Jumpin said:
Sounds like it might be right up your alley then! The ability to watch films from an alternative mindset beyond what most of us learned growing up—just having a story told to us. And, in this case, something to experience and interpret. Kubrick and Clarke made the tangible elements of the film vague because they wanted audiences to experience the intangible - like emotion and the surfacing of subconscious thoughts (like an indescribable feeling you might have once felt in a dream, that’s laying at the back of the mind). And then, there are the interpretations of the tangible elements and what they might mean to different people: the monolith (for example) could represent alien uplifting, God, or something more symbolic - like the manifestation of intellect on top of the basal drives to dominate natural selection in human evolution… but, I think modern audience will experience this a little differently because those elements are engrained in our popular culture—even our videogames, like SimEarth and Xenogears. I think my gateway into more artistic films was Alfred Hitchcock’s Vertigo. Granted, that film is based very much on the plot/story, but it is blurry around the edges and has a ton of artistic elements within it. When I first saw it, I thought it was a mildly interesting film, but I still much preferred other Hitchcock films like Rear Window. But that all changed around the time I hit my thirties. |
I watched Poor Things a few weeks ago, it was wonderfully mad and quite a show. It gave me David Lynch vibes, and the acting performances are incredible. Kudos to huge, established actors who take part in experimental films and go out on a limb.
I'm adding 2001: A Space Odyssey to my purchase list for sure, I'll be doing a round of shopping some time this summer or in early fall.









