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

[Dome Vongvises]

I had this interesting thought the other day while eating lunch (Big Mac Combo meal, 20 piece Chicken McNuggets if anybody cares).
Why isn't 2001: A Space Odyssey a silent film? I'll be honest, and say that most of my problems with the movie are similar to Jeff Kleist's. The movie simply lacked those "traditional" hallmarks of drama, and I felt simply bored to tears.
Back to what I was originally saying, I was thinking about what Seth and Jack said about the "visuals" of 2001 being the main storyteller. Then I thought, "hey, you know what, 2001: A Space Odyssey would work much better as a silent film." In addition, why hasn't this movie been shown on an IMAX screen yet? What are your thoughts?

 

[Brian W.]

Tom, when I said "how can something be a fault if it was intentional" I was referring to structural and dramatic faults rather than technical faults. I was referring to how well the films work.

If we're talking about technical faults, well, sure 2001 has got a load of them. It's got a few really phony special effects -- the moon landscapes are not convincing in the scene where the astronauts are standing at the edge of the pit; the clouds on the earth are way too wispy and the water is too pale blue; when the earth is seen though the window from the hallway of the space station, just before Floyd ducks in to make the call to his daughter, it shouldn't look any smaller than it does in the following scene, yet it does; many of the early spacecraft shots look like cut out photographs (which they were), etc., etc.

 

[Max Leung]

My takes on the flaws were with the science...not technical as in "the special effects didn't work right".

I agree that 2001 would make a superb silent movie! In fact, if the whole movie were silent, I think that would give it one hell of an edge. Or maybe reduce the dialog even more...perhaps on the order of that great little film, "Bo Ba Bu".

Sometimes, less is more...and 2001 is a great example of that.

 

[RobR]

It's got a few really phony special effects.

Not to remark on the content of your post, but when I think of "really phony special effects," I think of Gladiator, Harry Potter, etc.

 

[RobR]

Dome,

Why isn't 2001: A Space Odyssey a silent film? I'll be honest, and say that most of my problems with the movie are similar to Jeff Kleist's.

Interesting question. I already consider 2001: A Space Odyssey a silent film. One of Jeff Kleist's problems with the film is that he thinks it needs dialogue, yet a couple of you think it would serve better as a silent film.

I've noticed that your opinion of 2001: A Space Odyssey has changed somewhat over time from what I recall a few months ago.

 

[Dome Vongvises]

Quote:

I think I was being too vague when I referenced Jeff Kleist in regards to my problem. I think the small amount of dialogue in the film was by design. Like others have stated before, the images tell the story. My main problem was that the characters lacked personality and seemed too lifeless. HAL of all things had the most personality. Again, this could be by design, but the fact is these dull characters bored me to tears. It's like all the actors did was read their lines. Hell, real astronauts have more personality than that (was it Buzz Aldrin or Neil Armstrong that bought a make-shift putter with him to the moon?).
That's why I say make it into a silent film. The dialogue is lame anyways. Of course, the sacrifice would be that HAL's most famous line would have to be cut. But I'm pretty sure since 2001 is a story told on images, a few blips and flashes from Hal's red eye would suffice to tell what is going on.
As a side note, I think that it's strange when lovers of the film cite its realism as one of 2001's main strengths (no engine sounds, monotony of space travel, etc) but when the film is criticized on grounds of realism/technical scientific aspects, the lovers simply dismiss these criticisms as weak.

 

[Bruce Hedtke]

That's why I say make it into a silent film. The dialogue is lame anyways. Of course, the sacrifice would be that HAL's most famous line would have to be cut. But I'm pretty sure since 2001 is a story told on images, a few blips and flashes from Hal's red eye would suffice to tell what is going on.

If you were to remove HAL's dialogue, you would undermine the entire film. 2001 was not a film about a computer going mad and killing the crew of the ship. The human reliance of artificial intelligence was at its core. When you move from the Dawn of Man sequence to the Jupitor Mission, you are given an idea of how far the human race has evolved. But, at the heart of that was A.I. and the belief that it was benign and incapable of gaining self-awareness. This is what made HAL's transformation so shocking and so terrifying. He did gain awareness and what was his first act? Murder. The way he manipulates Frank and Dave, getting them to perform a second E.V.A. and then locking Dave outside of the Discovery with the absolutely chilling line: "Dave, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye"-you simply couldn't imply the frightening implications with blips and flashes. Then to when Dave is disconnecting HAL and he reverts to a childlike state, begging Dave to stop, that it hurts...and finally, to his most basic premise, as a simple computer that is programmed to sing a song. I have tried to think those scenes through as though they were silent and I just can't do it. Far too much critical information would've been lost.

Bruce

 

[Mike Broadman]

What Bruce said.

HAL's dialogue was the creepiest, most effective thing in a movie I've ever seen.

I really don't see the point of "more talking" or "no talking." Enough talking was used to do what was needed to do. It reminds me of the movie Amadeus:

"It has... too many notes."

 

[RobR]

I'm still waiting to give the film a second chance though (and in it's proper OAR).

You don't mean to tell me you saw 2001: A Space Odyssey in pan&scan?

 

[Seth Paxton]

I agree with Bruce on this one too. The cold frankness of the dialog in every scene is chilling, even in act 2. We know something dangerous is up long before we actually get to the moon, simply by how coldly Dr. Floyd responds with no info.
I find the spartan dialog and settings to be one of the strongest points of the film, and the parts that often work best as a narrative.
To me, while the metaphorical imagery is awesome, it is a bit indulgent to promise some narrative flow to the audience and then not make good on that promise in the end. And clearly 2001 does not give any proper narrative resolution or even a concluding point. In many ways it's very difficult to be sure of what finally happens. With some thought and research into it we can, of course, but the narrative path is NOT DELIVERED properly to the audience. Meaning not done in a consistent manner.
Kubrick is constantly changing his cues and signals to the audience on how information will be given to them, and in the end he abandons most or all of those cues.
Think of the time stamps to mark sections of the film. That tells the viewer "here is a marker, this is how I will indicate this info to you". Very structured and it establishes a solid formal structure, much of the dialog and scenes are identical - full of exposition and technical in nature. Even with Dawn of Man he has excellent visual cues for narrative storytelling. But in the end he falls back totally on abstract filmmaking, and I think that is a flaw.
However, to me it's one of those beautiful flaws. Like most people prefer people who are slighly flawed in looks compared to a "perfect" face (article in Discover). The oddness of this shift actually ends up making it more compelling to watch if for no other reason than real curiosity to find where the narrative path went. The fact that it had been there up to that point draws us in to try and find it because it makes sense to us that if it existed it must still exist.
BTW, for contradiction to this, Lynch makes no narrative promises in Muholland Drive. He makes it quite clear at every scene change that few or none of the scenes will have a true narrative connection and that the film will not be providing many cues at all at any points. Thus in the end we are not surprised to find that there still is no recognizable narrative path. He does fall back on some motifs (blue key) to link the abstract along, but by juxtaposing scenes that apparently have no narrative connection he puts the audience in the mode of "don't expect to see any solid narrative structure" and he then delivers on that promise bigtime . In many ways the end of MD is as equally perplexing as 2001, yet it seems almost like a real narrative by that point since nothing else has made much sense on a narrative level before it.

 

[Bruce Hedtke]

Seth, I couldn't have said it better myself. After numerous viewings (and certainly numerous more to come) I have concluded that I have no conclusion to 2001. I have my own theories and ideas, but nothing is concrete. 2001 is a film that I pay very, very close attention to because I know the ambiguous ending, I know that there has to be something to tip you off to what Kubrick was intending to mean, but I haven't found it yet. So, yes, it is a flaw but a well constructed one. What is so genius about it is that, yes, taken on one level, it has the potential to be a film-killing flaw. But, here, it induces you to rewatch the film more intensely, more open-minded. Give me flaws like that anytime.

Bruce

 

[JonZ]

Mike,

I know someone who still refuses to watch 2001 again. He said hes seen every horror and disturbing movie imaginable,and nothing scared him more than HAL("That red eye staring at me through the screen",as he called it).

 

[Tom Brennan]

LOA has a couple of faults the propmen should have seen to; Turks armed with Lee-Enfield rifles and Browning machine guns. Things that my seem boring in LOA on video are not so in a theater. I last saw this movie in a theater during the restoration release, I saw it in a 1st class 70mm presentation and the visuals were very striking and immersive.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Give me flaws like that anytime.

Exactly.

 

[Jack Briggs]

The thing to remember is that Stanley Kubrick never intended his film to be a passive movie-going experience where one can sit back and much his popcorn while having everything explained to him. The film requires an active participation on part of the viewer to pay close attention and to connect the dots. Everything one needs in order to "understand" it is in the film.

2001 was, in a way, "interactive" before interactive was cool.

 

[Bill Catherall]

This thread inspired me to go out and pick up the 2001 DVD. I've seen it a few times before and really liked it. I intended to pick up the DVD months ago, but budget constraints limiting DVD purchases to new releases bumped 2001 down the list. But a recent birthday present made it possible for me to finally get it.
For those of you having a hard time sitting through the movie without falling asleep...I watched it with my 5 year old son who has ADHD and he was glued to it the entire time. My 3 year old daughter tried watching it with us, but she fell asleep about 45 minutes into it (give her a break, she didn't get a nap that day ). But she did like the 45 minutes she saw. On the other hand, my wife came in when HAL goes "crazy" and left during the star gate giving a big sigh and a "Get to the point." Oh well... you can't win them all.
The slow pacing and limited dialog was nice for our family viewing of it because my son had a lot of questions and I was able to answer them without pausing and without missing anything. For once I didn't hush the talkers because we'd miss important dialog. I only hushed him during the star gate sequence because he kept asking "What's that? What's that? What's that?..."
My son (also named David, that's how I baited the movie for him..."Hey want to watch a movie about another David?") found a few "faults" that I thought I'd mention, since that's the point of this thread. He noticed that whenever a space craft's engine was shown there was no fire coming out of it. Also in the emergency air lock scene he said "I can't hear anything." Of course his understanding of physics in space is limited to what he sees on cartoons and today's blockbuster sci-fi fodder. We all know that these "faults" are actually more correct than what is often depicted.
But he mentioned one other "fault" that I couldn't answer for him. After Dave "rescues" Frank and is holding his body with the pod's arms, he has to let Frank go so he can use the arms to open the emergency air lock. But my son said, "Why didn't he just go get the body again after opening the airlock?" Hmmm... I dunno.
Also, I noticed something that I never noticed before...and I'm not quite sure if it's really a fault or if it's intentional (and if so, what was the intention). The shuttle out to the space station, the space station, and the lunar lander were all "empty." There was capacity to seat crowds of people, but there were no crowds. Just lot's of empty chairs. Could you imagine driving to an airport and find the airport nearly empty, then take a flight where you, a flight attended or two, and the pilots are the only passengers in a plane with a hundred empty seats? What was the message here? The high cost of space travel was only available to deep pocketed corporations? Or... Mankind is so bored with space travel that what was once filled to capicity is now dwindling?

 

[Jack Briggs]

"'Why didn't he just go get the body again after opening the airlock?' Hmmm... I dunno."

"Without your space helmet, Dave, I think you'll find that rather difficult."

 

[Stephen_Dar]

Very interesting and gratifying that your 5 year old son enjoyed 2001! As to why the lack of crowds, I always interpreted this to be intentional. One, it shows that all space travel has been put into some kind of security lockdown because of the findings on the moon (although some elements of this aren't made clear, I admit). Two, its a fabulous motiff forshadowing the lonliness of the moon and presumably in some sense, all human endeavor in space.

And, for the record, I used to find much of 2001 overlong and dull when I watched as a teenager, but upon rewatching recently after some years away from it, I was impressed by its brilliance in virtually every scene. So, don't shorten the Dawn of Man one iota if you ask me!

As to the original point of this thread, I'll offer this on The Godfather. I find Coppola to be the consumate artist (at least, back then) in that he seems to focus in a scatter brained way on the intense concepts he wants to communicate at the expense of overall cohesiveness. When you write a huge work, you often find lots of individual elements are excellent but they don't hang together as a unified whole without a second creative process, if you will, the higher order process of taking the time to fit all the elements together. This process is as hard, or harder, than coming up with all the elements you loved, and I must say a lot of people short the second process, either out of exhaustion or just laziness or disinterest.

I think Coppola was guilty of this. I was never quite sure what aspects of the generally brilliant Apocalypse Now didn't sit quite right with me until I saw redux and then I knew. He's worked on the pieces but he hasn't put the same effort into making those pieces fit together. Result: even at its best, Apocalypse is uneven, some scenes work well, others just leave you flat. The added stuff in redux mostly doesn't belong back in the movie if you ask me as that represents only the footage that was so obviously outside the stream of the film that even Coppola recognized it at the time. When I saw Godfather, I saw the same signature. Lots of scenes that are nice, but I can't say the overall continuity is there for me.

 

[James David Walley]

Lawrence of Arabia I am going to have to look up what this movie is about and even when I rented it last month, all I can find is a very pretty picture and some vain guy. Flame me so maybe I can get some insight here.

Some years after Lawrence, and as Vietnam dragged on, there was a spate of supposedly "anti-war" films aimed at the youth movement. Most of these were just sophomoric exercises in wishful thinking, with a heavy-handed "war is bad, peace-love-and-flower-power are good" message that was merely irritating to anyone who disliked being force-fed simplistic slogans. I have come to think that LoA, on the other hand, was a really great "anti-war" film, not because it stood outside and above the fray and condemned "war" as an abstract entity, but because it took a point-of-view from within the battle, in a cause that was assumed to be just, and showed how even the greatest military accomplishments, in the service of a just cause, can eventually seem to be but a handful of dust (as seen so poetically in the final shot of the film, where a cloud of Arabian sand, kicked up by a passing motorcycle, is the last image Lawrence, and the audience, sees).

 

[Bill Catherall]

"Without your space helmet, Dave, I think you'll find that rather difficult."

No, I mean he could let go of the body (not throw it away from the ship, but let it float close by), open the air lock with the pod arms, grab Frank again and put him inside the air lock, then proceed with his plans of getting himself back into the ship. Of course it's probably pointless anyway, but not to a 5 year old.
By the way, I found the answer to my own question regarding the empty shuttles and space station (and now that I really think about it it makes sense)... because of the discovery on the moon, all tourist activities have been halted. Duh!
Edit to add: Thanks Stephen...I read your post after posting this one.