[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 24 KB, 173x250, 2001_NAL.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3952166 No.3952166 [Reply] [Original]

should I watch the movie first before reading the novel?

>> No.3952183

always read novel first

>> No.3952193

>>3952183

but in this case it was published after the movie

>> No.3952199

To this day, I prefer the movie over the book. If you're lookinf for long story, a regular sci-fi, read the novels. But don't associate them with the movie(neither the terrible sequence), it stands alone.

>> No.3952214

>>3952166
No, that's fucking retarded, it's a Kubrick movie. That's like reading The Shining before watching it. Just watch the damned movie and never bother with the book.

>> No.3952276

>>3952214

this. the movie is more about aethetics than errything else. you can stop the film at nearly anytime, and make a poster out of the frame

>> No.3952305

>>3952276
Even more so in Barry Lyndon.

>> No.3952320

Kubrick didn't direct a single watchable film after 2001: A Space Odyssey.

>> No.3952322

The book and movie have a unique relationship, unlike any other that I can think of, in that Kubrick and Clarke were each making their own 2001s at the same time, conferring with each other as they go. In that sense, there is no authoritative version, each is an interpretation of an idea. I think the book sequel, though, follows Kubrick's variations on the book's plot, I believe. So, in short, do both or either one. Or don't fret it and try to enjoy your life.

>> No.3952330

>>3952320
Care to elaborate on that opinion?

>> No.3952332

>>3952320
>Kubrick didn't direct a single watchable film
Fixed that for you.

>> No.3952338

>>3952199
In my opinion you can't really compare cinema and literature. What you can compare though is its significance in the medium, and 2001 is worth more to cinema than the book to literature. In that case all of Stanley K's films are superior to the books, except for Lolita.

>> No.3952340

>>3952332
who do you like, then?

>> No.3952342

>>3952320
>>3952332
please don't feed the edgy trolls

>> No.3952347

>>3952332
Oh my goshhh, no explotions, so boring!!!!

haha, teenager shit, the grown ups are reading go back to harry potter

>> No.3952357

>>3952347
Kubrick is teenager shit.
>>3952340
I mostly watch silent and pre-Code Hollywood stuff, but there are some great later movements like the Czechslovak New Wave, the Italian neo-realists, Polish Film School etc.

>> No.3952360

>>3952330
A Clockwork Orange is basically Edgy: The Movie. Barry Lyndon is emotionally barren and boring, no matter how much they shot scenes in real candlelight. The Shining is probably trying to say something painfully naive about Native Americans and has a dreadful Shelley Duvall performance, which is entirely Kubrick's fault. Full Metal Jacket has a couple of funny lines in the first part, but they're nowhere near enough to redeem the terrible Vietnam scenes, shot in England and looking every bit like it. As for Eyes Wide Shut, not even Kubrick's fans pretend it's good.

>> No.3952361

>>3952357
Kubrick = best sci fi ever
What you mentioned = hipster crap you dig up to feel smart and probably dont have the cultural level to understand

>> No.3952363

>>3952360
My opinions exactly, and better put than I could.

>> No.3952366
File: 59 KB, 650x519, loser-laughing.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3952366

>>3952361
>sci-fi

>> No.3952367

>>3952357
heyo, I love all the things you mentioned to. I just happen to also like kubrick.

you're a rather pretentious little shit if you think you can just disregard kubrick simply because you know of more obscure things. by the way, the shining isn't about indians at all, and you completely failed to understand barry lyndon.

>> No.3952377

>>3952367
I like what I like because I enjoy it, not because it's obscure. And I haven't found anything that appeals to me in Kubrick's oeuvre.

>> No.3952378

>>3952377
you said 'kubrick is teenage shit'

there's a difference between watching his films and giving them their due respect and then not liking them and dismissing them as 'teenaged'

>> No.3952381

>>3952332
The Killing is an excellent heist film, Paths of Glory is is a pretty good humanisty thing, Dr. Strangelove is pretty funny and 2001 is groundbreaking. Everything after that is pretty bad.

>>3952367
How did I misunderstand Barry Lyndon? Was the barrenness intentional, perhaps? It still doesn't make it interesting to watch.

>> No.3952393

>>3952378
Not the same Anon, but his films certainly appeal to teenagers a lot.

>> No.3952394

>>3952378
Full Metal Jacket, 2001, and A Clockwork Orange didn't seem any different to me than all these contemporary Hollywood films aimed at teenaged boys.

>> No.3952397
File: 41 KB, 720x295, Manhattans-main-characters[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3952397

>>3952377
It's impossible to like the art of cinema yet dislike Kubrick. All directors claim he's one of the greatest of all time. Your pseudo-intellectual rants remind me of pic related

>> No.3952398

>>3952366
Obvious troll confirmed.
Not knowing the true genre of his time that truly expresses contemporary culture. You are the kind of person that only read when the big guys tell them its ok to read. Well don't worry little guy, one day i will authorize you to read sci fi and then you will be able to.

>> No.3952401

>>3952393
Not true at all

>> No.3952406

>>3952394
The film adaptation of A Clockwork Orange has to be one of the most overrated efforts in any medium ever.

>> No.3952408
File: 34 KB, 163x176, shiggydiggymahler.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3952408

>>3952360
>using edgy and boring as non-ironic arguments

>> No.3952410

>>3952397
>all directors claim he's one of the greatest of all time
>no source
You don't seem to understand the meaning of pseudo-intellectual. I've watched many films and read widely on them, so I think I have some inkling of knowledge.
Also, you'll feel more at home here: >>>/tv/.

>> No.3952412

>>3952408
now he's using overrated>>3952406

>> No.3952417

>>3952398
Personally, I would get more enjoyment from castrating myself.

>> No.3952416

>>3952401
Please, he's babby's first auteur after Tarantino.

>> No.3952415

>>3952410
>asks for source when a statement is made
>implying I need a source for common knowledge
Also, you'll feel more at home here: >>>/[insert board that's supposed to insult you here]/

>> No.3952422

>>3952410
>I've watched many films and read widely on them, so I think I have some inkling of knowledge.
yet you churn out awful shallow criticism like >>3952360

>> No.3952425

>>3952416
>popular=bad

>> No.3952426

>>3952422
Not the same Anon.

>> No.3952427

>>3952415
No, that was an entirely well-intentioned recommendation.
>>3952416
I don't think you could call either of them auteurs. Kubrick's infinitely better than Tarantino though, I'll give him that.

>> No.3952431
File: 38 KB, 400x400, 1344609462409.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3952431

>>3952416
>using babby's first in an argument
oh no, shit just got better and better

>> No.3952436

>>3952425
That wasn't quite the point, just that it's not unfair to call Kubrick's works "teenage shit" or whatever the exact phrase was, considering how appealing many teenagers find them.

>> No.3952444

>>3952436
>many teenagers find him appealing
>therefore it's teenage shit
Excellent argument, simply excellent
He's a lot more popular under adults, though.

>> No.3952450

>>3952444
But many adults have the same attention span as teenagers.

>> No.3952451

>>3952425
>popular=good

>> No.3952456

>>3952444
I hear lots of adults like Harry Potter too. Personally, I don't see why anyone past their teens would like A Clockwork Orange or Full Metal Jacket. Both are shallow efforts.

>> No.3952459

>>3952456
stop being an avant teen pls, you're not convincing anyone

>> No.3952460

>>3952408
>>3952412
Using edgy, boring, overrated, etc. are valid arguments, despite even my dislike of them being used. Considering it's [obviously] a subjectively-interpreted medium, if someone found something boring, that's a valid reason to not like it -- it's not as good of an argument as someone who will actually explain their grievances; but, it's acceptable, nevertheless.

Now, if the argument was about editing, plot, or the like, that's an objectively verifiable argument that can't be placated by edgy/boring/etc.

>> No.3952464
File: 2.87 MB, 320x240, 1360179226223.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3952464

>>3952357
>I mostly watch silent and pre-Code Hollywood stuff, but there are some great later movements like the Czechslovak New Wave, the Italian neo-realists, Polish Film School etc.

>> No.3952468

>>3952459
How about you convince me instead by explaining why A Clockwork Orange and Full Metal Jacket are great films?

>> No.3952466

>>3952460
I never said they were invalid, I just won't take someone seriously who uses those words as serious arguments against art
>reading comprehension

>> No.3952467

>>3952460
In a situation like this, one has to give one's immediate emotional reaction since a full review (at least a good one) would also require multiple viewings, viewings of certain other films and some background reading.

>> No.3952470

>>3952468
>what is burden of proof

>> No.3952476

>>3952470
>Dawkinsian film theory

>> No.3952477

>>3952470
So you have no idea why they're supposedly good but get upset when someone questions their brilliance.

>> No.3952484

>>3952477
Let me outline the reasons that Kubrick is a GOAT director:
1. just because
2. you're a pretensious pseudo-intellectual
Conclusive as fuck.

>> No.3952488

>>3952477
Personally I just like to attack pseudo-intellectuals like you who claim to like these obscure films and disregard Kubrick as 'teenage shit' 'unwatchable'. Whereupon the pseudo-intellectual is asked to elaborate why, whereupon he asks me why not. Very weak.

>> No.3952489

>>3952484
You just lost the argument.

>> No.3952495

>>3952468


Burgess's novel is filled with unique language and harrowing acts of violence, so it seemed almost natural that Kubrick would try his hand at adapting it to film. By being faithful to the themes and language in the novel and adding a few strokes of his genius, he has created one of the best adaptions of a piece of literature to film.

It is a difficult novel to get into as Alex and his mates have a language of their own. The film does not compromise here and manages to capture the rich and literate text really well. He sticks so close to it that it at points felt like a re-read of the novel. The way they speak has a somewhat archaic and sometimes childlike quality to it. This serves a very important purpose as it distances us from what's going on and makes us an objective observer. It allows us to experience the full impact of what we see/read be it comical or shocking. This is at its heart a social satire, which is enhanced by the quaintness and estrangement the language provides.

Kubrick adds a lot to the novel. The visual representation of this unspecified future he distills from it is astonishing. It is vulgar and vibrant on the outside of the prison, grim and sober on the inside. He clearly sees Alex as an artist. Whenever Alex performs an act of violence, Kubrick accompanies it with classical music, thus turning it into a performance. The best example of this is the 'singing in the rain' scene, a scene devised by Kubrick himself. Whenever someone else acts violently, there is silence, no music whatsoever. This would suggest that violence for Alex is an experience, one Kubrick tries to emulate for his audience.

The main difference between novel and film lie in two things. Kubrick's interpretation of Alex and the ending. Kubrick sees Alex as someone who is evil because he is evil, not worthy of redemption. Burgess's Alex is a victim. An example to illustrate this is the fact that in the film Alex chooses to participate in the experiment voluntarily so he can leave prison sooner, while in the novel he's forced into it.

The original ending to the novel shows us Alex who lives a somewhat rehabilitated life in the final chapter. Burgess believed that even someone as evil as him could reform. This ending was excluded from the American version of the novel, so apparently Kubrick never read that final chapter and thus excluded it from his film, giving us a much darker ending in which our 'hero' is at his core an evil human being. He stated that even after reading the official ending he still preferred the darker interpretation of the story.

Kubrick's interest in exploring man's basest urges and the vanity of man serve this film really well. In a story that searches for the roots of violence we touch upon deeper matters like retribution and the fallacy of human pettiness. No other filmmaker could have told this story the way Kubrick has making this a completely unique experience.

>> No.3952501

>>3952488
If you read the thread, there are criticisms of Kubrick. Perhaps not the most profound, but this is an image board. However, I've yet to see a single person arguing for Kubrick's brilliance based on anything in the works themselves. All you are doing is throw around words like pseudo-intellectual, appeal to authority and insist the critics didn't understand something with no further elaboration.

>> No.3952502

>>3952495
That just tells us that a bad director chose to make a bad film based on an awful book by a bad author.

>> No.3952505

>>3952501
see>>3952495

>>3952502
No it doesn't

>> No.3952529

>>3952495
This is a good post. Thank you for writing it.

Kubrick is certainly technically proficient and had an interesting take on the novel. However, I don't think the finished film was worth the effort. We watch a reprehensible human being doing reprehensible things, after which others do him the same. What exactly is the thematic point? Society is bad? Some people are fundamentally evil? Aside from the shock value of watching a disturbing story told very well, I don't think there's much to the film.

>> No.3952531

>>3952501
If you read the thread, someone said his films are shit after 2001. Then he is asked to elaborate and he doesn't say a lot except things like 'boring' 'edgy' 'overratted' 'teenage shit' 'babby's first author'. What can I do with these words devoid of any profound criticism? Convince him why it's not boring? He'll just shout the same words over and over, or name-drop obscure directors and film schools to 'prove' his superiority and make us believe his shallow opinions are worth anything, like a pseudo-intellectual would do. So yes, I was only pointing out the fellow in question adheres to the definition of pseudo-intellectual, rather than discussing why Kubrick is not 'teenage shit'.

>> No.3952539

>>3952529
This. The film's premise is not entirely different to that of The Human Centipede or the Saw series, with added misogyny and that irritating and unnecessary cant.

>> No.3952542

>>3952529
>What is exactly the thematic point?
Does there have to be a thematic point? Keep in mind that film is primarily a visual medium.

>>3952539
Don't be silly.

>> No.3952552

>>3952539
Oh, and I forgot the forcibly inserted Freudian imagery.

>> No.3952577

>>3952542
The film does point at various themes, however. Repressive societies, the nature of evil, hypocrisy, art, etc. It just fails to do anything particularly interesting with them. The one thing it develops even vaguely is a sort of extreme defence of individualism, even when it's Alex's violence as art as discussed by >>3952495. However, I'm unable to take it seriously. It seems like nothing more than a pose to underline the film's -forgive me- edginess.

As for The Human Centipede and Saw, they're of course not nearly as well made, but is there a qualitative difference between them and ACO?