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

This is part 8 of my epic 9 part response / rebuttal to Confused Matthew's "review" of Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey. I decided to explain 2001 and just how truly "confused" Confused Matthew really is because somebody needs to. IF you are a fan of 2001 and on the fence or not a fan at all of Mr. Confused then this may be for you but be advised, it's long and i may not make too much sense if you haven't seen 2001 or Confused Matthew's review of it.

Watch Full Playlist here - http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=A92A639CBA3CBD66

part 1 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WvrQ6h_GWE
part 2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Su8vPlZHJw
part 3 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PSsmkzGJPE
part 4 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbgTAMNbqNE
part 5 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnEYZxvyzzo
part 6 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cutpLn2_DN4
part 7 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GsMidV6MzA
part 8 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xs4DprRR6k
part 9 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HF_xfD9i7PI

Here is a link to Matthew's review of 2001 (heads up if you like the movie, it's hard to get through) - http://www.confusedmatthew.com/2001%3A-A-Space-Odyssey.php

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• chase melendez
• 2001
• space odyssey
• confused matthew
• movie review
• part 8
• video response

[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

[composerdoh]

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

lol!

[chasemelendez]

@composerdoh Thanks man. Feel free to use it.

[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?

[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]

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]

... 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?

[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...

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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.