MovieChat Forums > Owlwise > Replies
Owlwise's Replies
A fine review!
Agreed, nightwriter. A pity, as I don't mind a genuine give-&-take discussion between differing points of view. But message boards always seem to attract the born-to-be-put-on-Ignore, don't they?
"... is noted" in your mind. Only there.
Or else he's doing an exceptionally good impression of Sheldon Cooper.
Wise advice from you about moving on, nightwriter. I'm taking it myself.
I can only shake my head sadly at this point. You really <b>don't</b> get it, do you? And that <b>is</b> sad.
You seem to have a very limited notion of "making sense" where Art is concerned. Objectivity is not the end-all & be-all of life. At least, it isn't for the vast majority of the human race. It's important & has its place, to be sure. But it's far from the whole of the human experience.
I get the sense that you don't understand that, though. And I don't say that to be snarky, sarcastic, insulting, etc. It's simply how your posts strike me.
The ending makes sense to me. It always did. It made sense to countless other viewers as well. It just doesn't make sense to you. Your worldview applies to you, not to others. The world & human existence itself are both far more than standardized definitions. Clearly, you don't believe that, or for some reason are simply unable to see it. That's your subjective opinion & you're entitled to it, But it <b>is</b> only your opinion, not Universal Truth.
Art is not limited to "generally accepted standards for non-literal interpretations."
And you have no business telling nightwriter that he didn't experience what he did experience. You haven't lived his life, you know nothing about him. Ordinarily I'd call your response to him arrogant, except that it's become obvious that you really don't understand the concept of differing personal experience, and that you can only see your own. You're like someone who can only see in black-&-white, while telling everyone else that they're not really seeing in color, because there is no such thing as color, simply because you can't see it yourself. And that's terribly sad.
Have you ever read a poem that has multiple layers of meaning & interpretation? Seen an abstract painting that has multiple layers of meaning & interpretation?
I'm sorry, but your every response seems to prove that you don't & can't accept anything beyond your personal notion of logic & standards. I'm not saying this to be dismissive or insulting; I can see that you have a very clear & direct viewpoint, just as you're entitled to have. But everyone else is entitled to the same privilege. Your personal life experience does not fit every other human being, nor is it necessarily appropriate for them. Nor is mine, for that matter. The only difference between us is that I'm not trying to insist that my experience is the only right one, or that everyone else should accept it. Humanity is far too complex, varied, and paradoxical for that. One size does <b>not</b> fit all.
There's more to a film than plot. There's tone & ambience, which also advance & enhance it. In the case of 2001, what you call "filler" <b>does</b> add to it, and immeasurably so. Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean that it's not there, because it is there for countless of viewers. Just not for you.
But again, we're talking subjective experience. That's what you don't seem to grasp. If the film doesn't meet your standards & definitions, well, that's your experience, and I won't try to deny that it's your own personal truth. But I do feel as if you've imprisoned yourself in a rather narrow, rigid worldview that can't accept that others have different experiences of this film that are equally valid <b>to them</b>.
And Art, of all things, is <b>least</b> bounded by rigid textbook definitions. It creates new ways of seeing & experiencing by going beyond those definition.
Why is it so important to you that others accept your definitions & perceptions of this film? I don't expect to convince you of my viewpoint, I don't need to convince you of it. I'm just pointing out that there <b>are</b>other viewpoints, as valid for those holding them as yours is for you. Variety is the spice of life. :)
I rather like 2010, taken on its own terms. A quite entertaining & enjoyable film!
It didn't make sense <b>to you</b>. It <b>did</b> make sense to me & countless others. I'm afraid that your every post is confirming your literalism & your inability to see beyond it. Not everyone has such a rigid experience of life.
Also, I don't see this discussion as a contest, where one person is irrefutable proven right & the other wrong. I see it as two very different worldviews circling around the same object & interpreting it very differently indeed, each according to his or her own perspective & perceptions. Each interpretation is right for the person holding it.
If it doesn't work for you, then it doesn't work for you, and that's fine.
I would point out that the LotR films are filled with action & new things constantly, and move at a faster pace. I thoroughly enjoy them, but they are a very different viewing experience than 2001.
It's just that what you consider "filler" is considered anything but "filler" by many who love the film.
Again, "visual poetry" is a metaphor, not a literal definition. Haven't you ever heard a skilled & graceful Olympic athlete described as "poetry in action" for instance? And again, the ending is "pure nonsense" <b>to you</b>, not to others.
I think we're simply two very different personality types who experience the world in two very different ways. Yours is just as valid as mine, but yours doesn't permit you to see beyond its limitations. There is more, far more, to life & the experience of life than textbook definitions, however useful they are in their own domain.
Obviously, we're neither one of us going to convince the other of our personal viewpoints, no matter how much we go at it. And in the end, it all comes down to our personal experience & viewpoint of this or any film anyway. I've actually enjoyed this discussion, because I've found it interesting to hear your take on the film. It shows just how differently two people can experience the same thing.
My feeling about the 7th season is that they knew it would be their last, and so they focused more on individual stories for the various cast members, giving a lot of them some sort of closure. Some of those stories worked well, some not so well.
Ha! :)
I'm afraid you're being far too literal. Have you never heard of Surrealist narrative, for example? And "visual poetry" is a metaphor that extends beyond words. I can see that from your strictly logical viewpoint, what you're saying makes perfect sense to you. I'm just saying that there are other modes, non-logical modes, of perception & experience that do transcend logic. And the information about the ending was there in the film from the very beginning sequence, in fact. Countless viewers saw it & understood it long before any after-the-fact articles & critiques were written about it.
This doesn't work <b>for you</b>, and that's fair enough. But it does work & makes splendid sense to a great many viewers who have responded wholeheartedly & imaginatively to this film. What you can't see in it, others can. Different strokes for different folks ...
It couldn't have made its point in 30 minutes, because the slow, reflective pace that immerses the viewer & conveys the overwhelming vastness & mystery of the Universe <b>is</b> one of its points. I'll grant you that it's not a film for everyone, not even in 1968 & certainly not now. It demands more of its viewers than many are either willing or trained to give. Yet if you give yourself over to it, it has rich rewards to offer. Of essence & necessity, the experience must be a slower, lengthier one, in order to enwrap & enrapt the viewer.
And of course not everyone will respond to that—not because "they don't get it" or "they're just too dumb" or anything like that, but simply because not everyone shares the same personality type, worldview, or philosophical/aesthetic perspective. Not every film is for every viewer, just as not every painting or every piece of music is for everyone. It's a matter of taste & what you, personally, want from a film. Or don't want.
Thanks! I admire Kubrick, but don't think of him as infallible & perfect—after all, what creative person is?
In the case of 2001, however, I do feel that he made a film that's as close to perfect as one can hope to get.
This, exactly. I have no need or desire to see Interstellar again. But I could watch 2001 again this very minute.