Space Oddities: 2001 A Space Odyssey Review

Fig 1.

When watching Stanley Kubricks '2001: A Space Odyssey' there are several defining moments that you will have seen manipulated or transformed in some way throughout the history of cinema post 'A Space Odyssey'. As James Berardinelli said "Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey. Despite gaining additional adherents and growing more respected with each passing day."(J. Berardinelli)  With this film there is a much deeper meaning then simply the plot. In a way this is a plus due to the difficulty to fully understand the story without leaving the viewing full of confusion and thought. You can see similarity's from this film with recent blockbusters such as Interstellar. Not only that but shows such as The Simpsons have had their own versions of this story by Kubrick. This shows us how influential this motion picture has been for cinematography, still being referenced years after its initial release. 

Fig 2.

Throughout the film there is very little character development that takes place. This is partially because Kubrick was focusing on something deeper then just the characters and their journey through the story, but rather focusing on the viewers journey. We can see this from a quote from Rodger Eberts review on the film "There is hardly any character development in the plot, then, as a result little suspense. What remains fascinating is the fanatic care with which Kubrick has built his machines and achieved his special effects." (R. Ebert 1968). Another reason in which it is believed that character development was kept to a minimal is due to the state of the character. You jump from characters to characters and there are times where you wont see the character again once the switch has happened. Such as the apes at the start for example. Not only that but one of the main characters is a computer named Hal. The way in which Kubrick depicted this sinister machine was brilliant. He was subtle yet slowly used to portray a view that may have been from Kubrick which might possibly be to not trust machines. 

Fig 3.

Another aspect you can see come through with the inspiration of this film is simply the time of production. The film was made in the late 60's, a time where a lot of people would consume psychedelic drugs. One of the main scenes is when David Bowman ( Keir Dullea) enters the space time tunnel. Kubrick uses a lot of different coloured and streaking flashing lights which many people have described as a 'trip'. This can been seen even from viewers who have not consumed any substances, it feels as if you're being drawing through the portal a long with Bowman. The use of the high speed zooming and the alteration of the lights is visually stimulating and also a very impressive piece of visual effects for the time. We can see the influence of the time due to the reaction of the audience when it first was out in cinema. As Bill Gibron said in his review when talking about viewing the movie for the first time " 2001 wasn’t done screwing with my underdeveloped brain. Not by a long shot. As the scent of marijuana mixed with Tic Tacs filled the theater, that infamous space baby made his grand finale entrance, and frankly, I was floored." (Bill Gibron, 2005).

2001: A Space Odyssey is one of the films that will always be a classic and revolutionary in the cinematic world. The complexity of the idea and the plot joined in with the endless meanings behind it. Not only that but just the experience that it can bring to the viewer, in past or present. This will be a film that will stay in your mind and you will not forget about for a good amount of time to come, if its the extensiveness of Kubricks prolonging methods or about the difficulty to understand and comprehend what you just watched. 

Bibliography

Fig 1 - http://www.strangehorizons.com/2010/20101018/2001movie.gif

Fig 2 - https://1989nineteeneightynine.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/2001-a-space-odyssey-hal9000-hd-wallpapers.jpg 

Fig 3 - http://cdn-static.denofgeek.com/sites/denofgeek/files/styles/article_main_half/public/images/326502.jpg?itok=V4fIY7NU 

References 

Berardinelli, J. - http://www.reelviews.net/reelviews/2001-a-space-odyssey

Ebert, R.(1968) - http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/2001-a-space-odyssey-1968

Gibron, B. (2005) - http://www.popmatters.com/feature/2001-a-space-odyssey-050802/

Space Oddities: King Kong (1933)

When talking about classic stand out, revolutionary films, King Kong (1933) will appear on the majority of peoples list. This timeless classic has a story so different to anything prior to it viewers found it extremely intriguing and it was a completely new cinematic experience. Directed by Merian C. Cooper and Ernest B. Schoedsack, King Kong was different from many of the films of the time such as Metropolis (1927) in the way that even though it was only produced 6 years later it actually contained dialogue sound, whereas Metropolis was a silent film with a score put over it for dramatic effects. We can see this point backed up from Almar Hifladason " "King Kong" defies such limited expectations because it was so ahead of its time."(Almar Hifladason 2001) This is a huge just in cinema history, even though Kong was not the first film to contain dialogue it was one of the bigger original ones making it stand out to viewers everywhere.

Fig 1.

                   

When watching King Kong there are a few things that particularity stand out. One of these was the use of different background objects to portray depth and also allowed Cooper and Schoedsack to take the viewers to different lands that didn't exist and would have been hard to travel to or to build at the time of production. The way in which they would do this is by having the front of the stage filled with actors on a set within a studio. They would then use smaller objects in the distance to try and use perspective to make it appear to be in some cases hundreds of meters away. Then behind this layer of smaller objects we would see the main background of  the set created by a matte painting. The use of these three different factors allowed scenes to take place and not just appear to be a different setting but it would draw the viewer in to try and inspect to see what was causing these visually enticing effects.  

Fig 2.

Another aspect of King Kong that stands out to the modern viewer is how trapped in time this film is. We can see the racial stereotypes of the time come through with the portrayal of both Kong and the people of Skull Island. At the time of filming people of different races where in segregation. People of colour where seen as less of a person then white people. We can see this from where Rodger Ebert said "Modern viewers will shift uneasily in their seats during the stereotyping of the islanders in a scene where a bride is to be sacrificed to Kong"(Rodger Ebert 2002) When watching this film in our current times you can immediately see how the time difference comes into play with the portrayal of the Asian man on the ship, he was dressed in stereotypical clothing and was made to preform stereotypical actions. We can also see this racial divide when it came to portraying the people of Skull Island. They where shown preforming actions which can be seen as very offensive and if this film was produced in modern times then it definitely would not have been produced the way in which it was. As disturbing as the stereotypes and segregation is it is also very interesting to watch as it is almost a window back in time. You get to see the attitudes towards different people over 80 years ago. 

Fig 3.

We can also see the obsession with race, that was going on at the time of production, within the relationship between Kong and Fay Wray, the blonde hair woman. It is said that Kong's obsession with Fay Wray is to represent the desire of interracial relationships of the time.

Regardless of all of these outdated stereotyping and controversy King Kong is still seen as one of the all time greatest monster films made. This is clear in the simple face that the story has been remade twice to allow viewers to see the spectacle in better quality. Even though the remakes have been in better quality it is hard to remake the nostalgia from the original and just knowing that is what set the ways for so many of today's blockbusters. As Mark Smith from the LA Times said " "King Kong" has come to epitomize one of Hollywood's earliest, best and funniest (often unintentionally so) attempts at horror fantasy--it's evolved into monster kitsch. The story, like "Frankenstein" and "Dracula," has taken on the significance of a modern folk tale, layered with obvious moralizing and as familiar as personal history." (Mark Smith 1991).

Bibliography
Fig 1 - http://cine-real.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/116.jpg

Fig 2 - https://burrellosubmarinemovies.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/kingkong1933-mood.jpg

Fig 3 - https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhgWoOVIFrMayukqwNpQIeEYtnc-xYabDmJSFXuSud_JqbUTfUZXO-4S4vlL3JF1yVB98QuJp-Ne2FKwpb_OwFA_LT1A2cBzszzjsSFbybCGDXDUjdPA7cZXLj4FWDPmFgRijt_kcGV8mI/s1600/King-Kong-1933-film-crew-Skull-Island-natives.png

References
HAFLIDASON, A. (2001) - http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2001/01/30/king_kong_1933_review.shtml

EBERT, R. (2002) - http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-king-kong-1933

SMITH, M. (1991) - http://articles.latimes.com/1991-10-24/news/ol-253_1_king-kong

Space Oddities: Metropolis (1927) Film Review

When thinking of the original impact films that paved the way for today's cinematic industry it would be impossible to overlook Fritz Lang's 'Metropolis' (1927). Just from viewing this film you can see how actions and techniques where used in some of today's most influential films. When trying to describe the plot of the movie and what it is about this can be challenging to an extent as there is such confusion yet understanding. As Rodger Ebert said "The movie has a plot that defies common sense, but its very discontinuity is a strength. It makes "Metropolis" hallucinatory--a nightmare without the reassurance of a steadying story line." Rodger Ebert (1998). The film has an underlying eeriness about it which makes it a horror / sci-fi. There are no visually scary moments that will make you jump out of your seat with your heart pounding through your chest, rather it is a fear that you will feel deep within you when contemplating the idea of a Metropolis.






fig 1.




One of the most impressive features of this film is the set of the Metropolis. When watching it we can see clearly that the sets are not just simply 2d matte paintings, rather then actual buildings. To create this effect of having a real Metropolis city Lang used model sets and camera trickery to make these visually enticing sets (fig 2). Making it appear that a city, which would be extremely futuristic for the time of production, to be of a full scale and extremely realistic for the time. Due to this it could be said that Lang is one of the pioneers in special effects along with Robert Wiene.









fig 2


As beautiful as we see Metropolis conveyed as the big futuristic city with sky scrapers and roads on different levels, there is another level of the city that is much darker and is what brings in the eeriness of this movie. The other part of the city is a workers city which is underneath the Metropolis. The reasoning for this workers city is to keep Metropolis running. The heartless big company owner, Jon Frederson, has no regards for this city which lies underneath his Metropolis other then it is needed to keep his city running. The workers within the city are stuck on repetitive paths of life having 10 hour shifts on and off. From the first scene you see these men who are forced to work are shells of people who have nothing to live for apart from attending work. This is one of the aspects that gives the film its eeriness as it shows the two different aspects of this amazing city. Above the surface everything is beautiful with incredible structures and buildings, where on the other hand there are people who have no lives and are forced to run the city below it in the depths and darkness. This could be said to show the two different sides of things and how nothing can be perfect without a dark side. As Nev Price said "With its immense sets and stark lighting, the workers' city is a credible image of hell, while the overground landscapes were a seminal influence on all subsequent science fiction." (Nev Price 2003)










Fig 3.


Another aspect of this film that particuarly stands out is the story line with the character Maria. We see two sides of Maria, well of her body that is. When we first see her the main character, Freder, she is portrayed as a beautiful woman who is kind and loving. We can see this from the way she is looking after children and the way in which she moves, soft and elegantly. But later in the film we can see how Lang's plot comes into play with Maria.When she is kidnapped by the sinister inventor Rotwang. When being kidnapped we see the iconic scene of her being chased by the inventor but this is represented in her running through dark catacombs but the only light is from a spotlight being shined by the inventor. Lang used a combination of dramatic music and lighting a long with exaggerated movements from the actress to portray the fear that should be felt during the chase. The inventor then uses Maria to create an evil version to manipulate men. The part of this that stands out the most of this is the movements by the evil Maria. To show the difference between the two we can see that evil Maria has very jerky movements almost appearing as stop motion, whereas the original is still elegant and smooth with her movements. As said by Rodger Ebert "The good Maria, always bathed in light, seems to be the caretaker of the worker's children" Compared to the evil version manipulating men with her "The lascivious dance of the false Maria, as the workers look on, the screen filled with large, wet, staring eyeballs." (Rodger Ebert 2010)






Overall we can see a lot of political messages behind Metropolis with many people saying that Lang's personality came through with this film trying to portray the injustices within society at the time.






References:


Rodger Ebert (1998) - http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-metropolis-1927


Nev Pierce (2003) - http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2003/01/06/metropolis_1927_review.shtml


Rodger Ebert (2010) - http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-metropolis-2010-restoration-1927


Fig 1 - http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BNDAzNTkyODg1MF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMDA3NDkwMDE@._V1_SX214_AL_.jpg


Fig 2 - https://flavorwire.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/metro1.jpg


Fig 3 - http://www.rowthree.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Metropolis-workers.jpg

Space Oddities: Das Cabinet Des Dr. Caligari Review

When watching Robert Wiene's 'The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920)' there is always one thing that stands out to the viewer. This is the use of the abstract painted set used throughout the film. All of the background sets where two dimensional paintings which are wonderfully designed using slanted walls, distorted perspective and many other styles that you would never find in a modern day film. The use of these sets combined with the black and white camera, which was not used by choice rather as a necessity at the time, immediately gives the viewer an eerie feel which represents the genera (horror) that they are watching.

Fig 1. 

Along with Wiene's use of abstract sets he is also considered one of the pioneers for what is now modern day horrors. You notice this from the use of shots that when viewing they immediately send you back into your memory and scenes of a similar nature of recent films come flooding to mind. One of these iconic scenes is when we can see Jane (Lil Dagover) asleep in bed. While this is happening at the front of the shot in the background you see Caesar (Conrad Veidt), Dr. Caligaris somnambulist, creep into her room and kidnap her (fig 2). When watching this the viewer can tell that Weine is trying to convey that the only people who can see what is going on in the background is the viewer. A technique rarely, if ever, used before within a feature film. Where as when watching modern horrors we can see this technique used in near enough every one in some way be it small or large. We can see this point backed up from Rodger Eberts review of the film from where he said '"Caligari" is said to be the first example in cinema of German Expressionism, a visual style in which not only the characters but the world itself is out of joint. I don't know of another film that used its extreme distortions and discordant angles'

Fig 2.

Another way in which Wiene draws in the audiences attention is due to the over exaggerated movements of the actors within the film. The use of these exaggerations helps to compensate for the lack of dialogue in the film. When scene that should have conversations between two characters in you could almost tell what was being said between them just from the visual movements and over exaggerated reactions. The use of these exaggerated movements and the obscure camera angles gives the viewer a real feel of what the character is feeling at the time. We can see this several times from close up shots of Dr. Caligari (Werner Krauss) you can see the look of mischievous and suspiciousness on the characters face portrayed using up to several different facial expressions within one shot. What also draws the viewers into these shots is Wiene's use of outlines and boarders. He would have shots which appear to be zooming into the characters face (fig 3). At times it was a normal shot with everything blacked out apart from the characters face giving the illusion of zoom and taking all of the viewers focus and putting in to this one character.

Fig 3.

Another way in which The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari draws in viewers and their attention is quite simply the story line. The use of the characters within the story line was portrayed brilliantly by Weine, building suspicion on some characters, and having others seem as a hero to some aspect such as one of the main characters Francis (Friedrich Feher). But from watching the film you can see how the use of the story line, which you at assume to be a simple and predictable story, the characters develop and there are twists and turns that had not even been considered by the viewer.

Fig 4.

 The combination of the abstract set, with bending buildings and sharp shadows, and the use of obscure camera shots along with exaggeration and twists and turns in the story line there is no trouble seeing how this classic horror has helped paved the way for horror films to come with very distinguishable moments that can give flashbacks of horrors to any viewer.

References:

Quote - Rodger Ebert - http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-the-cabinet-of-dr-caligari-1920

Images:

Fig 1 -https://karamelkinema.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/dc00.png?w=640&h=500

Fig 2 - http://i.ytimg.com/vi/imyo9E7GbIU/maxresdefault.jpg

Fig 3 - http://ludditerobot.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/caligari14.jpg

Fig 4 - https://1001films.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/vlcsnap-2887143.png