MovieChat Forums > Owlwise > Replies
Owlwise's Replies
That's when it took me & countless other viewers to an even higher level of experience. :)
Nothing nonsensical about the ending, if you're open to pure visual poetry that conveys far more than any traditional exposition ever could.
And the scenes of people eating, exercising, etc., have a very real &b specific purpose. But you have to be a patient viewer, not expecting everything to come hurtling at you immediately. I know that modern movies have trained viewers to expect that from everything, but it hampers the ability to appreciate deeper, slower art, to which there are no shortcuts.
It needs that time to establish the immensity & vastness of space, as well as to point out how much of human life does seem to be "filling time" more than anything else.
Also, audiences back then weren't put off by longer, slower, reflective films that require the viewers to immerse themselves in the experience.
The movie stands on its own & is complete in itself. The concurrent novel is interesting, if not Clarke's best work, but utterly unnecessary to appreciate & understand the film.
Not at all. You're looking at it through the lens of logic, which, while quite precise & clear-eyed, is limited when it comes to poetry & metaphor. Poetry transcends logic. Even as a 14-year old boy, seeing the film for the first time, it was quite clear to me what was happening from the point of the stargate to Bowman's transformation. And it was conveyed with a fluid visual poetry that said everything without saying a word.
Kubrick simply wasn't using standard exposition; he took for granted the curiosity, intelligence, and sense of wonder in his audience. I've known more than one truly brilliant, logical person who, for all their brilliance, just did not comprehend poetry, either verbal or visual. Some do, some don't. Kubrick chose not to spoon-feed his audience.
And no drugs are needed for those who do respond deeply & viscerally to poetry.
Cultural reasons.
"What, no beans?!?"
If made when he was young enough to play the part, I could see Broderick as Spider-Man. And even more importantly, as Peter Parker.
The comic was so much better, a satiric gem!
She had somehow communicated it, or perhaps the Germans had arranged for it to be known, perhaps?
Authoritarian personality types can be found on both ends of the political spectrum, as can their followers, especially the True Believer type. And I don't trust or care for any one one person or any one group that demands I pass a zero tolerance, ideological purity test.
Lazy? Or just Minimalist? :)
Brux, I think you're right about that. Some of the questions he asks about current orthodoxy are worth asking & examining in depth—and I say that as someone who falls on the liberal/progressive side of politics, if I had to label myself (and labels are all too often reductive & confining)—but he seems to be working himself up into a guru who believes in his own infallibility & wisdom. That's never a good thing, no matter what side it comes from. The human species as a whole, and each human individual, is simply far too complex & self-contradictory to neatly fit any pigeonhole—even those I personally might find more congenial than others.
JohnnyDoe, the left should be as open to thoughtful criticism as much as any other group. Rigid dogma that all must follow, no matter what side it comes from, is also never a good thing.
Y0u might find this article by a former friend & colleague of Peterson illuminating:
https://projectauthenticity.org/2018/05/26/brilliant-profile-of-jordan-peterson-i-was-jordan-petersons-strongest-supporter-now-i-think-hes-dangerous-opinion-piece-by-bernard-schiff/
Your comparison to Fellini is spot on!
It's not an action movie, and it's not a "war" movie. It's a movie about war—and also about art, chaos, civilization, philosophy, symbolism, Vietnam, and countless other things besides.
I loved it when it first came out—and decades later, when I'm in my late 60s & getting closer to Harry's age, I appreciate its depth of humanity & compassionate understanding all the more.
I wasn't left hanging at all. Harry is at the sunset of his life, but however many or few days he has left, he'll live them to the fullest. And leaving the viewers to their own interpretations is a sign of respect from the director, who credits those viewers with intelligence & thoughts of their own, as the film's ending causes them to reflect on their own lives. I don't see how there could have been a better, more honest ending than that.
Absolutely! Few of us are likely to be Michael or Jake, but all of us will grow old like Harry. But for some reason, that universal quality is seen as unimportant & unimpressive by some viewers. Nothing against those other films & their lead performances, which are indeed classics—but Art Carney gives us someone we all can become, if we live long enough. His story requires just as much personal courage & determination as any, it's just on a quieter & more human scale.
Some good films do get forgotten, unfortunately. That doesn't diminish their quality, nor does it diminish Art Carney's superb performance one bit.
Agreed that Godfather 2 & Chinatown are excellent films, deserving of all their praise, no question about it. But their lead performances are those of bold, striking characters amidst a memorable & violent background few that people actually experience themselves.
Harry and Tonto is a more human & humane film, about people we might know, people we might be ourselves—the smaller, quieter sort of film that says a lot without any fanfare or sensationalism. And Art Carney delivers an emotionally rich, contemplative performance that has a great deal to say about growing older & how to face it—and that's something each & every one of us must face eventually. It strikes closer to home for everyone. And that sort of film & performance demands more of us, not just as viewers, but as human beings.