+Terrell Epps Terrell, so much in agreement with you! It is called slow and boring from the haters, but to me it is SK's best movie and most under appreciated!
The man was very intelligent and he completely got the meaning or intention behind 2001. Gonna miss this wonderful filmmaker! A director of his type is exceedingly rare in this day and age. RIP William Friedkin 🙏🏻
I watched The Exorcist in the 90's when I was 11 years old and it had a profound affect on me. So much so I went to the video store to hire it for movie day for school but the bastards didn't want to rent it to me due to my age. To this day it's my favourite film of all time, I became obsessed watching the documentaries finding out how Friedkin would booby trap the sets/scenes to get the reaction or shot he wanted from the actors and finally last year I listened to Peter Blatty's Audiobook which is over 10 hours long and is absolutely brilliant and available on youtube.
The power of God and the soul are unknowable...not that they don't exist but that they are unknowable. Friedkin defines agnosticism in the most lyrical and poetic way. Well stated.
There are four possible ways one could be. Agnostic-Theist: believes god exists, but the existence of a god is unknowable Gnostic-Theist: believes in a god for which he claims knowledge Agnostic-Atheist: does not believe god exists, but it can't be proved Gnostic-Atheist: believes it can be proved that god does not exist
As an agnostic, that's basically how I always felt about it. Maybe it's real, maybe it isn't, but either way it appears to be beyond our comprehension.
AJ Nope. You are wrong. What's the difference between an atheist and an agnostic? It has to do with the difference between what you believe and what you think you know. For any particular god that you can imagine, a "theist" is one who has a belief in that god. In contrast, an "atheist" is one who does not have a belief in the god. A "gnostic" is one who knows about the existence of god and an "agnostic" is one who thinks that god is unknowable. Notice that the terms "atheist" and "agnostic", by these definitions, are not mutually exclusive. You could be an agnostic atheist, meaning you don't think that the existence of gods is knowable, but you don't choose to believe in one without further proof. Many people assume that atheists believe that gods can be proved not to exist, but this isn't strictly true and there is no proper word to describe this. You could call such a person an "untheist", perhaps. Or, you could just call such a person a "gnostic atheist", one who doesn't believe in a god and thinks that his non-belief can be proved. So there are four possible ways one could be. Agnostic-Theist: believes god exists, but the existence of a god is unknowable Gnostic-Theist: believes in a god for which he claims knowledge Agnostic-Atheist: does not believe god exists, but it can't be proved Gnostic-Atheist: believes it can be proved that god does not exist Case 3 is sometimes referred to as "weak atheism" and case 4 is sometimes referred to as "strong atheism". Only strong atheism positively asserts that there are no gods. Finally, it should be pointed out that when a person is asked about their beliefs and replies that they are agnostic, they are avoiding the question and answering a different one. Someone who can't positively say he/she believes in a god is an atheist.
A gnostic is one who claims o have secret knowledge. It doesn't mean they have secret knowledge. Scientology had gnostic knowledge, you could say. They have often been schemes like a cult. Secret knowledge is a cult characteristic. @@CelestialWoodway historically the gnostics were a series of cults that flipped everything upside down. God was the devil and the devil was God basically. new discourses (James Lyndsay) has a video explaining how the gnostic pattern is basically marxism with the church. The same pattern is old. Nothing is new. I believe you are wring about agnostics as well. You can think the after life is like Twin peaks if you want where there isn't a 'god' so much as there is all sorts of evil and good spirits. Agnosticism is huge category. You can think it might be like a Buddhist vision. Buddhism doesn't believe in a god. You can be agnostic about Buddhism.
What the interviewer says about the films of Kubrick also applies to The Exorcist. I've been watching that film since I was a teenager and my perception of it has changed so much over the years. Like 2001, The Exorcist reveals more and more of itself to the viewer as decades pass. It's an amazing film. Friedkin is a great choice of filmmaker to comment on Kubrick.
Paths of glory is cinematic perfection. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that movie and i stongly believe that. Kubrick is hands down one of the best filmmakers of all time
it's great to see friedkin giving props to kubrick. they're both masters of their craft but kubrick surely opened the doors for a lot of out there shit to be taken seriously
the more Friedkin films I watch, the more I think that he really might be, perhaps not on par with Kubrick, but closer than anyone. are either my favorite director of all time? probably not. but there is this sort of ambiguous mysticism that you get from both of their films that I adore.
It's interesting to hear that Master Friedkin liked the way Kubrick ended his movies because I've always thought no once can come up with a more brilliant end of a movie than Friedkin himself.
Friedkin's gift of perception is unparalleled. He provides film aficionados like me with a level of perspective and honesty that is simply a joy to behold!
I DONT THINK KUBRICK WAS AS AMBIGUOUS AS THEY THINK. I think he was on another level of genius, touched by God. He was just extremely laced visually and everything was so meticulous and mystic and psychological and artful and wise. The ambiguity is a feeling of seeing the grand canyon and then having the muse of history and awe of life and grandiosity fill that specter. I'm embellishing on purpose incoherently sure but I know what I mean
the author of the book or cowriter Author C Clark hated what Kubrick did because Clark was an atheist. He thought Kubrick transformed the script onto a spiritual story so he intentionally made 2011 so that it erases the spiritual angle. For this reason I don't watch Beth movie. Its supposed to be okay but it was made with the specific purpose of undermining 2001. Stephen King had a similar experience with Kubrick. HE pissed off some authors but Burgess the writer of A Clockwork Orange loved the movie.
I remember reading that 2001 was somewhat reviled when it came out...still amazes me that critics can really NOT get it. It's valid to not like a film I suppose, but the way some of these critics railed on it, it really makes them look dumb...
Watched the Shining a couple of times about twentty years ago and thought it was OK, the best bit being the steadicam. I watched it again last month and now it's one if my too ten movies, it's so awesome, and I love all the theories around it
Wow! I thought I was the only one who prefers Kubrick from 2001 and earlier. The only other film which I think is equal to these early works is a very underrated movie called Barry Lyndon.
I love listening to Friedkin’s enthusiasm when discussing his peer filmmakers. A film lover and in on the other hand a philosopher of sorts, him and Tarantino have a lot of humility considering they don’t really like to talk about themselves but rather the people around them that greatly influence them.
I noted Friedkin in praising Kubrick stuck with the early work. Could not agree more. I really felt after Clockwork, the last 25 years of his career were spent on 4 good looking, well budgeted bores. From "Paths to Clockwork" though, only Hitchcock had a string like that.
I agree with you. He's one of those 70's filmmakers that's awfully difficult to define - in terms of influence and placement. But he's really made some challenging films - a few of them classics - he stirs it up, and he's incredibly articulate about film. Wish i didn't have to sit on the entire interview until July, but I think you'll enjoy it once it's posted.
going to be a great full interview....looking forward to it. i find friedkin something of an enigma....his work is wildly variable and some of it hits me much harder than others. either way, an interesting filmmaker with an unpredictable career path.
Well put. To recycle your words, the world needs more "wildly variable" artists. Even when they fail, they're interesting. And when they nail it (as in "The Exorcist", totally agree with you there) they "hit you hard."
kubrick films can still offer u something even after you;ve seen them multiple times. it may be a small innocuous detail. or something of more substance.
thanks for the reply! friedkin is indeed a great talker...saw the exorcist (still his most no holds barred devastatingly effective film imho) remaster at MOMA in nyc and he certainly had some fun stories to tell.
Wow! I've been saying for years that I feel that one of the biggest themes 2001 tries to convey is that mystery will always be a part of the human journey/experience, and that this mystery should be embraced, celebrated and honored. This aspect of Kubrick's film has also always reminded me of the Einstein quote, “The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom the emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand wrapped in awe, is as good as dead -his eyes are closed. The insight into the mystery of life, coupled though it be with fear, has also given rise to religion. To know what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms-this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.”
I think it's very fair to say that as William says here, this quote has the same kind of, or at least very similar Agnostic approach and view as Kubrick's 2001 does.
That's great. Something I've fumbled to articulate for a long time. It feels to me that in our internet age the rise of techies and their nerdery having more and more influence over so much of mainstream culture, we're slowly removing that wonder piece by piece and you see it reflected for eg in the arts which become less and less meaningful and thought provoking. Nowadays people want to know how everything is done and look behind the curtain, leaving us in this perpetually jaded state of seen it all before.
Bruce Attenborrow he’s light years better and more intelligent than Hillary Clinton and Bill though. Somehow YOU REGRESSIVES who erroneously call yourselves “progressive” (fucking misnomer if ever there was) think the world forgot who the DNC was trying to put in the White House. Don’t discuss intellect when you have none, Pumpkins! Your partner must not be the brightest either. Sad how duped most of the Gay community is by the DNC CULT. Thankfully we’re not all brainwashed, self righteous dumbasses. 💋💋💋
Not to steal the shine of this video away from Kubrick (such as that would be improbable) since we're very loosely on the thread of interesting directors spanning late 60s, 70s... how do you guys feel about Ken Russell specifically?
But what did the director mean by it though. That's what matters. I can use my imagination to come up with anything anytime. But when I pay money for something, I'm looking to hear or see that person's voice or thoughts. I don't need some mirror that's only going to tell me what I think anyway.
How is it that William Friedkin and Mike Mangini have exactly the same voice??? One is a film director, one is the fastest drummer in the world, and they sound exactly the same when they talk...weird!
I always appreciate modesty, perhaps even more so from bonafide geniuses. But I’d say that if there is an equivalent film that is to horror what 2001: A Space Odyssey is to science fiction, it would probably have to be The Exorcist.
So his takeaway from 2001 is that "the power of god is unknowable..." Hmmm. That's very far from what was intended (as Clarke's novel explained in a literal manner).
To my understanding, Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke disagreed with each other about how ambiguous 2001: A Space Odyssey should be. Ironically enough, William Friedkin and William Peter Blatty got into the same debate over The Exorcist. The writers wanted to make pretty clear statements to the audience while the directors wanted to leave them pondering upon what they just saw.
There is something defective about these Posting boxes. They go inactive! I wanted to input about the black monoliths in movie "2001". They were not meant to be understood, being symbols of the superior unknowable aliens. Arthur C. Clarke himself said that. His short story 'The Sentinel' sparked the Kubrick movie, by the way.
I was always a fan of Kubrick, but not so much a fan of Friedkin. Friedkin's legacy is built on just two films - The French Connection and The Exorcist. He did nothing afterwards that ever matched those films. Aside from two underrated classics - Sorcerer and To Live and Die in L.A. - most of Friedkin's work after The Exorcist was mediocre.
