2001: A Space Odyssey is marred by Kubrick's daughter, who cannot act and it takes you out of the movie.Andor season 2 is ruined by Stellan Skarsgård, who can barely speak and it takes you out of the show.Rather than overlook objectively poor performances because of age or health, surely it's MORE cruel to pretend these people did a good job? Two great works of art were sullied by (otherwise talented) individuals delivering a piss-poor performance. The kinder thing to do is recast them.
Bump.
>>220125536Movies aren't high art. The greatness of 2001 has to transcend severe limitations already, one actor or performance is no different than any other indigestible prop, sound, or camera issue. There are so many conditions to proper enjoyment that you really have to permit yourself to witness the art.
>>220126499I think movies can be high art, they can also be trash. But whatever you call it, at the end of the day their goal is to entertain people (usually), often to make you feel a certain way or think about something.There are so many moving parts, it's a collaborative medium. Say the actors all gave stellar performances, the set/prop/costumer designers were all masters of their craft, the cinematography was beautiful and they filmed in some amazing locations...then the music composer just farted into a microphone for 180 minutes straight.I could actually forgive a boom mic or a wobbly set, it happens, you're taken out, you move on quickly. That little girl and that slurring old man? They both ruined two great science fiction pieces, but my problem is more with the discourse surrounding it.
>>220125536He's Dutch, that's the normal way of speaking for those people.
>>220126704how is that any different from saying it's ruined because it's too slow? You're just picking a random part of the premise to disagree with in order to criticize the whole in bad faith.
>>220127227Because that is subjective. Vivian Kubrick is a small child who goes off-script and does not react appropriately for the scene, which should have been easily to film (she wasn't ACTUALLY making a space telephone call).I am criticising Kubrick's work in particular because he's known for his perfectionism. Clearly, he turned a blind eye when it came to his own family.If you know anyone praising her performance, let me know. I'd be interested to see what their reasoning is.
>>220128335Wrong. It's objectively a slow movie. What's subjective is whether that ruins it, like your post.
>>220128691Fair point. Yeah, that's a matter of taste. Everyone will have some line somewhere, even if you're getting right into the weeds of pedantry.But I hope we can agree there's a difference between like, "the boom mic was visible in most scenes," or "the actor could barely speak English despite playing an English professor," and personal preferences like, "I prefer slower-paced films to faster ones."People talk about the examples I gave in the OP almost like a form of charity. Nobody defends them as actually good. They're "good, despite". Why not try honesty instead? Andor season 2 is a 4/10 overall. For me, it's largely the worse music (matter of opinion) and Skarsgård's abysmal acting (matter of fact). If your actor has a stroke, you recast them. It's like if the actor who played your Olympic sprinter character lost their legs.
>>220128989It's a matter of proportion. I'm not sure why you're now equating the boom mic to the bad performance, since you previously said a mic would be ok. If the film is great for reasons that have nothing to do with the issue you're talking about, what makes it important?
He was recovering from a stroke
>>220126820Swedish.And perfectly easy to understand.
>>220129086>I'm not sure why you're now equating the boom mic to the bad performance, since you previously said a mic would be ok.I mean that's a bit of a hiccough, one I can get over. But it's an unquestionable 'mistake'.Maybe I'm anticipating too much anon, but you know how the internet is. There's every chance someone will tell me that the focus puller getting an entire scene out-of-focus actually lends CHARM AND CHARACTER to the movie, and death of the author, and, and, ...My earnest point is that these are both close to masterpieces. Instead, Andor season 2 is a 4/10 and 2001: A Space Odyssey is a 7/10. The lost points are due to two actors' performances.Also, Kubrick was notoriously a 'perfectionist'. That was the best take he got of the videophone scene...? It lets the rest of the movie down.
>>220129311He was a perfectionist but he could've spent his entire life perfecting a movie of that scale and ambition. The zero gravity effects alone. The logical conclusion of perfectionism, as you describe it, would be a much simpler movie not a limitless obsession with details. In reality, his time was spent perfecting more important takes.
>>220129425He could have made the running sequence only half as good as it was, and hired a child actress who didn't sound like a drooling uh, caveman, let's say. Constantly distracted by off-screen things instead of focusing on the actual acting.inb4 'kids are just like that!' which is cope, anyone watching knows what was happening.>>220129153Of course there's a reason. Everything has a reason. If a slipped disc means you can no longer play Hercules, the filmmakers should cast someone else in the role of Hercules. We shouldn't all go ":) isn't it nice he did what he could :)) in fact, i think he gave a great performance :)))"
>>220129169He sounds almost South African or a deaf person the way his T and D sounds aren't very distinct.
>>220129608Offering to re-allocate resources is a completely different and worse contention. Instead of acting as a critic you now want to talk about decisions during the filmmaking process that you aren't privy to. Not only is it ignorant, this new position depends on hindsight as Kubrick didn't know he was making one of the greatest films of all time.
>>220129868>this new position depends on hindsight as Kubrick didn't know he was making one of the greatest films of all time.I'm not sure. I mean, most filmmakers want to make GOOD movies, they TRY. He put a lot of effort in. There were changes (I really wish there was an alternative version with the electronic score tbqh).But equally some people know they're making trash, so who cares. Kubrick wasn't one of those people. In fact something nice his daughter DID go on to make was her behind-the-scenes documentary of The Shining. I love it (it's more candid than a lot of similar documentaries) and by then at least, he was very methodical.Imagine if he got a perfect shot but the set collapsed during it, or something. I keep coming up with these silly examples, but I hope you see what I'm getting at.
>>220130068Why would he conform to your idea of the movie before you were even born?
>>220125536Your opinion on the first point is simply incorrect, and it has nothing to do with any sort of bias or blind spot that Kubrick (or admirers) may have with regard to his own family. It was decided that the character would place a brief video call both to establish the video call technology (novel at the time) and that it would be simply be some sort of normal family interaction, which is just what it looked like. A silly little girl interacts normally with her father for about a minute, that's all. I suppose it could easily be cut without really losing much (although humanizing the Floyd character is worth something), but it's certainly not jarringly out of place as you've suggested.The video call has an important comparison within the film: the one-way video message where Frank's parents are very proud of him and wish him a happy birthday (his last 3001 doesn't count). They then proceed to sing "Happy Birthday" in an embarassing, out-of-key fashion. But it's heartfelt and they really do miss him and wish him well, that's very clear in the first half. Although Frank seems pretty unemotional, it's easy to imagine that he misses home by this point as well, and that we would too under the same circumstances. Even a badly sung message is endearing from those we love. Both video messages do a fair deal to humanize two of the film's five major characters (it is frequently observed that the human characters are the more "robotic" ones on screen, while Hal and even Moonwatcher have real drama and anguish about them. Dave gets some of this ape-like anguish as he shakes in fear while going through the StarGate, thus recovering his humanity just before losing it.
Also, on the subject of the video calls, an amusing item. The actress who played Poole's mother in the video call (movie within a movie) was one Ann Gillis, an old school actress who seems to have enjoyed a good and prolific (if not brilliant) run throughout the thirties and forties. According to IMDB at least, she was among many actresses who had difficulty in working with Kubrick, and therefore had the following to say:"Kubrick was a real jerk. It shows you what can happen when a director is given a blank check."
Actually shit acting:Collin Farel in The Lobster.Midget in Game of Thrones physically cringing when he has to announce the omniscient time traveler becoming king instead of a retarded woman.Not shit acting:Someone not chimping out and behaving like an unhinged negro.
>>220126704I can name 3 movies ruined entirely by hair style.
