[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]

succeeded in this unusual aspiration. Speech occupies a mere forty minutes of the
film s running time and is absent in two of the four sections, so it is downgraded in
quantitative as well as qualitative terms. It has to be conceded that 2001 is predomi-
nantly a feast for the eyes, but this is no justification for Kubrick s denigration of dia-
logue. He gets tentative support from Richard I. Pope:  Maybe Kubrick is saying that
 current everyday usage of language is pretty boring; we just don t see it as such
because we re busy using it. In 2001, he is just (im)possibly  showing us this. 18
The snag is that this line of reasoning offers a licence for presenting any trite mate-
rial under the guise of showing life as it is. Everyday language may be boring, but
film dialogue can never be a realistic representation given the compression and the
dramatic and stylistic decisions involved. Two men would not spend weeks together
without discussing sex or sport, but at least forenames are used, which is an advance
on Dr Floyd s story. Given the film s philosophical aspirations, it is hard to consider
the leaden dialogue as anything other than a failing. Mediocrity draws attention to
itself, distracting audiences and disrupting their involvement in the fantasy being
laid before them. Matters are made worse in 2001 by the space suits, which obscure
2001: A Space Odyssey (GB/US, 1968) " 113
the actors body language, while the lighting and camera angles smooth away facial
expressions. It is not surprising that HAL displays more emotion than the humans.
As the science fiction writer Ray Bradbury puts it:  The freezing touch of Antonioni,
whose ghost haunts Kubrick, has turned everything here to ice. 19
The relationship between man and machine has a long pedigree in the cinema and
has been the subject of divergent approaches. The societal view represented by Me-
tropolis (Fritz Lang, Germany, 1927), À nous la liberté and Modern Times focuses
on the regimentation associated with the factory system. The characters in 2001 are
dependent on technology, from the voice recognition system which validates Floyd s
identity to the zero gravity toilet which so fascinates him. Technology sustains life,
but it also constrains the astronauts, the one-way video transmission from Frank s
parents and the bland food being examples. The alternative cinematic approach to
the man-machine conundrum is psychological, with the machine assuming human
powers. Frankenstein (James Whale, US, 1931) spawned a host of imitators. Ku-
brick and Clarke attempted to combine both traditions. The ideas they used were
common currency: in  A for Andromeda (Michael Hayes, BBC TV, 1961), a signal
from space provides instructions for building a computer. The computer in 2001
assumes a surveillance role, monitoring Dave and Frank s conversations. HAL can
make decisions, most dramatically when it turns off the hibernating astronauts life
support systems. Kubrick seemed ambivalent about this battle of wills, removing
dialogue which would have revealed HAL s growing sense of paranoia.20 Comput-
ers might have the power of life or death, but when Dave disconnects HAL, it is a
pyrrhic victory for mankind which dodges the question of how he continues with his
mission unaided. Kubrick illustrates how technology may change us and potentially
overwhelm us, but this was hardly new. Claudia Zimny concurs with Frederick Nel-
son in defending the film s dehumanization on the grounds that Kubrick is breaking
with the illusion of psychological depth. She disagrees with Nelson s contention that
Kubrick shows the insignificance of the individual when confronted by space. For
Zimny, insignificance is the consequence of depriving characters of their humanity,
as the relationship of the tool and its creator is reversed with increasing technological
sophistication.21 Kubrick risked alienating critics and audiences. The risk came off
in the sense that the film is still talked about after forty years. The cost in Bradbury s
terms is turning everything to ice.
In the view of Don Daniels and F. Anthony Macklin, 2001 is a satire.22 Dr Strange-
love demonstrates that Kubrick could tackle black comedy, though for 2001 he had
a strong and idiosyncratic script collaborator in Arthur C. Clarke and no Peter Sell-
ers in the lead. There are moments of sly humour in the second section, such as the
Orbiter Hilton Hotel logo glimpsed in the background as Floyd talks to the Rus-
sians, but these are so fleeting that they cannot transform the film into satire. The
interchange between HAL and the two astronauts on the voyage to Jupiter could
be considered satirical as they defer to the computer, but again these moments are
fleeting and the actors do not play the scenes for humour. To do so would humanize
114 " Movie Greats
the characters, which Kubrick resists. Humour seems incompatible with his aims. A
comparison is with Buñuel, who blends visual style and black comedy while exploit-
ing dialogue and showing more respect for his actors.
Music cannot help introducing feeling into the film. Alex North s original score
was rejected by Kubrick, who opted for an eclectic mix of pieces. Trying to pin
precise feelings to music is notoriously difficult, though Jenefer Robinson makes
a valiant attempt.23 As she cautions, the emotions expressed by music may be dif-
ferent from the emotions it arouses. She cites the example of  Jingle Bells , which
makes her sad because it reminds her of Christmases of yesteryear while not being
intrinsically sad.24 Context is crucial. Music may have a more direct physiological
effect on the emotions than other stimuli.25 The complicating factor in film is that the
director intervenes between audiences and performers by matching music to image. [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]

  • zanotowane.pl
  • doc.pisz.pl
  • pdf.pisz.pl
  • supermarket.pev.pl

    •