Contrary to the lack of text, I think it is not images that are more difficult to express in film art, but feelings, emotions and concepts.
The camera, in the final analysis, is actually to play the photos taken by the camera together. At first, there is no sound. Later, dialogue and background music are added. In the future, smells may be added—for example, in Disney’s 4D movies. When it rains in the screen, the audience is thrown with water-these are all extensions of the art form of video. Therefore, it is fundamental to use movies to show stories. Movies are meant to present every detail in front of the audience, and "show the story" is the duty.
So, compared to literature and art, the movie "show the story" It is easy, but it is not easy to express a feeling, and then to explain a worldview and philosophical concept. I personally think that the one who can do the latter two well is a master with real skills in this kind of video art.
Having said so many digressions, let’s return to A Space Odyssey 2001. Why I think Kubrick is great is because Lao Ku not only perfectly explained the relationship and concept of man and the universe, but also the known and unknown (this part of the concept must have its own complete theoretical system), and even more powerful. What's more, he also used the art of video to accurately express his vague feeling of the extended part of this concept.
Let's analyze in detail what I mean by what I said above.
A Space Odyssey 2001, I think the main body is divided into three parts. The first part is the origin and development of mankind; the second part is the exploration of outer space by mankind and the reversal of order; finally, the truth of the universe.
Running through these three parts is the inexplicable black stele. When I started watching this movie, I also felt that this thing was rather mysterious. What philosophy does this "made out of nothing" stele want to express? Later, I accidentally read a book called "Moon Shadow", and there is a similar thing in it, except that "Moon Shadow" is a sphere, not a square stele. This thing can be understood as the wisdom enlightenment of God to humans, such as God’s manifestation of spiritual enlightenment, such as Buddhism’s "stick drink" and so on. It can also be understood as "gene mutation". People suddenly become smarter, and great apes suddenly learn to use tools. Become a human (refer to the recent National Geographic magazine, which happened to have a topic on human sourcing, which talked about the problem of this gene mutation, but this is a long way to go). Regardless of the reason, every time this thing appears, it represents a qualitative change in the process of human development. As for how to understand it, whether it’s religion, science, or even random aimlessism in "Moon Shadow", it depends on how the individual is willing to understand it, and there are infinite interpretation possibilities.
In the second part, the concrete story is that humans compete with the spacecraft computer for control, which is implicit, and I personally understand it as a reorganization of order. The classic shot of the stewardess walking upside down in the cabin is a symbol of this reversal of order. The first part of the people used tools and revolutionized technological changes; and to a certain extent, it broke through the limit of quantitative change and evolved into qualitative change, and tools began to conquer the human brain.
In the last part, my personal understanding is that the film speaks of the truth of the universe. The problem is that as a humble member of the universe, human beings have not yet fully understood the earth on which they depend, and where they have reached the level of understanding the truth of the universe! Therefore, the explanation of this concept in this part is not from the perspective of clearly clarifying 4, 4, 6, and 6, but using a possibility, a feeling, and a way of guessing to try to explain. The purpose of the explanation is to inspire, not Answer. Whether it is the super-long shot of "entering the black hole", or the astronaut entering another space to see his own future, including the final life cycle, it may be a manifestation of the so-called truth, or it may be nothing at all.
The first and second parts of the logical system are clear, the evolution of humans, the subversion of order, the relationship between humans and the universe, and other difficult abstract concepts, I think Lao Ku uses movies and uses this concrete visual art to tell very clearly. , The picture is neat and tidy, the picture is clean, and the geometric composition is used in many places; and then in the last part, it shows the possible extension of this concept, such as more abstract things. Moreover, this kind of performance is different from teaching and educating people. On the basis that I fully understand, I have a bucket of water like a teacher teaches students, and I will show you a bowl of water; his greatness lies in the preciseness and accuracy of facing this kind of question that he cannot answer. It shows what I understand, but also shows awe of the unknowable, vaguely just right, and memorable.
So if I am asked to comment on the greatest director and the most powerful film in my mind, then I do not hesitate to answer Kubrick who shot "2001 Space Journey". Because he is not only able to express an abstract philosophical concept in the form of imagery, but also has the courage to express his understanding and speculation of this abstract philosophical concept in stages at an almost dangerous height. This is simply the love of the film industry. Instein or Hawking.
View more about 2001: A Space Odyssey reviews
