Kael’s entire point was to stake a (needed) preference for the smaller, humbler, less showy artwork that doesn’t make a big deal of its achievements, that doesn’t galumph around like a white elephant. But I think it’s a crack worth diving into. Kael’s infamous charge that “2001” was a “monumentally unimaginative movie” could be easily dismissed as another example of a critic being fatuously small-minded. With “2001,” Kubrick announced a new self-consciousness to the art of American movie making: Film Art with a capital “A.” This turned off some of the most important critics of the era, most notably Pauline Kael and Andrew Sarris. It was like going your whole life thinking you’ve experienced a Van Gogh painting by just looking at flat reproductions in art history textbooks. I realized that, though I may have seen “2001,” I hadn’t experienced it, since I hadn’t seen it in 70mm. “2001” in 70mm left me with a gnawing desire to know everything about the star stuff out of which I was made. When I entered the Star Gate in the film’s cryptic half-hour finale, I felt untethered, confused - yet weirdly free. ![]() I rushed to cover my ears from the piercing whistle of Kubrick’s mysterious black monolith. I tensed up in every scene of agonizing quiet. Technically, I had seen the film I “knew” the same images people knew in April 1968, shared the same thoughts as those who reviewed it in its time.īut when I saw “2001” at the Castro in 70mm, it was like seeing it for the first time. A personal story: Before last summer, I’d seen “2001” only on DVDs, Blu-rays and Turner Classic Movies screenings on TV.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |