Acclaimed in an international critics poll as one of the ten best films ever made; Stanley Kubricks 2001: A Space Odyssey has nonetheless baffled critics and filmgoers alike. Its reputation rests largely on its awesome special effects; yet the plot has been considered unfathomable. Critical consensus has been that Kubrick himself probably didnt know the answers.Leonard Wheats Kubricks 2001: A Triple Allegory reveals that Kubrick did know the answers. Far from being what it seems to bemdash;a chilling story about space travelmdash;2001 is actually an allegory; hidden by symbols. It is; in fact; a triple allegory; something unprecedented in film or literature. Three allegoriesmdash;an Odysseus (Homer) allegory; a man-machine symbiosis (Arthur Clarke) allegory; and a Zarathustra (Nietzsche) allegorymdash;are simultaneously concealed and revealed by well over 200 highly imaginative and sometimes devilishly clever symbols. Wheat "decodes" each allegory in rich detail; revealing the symbolism in numerous characters; sequences; and scenes. In bringing Kubricks secrets to light; Wheat builds a powerful case for his assertion that 2001 is the "grandest motion picture ever filmed."
#707721 in eBooks 2013-07-04 2013-07-04File Name: B00DLYUOUI
Review
0 of 0 people found the following review helpful. Interesting historic account - not quite as interesting musicallyBy Dorte JensenIt was interesting to read about how the old East Germany developed into the DDR and how life was regulated there. I had friends in the DDR; but it was only a little about how life really was they were allowed to tell (censorship was very much in place; even in the late 80es); so it is interesting to read about it from the point of someone who saw both sides at the same time. I like Kowalskis description of the Hunter-Gatherer society; where someone will find 1 million nails and use them to barter with.What is less interesting is the artistic tale. Mainly because Kowalski wants to keep private things private to a degree that makes it all come across as devoid of passion and emotion (very unlike Kowalskis singing). I do understand it; and I absolutely respect and admire it; but it could have been done tastefully and discreet and would have opened for an understanding of an artists life. How does one perform comical acts when ones parents are dying e.g. How does one sing of great love in the middle of a divorce; or how does one sing of love lost and hearts broken when newly in love yourself? How do lifes ups and downs contribute to a new understanding of music you have previously performed to great acclaim and which you have always claimed to understand to the core? Kowalski sets out with the noble intent that this is not just another account of someone who did this and excelled here and had a temporary setback there; but without these elements of how to bring art into life and life into art; it all becomes a tad repetetive.Overall though it is interesting; not least as a historical journey; and a good little portrait of one of the singer who more than anyone paved the way for the modern countertenors.