CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Movie Miscellany › Film Analysis
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Film Analysis

post #1 of 11
9/30/10 at 2:01am
Thread Starter 
Confession time: I've never been a huge fan of Kubrick. Space Odyssey, in particular, bored the crap out of me, even after seeing it a couple of times. However, my viewings of any Kubrick movies were long before I really possessed any solid film analysis tools - the pursuit of which specifically drove me to begin lurking on these forums and considering the viewpoints of those much smarter than myself.

Somehow, I recently stumbled on this opinion of the meaning of "the monolith" in Space Odyssey. My mind was completely blown, and my opinion on Kubrick has instantly changed. While I feel I have been gaining a marginally better grasp of film criticism, I honestly don't think I would have ever made such an insightful observation about this film as this fellow has. This is dismaying to me, because I love thinking about and analyzing movies.

Long story short (too late!), I'd like all you smarty pants Chudsters to relate how you generally apply critical and thoughtful analysis while watching a film. Is it just something that naturally happens while relaxing and enjoying the experience? Note taking? Incidentally, the author of the monolith theory posted his particular method here.
Reply
post #2 of 11
9/30/10 at 2:14am
I think appreciating film and filmmakers goes way deeper than "understanding the plot". 2001 is a beautiful film on so many levels. I loved it before I understood any of the third act, I love it now that I'm able to make better connections between the various themes and visual aspects of the film.

Not to turn this into any kind of dick swinging ("I got the movie before you did, you ass") but the joys of cinema are not limited to making sure the director isn't trying to put one over on you.

A good movie will usually teach you how to view it. 2001's pace is designed to make you meditate on the images and themes and how they all connect. I don't think it's a puzzle film, dependent on you "figuring it out". You don't need to figure out Inception for it to be a jaw-dropping treat of film-making. Films that require you to "figure them out" in order to be worth anything, are generally not worth anything to begin with.

You can even take it further into the abstract. You don't need to know about Kenneth Anger's life and film theories to be blown away by Scorpio Rising, and to see how great and influential it is.
Reply
post #3 of 11
9/30/10 at 2:23am
I'm far from the best person to answer this, but one simple thing that made me look at things on a deeper level was the realization that absolutely nothing goes on screen by accident. Okay, sure, there's the odd ad-lib or happy accident that makes it into the final cut, but especially with your denser, more difficult films, every single image and line of dialogue is meticulously crafted to do something.

When I was younger and saw something that didn't immediately make sense to me, I tended to just shrug it off. But since that dawned on me, I will keep it closer to the front of my mind and keep trying to connect it to what comes after.

Probably not terribly helpful, but that's my advice: really think about it.
Reply
post #4 of 11
9/30/10 at 2:26am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Ripoll View Post
I think appreciating film and filmmakers goes way deeper than "understanding the plot".
I totally agree, however, I have personally found a basic understanding of narrative principles to be the key to more visual appreciation. I think this is because I used to get very hung up in story, as I grew up reading novels more than interacting with people. As I have learned a tiny bit about three act structures and story arcs, I feel more free to be immersed visually. Kind of a weird personal eccentricity, I guess.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Ripoll View Post
...the joys of cinema are not limited to making sure the director isn't trying to put one over on you.

I don't think it's a puzzle film, dependent on you "figuring it out". You don't need to figure out Inception for it to be a jaw-dropping treat of film-making. Films that require you to "figure them out" in order to be worth anything, are generally not worth anything to begin with.
I understand what you're saying and I think it's valid. However, I consider myself to be a strange kind of person, one that needs conscious mental processing to enjoy art. I don't know why, I've just always been that way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Ripoll View Post
A good movie will usually teach you how to view it. 2001's pace is designed to make you meditate on the images and themes and how they all connect.
I think this is great advice, and I infer that you take an intuitional approach to the films you watch.
Reply
post #5 of 11
9/30/10 at 2:31am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post
When I was younger and saw something that didn't immediately make sense to me, I tended to just shrug it off. But since that dawned on me, I will keep it closer to the front of my mind and keep trying to connect it to what comes after.

Probably not terribly helpful, but that's my advice: really think about it.
It's definitely helpful, and I appreciate it. I don't think I could have quite put my finger on it like you have, but all of my recent realizations about film have been along those lines: films are by design.

Perhaps this fact is commonly overlooked because movies are similar in experience to daydreaming, which is natural and stream of consciousness...
Reply
post #6 of 11
9/30/10 at 2:47am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post
I'm far from the best person to answer this, but one simple thing that made me look at things on a deeper level was the realization that absolutely nothing goes on screen by accident.
This. Star Wars didn't change my life, but The Star Wars Album did.
Reply
post #7 of 11
9/30/10 at 3:06am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sphere_Monk View Post
Confession time: I've never been a huge fan of Kubrick. Space Odyssey, in particular, bored the crap out of me, even after seeing it a couple of times. However, my viewings of any Kubrick movies were long before I really possessed any solid film analysis tools - the pursuit of which specifically drove me to begin lurking on these forums and considering the viewpoints of those much smarter than myself.
Regarding 2001, it's important to keep in mind that this is a film that works best when seen on the big screen. At home on a tv, 2001 can appear tedious as fuck. In a darkened theater, where the film assumes the absolute attention of your mind & senses, let me tell ya, it's almost a religious experience.

It's the difference between seeing a band perform live & listening to a band on an ipod.
Reply
post #8 of 11
9/30/10 at 3:13am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Decade View Post
Regarding 2001, it's important to keep in mind that this is a film that works best when seen on the big screen. At home on a tv, 2001 can appear tedious as fuck.

It's the difference between seeing a band perform live & listening to a band on an ipod.
Yes, and this definitely applies back when I was watching it on CRT TVs in fullscreen. I was a heathen.
Reply
post #9 of 11
9/30/10 at 3:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Ripoll View Post
A good movie will usually teach you how to view it. 2001's pace is designed to make you meditate on the images and themes and how they all connect. I don't think it's a puzzle film, dependent on you "figuring it out". You don't need to figure out Inception for it to be a jaw-dropping treat of film-making. Films that require you to "figure them out" in order to be worth anything, are generally not worth anything to begin with.
Exactly. This isn't a puzzle film. 2001 isn't about answers, it's about questions. The BIG questions: "What is the nature of consciousness?", "Why are we here?", "What's our place in the universe?", etc.

The film isn't philosophically didactic. Whatever deeper meaning/questions that present themselves are a result of the individual audience member's own internal, meditative experience.
Reply
post #10 of 11
9/30/10 at 3:46am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Decade View Post
Exactly. This isn't a puzzle film. 2001 isn't about answers, it's about questions. The BIG questions: "What is the nature of consciousness?", "Why are we here?", "What's our place in the universe?", etc.

The film isn't philosophically didactic. Whatever deeper meaning/questions that present themselves are a result of the individual audience member's own internal, meditative experience.
Even so, I believe the consistent visual theme of the rotating rectangle/monolith in proportion to the original aspect ratio is pretty convincingly a metaphor for the screen upon which the movie was shown, as explained in the linked article.

The transcendent nature of the starchild, or rather, what it means to transcend current human existence, might be something more open to personal interpretation.

EDIT: This is really turning into a discussion about Space Odyssey, which is unintended, though still instructive. I'm truly very interested in the critical processes of everyone here at Chud.
Reply
post #11 of 11
9/30/10 at 4:03am
As an addendum to the article you linked, here's a famous in depth analysis of 2001 written during it's original run. It was by a 15 year old schoolgirl, Margaret Stackhouse.

Margaret Stackhouse's Reflections On 2001: A Space Odyssey, 1968

Stanley Kubrick himself once said this: “Margaret Stackhouse's speculations on the film are perhaps the most intelligent that I've read anywhere, and I am, of course, including all the reviews and the articles that have appeared on the film and the many hundreds of letters that I have received. What a first-rate intelligence!”
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Movie Miscellany
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Movie Miscellany › Film Analysis