#185- 2001: A Space Odyssey

Quick recap: A group of scientists find a monolith buried on the moon and set off toward Jupiter in order to learn more about who might have placed it there. Oh, and there’s a crazy computer that wreaks havoc.

I feel like The Simpsons is just one long 2001 reference I feel like The Simpsons is just one long 2001 reference

Fun (?) fact: Conspiracy theorists (AKA nutjobs) claim that 2001: A Space Odyssey being released so closely to the moon landing is not a coincidence. They (the nutjobs) think that Kubrick directed the landing and used leftover props from his movie.

Ruffles

My thoughts: As I have come to learn with Kubrick films, they are infinitely more enjoyable on the big screen. I had the opportunity to watch 2001: A Space Odyssey at the Drafthouse and it was every bit as awe inspiring as I expected it to be. The Drafthouse played the entire thing-from overture, to intermission, to ending credits so that we, the audience, would have the full effect of the movie. It is a classic for sure, and yet I have no idea what the hell it is all about.

In writing that, though, I am fulfilling what Kubrick wanted. He said in interviews that he never meant ambiguity but he also said that he doesn’t expect anyone to fully ‘get’ it because it is open to interpretation. As pretentious as that sounds, I like that idea. My personal belief is that the movie is about evolution and the monolith represents the next step. Maybe it was set up by aliens? I don’t know. When Dave passes through all the light and ends up in the neoclassical room, I think it’s because he has seen the inside of the monolith, evidently all of time and space. As he progresses in age and finally back to fetus, he represents the ‘birth’ of a new age for Earth, something even more exciting to come. I have no idea if I am right and I don’t really care because that’s just not the point.

A guy next to me evidently hated the whole movie and when he left, scoffed and said that Star Wars was much better, in terms of special effects. I didn’t punch him, although I don’t think anyone would have stopped me. Aside from that guy (who also called the ‘intermission’, the ‘intervention’), I think most people would agree how amazing the whole movie looked. It’s so hard to believe it was shot in the ’60s and I was most impressed by how realistic space travel was portrayed. This is a very visual movie, which sounds redundant, but it’s not. There is very little dialogue throughout the whole thing, but there is so much too look at. It’s almost too much at times and I can see why so many people devote their lives to trying and figuring out all the symbolism.

The main reason the Drafthouse showed 2001: A Space Odyssey was because it is part of their ‘soundtrack’ series, which showcases movies with great soundtracks. So it’s a no brainer to include this film. Every note was put in place perfectly and set the mood for each scene in a way no other film I have seen does. The music heard when the monolith is first seen on the moon is terrifying and for good reason. It sounded like angry bee people or something and I actually felt an uneasiness throughout the entire scene. What also impressed me was how the absence of sound or music could be as equally terrifying. When HAL cuts the oxygen cord from the astronaut and sends him hurtling into space, that scene scared me as much as any other scene in a horror movie could have done.

Final review: 5/5. Go see it if you haven’t yet, but only watch it if you have chance to see it in a theater. I don’t see how a television could do it justice.

Up next: Fantastic Planet

#175- Raging Bull

Quick recap: Jake LaMotta was a talented boxer in the 1940s and also a huge jerk.

aww true love <3 (This was wife #2 of 7, btw)

aww true love ❤
(This was wife #2 of 7, btw)

Fun (?) fact: To make the sound effect for punching, sound technician Frank Warner squashed melons and tomatoes

Raging_Bull_wallpapers_3685

My thoughts: Is it wrong to like a movie simply because it is the ‘anti-movie’ of something else? I didn’t love Rocky because it felt too inspirational and didn’t match up with my belief that boxing is a very violent sport. Raging Bull definitely shows the opposite and cutting all the inspirational crap endeared it to me a bit. I’ve never been a fan of sports movies precisely because they are too sweet and rely heavily on the flawed character to save the day. Jake LaMotta is ALL flawed character (and still alive at 98!) and no real redemption, which made it the perfect ‘anti-Rocky’.

Without a doubt, Raging Bull should be seen for the acting alone. Joe Pesci and Robert De Niro were phenomenal as brothers Joey and Jake LaMotta. I have no idea how accurate the film is, but De Niro’s performance especially made me believe that I was watching the real thing. Most people are impressed by the boxing scenes and how realistic they were (and many did involve real punching), but I was more impressed by how well De Niro was able to show his character’s downfall. The final scene where LaMotta is practicing the monologue from On the Waterfront, many years after giving up boxing was the perfect ending to such a sad movie.

Final review: 5/5. Not my favorite movie, but a masterpiece nonetheless.

Up next: the Umbrellas of Cherbourg

#173-The Battle of Algiers

Quick recap: Although I’d like to just sum up the movie by saying, ‘It’s about the Battle of Algiers, duh,’ I’ll resist the snark for now. Algeria is a country in Africa that up until the early 1960s was under French rule. This movie tells the story of the uprising that lead to the country’s eventual independence.

No, not an up and coming indie rock band

No, not an up and coming indie rock band

Fun (?) fact: The Pentagon screened this movie in 2003 for officers heading into Iraq, where we had a little invading of our own to do. They passed around fliers that said, ‘How to win a battle against terrorism and lose the war of ideas.’

The Clash is now stuck in my head.

The Clash is now stuck in my head.

My thoughts:  This movie made me sad for many reasons, a big one being that I can’t make fun of it because it was actually good. I had all these witty things planned about The Battle of Algiers, which I can never use now because I was absolutely fascinated the whole time. Oh, and the gruesome torture scenes. Those were sad, too.

I was only slightly aware of what the Algerian war was, and the little information I had came from the movie Wild Reeds.  I understand why it’s not heavily talked about in the US: a) because it had nothing to do with us and b) because it makes the French government look really bad. When I think of Colonialism, I think of the early 1900s, not the 1950s so it was weird to merge that time period with something so antiquated. I wasn’t able to find how accurate The Battle of Algiers was, but the main events are all true. The movie is shot documentary style, and it made it feel like I was watching a history lesson or a special on the news.

Adding to that style of filmmaking, most of the actors in the movie were mostly unknowns who were cast because of their resemblance to the real people involved. The movie is subtitled in French so I can’t really get a feel as to how the acting shapes up, but I will say that everything felt ‘real’, especially the riot scenes. The torture scenes were incredibly difficult to watch but even more so were the effects of the bombings from the Algerians as well as the French. It’s simply hard to believe that such a thing happened in modern times.

Final review: 5/5. Many scenes are hard to watch, but the movie provides a great beginning point for someone wanting to expand their knowledge.

Up next: The Matrix

#172- Being There

Quick recap: A man who isn’t very bright somehow gets himself wrapped up with some of America’s most powerful politicians

 (Photo by Cooper Neill/WireImage)

(Photo by Cooper Neill/WireImage)

Fun (?) fact: from IMDb, because I couldn’t have said it any better, “The inscription “Life is a state of mind” is on Rand’s tomb and also serves as the last line in the movie. These words were also inscribed on Peter Sellers’ own tomb, when he died a year after the movie was released.

My thoughts: This movie was wonderful but it is so difficult to settle on why exactly I loved it so much. Being There is one of those movies where you spend the entire time feeling sorry for the protagonist, almost cringing at times, yet wanting him to succeed despite it all. A couple of examples come to mind: 40 Year Old Virgin and Stranger than Fiction (but not Forrest Gump. A different rant for a different day, my friends).

So, on a completely superficial level, the premise of this movie is hilarious. Peter Sellers plays Chance the gardener, who is LITERALLY a gardener and everything he says has to do with either gardening or tv, another favorite past time. At one point, Chance gets an opportunity to sit down with the President and talk about the economy. The President wants to know Chance’s thoughts on its current state and he responds by naming the different seasons. The President interprets what Chance is saying as the economy is growing and will continue to grow with a proper gardener. Women are just as enamored as the President is and with every weird thing Chance does, people see it as something profound.

Being There is as deep as you make it. Like Chance the gardener, the movie itself is a vacuum for which you can project whatever meaning you would like. Racial inequality? Political ineptitude? The clueless rich? It’s all there for the interpretation. Or you could just sit back and laugh because it’s good for that, too.

Final review: 5/5. Also, Satine from Moulin Rouge absolutely recreates a scene from this movie. If not for anything else, watch Being There for that.

Up next: The Battle of Algiers