really, ranking is the method with the greatest impact, but it shouldn't be read into too deeply.
For example, I will post my top ten list from last year, followed by a revised list to see how much has changed in a year.
My top ten list from 2007:
1. Juno
2. Ratatouille
3. There Will Be Blood
4. Superbad
5. Once
6. Hot Fuzz
7. Knocked Up
8. No Country For Old Men
9. Into The Wild
10. Before The Devil Knows You’re Dead/The Savages (Tie)
Honorable mentions…
4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days, Away From Her, The Darjeeling Limited, Eastern Promises, Rescue Dawn, Zodiac
Now, here is a revised list of how I feel now:
1. Juno
2. Ratatouille
3. Once
4. There Will Be Blood
5. No Country For Old Men
6. The Darjeeling Limited
7. Rescue Dawn
8. 4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days
9. Into The Wild
10. Knocked Up
Honourable Mentions…
Away From Her, Before The Devil Knows You’re Dead, Hot Fuzz, The Savages, Superbad, Zodiac
Now, there have been some changes of course, but there isn't a single movie in the top ten or honourable mentions list that wasn't there before. Only the order has changed. This wont always be the case. Ten years from now I might discover a brilliant obscure 2007 picture that makes Juno look like What Happens In Vegas. Whatever. It doesn't matter. My goal, which was to put emphasis on the year's best movies was accomplished. The order has since changed but it's the same movies I wanted to honour in the first place. Top ten lists are important, and should continue to be an end of year event. As long as people take them as a semi-serious guide of what to see, but not a serious guide to which 2007 great
All lists published on the Bronze can be found here
December 13, 2008
Frost/Nixon
New Movie Review.
Written by Peter Morgan, based on his play
Directed by Ron Howard
Starring Michael Sheen, Frank Langella, Sam Rockwell, Oliver Platt, Kevin Bacon, Matthew McFayden
Frost/Nixon is the mostly factual account of when Playboy talk show host David Frost (Michael Sheen) ambitiously decided to interview the most controversial man in America, perhaps even the world at the time, Richard Nixon. Nixon (Frank Langella) had surrendered his place in the White House but had not yet confessed any involvement in illegal activity. The world wanted an admission of guilt and Frost was the least likely candidate to get it. Nixon's people considered David Frost such a lightweight interviewer that they actually took the offer. Better to go with Frost than someone serious, that proposes a threat to Nixon's reputation. Frost, however, was determined. He hired a crack team to help his cause, including friend/producer John Birt (Matthew McFayden), and two experienced journalists James Reston Jr. (Sam Rockwell) and Bob Zelnick (Oliver Platt). Together, they frantically research, strategize and fight over the best ways to nail the former president. This process is entertaining in it's own right, mostly due to the anticipation of getting to the actual interviews. When the film arrives to the point where Frost and Nixon are seated across from each other, with cameras rolling, it's the most exciting thing in film this year other than a slightly more theatrical match up between the Batman and the Joker.
This story is about the men and where they were in life and what the interviews meant to them. Peter Morgan, who wrote the play and the film's screenplay is more interested in Frost as an unlikely hero and Nixon as a tragic figure than he is in exploring the politics surrounding the situation. The interviews truly play out like a boxing match. They first meet at Nixon's California residence, and it seems they assess each other, or keeping with the boxing analogy, they "weigh" each other. It is abundantly clear that Nixon is a heavyweight and Frost barely registers on the scale. Both sides practice and learn their opponent's weaknesses. When the first of four interviews begins, Nixon is calm, prepared and confident while Frost is alarmingly timid. Frost's "trainers" call for a break, pretending that the tapes need to be switched. Both fighters retreat to their corners. I half expected Frost to be offered a water bottle and stitches. These scenes are masterful and command an impressive level of suspense and fascination.
Ron Howard is certainly no more than a technician, when it comes to the craft of film, but he is an apt one. His career isn't spotless but he has had success with films such as Apollo 13 and A Beautiful Mind. However he is also responsible for ED TV and The Da Vinci Code. Nonetheless, his best work is in this movie, which feels much less Hollywood than anything else he has done. A lot of the credit should go to Peter Morgan who is also responsible for recent movies The Queen and The Last King of Scotland. His writing is intelligent and sophisticated but also accessible and clever. Morgan offers us an insightful look at two men at a crossroads in life. Frost was in the middle of a successful career, but it began to unravel as he poured all of his attention and money into the Nixon project. His career, and reputation depended on the success of the interviews. On the surface, Nixon and his people wanted to deter the public from suspecting him of illegal activity and also gain some of the respect he had lost. However, as Frank Langella's performance suggests, it seems Nixon secretly needed to confess. He seems lonely, lost, damaged by guilt and regret. Ultimately, the interviews might be good for both men. For Frost it serves as a incredible achievement, for Nixon a vital catharsis.
Obviously, this is a film that relies on the portrayals of it's leads. Both Langella and Sheen give equally deep and committed turns. Langella's Nixon strikes a perfect balance between being an unlikable man who could not get along with those around him and a sympathetic character who desperately wanted to seve his country. Sheen is charismatic and arrogant, but he also has a subtle vulnerability that connects him to the audience. If Frost was played at a more impersonal and greater distance, he would have just seemed like an egotistical womanizer. Thankfully, Sheen hints at so much more. Rockwell and Platt give inspired supporting performances as the two men helping Frost. Rockwell still remains an under appreciated actor who had two other great roles this year in Snow Angels and Choke. Platt has always had a hit or miss career but he is delightful here. An odd thought crossed my mind while watching him act. Oliver Platt could play Roger Ebert if a movie was ever made requiring one to do so. They don't look alike but there is a similar intangible quality. Kevin Bacon has a key role as Nixon's right hand man. Through his perception we are able to see Nixon in a different light.
The film was different than what I had expected. I thought it to be a serious and politically minded drama. It feels more like a character study crossed with a thriller. There is a welcomed, natural humour in each character that lightens the mood but subtly strengthens the bond between the viewer and the film. Frost/Nixon is a remarkable entertainment that shouldn't be missed.
Written by Peter Morgan, based on his play
Directed by Ron Howard
Starring Michael Sheen, Frank Langella, Sam Rockwell, Oliver Platt, Kevin Bacon, Matthew McFayden
Frost/Nixon is the mostly factual account of when Playboy talk show host David Frost (Michael Sheen) ambitiously decided to interview the most controversial man in America, perhaps even the world at the time, Richard Nixon. Nixon (Frank Langella) had surrendered his place in the White House but had not yet confessed any involvement in illegal activity. The world wanted an admission of guilt and Frost was the least likely candidate to get it. Nixon's people considered David Frost such a lightweight interviewer that they actually took the offer. Better to go with Frost than someone serious, that proposes a threat to Nixon's reputation. Frost, however, was determined. He hired a crack team to help his cause, including friend/producer John Birt (Matthew McFayden), and two experienced journalists James Reston Jr. (Sam Rockwell) and Bob Zelnick (Oliver Platt). Together, they frantically research, strategize and fight over the best ways to nail the former president. This process is entertaining in it's own right, mostly due to the anticipation of getting to the actual interviews. When the film arrives to the point where Frost and Nixon are seated across from each other, with cameras rolling, it's the most exciting thing in film this year other than a slightly more theatrical match up between the Batman and the Joker.
This story is about the men and where they were in life and what the interviews meant to them. Peter Morgan, who wrote the play and the film's screenplay is more interested in Frost as an unlikely hero and Nixon as a tragic figure than he is in exploring the politics surrounding the situation. The interviews truly play out like a boxing match. They first meet at Nixon's California residence, and it seems they assess each other, or keeping with the boxing analogy, they "weigh" each other. It is abundantly clear that Nixon is a heavyweight and Frost barely registers on the scale. Both sides practice and learn their opponent's weaknesses. When the first of four interviews begins, Nixon is calm, prepared and confident while Frost is alarmingly timid. Frost's "trainers" call for a break, pretending that the tapes need to be switched. Both fighters retreat to their corners. I half expected Frost to be offered a water bottle and stitches. These scenes are masterful and command an impressive level of suspense and fascination.
Ron Howard is certainly no more than a technician, when it comes to the craft of film, but he is an apt one. His career isn't spotless but he has had success with films such as Apollo 13 and A Beautiful Mind. However he is also responsible for ED TV and The Da Vinci Code. Nonetheless, his best work is in this movie, which feels much less Hollywood than anything else he has done. A lot of the credit should go to Peter Morgan who is also responsible for recent movies The Queen and The Last King of Scotland. His writing is intelligent and sophisticated but also accessible and clever. Morgan offers us an insightful look at two men at a crossroads in life. Frost was in the middle of a successful career, but it began to unravel as he poured all of his attention and money into the Nixon project. His career, and reputation depended on the success of the interviews. On the surface, Nixon and his people wanted to deter the public from suspecting him of illegal activity and also gain some of the respect he had lost. However, as Frank Langella's performance suggests, it seems Nixon secretly needed to confess. He seems lonely, lost, damaged by guilt and regret. Ultimately, the interviews might be good for both men. For Frost it serves as a incredible achievement, for Nixon a vital catharsis.
Obviously, this is a film that relies on the portrayals of it's leads. Both Langella and Sheen give equally deep and committed turns. Langella's Nixon strikes a perfect balance between being an unlikable man who could not get along with those around him and a sympathetic character who desperately wanted to seve his country. Sheen is charismatic and arrogant, but he also has a subtle vulnerability that connects him to the audience. If Frost was played at a more impersonal and greater distance, he would have just seemed like an egotistical womanizer. Thankfully, Sheen hints at so much more. Rockwell and Platt give inspired supporting performances as the two men helping Frost. Rockwell still remains an under appreciated actor who had two other great roles this year in Snow Angels and Choke. Platt has always had a hit or miss career but he is delightful here. An odd thought crossed my mind while watching him act. Oliver Platt could play Roger Ebert if a movie was ever made requiring one to do so. They don't look alike but there is a similar intangible quality. Kevin Bacon has a key role as Nixon's right hand man. Through his perception we are able to see Nixon in a different light.
The film was different than what I had expected. I thought it to be a serious and politically minded drama. It feels more like a character study crossed with a thriller. There is a welcomed, natural humour in each character that lightens the mood but subtly strengthens the bond between the viewer and the film. Frost/Nixon is a remarkable entertainment that shouldn't be missed.
December 07, 2008
The Masterpieces. Vol I. 2001: A Space Odyssey
mas⋅ter⋅piece
–noun
The Masterpieces is an ongoing list of the greatest achievements in cinema from around the world. The only requirement is that no movie released in the last year can be added. These are the films that set the highest standards for their art form and respective genres. They can be important socially and universally or they can resonate on a deeply personal level or they can simply be incredibly entertaining.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001: A Space Odyssey
Directed by Stanley Kubrick
Written by Stanley Kubrick & Arthur C. Clarke
2001: A Space Odyssey is an undeniable masterpiece. It remains the most visually stunning film ever made. It's soundtrack is perfect and compliments the goings-on in the film better than anything before or after it. The character of "HAL", the corrupt computer that turns on a spaceship crew, has remained in pop culture with countless references in TV & film. Anthony Hopkins even claims to have used "HAL" to help find the voice of Hannibal Lecter, which he won an Oscar for portraying in Silence of the Lambs. I've always found it odd that "HAL" is the most popular part of the movie.
I savour every moment from beginning to end, but I do have a stronger affection for the opening and closing of the film. It begins with a pitch black screen, which holds for quite a while. Then we follow a group of apes at the dawn of time, fascinated by a black column sticking out of the ground. There are many great discussions to be had regarding this mysterious monolith. It has been suggested that they are some form of marker left by an alien race. What does it mark? Perhaps human progress. We see two more monoliths throughout 2001, and that theory seems concrete. Do the monoliths cause our progress? This is something Kubrick himself allegedly said. Whether that's true or not, it is clear that the film is a philosophical one. It is, as art always is, open to interpretation. Different people can see the movie and take away their own philosophical musings. Some see it as completely religious. Others see it as a story devoid of any evidence of a god. The film is a conversationalist's dream. Moreover, it is a movie lover's dream.
Kubrick and Clarke dreamed up a work of science fiction yet to be matched. Rich story aside, just watching the film and listening to it's euphonious soundtrack is an experience to behold. 2001 is filled to the brim with overwhelmingly incredible imagery. Consider the fact that film was released in 1968, 9 years before Star Wars. I still don't think any movie has portrayed space as successfully. It was apparently a requirement for astronauts in training to watch the movie. 2001: A Space Odyssey is one of the most profound and rewarding movies I have ever seen. Much like the monoliths left, perhaps by more advanced life, Kubrick's film provokes us to explore our intellect, and to progress.
–noun
| 1. | a person's greatest piece of work, as in an art. |
| 2. | anything done with masterly skill: a masterpiece of improvisation. |
| 3. | a consummate example of skill or excellence of any kind: The chef's cake was a masterpiece. |
The Masterpieces is an ongoing list of the greatest achievements in cinema from around the world. The only requirement is that no movie released in the last year can be added. These are the films that set the highest standards for their art form and respective genres. They can be important socially and universally or they can resonate on a deeply personal level or they can simply be incredibly entertaining.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001: A Space Odyssey
Directed by Stanley Kubrick
Written by Stanley Kubrick & Arthur C. Clarke
2001: A Space Odyssey is an undeniable masterpiece. It remains the most visually stunning film ever made. It's soundtrack is perfect and compliments the goings-on in the film better than anything before or after it. The character of "HAL", the corrupt computer that turns on a spaceship crew, has remained in pop culture with countless references in TV & film. Anthony Hopkins even claims to have used "HAL" to help find the voice of Hannibal Lecter, which he won an Oscar for portraying in Silence of the Lambs. I've always found it odd that "HAL" is the most popular part of the movie.
I savour every moment from beginning to end, but I do have a stronger affection for the opening and closing of the film. It begins with a pitch black screen, which holds for quite a while. Then we follow a group of apes at the dawn of time, fascinated by a black column sticking out of the ground. There are many great discussions to be had regarding this mysterious monolith. It has been suggested that they are some form of marker left by an alien race. What does it mark? Perhaps human progress. We see two more monoliths throughout 2001, and that theory seems concrete. Do the monoliths cause our progress? This is something Kubrick himself allegedly said. Whether that's true or not, it is clear that the film is a philosophical one. It is, as art always is, open to interpretation. Different people can see the movie and take away their own philosophical musings. Some see it as completely religious. Others see it as a story devoid of any evidence of a god. The film is a conversationalist's dream. Moreover, it is a movie lover's dream.
Kubrick and Clarke dreamed up a work of science fiction yet to be matched. Rich story aside, just watching the film and listening to it's euphonious soundtrack is an experience to behold. 2001 is filled to the brim with overwhelmingly incredible imagery. Consider the fact that film was released in 1968, 9 years before Star Wars. I still don't think any movie has portrayed space as successfully. It was apparently a requirement for astronauts in training to watch the movie. 2001: A Space Odyssey is one of the most profound and rewarding movies I have ever seen. Much like the monoliths left, perhaps by more advanced life, Kubrick's film provokes us to explore our intellect, and to progress.
December 05, 2008
upcoming goodness + the best site(s) on the internet
The best thing to come of the Criterion/Auteurs partnership is a monthly online film festival. Each month on The Auteurs, there will be a themed festival featuring Criterion films. Right now it is "Cruel Stories of Youth". The best part of the festival? All the movies are available to watch, in considerably high quality...for free. So head on over and start watching here. I watched the film, Fat Girl. I recommend it. I'll try to check out as many films in the festival each month as I can and I'll post my thoughts here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
