>i still maintain that the ending fell short... yes, with your
>explanation it is truly genius and intriguing.. however.. one
>would need some education before even attempting to interpret
>what you did.. and some research.. so, on its own.. this piece
>of art fails to communicate what it attempts to.. if after
>all, your interpretation was the goal...

I have no idea if my interpretation is the one Kubrick had in mind, and it doesn't matter. It's not his movie anymore, it's ours. I don't think Kubrick is so uninteresting that his intention was to make a movie that could only be interpreted one way. I think your interpretation is as valid as mine. I'm sure there's other great interpretations out there that make much more sense than mine (which was full of loopholes that could be debated). The best interpretation is the one that withstands the most scrutiny I think.

Do you need an education to interpret a movie? I think it gives you more interpretive tools, sure. Do you need to do research? Absolutely not.

But I do think, and I think this is where we do agree, that the greatest artist is one who can provide entertainment AND stimuli for higher consideration. Many people who didn't 'get' 2001 were still entertained by Hal's chilling demeanor, exquisite visuals and rousing score, but it's fair that you weren't entertained by the shrill sound effects and the perplexing and unforgiving ending.

Starship Troopers was a great achievement because it hit on both levels...it was two movies, one that discussed the eeriness of fascist surface-level mentalities and one that awesomely killed a shitload of bugs. I always find it even better when a movie has layers of understanding for different viewers.

Anyhow, I'm glad you liked my interpretation. Peace.