Movie Review: 2001: A Space Odyssey

Ok, whoa. First: this is unlike anything else (probably - if you disagree with such a statement, I would love to see the evidence).

Second: on some level, this must be an utter masterpiece. Or a complete disaster. No middle ground can be held, because it's clear at every moment that the creator (let's call him Kubrick) was reaching for the epic, the enormous. The visuals, the music, the ratio of image-to-dialogue. - everything is set on a hugely ambitious scale.

So. What to think?

As far as the sights and sounds go, I find 2001: A Space Odyssey fantastic. Gorgeous. High art.
The symphonic soundtrack is grandiose, and the slow, deliberate unfolding of every image is a wonderful thing to experience. And this ain't Star Wars space - this is a dreamy fictionalization of the real deal, silent and expansive, completely mystifying. In this one aspect - the presentation of a fantastic, imaginative universe - the film is brilliant.

Except for one thing: the on-board zero-G scenes. And this, I suppose, is simply a measure of the times (1968). But as I watch the people shuffling through spacecraft cabins in their Grip shoes, it's so very hard not to imagine how you'd really be moving around - in MID-AIR!! And this detail is especially nagging since the rest of what we see is so seamlessly great.

So. The style is four stars all the way, notwithstanding my one complaint.

Next up: the story itself, the themes therein, and pretty much everything that distinguishes a film from a mere sound/picture collage.

Let me say this: when I evaluate something I've read/seen/heard, I make every effort to understand it as well as I can. And not just in relation to myself and my own experience, but also (and maybe even more so) within the context of the work's creation (is that not they teach over and over in literature classes, anyway?). I mean, before condemning any aspect of a Stanley Kubrick film from 1968 I must be careful to consider where the thing comes from.

And that could be a lot of talking, but here's an example: in the last segment we are treated to a good 10 minutes of trippy color collages sliding by. If someone made that on a computer today, I would probably say "oh, nice. Bit long, don't you think?"

But knowing that this scene was put together in 1968, with no computer technology, in an era where experimentation with color and music was at an all-time-high; knowing that in its day this scene was a wonderfully original feat of filmmaking...well, I must give it greater respect (or at least, I must make darn sure I know what I'm saying if I choose to put it down).
The same sort of thing applies to the personification of HAL 9000 - he seems so familiar because it is THE prototype.


All that said, here is my analysis of the plot and theme(s) of 2001: A Space Odyssey:
ARE YOU JOKING?????!!!!

Now, if you haven't seen it, go now before reading further. Maybe you'll "get it."
But see, that's why I made that big spiel above: in a way I ALWAYS "get it." I may not get what's so great about "getting it", but I ALWAYS seek out the opinions of those who "get it", figure out what "getting it" means, and think "ah, I see how it could be this way - I see where those who 'get it' are coming from, even if I disagree"

But this time I. Do. Not. Get it. See if you can help: a black monolith descends upon the earth, endowing some ape-men with slightly higher cognitive (moral....?) function; later on, scientists discover a black monolith on the moon beaming radio waves toward Jupiter, but when a Main Character approaches it emits a piercing mechanical sound; later on, a little bit of philosophy involving a deviant computer occurs as a new Main Character travels toward Jupiter in search of yet another monolith; later on, the character views the monolith, which leads him quickly through the stages of his life and then full-circle into a giant-eyed fake-looking baby still encased in its amniotic sac....AND THEN THERE'S THE EARTH AND THERE'S THE BABY AND THE BABY'S AS BIG AS THE EARTH and then the curtain falls.

Boom. Here's my problem: it is what you make of it and only what you make of it. The greatness of what this film SAYS is merely the greatness of the words that others put in it's mouth. Because 2001 doesn't SAY anything. It is a pastiche, to be sure a dazzlingly beautiful one, but one that is completely incoherent. There is NO "aha!" moment where it all fits, where the 2 1/2 hours of spectacle are joined into some overwhelming (for it could not be otherwise) sense of truth or feeling or even just relief of tension.

No, the baby shows up and it's just a baby, and you can go back later and piece it together and call it poetry and explain how the baby and the monolith and the computer can be thematically enfolded, but then it's YOU doing the talking, honey. The end of the film is styled such that it suggests that some kind of "full circle" has been achieved, but it simply hasn't.

And that is my stand. 2001: A Space Odyssey is a collection of brilliant images, sounds, and ideas that have no inherent sense among them. They are open, wide-open to the point of having no shared thematic substance.

Stars aren't at all useful in describing such an out-of-the-box thing. Here are a some, anyway:


***

Drunken(n)ess = 1 or 2 n's?

Jury's still out.

Drunkeness?

Lots of alcohol, enough to slow you down, make your eye movements lag, make you feel like everything you want is so much closer than it actually is.

And that is where I am right now (promise), and it is an interesting place to be.

Deep in conversations which you wish for sober, don't have sober, could give much better treatment to sober.

Willing to make real confessions...which I guess I could do NOW, except I just realized that instead of just BC anyone who follows my blog (=Gerard at the moment) can see my email address - same one that I use to talk to gramma. Crap.

But this is the state in which the last half verse of the stupid song about the month of May (yeah, it's actually decent) I made seem much more immediate...

I look into the mirror
My face is getting clearer
Everything is nearer
Everything is open wide....

And...oh there are so many things to say when you throw open the doors of your mind...
But no, no, can't do that, not now. In songs, maybe. In the book I'm almost done with, definitely (though that's not supposed to be TOO obvious). But not in plain language, not like this. That's why the blog was titled THINK - because too often we evaluate what is said on the basis of who is saying it.

But often (usually, always?) WHO is so much more compelling than WHAT. The double standard: evaluate my song for what it is, but I'll dig as deep as possible to discover the mind/heart behind the song I listen to

Ok, that's enough about ME...maybe. I don't know. That homemade 136 proof rum was darn good.

Gerard is #1!

Well I wrote down somewhere on this thing that I would dedicate a post to the first person to comment (no link or anything because I think it was a lame post...probably with some bad grammars...)

But since, though there are no comments, I actually have an official FOLLOWER now, and since I actually KNOW this follower, I think I will change all the rules and dedicate this post to that follower. Alright!

Let's see: Gerard plays drums quite well, and also other stuff well enough to have put together some song selections on an EP that I have - and that will be worth lots and lots of money when he becomes famous. And he also started a blog during that process (which I do link to because there is no embarrassment in it for me).

So...ah, how about the music?

("The biggest favor I will ever ask of anyone is to honestly tell me what they think."
-Gerard P. 1/11/09)

So basically, there are two parts to the EP (you gotta admit this would be some nice publicity if, well, the public read my blog)

1. Several up-tempo, rather high energy rock-like songs. There are definitely some very cool ideas going on - there's a jam section in one song that has a non major/minor flavor, which could probably be expanded upon to interesting effect live. The bass groove on "Deluge" is a good starting touch. There is a funky little acoustic interlude at some point that yells "make me into a song!" Oo actually, if you click the EP link up there and go to the end of "The Least I Can Do" you'll hear it.

The songs for the most part are coming musically from a place that is not too familiar to me. That is to say, if I had to assemble a list of possible influences for the writer of these songs I would mostly draw a blank. So I'm not really qualified here to make any kind of comparison judgments or anything. In the spirit of honesty, I will say that the similarities in sound among the tracks generally overshadows the differences.

Thematically, a lot of the songs seem pretty "specific" to me. I listen and think hmm, in 5 years could the artist say the exact same thing and still stand behind it? And if I use myself (i.e. the way I think about stuff I wrote months, years before) as a template, in most cases I say nahhh... But of course, this is all for Gerard to decide. And hey, if I was more into the Neil Young style of saying things I might have more love for lines like "Today I burned an American flag / 'Cause I won't let freedom die".
In conclusion, if I had to pick two children, I'd probably pick "Deluge" and...


2. Obstacles.

Yeah, so this song is good. Really good. A very universal sentiment (growin' up, leavin') captured in a very characterstic way. The mood fits the lyrics fit the melody fits the chords... THIS is the song where I say "I wish I made that up." The most inspired part of the whole thing is the percussion, which I think really helps complicate the mood.

Last thing: here's the sophisticated SHROPSHIRE/NOLL-produced video featuring the first-ever performance of "Obstacles". After thinking deeply for awhile, at 0:46 Gerard gets up and creates the masterpiece. At least, that's how legend has it.

On the Jury! (Part 2)

If you haven't read part 1 I'd suggest checking it out first, since here I'm just going to offer a couple of thoughts on the experience.

1. Here's the wild thing about serving on the jury. You are, in the public sphere, inarguably important. It's not just that you feel important - that's inconsequential, really. You ARE important, not only to the basic functioning of the judicial system but to determining the enduring circumstances that at least one individual will find him/herself in.

Think about it. "I, along with five others, was charged with deciding the fate of a defendant in a criminal trial. Our opinion would be the final say on the matter. My dissent alone would be enough to prevent a decision that I disagreed with."

They took every opportunity to tell us jurors just how important and proud we should feel...in the same sort of language a company happy for our business or the government happy for our vote would use. The same kind of attributes that I've heard ascribed to doers and activists and exceptional students in schools and professional athletes etc. etc. - the kind of talk that in our time (perhaps other times, too?) has no meaning or substance beyond the feeling it gives the complimented.

It is easy to be jaded. I go to the store, buy something, they say "You're our number one customer!" Well, maybe I am. Maybe I'm not. Who can tell? By the same token, if they say "You're a loser. We don't need your business." - well, maybe they don't. Maybe my purchase is a drop in the bucket. I go to jury duty, they say "You're important...." Same thing, right?

But sitting in that jury box I could not help but grasp that the reality of my involvement in the proceedings transcended anything anyone could say. There's the judge. There's the two lawyers. And then there's me, and if the defendant hears 'not guilty' it will be because I feel that this should be so.

Where else in the public sphere can a "regular" citizen's opinion and reasoning carry such weight?

If this was a two-way thing (i.e. people read this blog) I'd say "hey, anyone got an idea?" But since it's not, I think that's enough licking of jury duty's boots. (and the metaphor...yeah)

2. Crime happened in March. So. lawyers' fees between March and June: thousands of dollars. An entire day's work for one judge: thousands of dollars. The staff required to track down and brief jurors: thousands of dollars. Missed work by jurors: thousands of dollars.

One bracelet: pri...oh, wait, no. $80.

An unbalanced equation?

3. They get trials and lawyers better on screen than, say, doctors and hospitals. Twelve Angry Men? Fantastic movie. The jury dynamics are remarkably believable (even if some other aspects are not).

One guy on my jury would have fit right in: "See how she looks at the camera? Aw, she's guilty, you know it!"

On the Jury! (Part 1)

To hear most people talk about it, you'd think jury duty was a) something to dread, b) something to get out of, and c) something to...just endure, mostly. And I can see how that works - in fact, if things had gone much differently yesterday I might be in total agreement.

But you know what? Actually serving on a jury changes everything. A few aspects of the experience I found to be extremely unique. It's both surprisingly like and unlike what you might expect from the ubiquitous pop culture jury/trial representations. But first, here's how it went down:

Showed up at 8:30 AM (told to be there at 8). Filled out a short survey, watched instructional video (stressed the pride you should feel in being a juror). One judge walked into the room, said all her cases were resolved for the day, and thanked us pretty comprehensively. At about 10, 14 of us, including me, were selected from the 30 or so in the room. About 175 had been summoned that day.

So we were walked down to one of the courtrooms and filed into the jury box. The two lawyers (both women) and the defendant (a girl who was probably 19-20) were present, as was the judge. The judge gave us some instructions, and then we were briefly surveyed by each lawyer. I spoke up once or twice, trying to say something decently intelligent without revealing any kind of bias. At this point I'm thinking "what the heck, I want to do this". After some more waiting, getting sent out of the room and called back in, 6 of us, including me, were instructed to stay.

So, after lunch - about 1:15 - the trial actually starts. Girl is accused of stealing an $80 bracelet from department store. Everyone agrees that she picked it up. She says she put it down somewhere in the store. Prosecution says after not cooperating with the "loss prevention officer" in the parking lot after leaving the store, she somehow slipped it to her sister (who subsequently drove away). But the thing is, the bracelet was never found. Not in defendant's purse, not in the store, not in the car.

So it ended up being a sort of he said she said thing. This was not helped by the prosecuting lawyer, who called in the loss prevention guy to describe what he saw on the security video and THEN showed us the video (choppy and not in the least conclusive), instead of simply having the guy explain what was going on as the video rolled. The other lawyer was a younger woman who called out "objection" at every opportunity - much to the chagrin of the judge, who would roll his eyes before grumbling "sustain" or "overrule" as if he really, really didn't care.

Oh yeah - the judge. This guy was in appearance and mannerisms a classic grumpy old man, but he treated the jury quite civilly and had a dry, rather acidic sense of humor. He took no effort to disguise his annoyance (at least as I reasoned) at the monumental waste of resources on such a trivial matter (more on that later) and a couple times he cracked seriously wise on the lawyers.
Example:
Prosecution lawyer: "The state would like to request that-"
Judge: "Well then go ahead and just REQUEST it - I don't care what the state WOULD want to do."
PL (in stride, to her credit): "The state requests that exhibit A be brought in"
J: "Now or later?"
PL: "Now."
J: "Okay, go ahead"
(Pause, laywer turns to someone in audience)
PL: "The state requests 5 minutes to set up the DVD player..."
J:"Well that would be 'later,' then, wouldn't it?"

You had to cringe a bit for the lawyers, but you know what? Not a single person in that courtroom suffered for lack of entertainment.

Anyway, it was almost 5PM by the time both sides wrapped up. Prosecution called 2 witnesses and showed the tape, defense called 1 witness (the defendant), and after a few final instructions we were sent to go figure things out. Out of the 6 of us, 4 initially leaned "not guilty" and 2 "guilty". But it only took about 30 minutes to reach an agreement - even after going back and looking frame-by-frame at the tape there was simply not enough evidence to conclude anything other than "not guilty"

And that is what we did. I think it was the right call. The state's case wasn't very good. If she REALLY managed to steal the stupid thing and get away with it...she deserved it.

This is now long, so I will make it a part 1.