From: Jim Fehlinger (fehlinger@home.com)
Date: Thu Feb 22 2001 - 19:44:54 MST
"Michael M. Butler" wrote:
I wrote:
> > The last bone thrown in the air is matched, in the next cut,
> > to a spaceship at the same angle [not the same angle on my DVD,
> > but it's not surprising Gilliatt remembered it that way].
>
> Lots of people talk as if they remember the cut as matching; I remember
> noticing on my first viewing of the film that it wasn't, and being a bit
> annoyed at Kubrick (and later, him and whoever the editor was).
There's a _2001_ tribute and collectibles site on the Web, "Underman's _2001_"
( http://www.underview.com/2001/2001.html ) that contains, on page
http://www.underview.com/2001/othreyes.html , a photo of the cover
of the long out-of-print _The Making of Kubrick's 2001_ by Jerome Agel
(which I owned once upon a time long ago, and just repurchased today
at an on-line used bookstore). I had forgotten that the cover of the
Agel book shows six frames of a print of the movie, at the actual point
of transition between the bone and the satellite :->. The page also
has a photo of the March 29, 1968 issue of _Life_ magazine, which
contained a pre-release article about the movie, with lots of color
photos, and was the first inkling I had of its existence back when
I was a high school sophomore. Speaking of high school students --
I wonder what became of Margaret Stackhouse? :->
I wrote:
> > That [the existence of home video] has really altered the ephemerality
> > of movies was brought home to me this past Thanksgiving.
>
> Hurrah!
Kubrick himself made a comment along these lines around the time of
_2001_, not of course in reference to home video, but in reference to the
somewhat controversial idea of movies as works of art rather than as throw-away
entertainment. The Usenet group alt.movies.kubrick has a Web-based FAQ
at http://www.krusch.com/kubrick/kq.html , which contains an answer to
the question "What did Kubrick have to say about what 2001 'means'?" in
the form of an excerpt from a _Playboy_ magazine interview with the director
(not there further identified, but probably it's from the September 1968 issue,
No. 177, as listed at http://www.en.com/users/wizofid/playboy/interview.html ).
He remarks:
"The whole idea that a movie should be seen only once is an extension of
our traditional conception of the film as an ephemeral entertainment rather
than as a visual work of art. We don't believe that we should hear a great
piece of music only once, or see a great painting once, or even read a great
book just once. But the film has until recent years been exempted from the
category of art -- a situation I'm glad is finally changing.
Jim F.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:06:03 MST