2001: A Space Odyssey, Lawrence of Arabia, The Godfather - Faults (1 Viewer)

[Anthony Hom]

I think the consensus for 2001 is the Dawn of Man sequence is one of the least favorite parts of the film.

I felt it dragged until I finally saw it in a large single screen theater in 70mm. Suddenly, it didn't drag anymore. It paced just right, for a period piece where there was no spoken language, I thought Kubrick did a incredible job of creating the Dawn of man scene, to make it understandable without dialog. He could have narrated it like other films he did, but he didn't, he let the actions speak for themselves.

Of course, most people can't always see 2001 in a large theater, but isn't watching it in a theater ALSO one of the director's intent?

 

[Andrew_Sch]

IMO 2001 is the most overrated film worshipped. It needs PLOT, it needs DIALOGUE! The only way I can see that this film is an "experience" in anything other than sleep-inducing is if you had some pharmacutical assistance (please note, I am NOT implying that anyone is a drug user)

Jeff, you are my new god. I couldn't agree more. Reading that quote was like seeing my thoughts come out of your mouth, or keyboard, or something.

 

[Michael Dehaven]

Jay E:

It's funny how some of the people who don't like or understand this film always try to reach for the most inaccurate and insulting words to express their displeasure. It's almost as if they had watched Battlefield Earth.

Pauline Kael said it first and I have echoed it here. She also dislikes this film and for many more intelligent reasons. Jay E. you seem to love this film and I am quite sure that you had nothing to do with its making. So I find it really in poor taste that you would make the above statements in such a careless manner. Why are you the great defender of this film? You are a casual viewer, no? I would reconsider the brash accusation of your statement. How can what I wrote be insulting or inaccurate? It is subjective, no? It is dangerous to slight and attack an opposing opinion and when all is said and done you have added nothing to the spirit of this thread.

 

[Tom Ryan]

Hmmm...perhaps the 2001 diehards should lay off it on the AFI list . C'mon now guys, just because they didn't put your favorite film in the top ten doesn't mean the list is bad. 2001, while certainly a GREAT film, is in my opinion vastly overrated. It is not the be-all, end-all transcendental experience of a lifetime. It's just a film. As for LOA and The Godfather, they're great too. Personally I find 2001 to be far less engaging than the first two (read: boring), but that doesn't mean it's less great. Can't we film lovers just love them all ?
-Tom

 

[Jack Briggs]

Well, let's at least be nice to each other in this thread.

 

[RobR]

Pauline Kael said it first and I have echoed it here. She also dislikes this film and for many more intelligent reasons.

Unfortunately, I don't consider Kael's reasons for disliking the film intelligent. A critic once wrote that Pauline Kael seems unable to understand anybody's point of view (?) but her own. How true! But then again, who cares what a single person, be it Kael or a HTF member, thinks.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Another thing:

There is no single film that everybody likes. However, critical consensus contends that the three films in this thread's subject title are great films. They each, in their own way, have extended the cinematic envelope.

Now, if you dislike one of them or all of them, fine. That's an individual choice. But the films, regardless of your opinion, are still going to be great. (Remember, a few weeks ago someone here started a thread about what he thought were the worst films of all time, and included The Godfather among them--simply because he hated it, thought it was "slow," not enough action, etc., etc. Sorry, but that doesn't lessen the film one iota.)

A valid comment might be, "I understand the enormous constribution 2001: A Space Odyssey has made to the literature of film, but I simply don't care for it--for me, it's too slow, I don't like the long expanses of silence, and I thought the ending a bit obscure for my preferences. It's just not my sort of film."

An invalid comment would be, "I think the movie is overrated. I don't like it. It's too slow." Or whatever. That's not valid reasoning.

Conversely, there are a number of highly respected films that I simply do not care for. But I fully respect their position in the pantheon of great films. I can offer reasons as to why I'm not fond of the films, but those reasons won't affect the films' stature at all. They will still be great even if I hate them.

 

[Guy_K]

I liked Lawrence of Arabia. I did think that the second half was inferior to the first half though. Another fault I found in the film was that when T.E. Lawrence was shot, it didn't seem to effect him at all. He danced on top of the train, and said 'it'll take more than a bullet to hurt me'.

 

[Michael Dehaven]

RobR

Unfortunately, I don't consider Kael's reasons for disliking the film intelligent. A critic once wrote that Pauline Kael seems unable to understand anybody's point of view (?) but her own. How true! But then again, who cares what a single person, be it Kael or a HTF member, thinks.

again this discussion is about flaws in these three great films.It isn't about me or Pauline. And if you truly don't care why mention or post anything?

 

[Jay E]

Pauline Kael said it first and I have echoed it here. She also dislikes this film and for many more intelligent reasons. Jay E. you seem to love this film and I am quite sure that you had nothing to do with its making. So I find it really in poor taste that you would make the above statements in such a careless manner. Why are you the great defender of this film? You are a casual viewer, no? I would reconsider the brash accusation of your statement. How can what I wrote be insulting or inaccurate? It is subjective, no? It is dangerous to slight and attack an opposing opinion and when all is said and done you have added nothing to the spirit of this thread.

Sorry if you felt insulted, I did not mean to come off so strong. I usually don't criticize people's opinions of films. I just don't understand how someone can call this a dumb film. You may find it boring or overrated or emotionally uninvolving but I just don't see how it's dumb. I just think people tend to over react in their dislike of this film, that's all. Maybe if you could elaborate more on why it's a dumb film, I can better appreciate your opinion.

 

[Michael Dehaven]

Personally I love Pauline Kael. Her intelligence is fierce and unique. I read her to learn about ideas and the power of knowledge and language. I'm never looking to agree or disagree with her, it is enough just to read her. Here are a few snippets from GOING STEADY concerning her thoughts on 2001.

"2001 says man is just a tiny nothing on the stairway to paradise, something better is coming, and it's all out of your hands anyway. There's an intelligence out there controlling your destiny, so just follow the slab. It's a bad bad sign when a movie director begins to think of himself as a myth-maker, and this limp myth of a grand plan that justifies slaughter and ends with resurrection has been around before. Kubrick's story line-accounting for evolution by an extraterresestrial intelligence- is probably the most gloriously redundant plot of all time."

"Death and Life are all the same: no point is made of Gary Lockwood's death-the moment isn't even defined-and the hero doesn't discover that the hibernating scientists have become corpses."

"If big film directors are to get credit for doing badly what others have been doing brilliantly for years with no money, just because they've put it on the big screen, then businessmen are greater than poets and theft is art."

 

[Mark Zimmer]

Back to the silent vs sound Ben-Hur: of course the silent acting style was very different from what we're accustomed to. You couldn't have the dialogue that's in a typical picture today or the audience would spend the entire running time reading. So they had convey the dialogue visually much of the time. This may look over the top today, but it's just a different style. It takes a little getting used to but I find it tremendously effective given the technical limitations.
Whereas there is no excuse for Stephen Boyd.
In my prior post I neglected Lawrence of Arabia. It feels overly long, but I'm not sure what I would cut. There are times in the second half where the pacing could perhaps have been tightened up a smidgen and that might have made a big difference. Odd words, I know, from someone arguing in favor of MORE jogging in 2001.

 

[Jack Briggs]

It should be noted that the late Pauline Kael has had more than her share of detractors. The woman would occasionally hit a high mark with her prose, but, more often, she would appear too much in love with the sound of her own voice. Her accusing Stanley Kubrick of obscurantism and obfuscation is a classic case of the kettle calling the midnight sky black. Her writing was more self-absorbed than Andrew Sarris's.

 

[RobR]

Michael,

Your statement

Pauline Kael said it first and I have echoed it here. She also dislikes this film and for many more intelligent reasons.

Exactly my point. Why bring up Pauline Kael?

 

[RobR]

To add to the discussion:

Some people here are mentioning "faults" and some are mentioning "flaws" (i.e. technical details, editing mistakes, etc.). While I can't really find any faults with these three films (I've only seen LOA once though), there's one obvious technical flaw with LOA, although it's not as obvious as the missed punch in The Godfather. When Laurence was seen shaving during the long journey, Sherif criticized him for wasting water, yet Sherif was clean shaven during the entire film! He wore a moustache so it isn't like he couldn't grow a beard.

 

[george kaplan]

Regarding Pauline Kael.
My biggest problem with her is that she liked almost nothing. I used to have a program (unfortunately discontinued) called Cinemania, where you'd get reviews of films from 4 different sources, one of which was Kael. On almost every movie, no matter how great, what she did was bitch about it. I think I found 2 positive reviews the whole time, and both of those were for movies I personally found pretentious.
What did Kael have to say about LOA? If it's negative, like usual, I may have to upgrade my rating for the film.

 

[Michael Dehaven]

RobR:

You are two for two. Neither of those posts have anything to do with a film. You have gone out of your way to belittle me and my opinion. Thank you, twice.

 

[Brian_J]

The problem with this thread is that one man's flaw is another man's genius.

Take for instance the criticism of Michael turning to quickly to the "dark side" in The Godfather. I for one never had a problem with the transition but someone obviously did. I thought the movie worked perfectly here. Regarding the missed punch, a missed punch is not a flaw to me since I assume what we mean by a "flaw" is an actual problem in the story telling, acting performance and so on. Its simply a quirk.

Now, personally, regarding 2001...while I believe this film is great art I do not feel it is a great movie because (for me) it lacks the most central requirement in a movie: entertainment. It is quite simply not my cup of tea at all. But, I am not going to give up on it just yet. I'll keep trying to see what others see. But I do have to ask whether or not you really "enjoy" the movie or you are simply in awe the way you would be at a museum? That part I do get.

Brian

 

[Dome Vongvises]

Let's not forget that Pauline Kael almost nearly ruined the magnificent career of David Lean. Damn, I should've bought that book about Lean when I had the chance.....

 

[RobR]

You have gone out of your way to belittle me and my opinion.

I'm sorry you feel that way. That wasn't my intention.