I know this debate is a lille old, but when Kubrick declares that “the concept of God is in the heart of 2001”, he refers to a very universal spinozian god. God is everything, god is the nature and the whole universe. This also refers to the human nature – the free spirit (starchild) beyond time and space. There is alot of hardcore humanism and existentialism in 2001 – its a very optimistic movie where man defeates his own tool (HAL) and comes a step further in human evolution. In the last sequence, man becomes superman and replaces God as a universal power. God is dead – its all Nietzschean.
No deeper meaning? A movie with a meaning is very unusual. Some movies have no deeper meaning (Der Untergang, Blade Runner, etc.), some movies has a little pocket philosophical meaning (Stalker, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, etc.). Some movies is fucking awesome and gives alot of meaning: for example 2001 and A Clockwork Orange.
A Clockwork Orange is founded on a thought experiment – as Kubrick says: Alex is “natural man in the state in which he is born, unlimited, unrepressed.” It’s the dionysian (abe) man, who is controled of his instincts, living in the apollonian state. During the film, Alex is transformed into a apollonian creature, who suppresses his natural bahavior, the dionysian spirit: music, sex, violence, ecstacy, inspiration, spontaneity. Dont ever say that isn’t deep again!
Welles, Uzo, Eisenstein, Dovsjenko, Kurosawa,Tarkovsky, Mizuguchi, Kubrick (!!), Sokurov, Lynch, Bünuel, Trier, Bergman, Dreyer, Fellini, Murnau, Lang, Kieslowski?? And what about the crazy Korean shit? What about a guy like Hitchcock?
After seeing a couple of Tarkovskys films he became one of my favorite directors alongside with Kubrick, Mizuguchi and Lynch. His cinematography is impressive, i can’t find anything that is just near as spiritual and deep as this. Just take a look at this scene from Zerkalo: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlRN1bvVd28&feature=related
That is pure magic and i can’t find it anywere else. I have seen a bit of Sorukov, for whom Tarkovsky was the mentor. Anybody else that is close to Tarkovsky in a cinematographically and atmospheric perspective?
Well, such directors as Bresson, Bunuel, Bergman and Dreyer have their own style. And Chaplin… They does not have much to do with Tarkovsky.
Tarr, Sokurov, Angelopoulos and Trier is just fanboys :) Kalatazov is a good one in relation to “Sculpting in time” principles, but in addition, there is only differences between him and Tarkovsky.
The Trier example is irrelevant? Hmmm… In relation to Dogville, Breaking The The Waves and Dancer in the Dark, yes. But not his other movies. He also claimed that Tarkovsky is his mentor. In Europa, all of his shorts, Element of Crime and partly Antichrist (not really) it is more clear.
Very snobbish opinioin… Because you aren’t a real film enthusiast if you don’t know and love such directors as Godard, Cocteau and Żuławski. The opinion is way too elitist and Tarkovsky is surely also too mainstream. Hithcock must be something like Disney.
Wtf Doinel! That’s the most stupid thing i’ve ever heard! 2001 and Clockwork is just trite? You can say much about them, but they sure are depth. They’re both founded on nietzschean philosophy – we got references to Feuerbach and Spinoza too. 2001 is an allegory over the creation of the übermensch, Clockwork Orange is about the dionysian spirit in the apollonian state. You can say it’s wrong, but it’s deep and tries to be so.
Well i love 2001, mostly because of its atmosphere. Its cold because life is cold. Its all about the eternety, the infinity. But no – thats too pompously – we need a neorealist french wave movie about a gay catholic, who is marxist too. Thats better.
DEN, perhabs you’re right. 2001 is a very idealistic movie, its about the meaning of life, Apollon versus Dionysos and such things. The whole thing depends on ones view on the film medium: is it about reflecting some fragmented feelings and atmospheres or is it also a medium like litterature and is able to challenge the intellect, develop it. Hitchcocks movies, The Killing, Paths of Glory and such movies isn’t as big and fundamental as 2001 and Clockwork. 2001 have a greater spiritual and atmospherical basic premise than all of them together, but it’s more pompous and concluding. Some will probably be disgusted by this.
HOW TO FAVORITE MOVIES? over 2 years ago
This is a stupid question, but how the hell can i favorite movies?
Go to Comment
Tarkovsky, Kubrick, and Wise over 2 years ago
I know this debate is a lille old, but when Kubrick declares that “the concept of God is in the heart of 2001”, he refers to a very universal spinozian god. God is everything, god is the nature and the whole universe. This also refers to the human nature – the free spirit (starchild) beyond time and space. There is alot of hardcore humanism and existentialism in 2001 – its a very optimistic movie where man defeates his own tool (HAL) and comes a step further in human evolution. In the last sequence, man becomes superman and replaces God as a universal power. God is dead – its all Nietzschean.
Go to Comment
Best Cinematography you have ever seen? over 2 years ago
Tarkovsky of course. The Mirror.
Go to Comment
Jazz Anyone? over 2 years ago
Bud Powell, Keith Jarrett, Thelonious Monk, Bill Evans, Oscar Peterson… just to mention a few of the greatest
Go to Comment
Classical Music over 2 years ago
Prokofiev, Rachmaninoff, Kapustin, Chopin, Bach, Beetehoven, Satie, Debussy, Stravinsky!
Go to Comment
Did "A Clock Work Orange" have a deeper meaning over 2 years ago
No deeper meaning? A movie with a meaning is very unusual. Some movies have no deeper meaning (Der Untergang, Blade Runner, etc.), some movies has a little pocket philosophical meaning (Stalker, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, etc.). Some movies is fucking awesome and gives alot of meaning: for example 2001 and A Clockwork Orange.
A Clockwork Orange is founded on a thought experiment – as Kubrick says: Alex is “natural man in the state in which he is born, unlimited, unrepressed.” It’s the dionysian (abe) man, who is controled of his instincts, living in the apollonian state. During the film, Alex is transformed into a apollonian creature, who suppresses his natural bahavior, the dionysian spirit: music, sex, violence, ecstacy, inspiration, spontaneity. Dont ever say that isn’t deep again!
Go to Comment
The Works of David Lynch, Best to Worst over 2 years ago
1. Eraserhead
2. Twin Peaks
3. Twin Peaks: FWWM
4. Mulholland Dr.
5. Inland Empire
6. Lost Highway
7. Blue Velvet
Go to Comment
Who do you read? over 2 years ago
Kafka is the greatest.
Go to Comment
My 50 Favorite Films -- comments, feedback, recommendations etc desired over 2 years ago
Welles, Uzo, Eisenstein, Dovsjenko, Kurosawa,Tarkovsky, Mizuguchi, Kubrick (!!), Sokurov, Lynch, Bünuel, Trier, Bergman, Dreyer, Fellini, Murnau, Lang, Kieslowski?? And what about the crazy Korean shit? What about a guy like Hitchcock?
Go to Comment
The Making of The Auteurs' Film Canon, Essential 100 Films: What do you think? over 2 years ago
That’s a great ideer :)
Go to Comment
Films I should see based on my Tastes over 2 years ago
Watch some of the old stuff…
Go to Comment
Top 10 Films of All Time over 2 years ago
I agree with DEN, very interesting list. Twin Peaks FWWM is fantastic and so is Antichrist.
Go to Comment
Tarkovsky's Cinematography over 2 years ago
After seeing a couple of Tarkovskys films he became one of my favorite directors alongside with Kubrick, Mizuguchi and Lynch. His cinematography is impressive, i can’t find anything that is just near as spiritual and deep as this. Just take a look at this scene from Zerkalo: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlRN1bvVd28&feature=related
That is pure magic and i can’t find it anywere else. I have seen a bit of Sorukov, for whom Tarkovsky was the mentor. Anybody else that is close to Tarkovsky in a cinematographically and atmospheric perspective?
Go to Comment
Tarkovsky's Cinematography over 2 years ago
Well, such directors as Bresson, Bunuel, Bergman and Dreyer have their own style. And Chaplin… They does not have much to do with Tarkovsky.
Tarr, Sokurov, Angelopoulos and Trier is just fanboys :) Kalatazov is a good one in relation to “Sculpting in time” principles, but in addition, there is only differences between him and Tarkovsky.
Go to Comment
Tarkovsky's Cinematography over 2 years ago
But what do you guys think about Sokurovs work?
Go to Comment
Tarkovsky's Cinematography over 2 years ago
The Trier example is irrelevant? Hmmm… In relation to Dogville, Breaking The The Waves and Dancer in the Dark, yes. But not his other movies. He also claimed that Tarkovsky is his mentor. In Europa, all of his shorts, Element of Crime and partly Antichrist (not really) it is more clear.
Go to Comment
Tarkovsky's Cinematography over 2 years ago
Richards: i know… It makes not that much sense for me, but i know. I think Tarkovsky must appear somewhere in his subconscious :)
Go to Comment
Tarkovsky's Cinematography over 2 years ago
Hmmm… But still, some scenes in Element of Crime is copied directly from Tarkovsky.
Go to Comment
Tarkovsky's Cinematography over 2 years ago
You wrote more, okay :) I agree with you.
Go to Comment
Answer This Awesome Question I Am About to Ask over 2 years ago
Dude where’s my car or 2001
Go to Comment
Tarkovsky's Cinematography over 2 years ago
Jesse Richards, are you the real Jesse Richards??
Go to Comment
films that involve hallucinating women? over 2 years ago
Mulholland Drive
Go to Comment
Do you agree with this statement about Stanley Kubrick? over 2 years ago
Very snobbish opinioin… Because you aren’t a real film enthusiast if you don’t know and love such directors as Godard, Cocteau and Żuławski. The opinion is way too elitist and Tarkovsky is surely also too mainstream. Hithcock must be something like Disney.
Go to Comment
Do you agree with this statement about Stanley Kubrick? over 2 years ago
Hitchcock*
Go to Comment
Do you agree with this statement about Stanley Kubrick? over 2 years ago
Wtf Doinel! That’s the most stupid thing i’ve ever heard! 2001 and Clockwork is just trite? You can say much about them, but they sure are depth. They’re both founded on nietzschean philosophy – we got references to Feuerbach and Spinoza too. 2001 is an allegory over the creation of the übermensch, Clockwork Orange is about the dionysian spirit in the apollonian state. You can say it’s wrong, but it’s deep and tries to be so.
Go to Comment
Do you agree with this statement about Stanley Kubrick? over 2 years ago
I’m just answearing the premise of the debate – the opinion on Kubrick.
Go to Comment
Do you agree with this statement about Stanley Kubrick? over 2 years ago
DEN, you think Kubricks B/W movies is better than his color works?
Go to Comment
Do you agree with this statement about Stanley Kubrick? over 2 years ago
Well i love 2001, mostly because of its atmosphere. Its cold because life is cold. Its all about the eternety, the infinity. But no – thats too pompously – we need a neorealist french wave movie about a gay catholic, who is marxist too. Thats better.
Go to Comment
Do you agree with this statement about Stanley Kubrick? over 2 years ago
DEN, perhabs you’re right. 2001 is a very idealistic movie, its about the meaning of life, Apollon versus Dionysos and such things. The whole thing depends on ones view on the film medium: is it about reflecting some fragmented feelings and atmospheres or is it also a medium like litterature and is able to challenge the intellect, develop it. Hitchcocks movies, The Killing, Paths of Glory and such movies isn’t as big and fundamental as 2001 and Clockwork. 2001 have a greater spiritual and atmospherical basic premise than all of them together, but it’s more pompous and concluding. Some will probably be disgusted by this.
Go to Comment
Do you agree with this statement about Stanley Kubrick? over 2 years ago
because you mentioned Hitchcock yourself. As a good B/W director and a director with energy.
You got my point? You do love 2001 more than any movie now?
Go to Comment