With UtS you have asked all the sorts of questions that suggest you are interested in a second viewing.
I'm not. Questions should be seen as symptomatic of a bad experience for me.
I've effectively had a second viewing. In fact I'd say it was more effective than a second viewing because I didn't wait months to do it, I did it the next day when the film was still fresh and I knew what I was looking for that I may have missed. And I did it with an open mind about having missed things. I always do. And low and behold I did miss things. I always do. But those things weren't answers, they were things that gave shape to the questions I've been asking in this thread. I've been piecing together the puzzle of the film and believe I've reached the boundaries of what can be explained by the film alone. And that boundary is not at my
personal "desired level of specificity". And so I
would call it vague. Or too vague to be enjoyed by me.
I believe you do have answers to the questions I've asked that satisfy
you. Which is why the film works for you. But I don't think those same things you call answers would satisfy me. And we've seen the same film, so I probably already have the information that those answers are derived from, and the reason I'm not calling them answers is because my tolerance for uncertainty is different. To me they are still questions.
I think that's a pretty fair summary of where you and I stand, would you agree?
I really disagree with the "if only the film had included this scene" argument.
I do too, which is why I didn't make that argument. You asked what could be done to add drama and I added it. Drama is rooting for one outcome over another. I added a 30 second scene that would add drama to the entire third act. The fact the film doesn't have scenes like this to add drama is part of why the film doesn't work for me.
The film is the film.
I completely agree. And the film failed for me. I'm not propping up a dead horse. I don't care who made the film, I don't care what year it was made, I don't care what the books does differently. The film failed and I'm accepting that.
Some of the questions you asked tend to suggest you were looking for answers where the film, simply, wasn't.
That's symptomatic of having been bored with the questions the film
was asking, or the lack of answers given, not evidence that I was asking the wrong questions. I let the film dictate the experience, and when the experience sucked I dictated my own experience.
The fact that you reject the idea that a film about an alien perspective shouldn't alienate you, tends to suggest you want something very different from what the film offered.
Yes. But it's not like I didn't give the film a chance to have its say. I rejected it after it had.
Is that the films fault? A film a lot of people respond to very strongly and in very varied ways (some to the science, some to the sexual relations, some to both)?
I'm not blaming the film, I'm just saying it sucks. I REALLY don't want to have this subjective art argument.
The film sucks, for me.
The film is vague, for me.
The film has no asnwers, for me.
The film has no drama, for me.
Is that enough? I get that I'm only talking about my own opinion. And I can go to great lengths to explain why my opinion is my opinion. It's not on a whim. And I also know it's not universal.
Again, this is why talking about something subjective seems so pointless to me sometimes. We're going in circles aren't we? I'm discouraged.
But it's also why conversation more scarce when there is agreement. Because there is no gaps to bridge.
I really think the whole point in talking about films is to find people who agree with you and revel in the shared experience. Or find
what you agree on. Everything else is just reexamining the subjectivity of art.
As much as the film is the film, and I agree with that, I think we have to talk outside the film to find common ground on this one.
I put this because people have a problem with keeping ambiguity and vagueness separated. It's what we are talking about essentially (and why this entire conversation reminds me of that We Need To Talk About Kevin discussion but with me on the other side). Does UtS provide enough information to cross from vagueness into ambiguity. You noff would say not. I would say it does. The film that gives enough to allow distinct interpretations. As opposed to the Nolanesque resolution of absolutely everything so that interpretation is minimised. We go back to the idea of films teaching you things or films letting you think.
I like this subject and have a theory about it, and I'd love to hear your opinion. I don't think tastes are just tastes. I think they are a reflection of our lifestyles. I think people with things in their life that keep them really occupied (kids, certain types of jobs, a lot of responsibilities etc), really thrive on "time to think" films that give them an opportunity to stop and reflect. And people that don't have kids and or certain types or jobs and fewer responsibilities, have ample time to reflect already, and thrive on films that actually stop them from thinking and reflecting (in that way).
Or to put it differently, some people's daily lives are experience-heavy, and films provide ways to reflect on those experiences. If the film is too specific it does not translate well.
Other people's lives are reflective, and films provide experiences to reflect
on. If a film is not specific
enough it does not bear serious reflection.
In 2001 between film and book there's an interesting example. In the book, the first monolith is shown to take control of the apes mentally and physically. It teaches the apes motor skills by physically lining them up and putting through exercises. An absolute literal process. Kubrick has the monolith as a benign influence but he doesn't provide that literal link. Has Kubrick provided enough information to establish this link? One set of apes starts using weapons and the other doesn't. Is that enough?
At that point in the film it was not enough. To me it was still vague. It was on the moon, when a second monolith repeated the pattern of the first, that it then became ambiguous.
What would Nolan do?
I think he would do what Kubrick did. Wait a bit and then address his own question.
I think you mischaracterize Nolan saying he provides resolution to absolutely everything. I think he is closer to Kubrick than Glazer. I think Nolan and Kubrick both walk that line of providing enough answers and enough mystery very nicely.
I think Glazer would only have one monolith because two would provide too much information. Also the apes would not be permitted to vocalize because that would provide information about how they feel. We'd see the apes by the monolith, there'd be a sound, and then we'd never speak of it again.
Glazer isn't copying scenes from 2001, but he is injecting the tone; especially the tone of alienation (stop me when I've banged you over the head with this idea enough).
I don't mind. I find it helpful to hear things restated.
In both films the humans aren't seeing the whole picture. In both films the humans seem to have a quality of animals being lead around. Definitely not masters of universe. Not even capable of fully understanding the technology being brought to bear. Nolan not so much. He is full of answers isn't he?
That's why I love him.
Kubrick too. Barry Lyndon is full of answers. That's why it's my favourite.
2001, and trying to gain a deeper appreciation of it; is a gateway of sorts for me. I tried to understand it more deeply. I read the book. It provides a more round explanation. It also detracts from the film, and moving beyond that feeling of too much information feels like an important step, to me. 2001 is an operatic experience for me; the classical music, the sound effects, the silences are all parts of that opera and they combine with the scorching light, the special effects, the splashes of colour and the darknesses. 2001 is a sensual experience, more than it is a movie. It is also a powerful ambiguous concept. Primarily, it examines the development of our relationship with tools, then it progresses to the non-physical ascent of man and closes a cycle. Ambiguity serves the tone. Too much information would obscure that ineffable tone. So ambiguity is a deliberate choice, and its effectiveness in 2001 in establishing tone (an alienated tone) is a sign of Kubrick's complete control over the medium.
2001 tells me to 1) open up to every aspect in a film (darkness, silence included), 2) interpret what the film alone shows me (not interviews, not books, not critical analysis), 3) accept that establishing a tone may be all a filmmaker is seeking to achieve, and that may be all that is required, because it can be powerful enough on its own, IMHO. Under The Skin rewards that approach. Interstellar just has me telling it to shut up.
The idea of tone potentially being all there is, or that it could be enough, makes me crazy. Or, I think it can be for somebody, but for me the thought of such a film makes me shudder. I can just picture myself in from of the screen shouting "do something!"