Chase explains 2001 to Confused Matthew because somebody really needs to - part 6 of 9

This is part 6 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 6
• video response

[MuEpsilonGamma]

Oh. My. God. Lighten the fuck up and go back to Starbucks. I can't believe I'm sitting through this obnoxiously pretentious hissy fit. You're no better than Confused Matthew. The difference is, Matthew isn't coming across as a total self-righteous douchebag. How's the weather up there on your high horse?

[shanecle]

@chasemelendez

THANK YOU!!

I've watched a lot of confused matthew's reviews and have at times been really annoyed with his comments on many films. Comments which have included so many expletives and make him sound like some kind of teenage hooligan, as opposed to a film reviewer.

You just handed him his ass. Well done sir!!

[twooffour]

... than suggesting that the Monolith influenced HAL during the Intermission.

Still, that's not "evidence" for this actually happening, just something to build a theory on (which is not the case with the Duck bit).

[twooffour]

... gave the viewer a LOT TO WORK WITH - a point CM actually makes in his review (reprimanding Chase stare).

Most of the Western philosophy I know values clear expression of thought. (Baudrillard, on the other hand, is criticized for the lack of it - some people say he was more about mindfucking than philosophy).

8:30 Not if you said Howard teh Duck was a shitty movie ;)

Then he'd get a tasti turkey sammich.

8:57 I agree that that Howard the Duck reading was less... sensible....

[twooffour]

4:17 Said to be an empty MacGuffin by Tarantino himself ;)

4:40 CM should've shown more appreciation for 2001 as a "surrealist" work that inspired the brain to work on creative readings, at least in lip service, instead of whining about how "pointless" it was for Kubrick to include long space shots.

2001 sure is a rich work of ART, but the review treated it as a MOVIE - and that's the main point here.

5:30 Missing the point - movies like the Usual Suspects, K-Pax or Shutter Island all...

[twooffour]

3:55 Ok, I don't know much about the 2001 interpretation camp, but generally speaking, there's a difference between:

-several camps, or schools of thought, having different views on a subject, and

-everyone coming up with their own conclusions.

3:58 Impact of a work =/= the actual work.

In the latter case, "making up" is closer to what's going on there. Nothing wrong with that, but it's the viewer's creativity, not the creator's (the creator's was in part to INSPIRE this creativity, though).

[twooffour]

... it takes the genius to see them), all it takes is lacking the awe and conformity to be bullied into agreeing with the "sophisticated consensus" when you see no justification for that, and have a definite impression that there isn't one.

That's pretty much what his review is, telling it as it is without all the fanciful additional brainstorming - plus, of course, a lot of immature stupidity and annoying voice delivery.

2:20 "Overlooking" isn't what they're accused of there ;)

[twooffour]

0:50 Yea, one of the stupidest moments in CM's review - "turkey sandwich", WTF??

0:58 Chase is horrified, for once justifiedly so.

1:30 Okay, but is a fetus conscious? ;)

1:40 Qualifier - both narrator and viewer have to "participate", 95% of the job can't be handed over to the viewer.

If it is, it's not "truly great storytelling" anymore, it's a mindfuck. Nothing necessarily wrong with that ;)

2:15 Strawman - it doesn't take a "genius" to see the Emperor's clothes (hidden joke, har har -

[twooffour]

0:17 Not really, nothing indicates that he's LIVED or was conscious inbetween these moments.

If there's anything that the Monolith can be said to be doing to him here, it's more like "ok, here's you aging... summing up the aging process and all, just to symbolize something... but let's get on with it".

0:22 Oh, we can ask, but that's the point: the film gives no information, so EVERYTHING in that psychedelic sequence can be "asked" about. The point is, there are no answers.

[twooffour]

@MuEpsilonGamma

"Matthew isn't coming across as a total self-righteous douchebag"

He kinda does.

[Bassbait]

@SequentiallyCompact Ok, here's what it means - is there one proof in math that explains everything in mathematical existence? No. There are specific proofs for specific math areas. He's talking about blanket arguments - for example, using "GOD" as an argument to explain everything in the natural world doesn't actually explain anything about the natural world. Chase was saying that the way CM explains HTD could be used on any film and is therefore a worthless argument.

[elcap22]

what is that shelf of behind him? It looks like video tapes