6 Classic Movies And Their Modern Day Reincarnations

5. 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) to The Tree of Life (2012)

2001_tree_of_life_zps788ad9bf

Stanley Kubrick and Terence Malick are freakishly similar. Both are social recluses and value privacy, have a very short €“ yet immaculate €“ filmography, are exceedingly intelligent and voracious readers, their photography is like shape shifting paint on a luminous canvas, they represent the very scarce pinnacle of mainstream Hollywood €˜art cinema€™, and other characteristics could be poured onto a thesis and handed-in for a Ph.D. Other than Malick being the one of the two directors that still lives, the only other difference is their style of storytelling. Kubrick still delivered what is labeled as Hollywood storytelling throughout most of his career. His films mostly contained three acts, a protagonist with a dramatic need, a villain, a climatic ending, straightforward dialogue, and so forth. Many €“ including some of the very actors with whom he has worked €“ have criticized Malick for being too unorthodox in his execution. Although his most his films do have characters and narratives, many consider his work overly pretentious. The flow is lengthy, the dialogue sounds like Chinese proverbs rather than statements, the editing jumps back and forth in time and often confuses the viewers, and so forth. In short, his films have to be analyzed extensively in order to pick their lock €“ a subject of trial, error, and discussion. One director tells stories for the sake of unraveling a climax, the other uses cinema as a method of expressing his theories, philosophies, ideologies, and self-psychology. Kubrick accomplished this once through a colossal endeavor €“ 2001: A Space Odyssey. The film is considered one of the greatest of all time due to its innovative cinematography, its unprecedented scale of technology and special effects, its exploration of grand issues such as the origin of knowledge €“ €œreligious or scientific?€, the questioning of evolution, his ability to thrill the audience with HAL€™s monotone phrases, and alongside many other aspects that cemented Kubrick as a director of top-tier caliber. The film is €œartistic€ to the core, and it also requires thorough analysis to decode Kubrick€™s intention. When I watched The Tree of Life, I felt the same style. Malick was no stranger to this, since it shared traits with his second most recent film, The New World. The Tree of Life, however, chronicles some of Malick€™s thoughts on the origin of compassion, the passage of time from earth€™s inception, the inner turmoil of an adult living from the stress of his childhood, the darkness that crawls within the most innocent of beings, and I could go on. All this unravels in a very similar pace to 2001. The fact that the astronomical scenes in both films flow to a classical score makes the similarities too great to be ignored. Which is better? Both are rare examples of the Hollywood €œart film€, and the auteurs themselves are very similar. The films share identical features with their grand scale and philosophical undertones. And hey, both movies focus on the evolution of time since before humans existed. But which one is superior? As of now, the answer is 2001 €“ but only because standing the test of time favors it. I have no doubt in my mind that The Tree of Life will achieve the same in years to come.
 
Posted On: 
Contributor
Contributor

I'm currently enrolled in the Film Studies program at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark. If you haven't guessed by now, movies and media are as a big of a passion for me as they are for you and would love to hear what you've gotta say as well!