Arthur clarke 20017/7/2023 ![]() ![]() I’m reading Asimov at the moment and find the great man isn’t quite as great as I used to think. You get older and some heroes become disappointingly normalised, while many also-rans, start to prove their skill. ![]() After many viewings, plus learning a lot about the musical choices of Kubrick (there’s a bloody good reason why Richard Strauss’s opening to Also Sprach Zarathustra was chosen – horrifically and subsequently relegated to a spoiled cliché though it was), I came to have a pretty good understanding of what the hell the movie was all about. I know that’s contentious (the number of people I know personally who say they love and highly rate the film I can count on one hand and have fingers left to spare), but I hold that it is true and, on the whole, both critics and ‘Top Ten’ type lists tend to agree (give or take a superlative or two). ![]() That said, the Stanley Kubrick movie of 2001 was, without a shadow of doubt, one of the greatest movies of any genre. Compared with Asimov (and Clarke so often was) and Anne McCaffrey, I really didn’t find Clarke so interesting. Even in my youth, when I devoured classic sci-fi while other kids my age were discovering their dad’s not-so-secret stash of porn magazines, I was reading things like ‘Rendezvous with Rama’, ‘Imperial Earth’ and ‘Childhood’s End’ and really not so impressed, to be honest. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |