Chase explains 2001 to Confused Matthew because somebody really needs to - part 8 of 9

[twooffour]

8:40 The comparison is ludicrous.

Yes, Jeff Goldblum actually spells this out in a dialogue scene, but even if he hadn't, even without this "meaning", it still would be a movie about flehed-out characters running from dinosaurs. Heck, the "meaning" in that movie is secodary, anyway.

In case of 2001, however, what HAPPENS at the end? Not even its meaning is the question here, its basic content is.

IS there a content waiting to be "decyphered", or is it just imagery that's supposed to stimulate

[twooffour]

... creative thought?

If it's the latter, the point stands - 2001 is a movie in which first the plot of 5 minutes takes place in somewhat of an hour, then comes a really cool side-story not directly related to the main plot, and the end is an uncrackable psychedelic trip.

Not bad as "abstract art", but there are actually ambiguous movies such as Shutter Island present tons of evidence for different interpretations, and don't have the viewer "assign" any of them themselves.

[twooffour]

1. It's interesting how CM's "quotemined" argument also backfires in yet another way - what the creators have to say about their work, shouldn't matter to the understanding of the work, either.

A creator can misunderstand their own work (while a clever viewer does), and if what they "understand" is their intentions that never made it into the movie (like the script versions with the narrator), that ultimately still leaves the product as it is.

I mean, what if they'd created something they...

[twooffour]

... thought was a weird acid trip sequence no one could ever put their finger on, but subconsciously, made something that easily made sense to the viewers?

Sure, it wasn't their intention, "the truth" behind the creation, but what's on the screen is what matters, and if your supposed incoherence is actually coherent, well, then that's how it is.

6:10 So what comes out when you "assemble" the end sequence? Is there, like, a solution, or is all about the viewer's creativity?

[S1deshowRobP5]

I always thought they should've spent more time with HAL and just making it a thriller about a sentient program killing the crew

There was tons of filler that didn't need to be there

[Bassbait]

@S1deshowRobP5 Says you, but your opinion doesn't matter in the long scheme of things, making a film just about HAL would completely ruin the point of the film, the film isn't about killer computers, it's about evolution, technology, and man's place in the universe. Take out the rest, you take out the majority of what the film actually is, and diminish it's worth, just as you'd diminish the worth of ANY FILM EVER. Don't suggest to trim down the movie, just don't watch it if you don't like it.

[johnnyrockerfella]

can we all agree that 2001... is fucking boring?.. and can we all agree.. it really does have interesting shit in it... like HAL... HAL rules! yep gotta admit that shit.... no one can disagree about that surely..... but, dude. thats no excuse for a sleep inducing bore fest AKA 2001... and this bloody 10 part crap on crap from both of these ppl is LAME lol... if ya love the movie... love it, by all means.. but why argue back n forth splitting hairs on trivial shit

[Bassbait]

@johnnyrockerfella 2001 is the least boring film I've ever watched. There's not a single solitary second of the film where I am not paying huge amounts of attention and fascinated. Every detail is incredible to me. So I disagree.

[robaronin]

Sorry, dude, you're wrong....CM is one of the few critics I've heard get this right. There is no way to comprehend what's going on in "2001" without having read the book. The nature of the monolith is never explained, that it was communicating with another one near Jupiter is not specified, and making excuses for Kubrik's ambiguities like you do for the sake of "the art form" is a cop out.

[LightVSDarkness64]

How did you record CM's footage?

[sphinxcity]

Ok! CM is RIGHT!! Your explaining the book!!! NOT THE FILM !

If someone wants to read the book , great! If the film itself appeals ONLY to the ones who read the books , GREAT! They GET it because they read the book. BUT TO MOVIE WATCHERS....(who dont have time or desire to read the book)....the film doesnt do a god damn thing...CRAP FLOATING IN SPACE and geeks ranting on a computer for several you tube videos..... There are several movies based on Books.and this is still a disappointment

[sphinxcity]

Ok! CM is RIGHT!! Your explaining the book!!! NOT THE FILM !

If someone wants to read the book , great! If the film itself appeals ONLY to the ones who read the books , GREAT! They GET it because they read the book. BUT TO MOVIE WATCHERS....(who dont have time or desire to read the book)....the film doesnt do a god damn thing...CRAP FLOATING IN SPACE and geeks ranting on a computer for several you tube videos..... There are several movies based on Books....and this is still a disapiontment

[pancakeday2006]

I wonder what DVD's he has on those shelves back there.

Solaris? Greed? Ikiru? Heimat?

[Juggern4ut20]

Any and all points against Confused Matthew are undercut by the pretentious douche bag-ness that comes across in your jokes, tone and narration. Good job coming off as a Kubrickian with a stick up your ass.

[kingsman565]

@Juggern4ut20 I know, some of his point's are quite good but his arrogant "I'm smarter than you" attitude make's me want to punch him in the face! Plus he's completely missing the point Confused Matthew didn't call it a bad movie that people shouldn't watch, he called it a visual masterpeice, what he said was it's not a movie. There's a world of difference.

[IBioPoxI]

AAAAAAAAA the dreaded s word i will stop listening now XD

[buc555]

"Image that Kubrick had left in all the narrators exposition and the aliens at the end and gone with a faster pace. Would the movie really have had the same or more impact?"

Judging by his intro 2010 review I'm certain CM would say that yes it would.

[pureevilfnord]

He wants to pwn SO BAD!

[aarondirebear]

1) had it been faster paced it wouldnt have been so god damn boring 2) had it been explained better it wouldn't have been so pretentious 3) had it never been made we wouldn't have dumbshits like you defending it in their poorly decorated studios. Minimalism is NOT ART!

[TheAlmightySmurf]

@aarondirebear You sir, are a first-class idiot.

[kingsman565]

@aarondirebear Dude let's get one thing straight, before 2001 Sci-Fi movies where all about flying saucers blowing up national landmark's for no reason. If it wasn't for 2001 we wouldn't have Alien, Star Wars, the Abyss pretty much the entire Science Fiction genre owe's everything it is today to 2001. But as for watching the actual movie unless your relly stoned the first half is a real struggle.

[aarondirebear]

You lost all credibility when you admitted that the point was to deconstruct science fiction. In that case, the movie is even worse. Fuck Kubrick and fuck Clarke. I want my god damn aliens and ray guns.

[aarondirebear]

"the ratio of questions to answers-blah" THEN WHY DIDN'T HE JUST SAY THAT? Fuck. You.

[17R3W]

This whole level of sophistication thing reminds me of the emperor's new clothes. You can only see them, if you are REALLY smart!

[17R3W]

5:49 - WOW, you really missed his point. He's not suggesting that the dumping of letters is (or isn't) art, but that saying somewhere in a pile of letters lies a great story.

it's like the infinite monkeys, at infinite type writers, will eventually write the greatest Canadian novel ever written.

[movieman6456]

wait! the film is about the unknowable that someone can just tell you?

[255ad]

6:13 I'm sure he has but that makes you the artist not Lego Group in the same way if you're interpretation of 2001 is deep and meaning full that means you're deep and meaningful not Kubrick if he didn't intend you're meaning

[TheKnightOf0]

You probably just googled most of the definitions you explained in this video.

[Bassbait]

Again, I think that instead of Aliens of God, I think that the "God" of the film is Kubrick, as a God in context. I think that he is the God-like presence of the events of the film. I think the film is about overcoming a God-lie presence, which explains the shot of the monolith pointing to the moon, which is a twisted version of the eye of providence, the symbolism of the elite, the all seeing. Bowman is the middleman who overcomes the all seeing through enlightenment. HAL is all seeing...

[TheDarkFrontier]

To be honest, I like how 2001 can be right with almost any interpretation, it almost annoys me when someone says to be no no no, THIS is what the film was about. With 2001 you can't do that, because almost any interpretation can be correct. However, in the same sense it ends up being a very loose film, because it has no set central theme they want you to interpret in a way that evokes powerful emotions on current affairs. Sure they do this in a art way, but not in a storytelling way.

[TheDarkFrontier]

To be honest, its becoming quite clear that you are very obnoxious and pretentious when it comes to film making and storytelling. Sure, a movie that makes you think is a good movie, but by your reasoning, a film that resolves its self is automatically bad because its not thought provoking. Its not thought provoking in the sense that its making you work to understand what the film is about before any deeper meaning, but how it makes you feel about current situations and affairs.

[TheDarkFrontier]

You say the writers knew what it meant exactly, and yet they left the movie open to subjective interpretation by the audience? Why would they do that if they knew exactly what story to tell? And why in that case is the Kubrick fans so divided over what this movie means. Some other Kubrick fan who may have been just as rattled as you about CM's review could take a whole new approach to response because their interpretation is different.

[NkR03]

5:30 - 6:30 = facepalm.

[cuntscab555]

2001 with narration would be like explaining a magic trick. the wowed audience who spend years discussing the wonders of a sawn lady would instead be disappointed and move on. kubrick knew how to work an audience. to me it's just a trick

[boltonkevin]

how is it that you claim to "understand " 2001 and yet you also say that you can never fully understand it as it's open to continual interpretation?

[Bassbait]

@boltonkevin "fully understand" and "understand" are different things. We can never fully understand it as with many masterpieces because it has interpretive elements that Kubrick and Clarke never revealed in their lifetimes. But at the same time, it's possible to understand something without fully understanding something - we'll never fully understand how the natural world works, does that mean that we shouldn't claim to have ANY understanding? You're looking at it all wrong. Missing the point.

[neofit0]

Anyway good for you and your reviews chasemelendez. I think your a man of taste and im with you in every point.

BTW sorry for my english

[neofit0]

......On earth there is space for everything olso for the films we dont understand....when im watching 2001 im sure of a 65 % of what i conclude, but the must amzing thing in 2001 is what still scape to my compreension....like what actually will be stand in front of god. What 2001 is exactly about.

How translate or explain to Mathew that the point wich he concludes its the bad point of the film is JUST THE RIGHT POINT ....well.

[neofit0]

WHAT MATHEW EXPECTED TO WATCH WAS ACTUALLY MISSION TO MARS (a film explained till the nonsense) Kubrick sellection in 2001 is the must ellegant and risked possible....a kind of fliming touch its quite impossible today...witch make his film (2001) a foreverbeen movie....

The succes of kubrick (allthought im pretty sure he wasnt strictly looking for that) is people like mathew or me doesnt understand and have to deal with the fact that non everything in this world comes with manual.......

[DDChorror]

random thought: David Lynch movies are amazing

[Kaiserman151]

My theory on why Mr. Matthew hated 2001 is that he saw 2001 for the first as a child. He thought is was long and boring and could not possibly understand it's meaning in the slighest. Ever since, he has hated the the movie on a primative level. Either that or he's an uncultured simplitin. He will never understand 2001's complexities and this response, awesome though it maybe, won't affert him in the slightest.

[buc555]

@ravagedwarrior @ravagedwarrior yeah his main issue a lot of the time seems to be "I don't get this therefore it must suck".

I still to this day don't understand his issue with Rafiki, he only in one scene, something wrong with that?

[samo642]

I love your lego analogy :P

[1451tyler]

You know that just because a movie has some super cool fucking philosophical meaning doesn't mean it's not boring as fuck, right?

[u2atomicbomb]

@1451tyler Since when did thinking stop being entertaining

[1451tyler]

@u2atomicbomb way to misconstrue my words.

[u2atomicbomb]

@1451tyler you acknowledge the deep philosophical content in your comment, an understanding of which is only accessible if you also appreciate the intense use of symbolism, the pioneering cinematography and understand the reasons behind the slow pace of the film. If you do indeed grasp these aspects of the film, then should not be bored, rather engaged.

[1451tyler]

@u2atomicbomb How can I be engaged if theres two minutes of dialogue interpersed between 20 minute shots of nothing at all?

[u2atomicbomb]

@1451tyler You engage with the symbolism to try and decode what messages they veil. This is not a film you can treat like standard cinema, it demands that you decode the messages yourself, planting them in dialogue (given the grand themes on offer) would only understate the meanings. Ultimately, you are meant to feel the reward of mastering the various signs and symbols demonstrated, yet fated to be drawn back to subsequent views to explore the wealth of interpretation you previously missed

[Apjooz]

@u2atomicbomb

Or you could just say "watch it until you like it''.

[u2atomicbomb]

@Apjooz Not at all. 2001 demands a higher level of comprehension than cinema has ever offered. For some, through no fault of their own cannot engage with this pioneering method of cinematography. But unlike confusedmatthew, these people know enough to not opine their narrow little view often consisting of "it's boring, nothing happens" Not only does CM preach his little opinion but dares to call it an objective review whilst doing so

[Apjooz]

@u2atomicbomb

I have only seen this movie once, so I must have missed alot of things. But it

would be interesting now to read the script where the themes are explained and

see how much I get and does it make sense. Nah, I would be too lazy to read.

But no doubt, there must be a huge amount of stuff in this movie "to get". But

everything should not be taken as it has 5 different layers of meaning, a space

ship in space is just a space ship in space even if it was Kubrick who put it there.

[patricioac123]

...It was nice to see you put him through his paces, since you are obviously qualified to do so, which is why I have one request: Please review his review of Spirited Away. I don't know how you feel about that movie, but his reasons for disliking it are just as ridiculous as for 2001.

[buc555]

@patricioac123 *slaps hand on forehead* dear me I thought I'd seen the worst of him with his Lion King review, but that review is just taking the piss.

"I can't stand anime"? I'm not sure he knows what anime is. It's animation made in Japan!

So does that mean, with any animated film made in Japan, regardless of genre, plot, studio, style, length, target audience, year of release or who made it, he will hate just because it happens to be an animated film made in Japan?

[patricioac123]

@buc555 idk, all I can infer is that he's proud of his reviews cuz he hasn't stopped posting after chase's response. if chase's videos had been targeted at me, I would seriously reconsider, like, everything in my life. I bet Matthew didn't even watch them. his attitude is very ego and ethnocentric if you ask me. he really does like to hear the sound of his voice. The reason I love anime and manga is that they force you to remove yourself from your cultural frame. keep up the good work, man

[Isolder74]

@buc555 As an FYI Rakin-Bass's The Hobbit is technically an Anime. Isn't that ironic.

[DigitalPh333r]

Agreed, films are a form of entertainment, this film really failed to entertain me.

[snoopyisback]

In regards to his scrabble letters analogy. While I agree it is something that has been done a lot, in fact I would add to that list of yours doodling on a scrap piece of paper, but I think you missed the main point the was making. In fact the clip from his review you played cuts out before he gets to the main point, that its not hard to write a movie in that way, to quote him directly anyone can write a movie that deliberately doesnt make sense and anyone can not write.

[chasemelendez]

Well using his full quote only makes the situation worse for him. His attempt at a point is 2 part; that masterpieces aren't made this way & that it's not hard to write a movie in this way. Both claims are 2 sides of the same coin but i focused on the 1st because it's the more outrageous- masterpieces R made in that way but the 2nd claim is just as hollow with slightly more consideration as it begs the question; if anyone can 'not write' than why r masterpieces like 2001 so rare?

[chasemelendez]

Also, CM gives himself away here. It's clear that he is making a judgment about how the movie is written based on the film version lacking dialogue & action. The original shooting script (which it's clear CM has not read) is IMO one of the most elaborate & detailed scripts ever written. CM seems 2 equate ambiguity with bad writing but the reality is that scripting & shooting ambiguity is far more difficult than not. Film makers havnt been trying 2 copy 2001 4 decades cuz "anyone" could write it

[aarondirebear]

@chasemelendez ambiguity IS bad writing. fuck your couch.

[composerdoh]

LOOOVE the lego line! (good one.... I might have to steal that bit...)

lol!

[chasemelendez]

@composerdoh Thanks man.  Feel free to use it.

[dswynne]

Based upon the type of films CM likes, he's not a fan of sci-fi films, unless it's wedded with a thirller, horror or action genre.

[Markunator]

He's not complaining about having to think, he's complaining about not being entertained.

[chasemelendez]

@Markunator Again u r conflating entertainment with artistic & historical importance (which require thought in order to appreciate). Plus, THAT'S your defense of CM? That he said something he didn't say at all & that i misunderstood the thing that he didn't say? He nevr talks about entertainment & neither do I. What he does talk about is "needing a guide" and "Howard the Duck". Also i couldnt help but notice that ur snide remarks run out here. What no pithy comment for part 9?

[Markunator]

@chasemelendez

Well, he DID say it, just not in an immediate way. That clearly is what he means with his review.

You can blabber on all you want about "historical importance" and all tha pretentious crap, but I still don't think the movie was entertaining. Can't you just understand that, instead of acting like such a condescending, arrogant, holier-than-thou jackass? You're not exactly helping yourself OR your point, you know.

Oh, and I never watched part 9, BTW, but maybe I will.

[chasemelendez]

@Markunator Is this how you talk to people in your day to day life? Debate points intelligently or humorously or not at all. You so far have called me a "condescending shithead arrogant holier-than-thou jackass". If you wish to engage me meaningfully i am willing to in spite of your behavior but if this is how u r going to act (while admitting u haven't even bothered to watch part 9 yet!) than please dont respond further. I understand you were not entertained. Please believe me.

[Markunator]

@chasemelendez

And believe ME, I understand that I shouldn't have called you names, like I already told you on another video. I hope you can accept my apology for that, but if there's one thing I hate, it's being patronized!

And I WILL watch part 9, don't worry, but tell me: name-calling aside, what's YOUR idea of "engaging meaningfully"? Being extremely condescending and treating people like complete idiots, unworthy of arguing with someone as intelligent as you? Sure seems like that to me.

[chasemelendez]

@Markunator You were doing so well. Isn't it possible that i didn't receive your original comment apologizing b4 i commented here? I just finished accepting your apology & then i find this comment next where ur mad @ me again. So this doesn't get out of hand i'm gonna let this slide & stick to my last comment to you but please take care b4 being so reflexive & give me a chance. that's all i ask. & thank you for watching part 9; i am genuinely curious as to what u will think of it.

[chasemelendez]

@Markunator Cont. - Also i am sorry to come off condescending but there comes a point @ which this accusation towards me shifts from being a potentially valid point 2 being cover. I have in our back & 4th gotten u 2 the point where u have basically agreed with me - "I understand that this movie is absolutely groundbreaking as well as widely regarded as a true masterpiece & I respect that." I mean after a statement like that i'm not even sure why u were so angry 2 begin with -this is meaningful

[Markunator]

I'm not angry. Not anymore, at least. I just don't think the film is entertaining, that's my only problem.

[chasemelendez]

@Markunator And that's really no problem at all. Even tho our conversation started out shall we say.. rough, i'm glad it has ended on this note. I have no problem being challenged and i am grateful for you taking the time to watch my videos regardless.

[buc555]

@Markunator "not being entertained" is subjective, it's only really a reason why he personally didn't like it.

[DrewPify]

I used to make trench fortifications with my legos and recreate world war I with my GIJOES. Unrelated but I liked the lego comment.

Not to mention ambiguity makes a something a mystery, something fun and worth solving. If I was told the punchline before I hear a joke I think my head would explode.