This has always been the controversial film, but especially at our house. My late wife rarely disliked movies but when she did she did so with a passion and "A Clockwork Orange" is one of the films that she loathed. The reason that makes it controversial at our house is that it's a film that I have loved since I first saw it in the mid-70s. Despite our difference of opinion on the movie I continued to watch it every few years. And last night's screening gave me a little bit more insight into why my dearly departed love disliked the film so much.
Not only is the film misanthropic it is highly misogynistic and rarely offers any sort of redemption for those attitudes. Alex DeLarge, the self-described hero and narrator of the film, is a loathsome violent criminal, who has disdain for any conventional rules, although he is capable of putting on a facade of politeness when it suits him. There are three distinct scenes where women are helpless as they're being assaulted by multiple criminals in the story. None of these woman are really given much of a chance to be a fully realized character. Although the defiance of the cat lady who is the final victim of Alex, is at least an attempt to give a female character a personality in the story.
The movie is a dystopian view of a not too distant future, and although the book was written in 1962, and the movie came out in 1971, 2024 does not feel as if it is too far in front of a world very similar to the one depicted in this story. The plot goes a long way toward trying to criticize the nearly fascist political party in charge of Britain and its criminal justice system. And although Alex suffers as a result of the treatment that he receives, it's awfully hard not to sympathize with the victim that turns the tables on him at the end of the film. The whole tone of the movie is one of cynicism directed at irredeemable youth, intransigent bureaucracy, and conniving political creatures.
As much as she disliked the film, my wife would have agreed with me about Malcolm McDowell the star of the movie. He is perfect in this movie. Director Stanley Kubrick notoriously a perfectionist, must have worked McDowell to near exhaustion to get some of the scenes that resonate so well especially in the final sections of the film. When the Minister of Justice starts hand feeding Alex in his hospital bed, he is mocked subliminally by the smacking noise that Alex makes with his mouth each time he's ready for another bite of food. The political obtuseness of the minister is one of the points of the film. There is a theme in the movie that also concerns free will, but that feels like it is only there is as justification for making us feel guilty about the treatment that Alex receives.
Alex's parole officer, is not a particularly pleasant person, but he seems to have one of the most accurate views of Alex of anyone in the film. The corrections officer at the prison, is seen as a totalitarian tool, but he also has a keen understanding of Alex, although one that is so single-minded that it seems unreasonable. And that's in spite of what we know about Alex and his character. This may be one of the faults that critics of the film justifiably point to because it makes Alex a victim when what he really is, is a monster. The feckless parents and the manipulative Justice minister are reflective of the powerless society that has allowed this sort of crime spree to exist. Kubrick, and apparently Anthony Burgess the author of the book, seem to be trying to have it both ways, abhorring the aberrant behavior of the young thugs, but also averting our eyes in horror at the brainwashing of those same thugs to condition them to be more social creatures.
The movie has the added bonus of a synthesizer heavy score that frequently manipulates classical music into its themes. There's nothing wrong with a little Beethoven to go along with your ultraviolence.
The Paramount Summer Classic Film Series, at the Paramount Theater in Austin Texas, has been one of the great discoveries of my arrival in the area. When I saw the schedule for this summer, I joked with my daughter that I should just get an apartment downtown for the season, since I will be at the theater so often. I will do a more complete wrap up of the Series in a another post, but in commenting on this particular film, it seemed right to take note of a particular fact. Four of my ten favorite films played during the series, Jaws, Lawrence of Arabia, Amadeus, and 2001: A Space Odyssey. Some might find that a sign that my tastes are not particularly daring, I on the other hand, find it proof that these films have merit because they deserved to be included in the series.
"2001: A Space Odyssey" is the first of the films that make up my list of the ten best, for me to see in a theater as a child. This movie came out when I was ten, and I saw it with my family at one of the movie palaces on Hollywood Blvd. It made a big impression on me and it has continued to stimulate my mind, overwhelm my senses and make me deeply grateful for fifty plus years. As I watched it last night on the Big Screen in another old movie palace, I was in awe immediately by the title sequence of the film. It was a combination of shots of the Earth, Moon, and the Sun lining up and the music cue is fantastic. When the title is listed, I was sooo ready to go on this ultimate trip once again.
The Dawn of Man Sequence befuddled people early on but the symbolism is not subtle and when you pay attention, you will understand the jump of a million years of evolution immediately. The space sequences in the second act are all about showing our technical advancement, and repeat the flight, landing pattern three times back to back. I have seen this movie dozens of times but it was not until last night that a new piece of information dawned on me. The two sections of the flight to the moon where the crew and passengers are weightless are impressively created with practical effects, but I had not noted before how the costumes were also part of that effect. The Flight attendants wear uniforms that are a little odd. I'm not talking about their grip shoes, I am referring to their headgear. Suddenly it hit me like a thunderbolt why they wear those turban like get ups.
Ok, so it only took me fifty years to figure it out, but that's because everything Stanley Kubrick did in making this movie was meticulous.
The screening included the Intermission break, which has almost disappeared from modern films, even the ones that probably need a break. "Gandhi" was the most recent film with an intermission scheduled for all it's screenings. "The Hateful Eight" had an intermission built into it's 70mm engagements. This year's "Asteroid City" has an optional intermission that I have not heard of anyone using. The break in 2001 is at a particularly portentous moment and it makes returning to the last part of the movie so much fun.
I flew solo last night because my daughter had a social event planned, but to my major disappointment, she would have skipped the movie anyway. We went to a screening a few years ago in Hollywood, and I'm sad to say, she is not a fan. No matter, I am a fan and I got to enjoy this masterpiece one more time on the big screen. The psychedelic trip into the monolith near the end is not nearly as long as you think it is, and it still dazzles in spite of the fact that the optical technology seems quaint in comparison to some of the modern film techniques.
This film will always have my full endorsement. See it in a theater and be awed.
I am not a musician, unless you count two years of piano lessons when I was eight. I do however love music and I really love film music. One of the things I’ve done over the past ten years is include musical movie related material on the blog. What follows are posts that highlight a musical event more than the visual splendor of a motion picture. Travel back in time [or measure] and check out some of the posts that should strike a right chord with you.
Like everyone, I love John Williams and his music, but my favorite film composer happens to be the late Jerry Goldsmith.
Here you will find a tribute I wrote about him, his music and a DVD Concert that I owned and shared my thoughts on.
Another composer that I have been aware of for fifty years, but did not appreciate as much until more recently is Paul Williams.
The actor, singer and composer has also been President of ASCAP, and late in his career, people thought he had passed away years before. He was the the Subject os a documentary that I reviewed on the site, but before that film came out, I had a chance to experience the music from his film with Brian DePalma, and see him interviewed as well.
In recent years, many orchestras have created presentations of film music by replacing the scoring track on the film with live accompaniment. Inspired by that practice, some Film Archives have made Special Presentations out of films they control with their own cultivated orchestras. "The Godfather" is one of those films, this presentation played at several venues across the country.
Of course the greatest source of these types of presentations for me will be with my hometown heroes the Los Angeles Philharmonic. For a dozen non-consecutive years, I have been a series subscriber to the L.A. Phil at Walt Disney Hall. We always tried to include a presentation like this with our subscription, but if it was not available that way, we bought stand alone tickets.
We usually look for a special Christmas Event to share as a family each year. This sing-a-long presentation of "White Christmas " was a lot of fun but there was no orchestral accompaniment. That seemed strange but a good time was had by all.
The masthead on this site tells you how important the movie "Jaws" is to me. The fantastic score to that film by John Williams is famously memorable with just a couple of notes. There is of course a lot more to the music than those notes however. This time the LA Phil is in their Summer Home, the Hollywood Bowl, hallowed ground for our family, we visited eight or ten times a summer for most of the years my children were growing up. This visit is bittersweet because it was the last time I went with my wife of 38 years, just a few weeks before her passing.
One more visit with the LA Philharmonic, this time it is mainly a concert rather than a film presentation. Oh there were film clips but we were not seeing a whole movie, rather the concert featured music that Stanley Kubrick included in his films. Some of it is very familiar but there were some esoteric choices as well.
This post is not strictly a film related post because the subject is the artist not a movie. Jeff Bridges is a fantastic actor, but he is also a talented musician and let's face it, a fan like me can't really miss an opportunity to spend some time with a film star, even when they are not acting. It was a weekend trip to Vegas and the Concert was a gas,
The most recent of my music related posts is from earlier this year. Again, it is not strictly a film experience, but since I have seen several versions of Hamlet on screen over the years, I felt obliged to share it on this site. I think it was a One Off booking, but if it shows up anywhere near you, I think you will enjoy the effort to make it work on a limited budget.
I had an insight on a Saturday morning a few years ago and I followed thorough with a post. There are some interesting similarities in the music of these two films and I just wanted to talk about it at the time. Maybe you will want to as well.
This is my first opportunity to write about this film for this blog. The Egyptian Theater in Hollywood California has obtained a new 70mm print of of the film and they screened it nine times during the holiday season. We made it to the final screening, and to be honest, I'm kicking myself for missing the eight prior screenings. My daughter went with me and she is apparently not a fan of the film. I saw another blogger recently dismiss 2001 as over hyped and boring. Everyone will of course see a film through their own prism, and that is probably why I am willing to go to bat for a movie that does not need any defense from me at all. "2001: A Space Odyssey" is one of the great achievements of cinema. It is one of the reasons that I can look people who think those of us who dislike a film like "The Tree of Life" are intellectually shallow, and say "Bullshit". This film is more profound, deep and well made than a dozen avant-garde movies that today's audiences might respond to.
I come to this film with a long history. When I was ten years old, a friend of my father, who happened to be one of the projectionists at the Cinerama Dome and Pacific Theater in Hollywood, arranged for our family to attend one of the "road show" presentations of the film. Somewhere [probably the notorious box in the garage] I still have the souvenir program for that exhibition. I remember that my Mother and Father took me, and that my brothers did not go. It was a school night because I had to get up the next day, and I talked about the movie with my friends. [I doubt Arthuro Salazar will remember, but if he does, maybe he can confirm my story]. My parents thought that the movie was strange, and I certainly would not disagree, but I also thought it was wonderful. I was a precocious ten year old, so I probably thought I understood the whole thing, but of course I could not really have done so. I next saw the film at some of the numerous screenings that happened over the years at the Cinerama Dome. Some of you old enough to know may recall that some people liked to get high and then lay on the floor at the foot of the screen during the final twenty minutes of the film. I was not one of those folks but I did see them now and then. The visual impact of the film on the curved giant screen in 70mm was enough to convince me that what I was seeing was important.
I have watched it a dozen times on home video and in theaters since those days and every time I find new things about the movie to appreciate. Since we won't be getting any more Stanley Kubrick films, we have to make due assessing the legacy he left us, and that is a rabbit hole I love going down. At last nights screening, I saw and heard a half dozen things that made me think about the themes of the film or the technique of the film maker. I probably won't get to all of them today, but I hope there will be future opportunities to write about and share my thoughts on this film.
The print last night was struck from a road show version of the film, so it included an overture, an intermission and exit music. The lights are lowered before the start of the film, but not entirely. As the music plays, you are bombarded with a variety of classical and tonal music that seems ethereal to start with. You can tell from the mood being established that this is not going to be your average popcorn munching experience in the dark. The sound design of the film starts before the movie does and then comes that opening, the one that has been parodied and copied ever since it first startled audiences in 1968.
The juxtaposition of the stunning space imagery with the Dawn of Man sequence that the movie starts with is one of the things that seems to befuddle people. The posters and title promise space adventure but the movie begins with a long section devoted to ape like creatures learning to use tools. "2001" plants the idea that human development may have been achieved by extra-terrestrial intervention. While this is not necessarily at odds with Judaeo-Christian beliefs (maybe the monolith is God planting a seed from the tree of wisdom) , it certainly is a novel approach. The idea that creatures who forage for food, ignore the animals around them as a potential source of nourishment, and then huddle in fear of the night, could be given a slight push to start the evolutionary process is original and deep. Kubrick lets us see the small changes in these creatures and then in a cascade of images we discover tool use and everything changes. The final shot of this sequence, when the man-ape flings the bone he has used as a weapon into the air and as it comes down a quick edit turns the falling object into a modern satellite is one of the great edits in film history. Along with Lawrence blowing the match out in "Lawrence of Arabia", Kubrick and Lean create an artistic standard for editing which will define all future films.
One place where a viewer who criticizes this film can at least find some ground is found in the next segment. Dr. Heywood Floyd's trip to the Moon to deal with the discovery of an alien object, becomes a chance to show off some visually. There are three segments where we track a space vehicle as it makes a landing or approach. The space plane has to synchronize with the rotating space station (all to the Classical score that is leisurely and idyllic.] We soon get another great effects moment as the Lunar Lander approaches the surface of the moonbase and a gaping hole with teeth-like doors opening to receive it, provides us another chance to marvel at the four million year jump in time that the transition edit allows. Finally, there is the space bus which transports Floyd and the other scientists to the excavation site, and it is all computer screens and sound effects to show off the technological innovation of mankind but also the director. The pace of each of these episodes is slow and deliberate. The fact that they are nearly back to back might make the film seem repetitive. In addition, the segments between each of these landings is separated with interactions in which the characters engage in banalities with only the slightest amount of exposition. Kubrick's characters are really drawn in a cold manner. I don't mean that they are heartless but that their personalities display almost no personality or human warmth. Even the phone call Floyd has with his young daughter feels perfunctory. While conceding that these moments are longer than most people are used to today, it can also be said that all films prior to the 1980s were slower at coming to the point. Sometimes the brushstrokes rather than the images are what distinguish "art" from a mere representation. I would say that these are some indulgences that an artist like Kubrick is entitled to make and that in the scheme of things, they make the picture work better in other parts of the story.
The sound emitted by the monolith both for early man and for Dr. Floyd's group, is mercilessly loud and penetrating. The audience will experience the same things the actors do. Again, this is a deliberate choice that the director is responsible for, and it works. Maybe it is a little annoying, but it makes the sections with long periods of silence even more effective.
Once we are on Discovery One, the silence takes over again. There will be moments punctuated with sounds and with music, but frequently, the mundane tasks of the three active crew members are surrounded with no sound at all. There is a reason that Ridley Scott's "Alien" was promoted with the phrase "In space, no one can hear you scream." The vacuum of space overpowers the technology of man. As awesome as the difference 4 million years in time can make in human technology, it is suddenly dwarfed by the enormity of space and the thundering silence that is returned as we shout out in defiance of those barriers to human exploration. The astronauts labored breathing as the do an EVA to replace a part of the communication system is loud and ever present, until suddenly it isn't. We can see poor Frank's body tumbling silently through space, and there is no warning or outcry. Only when HAL decides to erase the other human crew do we get a return to sound levels that are loud and powerful. The warnings that go off as the astronauts in hibernation die with no visible violence, are all mechanical. When Dave chooses to enter through the airlock, the exploding bolts and the violent ejection of astronaut from the pod are shown silently, until an atmosphere can be restored.
What should be the most obvious sound element and yet it could be easily overlooked, is the voice of HAL 9000. Douglas Rain deserves special mention because his is the dominant role in the last half of the movie. Hall is just personable enough to be easy to interact with, but the voice is so measured and unflappable, that no one would confuse him with a human, except by comparison to the two cold Kubrickian astronauts Dave Bowman and Frank Poole. Hal fits into their band of awake travelers just right. It is not until Dave becomes desperate enough to re-enter the vehicle in the dramatic fashion that was open to him, that either of these characters displays much emotion. The volume and distortion of HAL's voice is one of those sound elements that make this movie work so well. There was one visual element that I thought added a bit to the drama of Dave's act of desperation. As he has the pod release the body of Frank, the arms of the pod pull back up into a crooked position and they resemble the arms of a boxer, surging forward to confront their opponent in the center of the ring. Stanley Kubrick was a perfectionist, and I have no doubt that the image was purposeful.
Maybe the most controversial part of the film is the trip through time and space as Dave takes his pod and enters the giant monolith orbiting Jupiter. The light show and special effects might seem quaint to audiences used to CGI intense scenes in all kinds of films. It may have been a little indulgent, but it is not nearly as long as some people complain it is, and if you watch the images closely, you will see foreshadowing of events related to the birth of a new human entity. Those hippies who wanted to use this segment to supplement their high, give critics of the film an entree into pointing out the excesses of these moments. Focusing on the visual instead of the metaphysical elements at this point is exactly the opposite of what one should be doing.
Even though he made one of the greatest comedies of all time, "Dr. Strangelove", Kubrick is rarely thought of as a humorist. Although this film is serious and there are dry stretches with no warm characters to relate to, Kubrick manages to find the funny in a few spots. One obvious example is Dr, Floyd having to read the ten part directions for using a zero gravity toilet.
If you are not familiar, here it is for you:
In another moment of humor, that exists in tragic circumstances, HAL pleads with Dave to respond to him and to allow him to go on with the mission.
"Look Dave, I can see you're really upset about this. I honestly think
you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill, and think things over."
I mentioned earlier that last night's screening was a road show version that includes an intermission. The break here occurs at the most chilling moment in the film for the audience. Frank and Dave have taken precautions to avoid being overheard by HAL as they consider what to do if they discover HAL is malfunctioning. The final shot before the lights come on is a silent shifting of the camera from Frank's lips moving to Dave's lips movie as we look through the pod window and we realize that HAL can understand everything that is being said. The lights come up and there is a ten minute interval for us to ponder what might be coming.
The break at the screening was certainly longer than 10 minutes, and it needed to be. Unlike most public events, the line at the men's room was the one that snaked down the lobby, while the women's facilities had no visible line at all. This may be a reflection of the slightly male heavy geek culture intruding into the practicality of plumbing. The Egyptian hold more than six hundred people and it was essentially packed last night. We sat in the back right corner of the balcony for this show. The size of the screen and the 70mm projection meant that just about every seat in the house would be acceptable.
Our view of the Ceiling at the Egyptian last night.
Amanda and I discussed the film for the entire ride back to our home, about forty miles from Hollywood. She admires the film but said that she does not need to see it again for another 10 years. She is as passionate about films as I am, and as an example, we see Lawrence of Arabia, just about any time we can find it on the big screen. Her lack of enthusiasm for this movie is understandable but a bit disappointing to me. I still feel in awe of this movie, every time I see it. I don't feel the passage of the long sequences as a burden to be borne but an experience to be savored. We talked about why our feelings are different and she had a nice way of putting it. "It feels like an experimental film with sections of more narrative form put into it, instead of a narrative feature with segments that are experimental edited in". So it is a matter of what you need a film to be.
This movie is not really about character and although there is a plot, it is very abstract in nature. The "sequel" "2010: The Year We Make Contact" is a much more traditional story. It is not ground breaking and certainly not as cerebral as this film is, but it is definitely more accessible. This may be a topic we tackle when we finally get around to starting the podcast we have been promising to launch.
These are not all my thoughts on this film, but they will serve as a staring point for now. If you have not seen "2001" on the big screen, do yourself a solid and find an opportunity to do so. If the theater sound is set up correctly, and you get a 70mm print, you will find it to be a very different experience, and one that you can talk about for a long time with your friends. My kid may be happy to wait ten years to see this again, but I'd be willing to go again tonight if I had the opportunity.
Another in the series of classics at the AMC Theaters. This one appears to finish off several weeks of gladiator based type films. I went and saw "The Ten Commandments" and "Gladiator" but I missed "Ben Hur", I think it was playing on Easter Sunday and we had family plans. As I've said before, movies are best in a theater and "Spartacus" is no exception. Interestingly enough, this is not the first, second or even third time I've seen it on the big screen. Much like "Lawrence of Arabia" or "Jaws" I will always make an effort to see "Spartacus" on a theater screen. In college, I went to a screening at a revival theater. When the movie was restored in 1991, I saw it a couple of times. Four or five years ago, there was a one night festival at the Hollywood Arclight theater. They had a different classic movie playing in each theater, just the one time, all screening at the same time. They did that program at least twice and I had to make some tough choices. You see all of the screenings were hosted by someone affiliated with the movie. I skipped George Lucas and "Star Wars" and Warren Beatty and "Reds", because in the Dome, "Spartacus" was being introduced by Kirk Douglas himself. At nearly ninety and having had a stroke several years earlier, he was still a great story teller and a wonderful host. The ten minutes he spent talking with us was one of the best memories I have of my movie going life.
Mr. Douglas did not make an appearance today, at least not in person. We expected some friends of my wife but they never showed up. For a few minutes it looked like we would be the only people in the theater. Three other groups finally came in just as the movie was starting with an "Overture". The house lights went down and we settled in for the kind of epic that does not get made much anymore. The three and a half hours do have quite a bit of action and there are some big battle scenes near the end, but this is really an intimate story of a man struggling against slavery and fashioned by the circumstances he finds himself in. I was impressed with how well it hold the attention even though there is not a bunch of quick cutting, CGI grandeur or plot twists that surprise at the end. It is a solid drama with a passionate and surprisingly tender love story to go along with it.
Famously written by blacklisted screen author Dalton Trumbo, who got a screen credit because producer Douglas was having none of that blacklist stuff stop him, makes the character of Spartacus come alive. The story is based on a real uprising of gladiator slaves in the century before Christ. Events are not clear and almost certainly large liberties were taken in the personal story that was told in the film, but historically, the movie seems to get a lot of things right. This is the one film that Stanley Kubrick directed that he did not have total control over. He did however make spectacular use of the widescreen process and managed to get the cinematographer an Academy Award for his work on the movie. There are a couple of very effective choices that Kubrick made when shooting the film. My favorite was his decision to focus on Kirk Douglas and Woody Strode as they awaited their turn in the arena. Instead of highlighting the combat that was taking place before they were to fight, we see only glimpses of Rex Harrison and his opponent through small openings in the paddock that the gladiators waited in. The tension and resignation on the two faces tells a completely different story and the more important one. It becomes clear why the victor would not kill his opponent and why the revolt started.
The other choiceI admired is a combination of the script and the director. They postpone the romance through an interlude where Spartacus is mocked for not mounting and taking the woman provided to him. The love story between the slave girl played by Jean Simmons, who is used as a sexual reward by the trainers of the gladiators, and the reluctant Spartacus, is amazingly sweet given the conditions that the two of them find themselves in. When they ultimately come together as human beings rather than animals being mated, it is a victory for humanity and restraint.
The cast of the film is amazing. It includes Laurence Olivier and Tony Curtis in a subtlety sexual moment. The scene in the bath, where Olivier discusses oysters and snails with Curtis, had been cut and when the restoration was done, the dialogue was re-looped by Anthony Hopkins filling in for Lord Olivier. It is much clearer why Antonitus runs off in the middle of the speech Crassus is making about submitting to Rome. It is only clear after hearing the bath conversation that Antonitus was about to be violated by Crassus. This and a dozen other moments in the movie make the story work so effectively. When Tony Curtis entertains the gladiator rebels with magic and a poem (song), it is a quiet moment that sets up another romantic clinch between Douglas and Simmons. The movie just gets each of this moments right, and it does so at a pace that is slow but correct for the story.
The movie will be playing two more times on Wednesday at a variety of AMC theaters. Look around and see if you can find one in your area that is playing this wonderful film. You will be happy to see some terrific actors doing great work on a noble film that will enthrall you with a story not just visual effects.
