After futile attempts to gather a small group of people to embark on
what will be the first of many movie nights, and availing in not one seized
invitation, I began the first movie night alone at 10:30. Tonight’s short film
and feature length film are two iconic and fantastic films. The first is George
Méliès’ most recognizable Voyage dans la
lune. Coupled, en suite, with another pioneering sci-fi masterpiece: 2001: A Space Odyssey by Stanley
Kubrick.
Trip to the
Moon
I took it upon myself to find Trip
to the Moon on the internet, and stumbled upon the colorized version of the
film found in 1993 and was promptly restored. A new score was added and, amazingly,
was put on YouTube for people; that both film aficionados and Joe Schmos could watch
and enjoy. And so, falling squarely in both those two camps, I watched and I
enjoyed.
What I admired about this small 15 minutes 37 second film is how ahead
of its time it really was. Perhaps not Méliès best, but certainly his most recognizable
and iconic film, most people recognize the striking man in the moon, having
his eye missiled in by the rocket. This
two-reeler is not without its charms. Combining Carollesque fantasy with surrealistic
and dreamlike imagery, 20 years before it was mode. It tells the story of a
group of aristocrats going to the moon, and upon encountering, and consequently
battling Selenites (Moon people), they return to Earth with one of the
Selenites in tow. The backdrops of the film blend in with the forefront topiary and scenery
perfectly, and the costumes for the film are extravagant, and I assume
colorful, because Méliès oversaw the hand painted colorization of some of the
prints of the film. And I’m sure he wanted them to match the actual costumes used on
set during filming. George was, no doubt, inspired by the two great 19th century
sci-fi writers H.G. Wells and Jules Verne, and even used Verne’s “From the Earth to the Moon” as direct inspiration. He used many
effects and spectacle in the film: fire, and smoke, and feu d’artifice are used to great effect. He also
used fades, and innovated showing the same shot, but interpreting it two
different ways, as with the rocket landing. First, in the moon’s eye, and
secondly on the lunar surface. The climax of the film shows a striking similarity
to what eventually would happen with lunar missions once they re-entered the
atmosphere. Crash landing in water, being brought to land via boat, and having
fanfare and fêtes with the adoring public. This is a fun, fanciful, iconic, and
classic piece of cinema that, in 2002 became the first work designated as a UNESCO World Heritage film. This film has
been studied and admired ever since its release in France in 1902, and remains
a dear gem in the firmament of cinematic history.
***1/2
2001: A Space
Odyssey
A black screen and the chilling music begin to crescendo, and then fades,
starts back up again, and so on. Then,
the Zarathustra music chimes in. This is a musical odyssey the just beckons us
to jump in and experience the visual imagery and complexity between man and
machine that is soon to follow. 2001
is a compelling and adored piece of cinema. Many interviews with filmmakers
will point to this film as one of their favorites; one of the first movies that
made them want to make film. Many of the New Hollywood directors will agree
that this is a masterpiece and was a direct influence on them and the work that
followed. Take George Lucas, for instance. One can only imagine how many times
he watched this movie as the germs of his Star
Wars were growing to ideas and scenes. What strikes me about this film is
how the present is in the background. The scenes represent the past (as with
the dawn of man scenes), and the future, but it doesn’t delve into what would
be the present for the movie going audience. Yet, the present permeates the
celluloid. The tone (i.e. the sentiments of a world embarking on new
technologies, and exploring to yet unexplored places) is consistent with the
feelings of the world at that time. The women in the film are also familiar and
placed in the present, as opposed to the outlandish interpretations of fashion
and technology that other futuristic films would latch on to.
2001 certainly coincided with many events that, I’m sure, helped propel
itself into the pantheon of great cinema. The way Citizen Kane with its film
techniques and historicity did for it. The United States and Soviet Union were
in a Cold War battle to put the first man on the moon, and the Apollo Missions
were in full swing when this film made its way to theatres in 1968. In
addition, Von Däniken’s “Chariots of the Gods?” explored controversial
subject matter that is also touched on in 2001,
namely aliens interaction with our progenitors that served as a catalyst in our
development into the intelligent, cultural, and undisputed superior species on
the planet. The same audience that saw 2001,
made Von Däniken’s book a best seller.
The use of advertisement for Pan Am, Southwestern Bell and even Hilton
Hotels, although noticeable, is not as in your face as modern product
placement is today. Too bad no one then would have known that PanAm would have folded as
a company a decade before 2001, and Southwestern Bell now looking much
different as a company. But as much of a genius as Kubrick was, I think we can
forgive him of his lack of prophetic vision in that regard. But other designs
and props made for this film did seem to be almost prophetic. The use of
robotics, drinkable meals, a talking personal assistance within an operating
system, the iPad, and video phones are all shown in this film.
The film is symmetric and beautiful. There are hints of humor, and heaps
of awe-inspiring cinema. There are a wide range of static shots or panning
shots that align with simplistic and symmetric composition. The use of film and
the times of the day in which Kubrick shot at, coupled with the exposure time during post production make this a beautiful and rich looking film. Add high definition to the mix and
it is a luscious sight. The object of our focus is always brilliantly placed,
most often in the center of the shot (hence the symmetry), the music is
haunting and poetic. The use of the fish eye lens is refreshing, and not overly
or annoyingly used. The minimalistic dialogue coupled with ominous sound
effects of screaming, breathing, sharp and high-pitched noises makes this film
extra nuanced. The special effects were ahead of its time and were put to good use in the film. Many of
the colors schemes within the sets,
reflected lighting on helmets, and toward the end, with its use of slit-scan
photography, give this film a very “out of this world” feel. Kubrick’s use of
large rotating rigs with stationary cameras would be used and copied years
later in the blockbuster Inception. Kubrick’s
innovative use of the bone and satellite match-cut is undeniably iconic. The
main character Dave’s kaleidoscopic voyage we take prior to the climax of the
film is both strange and inviting. Causing the viewer to want to see what’s beyond the
oozing abyss, or what’s behind the colorful plateaus and peaks. As we approach
the end, the film leaves us on stage in a fever dream ballet. Then into the metaphysical nightmare as we
voyeuristically view Dave getting older, only to be reborn and looking on at
the orb we presently live; he, now, voyeuristically looking at us. What does
this film really mean? Who really knows? What is it trying to say? I’m not
sure. This does deal with some very important issues including: intelligence,
exploration, extraterrestrial intelligence, artificial intelligence, reliance
on technology, philosophical identity of self, and much more. What can be said
about this film is that nothing like this had ever been seen before, and much
of the art we have, and many of the films we now enjoy have either been directly or indirectly
influenced by Kubrick and his masterpiece 2001:
A Space Odyssey. Many people get bored when they watch this, but I have
seen it now a half dozen times, and, though it’s bizarre and perplexing, it is
also beautiful and thought-provoking. A true and rare piece of art; an
inspiration. A great film. Thus spake the great Kubrick!
****1/2
I appreciate your in depth analysis of 2001 although I do not share the same love for it. Even though I do see the imagery and the importance of the time, it is, in the end, boring to the casual viewer like me. I believe he loved his work too much which caused the scenes to drag on. Now Trip to the Moon on the other hand was amazing. It is still a feat in special effects and nothing was done even close to it for another 50 years. It is still entertaining to all viewers and you're left wondering how it was done so long ago. I'm excited to read these this year.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your attention and for your comment, Kito!
DeleteThis was an insightful commentary and I look forward to your future explorations.
ReplyDeleteWhat makes Melies particularly fascinating me is that his work was produced at a time when film had little to no rules or conventions. He could do virtually anything--that much open freedom would likely daunt most modern film makers included myself. He relished in it though. He grabbed any and all materials and techniques at his disposal and made whatever came into his mind in a way that only "sweded" films from Be Kind Rewind could now do. There are a couple of thematic things that don't sit right with me in "A Trip to the Moon", such as the the colonialist themes of discovering a foreign place and people (e.g. Africans) and then dominating and eventually enslaving one of them. However, it is overall a delightful adventure that in many ways gave birth do both the modern sci-fi and action films; how could I not love that?!
Kubrick was also exceptionally visionary like Melies. As a pure auteur, he had very specific ideas in mind and his success was in how awesome he was in communicating them--both to those who he worked with and to the audience. However, I have recently learned that he also didn't allow his distinct vision to get in the way of others' great ideas. For example, he gave Peter Sellers freedom enough to improvise certain moments in Dr. Strangelove (my personal favorite of Kubrick's) in that he came up with the line "Mein Fuhrer" at the end on his own. Kubrick's voice often renders itself a bit harsh to be considered delightful by me in any way, but that's not what he intended to do either. I think he came from the School of Thought that if you had something worthwhile to say, why not shout it from the rooftops rather than whisper it. The way he innovated the cinematic language to speak his mind was nothing short of masterful. I haven't seen 2001 in a long time, and to be honest, moments like the overture with the space station at the beginning seemed very sloggish to my teenage self. However, you have inspired me to give it another go and see how I can enjoy it now.
Thanks D! You can even watch what I will watch. I'll post the upcoming pairing the week I watch them.
ReplyDelete