@mathis said:

I wonder if Kubrick really was aware of the dramatic element of silence.

Stanley Kubrick was aware of everything, I would think Mathis. Genius. Not a word I would use lightly when it comes to directors. With regard to 2001, I consider myself to be retrospectively lucky, because one of my college friends at the time was in it.

He was at university, a few years older than me, and Kubrick approached some of them for a 5 or 6 week job that year (in the holidays). Anyway, his role was one of the minor Apes. [:D]

What I remember him saying a few years after the film was released, was the attention to detail Kubrick had on everything. They were all trouped down to the zoo for weeks to observe the apes and then all the ape scenes (beginning of the film) were shot on indoor stages (nothing outdoors). He always went on about the arc lighting and how hot it became.

What a treat! [:)]

@PaulR said:

What I remember him saying a few years after the film was released, was the attention to detail Kubrick had on everything. They were all trouped down to the zoo for weeks to observe the apes and then all the ape scenes (beginning of the film) were shot on indoor stages (nothing outdoors). He always went on about the arc lighting and how hot it became.

What a treat! [:)]

Of course, what suffer for this great art! [:D]

But, more honstley, this rather confirms my impression. This observation of the apes in the zoo is exactly about realism.
I also heard that the space ships were built that way, that they would have been functionable in reality. That´s why they were destroyed after shooting. (At least nice story!)
I have the impression that Kubrick was obsessed with doing the film as close to reality as possible to make his philosophical statement as believable as possible. Might that be a good thesis?

@"mathisI have the impression that Kubrick was obsessed with doing the film as close to reality as possible to make his philosophical statement as believable as possible. Might that be a good thesis?[/quote said:

[quote="mathisI have the impression that Kubrick was obsessed with doing the film as close to reality as possible to make his philosophical statement as believable as possible. Might that be a good thesis?

Whats interesting about that thought, is Arthur Clarke wrote the book after the film was made, which is unusual. Reality is also an interesting thought with regards to 2001, although thats true in respect of the direction and sets etc.
2001 means different things to different people. In fact, its meaning changes on a personal level as one gets older and then discovers it again many years later.
One of the great things about Stanley Kubrik was he would never be pigeonholed. His films try to deal with a huge spectrum of subject matter on a number of different levels, from Dr Strangelove to Barry Lyndon to Full Metal Jacket. Very different genres. It may just be me, but the only music one remembers vividly within Kubricks films, apart from Spartacus is 2001.

This is probably because, as you alluded to earlier, one is completely familiar with the music in 2001 in the first place.

Kubrik was a maverick director and set up his base here in England for most of his professional life, because he didn't want to be dictated to by Hollywood moguls. Part of the reason that some of his films have a strange, almost unreal flavour to them, is because they were shot in England, whilst being set in say, America or Vietnam. I'm thinking of Lolita and Full Metal Jacket, for instance.

Bests

Paul

@PaulR said:

It may just be me, but the only music one remembers vividly within Kubricks films, apart from Spartacus is 2001.

Uh, I think maybe ...

"Siiiinging in the rain...I'm siiinging in the rain!"
and BEETHOVEN
and SLOW MOTION

might ring a bell too! Anyone whose seen it certainly remembers that tune well in conjunction with the film.

Evan Evans

Hey Paul!

I answered that first! [:(]



But seriously, very interesting discussion of 2001. I agree with what you're saying, and can claim to have seen the film in its original 70mm then repeated 35mm showings forty times in the theater. Long before there was such a thing as video. I was obsessed with it.

"2001" and "Darby O'Gill and the Little People" are the two greatest special FX films ever made. (As well as being extremely good films in other respects as well.) Before people ask, "What? What the Hell is this nutcase talking about with these OLD films?" please realize that these two films did something that no film today can do - real-time FX. No computers, and even no post-production optical printing (except for a few shots). Most of the main effects were IN FRONT OF THE CAMERA. That is one of the reasons they are so astounding even today. The money to do this kind of perfection of image is not available any more.

Good point, William.
Yes, the other thing I was really impressed when I watched the film in 2001 was the quality of the visual effects, especially in the end. They didn´t look oldfashioned at all to me (like most visual fx do after at last two years or so). Yes, no computer, just great optics. I loved it!

Which reminds me that I actually read the book before watching the film. I think I didn´t even know that the film existed (I think I was 13 or so). I remember very well this description of this strange journey throu space and time. It went over pages and pages literally describing these visual fx. Very weird experience.

Bests,
- M

[quote=William]Hey Paul!I answered that first! [:(] ]



40 times! Thats seriously impressive. Yeeessss. [H]

The impact of 2001 on the big screen was huge when it came out. No doubt about that. I think the camera man was Douglas Trumball (Trumble). Anyway, if not, whoever it was; brilliant. Stanley Kubrick got good people in his team, thats the main thing.

I saw Darby O'Gill and the Little People at the cinema in the fifties as a kid when it came out. Frightened the shit out of me. Walt Disney wasn't supposed to do that. Early days for Sean Connery's career and all that (and it didn't help him singing to Janet Munro). Had to walk home by myself afterwards. Kept looking for Wailing Banshees and headless carriage drivers. [:O]ops:

Yes, you'd need very big budgets to achieve that kind of magic these days. I agree.

I love hearing these intelligent statements about 2001, since it was my favorite movie until I saw "Dont Look Now, " then "Vertigo" then "Carnival of Souls" then "Eraserhead" then "Night Tide" then "Last Year at Marienbad" then "Tales from the Gimli Hospital" then... I'd better stop I suppose.

But the point about silence is interesting since it came from Kubrick's desire for realism, but also his use of realistic elements as a source of drama. In the scene where Bowman comes in through the airlock without his helmet - which is actually possible though very dangerous - the use of cacophonous sounds in the close confines of the pod, with all the alarms and machinery noise, contrasted with the dead silence of the airless space, then contrasted again with the roar of the air refilling the compartment - it is extremely dramatic.

I was thinking the other day about how many people (more conventional critics) said at the time that 2001 was non-dramatic and only visual. But it wasn't non-dramatic at all - it was in some senses supremely dramatic, but in a way that dramatists had never imagined before. I'm thinking particularly of the scene with Bowman trying to get in - "I'm sorry Dave I'm afraid I can't do that." Of course people use it as a quote for humor, but if you think about the situation, the desperate reality of it, it is one of the most dramatic scenes ever put on film. And it is so ironic with a very non-dramatic man - an astronaut trained to be calm - and an artifical intelligence. There is more reality and drama in that scene than in a thousand ordinary dramas.

Also, my point about the FX in front of the camera is that most of them were done first generation - that is, without any optical printing. So that a scene with a spaceship near Jupiter was the same resolution (on 65mm camera original film) as someone talking in a room. This is not done anymore. Also the end sequence - it was the same kind of first generation quality, with a "Slit-scan" device that created the light patterns all on the original negative, not with dupes or subsequent printings. 2001 was like experimental filmmaking, but done on a vast scale by masters of the art.

mathis,

Very very good piece. Great sound you get. Interesting writing. You have your own style. Cool percussive feel. A daring piece of music that works. I liked the slow section a lot.

What is your setup? Logic? Gigastudio? Reverb?

Was that all VSL?

Very exciting original work!

Dave Connor

@William said:

Hey Paul!

I answered that first! [:(] .

HaHa! so you did! I just realised that.

Excuses. [:D]

Paul and William,

What are you guys doing over here having civil, informative, discussions about great film-makers and film music?

Get over to that piccolo thread and raise some more hell, damn it!

And if I catch either of you using a sample of more than two notes:


its curtains see...? curtains for the both of ya's - yeah.... [to be spoken in the voice of Edward G. Robinson]

DC

Hi Dave, thank you very much! I´m away from the forum for some days due to my girlfriends visit, then I´ll come back to your questions.

mathis,

Take your time by all means.

DC

Yes. If his girlfriend is visiting and he is on the Forum, there is something seriously wrong somewhere.

Yeah! No hurry Mathis.


Tick Tock Tick Tock Tick Tock!

OK Mathis! Times up!

[:P]

Incorrigible, us three.

DC

OK Mathis. We've been standing round here waiting for nearly 2 days now! I think it's time you sent your girlfriend home.

Ok, it´s done. [:D]
B.t.w.: I can´t recommend long distance relationships. [:'(]

So, about my setup:
I compose in Sibelius with GPO attached as a playback device. This works great, since a complete reasonable sounding full orchestra can run at once in realtime. I miss keyswitch commands in Sibelius to be able to change articulations, especially in string writing.
(The good thing is that I need less and less this permanent playback check.)
The resulting score I play part by part into Cubase VST (PC) and edit it there. Midi export from Sibelius I only used in the snare part of OD#3 and the fast repitions in the waltz. It is a huge effort to "humanize" this midi export. In OD#3 I did that in the audio editor, and in the waltz I tried the randomize function, which worked ok. I couldn´t have played that anyway.
VSL is hosted by Gigasampler. I capture all articulations of one instrument at a time to one wave file. This step I hate! It´s enourmesly time consuming. I mean I usually end up in 80-100 stereo tracks which all have to be captured in realtime. I look very forward to Giga3, mostly because of the 32track capture function.
The resulting tracks I import into Samplitude for editing and mixing. I think Samplitude has the best sounding native mix engine and the object editing is superb. Although my PC can play back all these tracks, as soon as I insert my needed plugins I have to do submixes. I usually eq and compress (more or less slightly) every track. This results in about 2 to 4 plugins per track resulting all in all in several hundred plugins.... I look very forward to the computer generation after the next one.... [[;)]]
As reverbs I use the Samplitude convolution engine with the impulse responses coming with the program. I´m not entirely happy with these responses but can´t afford others. I use mainly church and ambience responses. In addition to that I use an algorithmic reverb plugin which I would immediatly buy if it would be available as a plain directx plugin. In the end I´m using 3-4 convolution and 4-7 algorithmic reverbs to get a complex reverb structure.
As already written elsewhere I actually do a lot performance related editing in Samplitude.
On the Master I apply some multiband compression, multiband stereo spreading and limiting. For the first two ones I use the Samplitude fx, but I feel the multiband compressor is not really doing the best. I currently test plugins by PSP which seem to be amazing! Especially the MasterQ gives me trebles I never heard before on a native platform.

Did I fulfill your curiosity?
Did I already mention that I can´t recommend long distance relationships?
Bests,
- Mathis

@dpcon said:

A daring piece of music that works.

Dave,
may I ask you what exactly you find daring? Honestly I wouldn´t have thought of anything daring in this piece. But this may be because of my weird nature [:@] [[:|]] [*-)] [8-)]
(A sincere question, b.t.w.)

- M

mathis,

I can't get the short distance relationships going so don't worry.

By daring I meant you made a lot of music out of octaves and rhythm and space. Also not tons of melody either. It takes a lot of skill and confidence to pull that off. You totally succeeded. Musically daring in my opinion.

To be a musican is to have a weird nature. Just ask Paul and William: two premium examples in my opinion. I mean these guys are wacked: way way out there. You understand? Damaged, emotionally and mentally. Very angry also. They need help and I just don't know what to do.

Please keep this between you and me.

Mozart