Dr. Strangelove was a particularly word-oriented film, whereas 2001 seemed to be a total breakaway from what you'd done before.
Yes, I feel it was. Strangelove was a film where much of its impact hinged on the dialogue, the mode of expression, the euphemisms employed. As a result, it's a picture that is largely destroyed in translation or dubbing. 2001, on the other hand, is basically a visual, nonverbal experience. It avoids intellectual verbalization and reaches the viewer's subconscious in a way that is essentially poetic and philosophic. The film thus becomes a subjective experience which hits the viewer at an inner level of consciousness, just as music does, or painting.
Actually, film operates on a level much closer to music and to painting than to the printed word, and, of course, movies present the opportunity to convey complex concepts and abstractions without the traditional reliance on words. I think that 2001, like music, succeeds in short-circuiting the rigid surface cultural blocks that shackle our consciousness to narrowly limited areas of experience and is able to cut directly through to areas of emotional comprehension. In two hours and forty minutes of film there are only forty minutes of dialogue.
I think one of the areas where 2001 succeeds is in stimulating thoughts about man's destiny and role in the universe in the minds of people who in the normal course of their lives would never have considered such matters. Here again, you've got the resemblance to music; an Alabama truck driver, whose views in every other respect would be extremely narrow, is able to listen to a Beatles record on the same level of appreciation and perception as a young Cambridge intellectual, because their emotions and subconscious are far more similar than their intellects. The common bond is their subconscious emotional reaction; and I think that a film which can communicate on this level can have a more profound spectrum of impact than any form of traditional verbal communication.
The problem with movies is that since the talkies the film industry has historically been conservative and word-oriented. The three-act play has been the model. It's time to abandon the conventional view of the movie as an extension of the three-act play. Too many people over thirty are still word-oriented rather than picture-oriented.
For example, at one point in 2001 Dr. Floyd is asked where he's going and he replies, "I'm going to Clavius," which is a lunar crater. Following that statement you have more than fifteen shots of Floyd's spacecraft approaching and landing on the moon, but one critic expressed confusion because she thought Floyd's destination was a planet named Clavius. Young people, on the other hand, who are more visually oriented due to their new television environment, had no such problems. Kids all know we went to the moon. When you ask how they know they say, "Because we saw it."
So you have the problem that some people are only listening and not really paying attention with their eyes. Film is not theater -- and until that basic lesson is learned I'm afraid we're going to be shackled to the past and miss some of the greatest potentialities of the medium.
Did you deliberately try for ambiguity as opposed to a specific meaning for any scene or image?
No, I didn't have to try for ambiguity; it was inevitable. And I think in a film like 2001, where each viewer brings his own emotions and perceptions to bear on the subject matter, a certain degree of ambiguity is valuable, because it allows the audience to "fill in" the visual experience themselves. In any case, once you're dealing on a nonverbal level, ambiguity is unavoidable. But it's the ambiguity of all art, of a fine piece of music or a painting -- you don't need written instructions by the composer or painter accompanying such works to "explain" them. "Explaining" them contributes nothing but a superficial "cultural" value which has no value except for critics and teachers who have to earn a living. Reactions to art are always different because they are always deeply personal.
Discussion Topic:
Ignoring the fact that Stanley Kubrick apparently has much contempt for people from Alabama, how do you think the aesthetic choices he makes (i.e. use of balance, both symmetrical and asymmetrical, rhythm, and timing) add to the overall tone and atmosphere of the film?
51 comments:
Stanley Kubrick has done a fine job in setting the tone and atmosphere of the film to present a deep inside look of what the future and space will be like. He uses balance, symmetrically and asymmetrically, rhythm, and time to strenghthen the tone and atmosphere of the film. For example, when Floyd uses a video-phone to call his daughter on earth, two curves are used to both add balance to the shot, and to draw our attention to the faces of the actors, one is the curve of the earth, which surrounds Floyd's head and draws the eye toward him, the other is the curve that is part of the wall, which draws the eye to his daughter. Almost every scene uses lines to direct the viewers eye toward whatever the director wanted to be the focus. An example is where a stewardess is seen walking up the wall inside a spaceship. Lines making up the walls are used to focus the viewers eye towards the stewardess and her defiance of gravity. Meanwhile, horizontal lines making up the wall behind her serve as a frame of reference while she walks up the wall. Also, the bright textured Earth is used to balance, asymmetrically, the equally bright spaceships and space station against the dark background of space, which is textured by stars. Kubrick wanted to make sure the viewers understood the future in his perspective without losing focus on the plot, characters, and theme. In doing so, Kubrick successfully added balance and rhythm to enhance the film's tone and atmosphere.
I am from Alabama, I refuse to answer this blog. Only kiding.
Kubrick's resposes in the interview were perfectly synonymous with scenes from the film. He said that he wanted to create a movie with little dialogue so that the visual aspects would be the primary source of communication in getting the point of the movie across. He achieved just that. His unique camera angles, causing obscure balance and focal points created a language of its own. Everything the audience saw, told more of the story than what the audience heard. I think it was a bold move to try and create and sell a movie with so little dialogue in a world that hinges on mostly verbal entertainment, but I do not think it could have been done much better than Kubrick was able to do it.
The overall tone and atmosphere of Stanley Kubricks, 2001: A Space Odyssey can be described as quiet and tranquil. When the viewer watches as the spacecraft moves toward Clavius, the timing of the camera is in slow motion making it more aesthetic for the viewer to watch. His use of symmetrical and asymmetrical balance allow to viewer to focus more on the object or the use of the object, more so than the actual scene in the film. The use of rhythm and balance allows the viewer to retain more of the image and more information for a longer period of time. Because of the minimal amount of talking in the film, Kubrick enables the viewer to create their own views and opinions of the film without the influence of dialogue.
The aesthetic choices that Stanley Kubrick used in "2001: A Space Odyssey" add more poetic meaning to the film. It makes the overall tone and atmosphere of the film feel more deep and personal. The aesthetic choices make up for the lack of words throughout the entire film.
I think that Kubrik's use of the symetrical and asymetrical balance allow you to choose a mood yourself. He leaves a lot of open space, a lot of emptiness around the one thing thats going on, which i think, kind of gets your mind to wander and think about whats really going on.
The aesthetic choices that Stanley Kubrick makes using symmetrical & asymmetrical balance, rhythm, and timing, add to the overall tone and atmoshphere of the film by keeping the viewer interested on a different level. There's hardly any dialogue in the film, so in order for the viewer to understand the plot of the film is by the usage of these pictures. Pictures are only interesting if you make them interesting, and Stanley Kubrick does this by using principles of mis en scene. These principles keep the viewer involved by seeing rather than hearing.
Stanley Kubrick uses many different elements in his movie in order to really get his point across, as well as really set the tone to the movie. He uses elements such as balance to focus your direction to a specific area. There was a lot of rhythm and symmetry that was seen throughout, to me that really gave me a sense of importance of what was going on. Throughout the movie was the repetition of shapes especially circles and color specifically white. The atmosphere was set by the use of symmetry, for the most part on the space shuttle everything seemed to be pretty symmetrical. Timing was quite big in this movie. He uses distortion of time to really show that this wasn't just a two day journey into space. All of these elements tie together well to portray Stanley Kubrick's vision.
I found the movie to be a “poetic” expression of the thoughts of the future that existed at the moment the movie was filmed. I believe that the music, stage setting and scene balance that were presented during the movie, added more dramatic feeling to the film. As Kubrick states in his interview, he was trying to avoid the use of dialogue to give the movie less intellectual verbalization. I feel that he did what poets do so that there is a wider interpretation space. I thought that the use of symmetrical and asymmetrical, rhythm and timing, helped set the tone of the movie. Just like writers or poets set a dramatic, melancholic or cheerful tone, the director of this movie tried to set a dramatic tone powered by his aesthetic choices.
Since 2001 does lack dialogue, the viewer is forced to create the movie in their head, with the help of all the images. Through the substantial breaks in the dialogue, one is able to notice many of the visual elements. For example, there is a scene where a man is walking down a hall with radial symmetry. This draws the viewer into the film. Kubrick embraces the fact that there is very little dialogue, and uses it as an opportunity to create a more visually appealing movie, that as he stated in his interview, won't be lost in translation.
I think that Stanley Kubrick thought out every detail of this movie. His use of symmetrical balance and asymmetrical balance, rhythm, and timing truly added to the overall tone and atmosphere of "2001: A Space Odyssey". He knew what he wanted to create and used these elements to do just that. The viewer now has the ability no capture the tone and atmosphere with only 40 minutes of speaking time, so the interview states, in a 2 hour plus film.
The movie had a very interesting plot, however the way they ended sent me through a loop. In this movie the director shows you what he wants you to see, and there is plenty of scenes that prove this. There was not a lot of dialogue throughout the movie it was more of a display kind of movie.
Being that most of the film was a visual, nonverbal occurrence I feel it was very necessary for Stanley Kubrick to make an intellectual use of his tone and atmosphere on the rest of the film. He used poetic and philosophic perceptions to fill in the blanks of the words; by doing this he inserted stunning music and pictures. Most of his art work was asymmetrically balanced; a lot of his shots were focusing on one image as another image would pass by and grab your attention. You would be drawn to the positively balanced side of the portrait, and then your attention would focus on the negatively balanced side of the film which would soon become the positive side of the picture. This added excitement, even without words, to the film. It seemed like a lot of the symmetrical shoots were drawn up to add excitement; when the picture would be symmetrically balanced it was normally a close up to add expense, side by side with loud crashing music. Some snaps were radialie balance, Stanley Kubrick could use these shoots that come off of the screen because the movie was based in space so you never knew what direction was up; a circular motion was always possible. All of this balancing of shoots keeps you interested in the film, because you don’t become norm to what shot is going to be placed in front of your eyes next. The displacement of time that Stanley Kubrick places on time adds a scope of dimension to what you are watching. It seems to connect many objects to one another, as even a destiny or role in the universe (i.e. the monkey’s bone to the space ship floating in our galaxy). The time intervals also lets us relax and catch up on where we are in the movie, without words you would imagine to be confessed, but with the scope of time played by music you always seem to fall right back on track in the next scene. To convey the complex concepts and abstractions the writer is trying to suggest without words it is very necessary to correctly establish a setting of time and later rhythm to the film, which he does very smoothly. The reoccurring elements in the film are captured deeply by the rhythm presented. Many shapes of color and reoccurring patterns lead us to believe we already know where we are, when in reality it is a new place and time with reoccurring figures. I believe this adds to Stanley Kubrick’s tone to capture emotional appeals of the audience; as a member of the audience, when you are failure with an atmosphere you connect with it, and then when it is revealed to be different you become intrigued. The writer’s whole point in putting this film together was to make a different kind of film, but he still wanted to connect with the audience in a positive, new manor. I feel both the tone and the atmosphere of the film were enhanced by Stanley Kubrick’s use of balance, timing, and rhythm; even without the use of words.
-David W. Aniello
The of aesthetics has a huge effect on the tone and atmosphere of the film. Kubrick stated in his interview that 2001: A Space Odyssey was meant to be a more visual film, and rely less on words than other films of that era. The absence of a large amount of dialog made the use of balance, rhythm and timing much more important to project the tone and atmosphere.
The fact that most of the buildings in space are symmetrical gives off the feel that it is advanced. The use of balance was also important, in one scene we are shown a large amount of structures on the left side, but the action takes place on the right.
I believe the aesthetic choices the director chose add to the overall tone and atmosphere of the film by further emphasizing the space/tecnological theme that it has. Kubrick's film has a lot of symmetrical balance all throughout the story. Many times we see shots where a group of people were all in the center of the screen, or a close-up of one of the characters and his/her face is right in the middle of the screen, etc. I think this adds a more abstract feeling to the movie, which goes very well along with the atmosphere of the film, which is an abstract/techy/sci-fi movie.
The uses of the aesthetic choices Kubrick made for 2001, allows for the movie to become art in motion rather than a movie. The scenes that include a space ship floating off in space is always paired with a orchestral pieces normally played in a ballets to give the impression that these spaceships are actually “dancing” in space rather than “drifting” in space. In turn personifies the space ship and makes human which alludes to Hal, the computer, becoming alive. This allows for the element of evolution to come out. With the early man to the evolving in to what we are today, as well as, tools evolving into self thinking beings.
I think the shots were mostly symmetrical and when they were not it made the movie that much more drammatic. For the most part the symmetry and camara angles seemed well balanced and coordinates. As well as the colors put in every scene, they all were smooth and where fit to the shot. I think however that the transition from scene to scene and especially era to era was too dramatic and could have been more smooth. Because of these over dramatic transitions, it made it seem as if it lacked consistency, because everything else was so balanced and smooth inside the shot, but as soon as it changed the whole screen with it too.
I think that Kubrick wanted the audience to make their own conclusions to the film. He wanted us to think about what we are watching instead of being told what to think. Instead of listening to dialogue he wanted us to pay attention with our eyes. He wanted us to have an subjective experience.
This drawn out, yet interesting film dealt with many topics merged into one.
The visualizations and limited dialogue display topics of the past, present, future, theories of evolution, aliens, artificial intelligence, life and death.
There are many forms of aesthetics that Stanley Kubrick makes in the film. I noticed in particular the symmetry and patterns with the use of light and shadows, movement and stillness and silence and sound.
The film made huge narrative leaps throughout the film, which at soem points confused me, but caught my attention. An example of one segment that comes to mind is the “birth of life” type of scene. The use of lights, movements and sounds gives off a sense of energy.
Kubrick wanted the movie to be remembered for its realism, strange special effects, and unclear imagery and sound in place of traditional narrative techniques and I think he definately achieved that.
The feeling given off by the shots in 2001 is a feeling of insanity. This feeling of insanity portrayed by nothing being in balance. One object is more prevalent on one side of the screen than others. Colors are also stronger and more prevalent. Everything is unhinged like the mind. This is a good portrayal of HAL.
His use of center symmetry gave the walk through the tunnels a more futuristic feel. His balance in general gave the movie a more futuristic feel. He wanted you to focus on the futuristic aspects of the movie an example of this is the space shots. I believe his main focus was on balance and symmetry not on rhythm. The shots didn't flow together as smoothly as they could. His shot angles were another big thing. The way he placed his shots really gave you the feel of the surroundings especially the scenes where the captain was running around the ship. The way he filmed it made the ship seem bigger and the fact that it was round but you were always standing up enhanced the futuristic feel. I was always drawn to one side of the screen but as the action in the scene seemed to move so did my eyes to the other side of the scene this was a very unique directing tool that made the movie a little more interesting.
The use of symmetry is in my opinion his attempt to make the future seem uniform in all aspects. The tone he sets in this film is at times serene when he depicts the various spaceships travelling through space. The feeling of monotny set in during the scenes in which the astronauts were trying to keep themselves busy on the way to jupiter. The circular spaceship that spun to simulate gravity had the symmetry that was evident throughout this film and also added to that tone of monotny. This spaceship is the one in which one astronaut just runs continuously in circles.
The choices of symmetry, rhythm, and timing all cause the flim to have a ominous atmosphere about it. The film does draw more into the subconsciousness of the mind and causes the veiwer to be more visually and emotionally drawn to the movie than being verbally drawn. With the use of the rhythm and music, the movie makes you feel as though you are there in space with them.
The use of symmetry is most deffinately appealing to the eye in a way that causes someone to be soo drawn into the movie that they cannot pull themselves or their eyes away.
The use of symmetrical balance throughout the film helps to illustrate that the film is set during the future. It also lures the viewer into focusing on specific objects placed in the screen, which is exactly what the director is trying to do throughout the film. He wants to emphasize on particular aspects of the movie while using these tools to accomplish these goals.
In my opinion, a lot of planning went into the design aspect of the film. I think because there is limited use of dialogue in the movie Kubrick had to rely on the use of visuals to tell the story. This is evident in the movie in regards to the way each scene is set up. For example, to show elapsed time in space, Kubrick uses slow rhythm, non-verbal music. Like Kubrick said some critics dislike the aesthetic choices he uses, but in my opinion, if the movie was centered on character dialogue it would be a very boring movie and I probably wouldn’t sit through the entire showing. Again, it is the aesthetics the ultimately make this movie come to life and tell a story.
"So you have the problem that some people are only listening and not really paying attention with their eyes. Film is not theater." In so many words, this basically sums up the movie. By cutting out majority of all dialogue, we are more aware of balance, timing, etc. In most movies we only focus on what the actors are saying and we tend to ignore other important aspects of the film. Balence, timing, and rhythm most def add to the overall tone of the film. Since dialonge is absent we focus on what we see oppose to what we hear.
Stanely Kubrik’s aesthetic choices in 2001: A Space Odyssey helped the audience to see the futuristic world that he had envisioned. The symmetrical and asymmetrical shots helped the audience to focus in on what Kubrik felt to be most important in the scene. In a few scenes, the asymmetry of the shots focused the audiences attention on the technology in the room rather than the main characters, I believe that this is a sort of foreshadowing for later on in the movie. Rhythm is also present in the film. There is a consistency in the set that helps create a futuristic, streamline world. When most people begin to think about a space age world, they see repetitious patterns and chrome colors. This is particularly evident on the space craft in the movie, everything in the shot flows together.
The way Stanley Kubrick uses balance, rhythm, and timing in the film gives the viewer a sense that everything in the film has an order or procedure. I also believe that later in the film as "Hal" starts to wreak havoc on the ship this sense of balance and rhythm will change as the chaos rises on the ship. Kubrick uses this balance to perfection to set the tone.
I think the aesthetics of the film are compelling. The mise-en-scene is so perfectly crafted that the viewer is entranced, yet at the same time there is a certain mystery surrounding the plot because so much of it is communicated through aesthetics. This gives the film a certain tone of ambiguity and makes the viewer participate with it in a more cerebral way than he would if he simply sat back and watched something happen. In 2001, the viewer must work with the film to take everything in and enjoy a world completely different from our own.
Kubrick's use of rhythm and timing allow him to use the actual movie to describe what is happening instead of relying on dialogue to describe what is going on. He also uses balance and symmetry to emphasize his points. As Kubrick stated in his interview, there were more than fifteen shots of Floyd's spacecraft. In my opinion this makes the the tone of the movie extremely boring and hard to follow because after the third shot of Floyd's spacecraft I had already stopped paying attention. Realizing Kubrick was going for less dialogue in the movie I think it was a little overkill.
If it weren't for Stanley Kubrick's amazing use of rhythm, timing and asymmetrical and symmetrical balances in the film 2001, I'm afraid to admit that this film might ultimately be a failure. However, Kurbicks use of all of these aesthetic choices make this film sucessful. With the use of rhythm and balance, he makes the film easy on the eyes, seeing as there aren't many lines in the film to listen for. Because he leaves the films plot up to your eyes and not to your ears, within the film you are forced to watch and understand rather then interpret a plot or story. Although it seems as this would be the intent of most directors when it comes to producing a movie, Kubricks main goal is to show you that your consciousness is there, you just need to use it. I must admit that when I was watching the film I was not entirely thrilled, however reading this interview has changed my opinion. For most people, even myself, we are used to movies that are essentially interesting because of what we hear. Kubricks style of using aesthetics instead of words can make you look at this movie compared to others in a completely different light. The atmosphere of the film grabs the attention of your eyes, as you have no choice but to watch for the plot. The overall tone of the movie may not be as intense as a movie such as The Departed, or King Kong, but its complexity does an excellent job pulling into a close second.
I think by using the all of the three ways to balance the scene, he really created and molded the audience's perception on the film overall. The symmetrical, asymmetrical, and radial balances all kept the futuristic theme and setting in the film constantly, while guiding the audience through every scene whether it took place on the spaceship or on land with the monkeys. :-)
I wasn't particularly enthused by Stanley Kubrick’s aesthetic choices in the film. In fact I found them dull, repetitive, and monotone. The colors and structures in the film, along with the lack of conversation, were enough to put me to sleep. The atmosphere of the film was clean and boring. The choices of pattern and color gave a very unemotional and sterile feel, as if one were in a hospital. If Kubrick’s objective was to put his audience to sleep, he definitely made the correct aesthetic choices.
I think by using less words and more pictures in this film helps you concentrate on what is really happening in the movie he uses great techniques in these scenes that help us stay interested. he lets you know that the atmosphere is alot more important ot concentrate on. you do not necessarily need words to get a point across.
I believe that the tone of the film is very much set by whats in each scene. For one, most of the scenes are very long and drawn out which makes the tone calm. It also makes me feel like time is going by very slowly. I always have the feeling that I am "floating" through the plot and am given ample time to pick apart each scene. Many of the scenes in the film have symmetry. The scene with the red chairs is asymmetrical with more free space on the right side of the shot. This makes me feel closer to the left side and it makes the room seem bigger than it is. I feel distanct from the actors on the right side of the shot. Most of the shots are about the same length which keeps the film flowing smoothly and helps with timing.
In Stanley Kubrick's movie, "2001: A Space Odyssey", his aesthetic choices play a huge role in adding to the overall tone and atmosphere of the film, which allow the viewer emotionally and intecalectually attach themselves to his film
The aesthetic choices Stanley Kubrick makes add to the overall tone and atmosphere of the film. By relying more on visual elements, Kubrick allows viewers to bring their own views and feelings to the movie. Viewers are able to interpret the movie in their own way and create their own atmosphere. The audience is therefore more affected by the film because it hits them on a personal level, more like music does because everybody interprets it in their own way.
I believe that the silence in the film reflects the silence in space. The overall lack of dialogue helps link the various cultures in the film (of the future) together with the audience of today.
Various types of balance were used in this film. Kubrick typically placed the action in the negative space of asymetrical frames. There was also a lack of moving camera shots / angles.
The rhythm of the film was particularly noticable. Most of the items in space were circular in shape while things inside of the various crafts were quite linear. This helps create opposition between what is natural and what is man-made (how man tries to control the universe).
The timing in the film allows the audience to contemplate what is going on and gives adequate time to reflect.
Overall, the asthetic choices help Kubrick interact with the audience without the use of dialogue. This is a way for him to communicate his point of view.
The aesthetic choices he made emphasized the overall tone and atmosphere of the film. There are many shots throughout the film that Stanley Kubrick purposely spent a lot of time filming. Where it is the same view being filmed for 5 minutes and not much is going on. There might be some music or heaving breathing being heard but no extreme action taking place. The timing of the shots added suspense and anxiety to the overall film. It left the viewers wondering what was going to happen next.
In Stanley Kubrick's, "2001: A Space Odyssey", his aesthetic choices greatly impact the overall tone and atmosphere of the film, which allow the viewer to not only attach emotionally but intellectually as well.
The tone, and the atmosphere of the film is set from the beginning by Kubrick using the slow motion film technique. By manipulating the time through slow motion he is allowing the viewer to analyze, and critique each shot, giving us time to formulate our perspective on what he is trying to portray to us. Even though at times can be rather boring, the slow motion is able to connect the viewers emotionally to the journey that we are seeing on screen. The director chose to use slow motion in my opinion, due to the fact that he was able "to convey complex concepts and abstractions" that might have not been able to be portrayed if other film techniques were used.
Also the tone and the atmosphere of the film was set by the continuous use of rhythm. He constantly used dramatic colors to create a futuristic atmosphere of the film. Not only did he use colors but patterns as well. I noticed Kubrick using patterns in shots where he was trying to emphasize a point. By selecting to add patterns to the shot, he was able to capture our attention better.
Overall Stanley Kubrick's brilliant film techniques made a movie that could of been a complete disaster, a beautiful, and intellectual masterpiece.
I think that the choices that Stanley Kubrick makes gives the impression that he has a disregard for what others around him think. He seems only so focused on what he does that he completely disregards the needs of others.
I believe that Kubric uses the balances in his film to further accentuate the use of artistic references in the film. Kubric wanted to create a pictoral world rather than one with much dialouge thus the blance rythmn and symetry of every scene is crucial. If there is no dialouge for a critic to focus on the next thing is the visual components.
Stanley Kubricks use of balance, rhythm, and timing made the film very intense. The movie was meant to show and spark in people's heads mans destiny in the universe. By using a variety of balance (both asymmetrical and symmetrical) inside the spacecraft gave the movie more depth in space. The contrasting colors he used like white and red in some shots added to the space feel. Typically in most movies today, the viewers rely jointly on the picture and conversation. But in 2001, you were forced to rely on picture for understanding. That made the movie unique since there was only forty minutes of actual speaking. The overall atmosphere was dark, and high-tech which asymmetrical balance helped create.
Stanley Kubricks use of balance, rhythm, and timing made the film very intense. The movie was meant to show and spark in people's heads mans destiny in the universe. By using a variety of balance (both asymmetrical and symmetrical) inside the spacecraft gave the movie more depth in space. The contrasting colors he used like white and red in some shots added to the space feel. Typically in most movies today, the viewers rely jointly on the picture and conversation. But in 2001, you were forced to rely on picture for understanding. That made the movie unique since there was only forty minutes of actual speaking. The overall atmosphere was dark, and high-tech which asymmetrical balance helped create.
His use of the different kind of balances throws the curve in ther of suspense because you dont know what is coming next. He really doesnt establish rhythem to me it seems as though he jumps around from one place to another quite often which in turn contributes to the time of the film. I really dont know how many people would voluntarally watch this movie.
Kubrick's use of balance, timing, and rhythm are crucial in every scene of the film. Because Kubrick chose for the film to deliberately rely on what you see, and not what you hear, these aesthetic elements are solely what lead you to the tone and atmosphere. I think that perhaps the emptiness (asymmetrical balance) of some of the scenes help to create that tense, odd tone. It's not natural for things to be imbalanced. When the objects in the scenes are symmetrically balanced, the mood totally changes. 2001: A Space Oddessy can be compared to classical music. There is no words being sung in classical music. There are only the instruments being played. Even though there are no words, the sounds still provoke such stron emotions. Because this film does not rely on dialogue, just as classical music does not, Kubrick's use of visual elements are crucial in determining the tone.
I think the shotsused in the film create an mysterious atmosphere throughout the whole movie. As if something out of man's control will happen, because of something man overlooked, but the balance of the shots do show how the technology of man has come so far.
Since Kubrick wanted 2001: A Space Odyssey to be more of a visual film he had to employ a very different style of rhythm and balance to achieve what he wanted. By using a mixture of asymmetrical and symmetrical balance along with minimal usage of dialogue the viewer gets to almost create a mood himself. Because this technique is in use it feels as if it gives the viewer more of an emotional connection to the film rather than a film where the mood is set through the dialogue and actions of the characters.
I think Kubrick uses these aesthetic choices in his film to replace dialogue with classy and well-orchestrated visual language. By using the simple timing of the pulse the stone puts out you feel the rising anticipation without even seeing the scientists' faces. That, the beautiful flow from scene to scene and the simple futuristic architecture crates a very emotionally attached viewing experience that is able to grab your attention that pulls you into the tense atmosphere of the film.
I think Stanley Kubrick's use of aesthetic devices is a strong way to tell his story. It's more visual than dialogue so the viewer is forced to pay more attention and is probably able to pick up more than just dialogue could portray. The balance draws the viewers attention to certain aspects. The viewers opinions and messages they derive from this film are probably more personal and deep due to the fact that it's all up to their own mainly visual interpretations.
In "2001: A Space Odyssey", Stanley Kubrick effectively uses many visual effects to create an atomosphere unlike many other films. With many symmetrical and radial balanced scenes the movie sucks the viewer in and gives an eerie tone. The rhythm of the film is created by the music and the lighting effects. Most of the scenes inside the spaceship are radial balanced and are completely silent; this gives the tone of complete solitude. It attacks the viewer with ideas of dead open space and leaves the viewer often staring into that open space with nothing but the noise of their own thoughts. These effects are all due to the visual aspects of the film, balance of scenes, and rhythm of music. Kubrick genuisely combines all of these aspects to keep the viewer's mind open and wandering throughout the entire film.
Since there was little dialoge in the movie the director must make use of the visualizations of the film. The director cleverly uses balance, symmetically and asymmetrically, rhythem and time to enphasise his main points. A great example of this is when Floyd is in space and there are two curves in the shot as if taken from earth itself. These had an great intricate to balance of the shot.
Post a Comment