2001: A Space Odyssey

[DA_Champion]

2011: A Space Odyssey (1968)
Director: Stanley Kubrick
Screenwriters: Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke
Legacy: 6th Greatest film of all time in the 2012 survey commissioned by the British Film Institute.

I finally caught 2001, I vaguely remember watching it a long time ago and falling asleep early on and not finishing it, this time I managed to stay awake. Kubrick's masterpiece emerged partly from a desire of Kubrick to make the proverbial "good science fiction movie" as in that time, like now, the majority of science fiction films were awful. 2001 deals with themes of human evolution, the nature of consciousness, our place in the universe, and space exploration, and does so in a more interesting way than many of its descendants like Prometheus.

A brief summary, 2001, inspired by Clarke's short story The Sentinel, has a 4-act plot. The first act follows a bunch of ape-men 4 million years ago, at an earlier stage of evolution where we witness the discovery of tools and weapon. The second act in 2000 deals with an interesting discovery on the moon which is being kept hidden. In the third act, a mission heads to Jupiter where the discovery is followed-up on, and this includes the famous Hal-9000 computer. Finally, in the 4th act, the repercussions of the discovery.

I give this movie my sincerest recommendation, but keep in mind it's long, will come off as boring in parts, and has an unconventional style that eschews dialogue. Kubrick (originally a photographer) was apparently sickened by the over-reliance on dialogue in most movies, and thus he tried to build the movie with as little dialogue as possible. It's a visual experience (also a great musical score). Some of the shots are really long, the camera lingers. Since the movie relied on models and sets rather than CGI, it still looks beautiful 46 years later. Honestly, I think a lot of these sets would be at home in current blockbusters, or even outclassing the other sets. I understand inflation but I'm amazed that they made this for 10 million dollars.

There's some really beautiful space-shots of Earth, the Moon, Jupiter, Jupiter's moons that were made before all of the beautiful shots we got in the late 1960s and 1970s. There are inaccuracies but they look beautiful regardless, I wonder how they drew them. I read in some commentaries that they originally wanted a mission to Saturn and not Jupiter, but they switched to Jupiter because they didn't know how to show the rings.

I've watched the movie and listened to the commentary by actors Keir Dullea and Gary Lockwood. They explain a lot of stuff ... I couldn't tell why HAL went evil in the movie. As one of the actors said, people who have read the novel, or watched the movie 50-100 times, infer that it's because HAL was conflicted by some orders he got, to keep the mission's purpose a secret, and this cased him to go insane. I didn't get that at all, but if real cinephiles need to watch the movie 50-100 times to get that, I don't feel bad.

Interestingly, the first act, of the ape-men, was shot with Kubrick not present. He didn't like to fly, he hated flying, so he directed the shooting (in Africa) by telephone from America. He had shots of the locations and had them split into maps, so he could say "point to C3" for example. I thought the costumes for the ape men were impressive, they compare well to those of Planet of the Apes which came out the same year. Apparently, when POTA won an oscar, he lamented that perhaps 2001 didn't win that oscar because the voters thought the apes in 2001 were real.

Ultimately, very little is truly original, but 2001 is possibly the most influential piece of live-action scifi. I saw a lot of Star Wars, Star Trek, Alien, and Babylon 5 throughout. A lot of what I thought was distinct about Babylon 5 (and still is) relative to Star Trek are actually further exploration of themes from 2001 that Star Trek and Star Wars abandoned, specifically with the "First Ones". In a way I feel bad, because now I've realised scifi has largely gone backwards. In the commentary, one of the actors said that scifi these days is just cowboys and indians, with bugs taking place of Indians... pretty much. Most scifi can't even be bothered to make their spaceships rotate.

All in all, 2001 was special, and I'm happy to finally get it now, at least on some level.

 

[Tanin]

I'll be honest, while I find it is beautifully made, has a great plot and everyone should at least watch it once to see how a real movie should be made...

I just bloody hate the film. *shrug* I just can't like it and I don't know why.

As for HAL going insane... they explain that as what happens in one of the book sequels. I can't remember which.

 

[DA_Champion]

I'll be honest, while I find it is beautifully made, has a great plot and everyone should at least watch it once to see how a real movie should be made...

I just bloody hate the film. *shrug* I just can't like it and I don't know why.

As for HAL going insane... they explain that as what happens in one of the book sequels. I can't remember which.

It's a challenging watch, and thus it's easy to understand why many of the critics hated this movie when it was released. Kubrick made a point of using as little dialogue as possible, some scenes he filmed again and again to try and keep reducing the dialogue, and we're all used as viewers to having dialogue guide the story, so it's beyond our comfort zone. Some of the space shots are really slow (which they would be if it were real), we're used to everything moving rapidly in space, getting from point A to point B to instant ... which actually makes no sense as space is very big.

The HAL 9000 computer has only one facial expression, it never moves, and it has one tone of voice.

I won't be one of those people who watches it 50-100 times, then again I don't watch any movie 50-100 times.

 

[CapedCrusader14]

I remember the first (and only time so far) I watched this film, my perception of films of films were so warped. I felt like I couldn't enjoy a film for a solid week. This is why I love and hate this film cause it did that to me. It was strange, and quite hard to explain. Mainly cause it managed to convey so much through a methodical pace and little to no dialogue. Intense almost religious experience.

 

[Lord]

One of my favorite movies, but i wouldn't recommend it to anyone.

HAL was amazing, probably the most human character in the movie.

 

[Dr.]

Excellent. One of my favorite movies - which is also acknowledged to be one of the best movies.

A few points:

* 2001 was filmed entirely in SuperPanavision 70mm; and the ideal way to see it was on a gigantic SuperPanavision 70mm screen. Meaning, the movie was intended to be as much an “experience” as it was a story. So it’s unfortunate that a person’s first viewing might have been via a poor print on broadcast TV or VHS. Nowadays, with BluRay and kick-ass home theater systems, 2001 has the potential to be better served.

* 2001 is justifiably thought of as an “art movie.” As such, it requires attention and patience - in the same way as 8½, Tokyo Story and Rules of the Game require attention and patience. Comparing 2001 to a modern summer blockbusters is apples-and-oranges.

* Fyi: amongst other themes, Kubrick explored Nietzsche’s concept of the ape-man-superman evolution from Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Subsequently, Richard Strauss composed music inspired by Nietzsche’s work (which was also called Thus Spoke Zarathustra). And Kubrick used Strauss’s “Sunrise” fanfare as accompaniment to moments when humans took a significant step in their evolutionary destiny (typically in the presence of the mysterious monolith). This fanfare is now better known as the “2001 theme.”

Interestingly, the first act, of the ape-men, was shot with Kubrick not present. He didn't like to fly, he hated flying, so he directed the shooting (in Africa) by telephone from America. He had shots of the locations and had them split into maps, so he could say "point to C3" for example.

I don’t think that’s true. Kubrick may have sent a team down to Africa to photograph landscapes with very large format still cameras (used for background projection). But the actual scenes were mostly shot at Shepperton Studios in England.

Good thread.

 

[Motown Marvel]

if you like the movie, you really need to read the book counterpart. kubrick and clarke wrote the movie and book side by side and released them around the same time. and they really do work as companion pieces and complete each other. and despite how heavy the film is, the book is a rather breezy read, and its every bit fantastic as the movie.

 

[Tanin]

if you like the movie, you really need to read the book counterpart. kubrick and clarke wrote the movie and book side by side and released them around the same time. and they really do work as companion pieces and complete each other. and despite how heavy the film is, the book is a rather breezy read, and its every bit fantastic as the movie.

I love all the books... even 3001.

 

[RetrogradeOrbit]

Ditto, I have read all of the books and enjoyed them all.

Any love here for the 2010 film with Roy Scheider, John Lithgow and Helen Mirren?

 

[Blitzkrieg Bop]

2001 is a titan of film. I love its visual approach to storytelling; it's so subversive. The last time I watched it, the Stargate sequence inspired an idea for a photograph I took the next day.

 

[MrMaooz]

This movie was boring as hell.

 

[Blitzkrieg Bop]

Now that we got the traditional "It's boring" post out of the way, will the rest of you who feel the same way please refrain from posting anything similar?

 

[Teelie]

Every movie has to be given a litany of "it sucks" posts so I'll add to it. t:

I think the movie has a lot of pompousness to it. It takes such a long time to get anywhere I've yet to fully watch it before either falling asleep or turning it off. It's one of those movies for the "film snobs" to hold to a high standard while trashing movies they deem to be "lesser" and inferior.

There's a lot of high-minded ideals and smugness that surrounds this movie and not all of it is justified.

I'm not going to sit here and debate it or try to defend my reason for not liking it because nothing will come of it. I'll try to actually finish this film at some point in the future and then give a better critique of why I find this film's praise so exaggerated and hipster-ish.

A movie that takes 20 minutes to actually get anywhere is not my cup of tea.

 

[Lord]

Stanley Kubryck was trying to change the way movies are made and wanted to make something different, you can argue if he accomplished it or not, but pompousness wasn't the reason, if you wanted a film like this that was actually very pompous then there Tree of Life.

 

[Duke]

2001 is an epic film in scope & visuals, as well as in story. It's film you'll have to have patience with viewing & understanding too, it's just not for everyone.

 

[DA_Champion]

Every movie has to be given a litany of "it sucks" posts so I'll add to it. t:

I think the movie has a lot of pompousness to it. It takes such a long time to get anywhere I've yet to fully watch it before either falling asleep or turning it off. It's one of those movies for the "film snobs" to hold to a high standard while trashing movies they deem to be "lesser" and inferior.

There's a lot of high-minded ideals and smugness that surrounds this movie and not all of it is justified.

I'm not going to sit here and debate it or try to defend my reason for not liking it because nothing will come of it. I'll try to actually finish this film at some point in the future and then give a better critique of why I find this film's praise so exaggerated and hipster-ish.

A movie that takes 20 minutes to actually get anywhere is not my cup of tea.

People on the Internet throw around the word "hipster" for anything they don't like, but the word has an actual meaning.

Kubrick was not trying to be fashionable just before a trend caught on. He was setting tbe trends. So not quite hipsterism.

As for 2001 taking 20 minutes to get anywhere, a lot of modern movies take 2 hours to get nowhere.

 

[weezerspider]

Every movie has to be given a litany of "it sucks" posts so I'll add to it. t:

I think the movie has a lot of pompousness to it. It takes such a long time to get anywhere I've yet to fully watch it before either falling asleep or turning it off. It's one of those movies for the "film snobs" to hold to a high standard while trashing movies they deem to be "lesser" and inferior.

There's a lot of high-minded ideals and smugness that surrounds this movie and not all of it is justified.

I'm not going to sit here and debate it or try to defend my reason for not liking it because nothing will come of it. I'll try to actually finish this film at some point in the future and then give a better critique of why I find this film's praise so exaggerated and hipster-ish.

A movie that takes 20 minutes to actually get anywhere is not my cup of tea.

Stanley Kubryck was trying to change the way movies are made and wanted to make something different, you can argue if he accomplished it or not, but pompousness wasn't the reason, if you wanted a film like this that was actually very pompous then there Tree of Life.

Yeah Kubrick constantly was trying to fight against plot. He was trying to make a film that wasn't so plot/dialogue driven. He once again focused on avoiding a constant plot in Full Metal Jacket, which is one of the reasons why the plot just completely disappears once they get to Vietnam(the other reasons being he wanted the structural training section to go against a plot-less war section as a way of showing both man's duality and the randomness/brutality of war). He wasn't doing this to be smarter than anyone or to be hip. He started out as a still photographer and genuinely felt moving photography(film) could exist as an art-form without conventional story-telling. 2001 was his biggest attempt at this. As Lord said, you don't have to like the results(though I love them), but he wasn't doing it to be pompous and, believe it or not, some people genuinely find this film entertaining.

 

[Persona]

i legitimately love this film with every fiber of my being. it's perfectly fine not to like the movie, and i understand why many don't, but to throw around terms like "smug" and "hipsterish" at people who like it, well, that's just unnecessary.

 

[Brother Jack]

I greatly admire the movie. The fact that it was made in the 60's and has special effects that still look great today is mind boggling, not to mention the cinematography and direction. The craftmanship is impeccable as it is with all of Kubrick's films but this one is unique for being so ambitious and wide in scope. But with that said it's hard for me to get through it, personally.

 

[Tanin]

Now that we got the traditional "It's boring" post out of the way, will the rest of you who feel the same way please refrain from posting anything similar?

But it is boring. Yes I prefer people at least try and express why it is boring for them like I did, but it is still a vary valid complaint of any film.

I actually had to restart the film twice just to get through the monkey scenes.
I love every other film this man has made. I also love the Tree of Life and other oddball weird crazy slow moving films...

 

[Dr.]

The “Dawn of Man” sequence portrays several important narrative elements.

The context is pre-historical: Humans are at their “man-ape” stage of evolution and barely managing to subsist on the meager resources of the savannah. (Despite plentiful game, they don’t appear to know how to hunt [indeed, they are the hunted]. Moreover, there’s an ongoing squabble with a rival tribe over access to a small watering hole.) The situation is bleak - with extinction being an obvious possibility.

A strange monolith appears. Whatever “its origins and purpose,” it’s clearly not natural.

Subsequently, one of the man-apes experiences a kind of epiphany: a bone can be used as a tool. And instead of scavenging, the ape-men are now able to hunt and feast. Additionally, it’s discovered that this same type of tool can be repurposed as a weapon. So during the next confrontation with the rival tribe, (what is presumably) the first ever murder occurs. This is a triumphant - yet chilling - moment in the evolution of intelligence. And the implication is that the presence of the monolith had something to do with this advancement. Jump-cut from the savannah to outer space.

Of course, this opening sequence (which runs 15 minutes) does not employ any dialogue or narration. It is, if you will, “pure cinema” - a story told with pictures, not words.

 

[Lord]

I have only watched 3 Kubrick films, and the only one i didn't really like was The Shinning, i can see how it was laughed at when it was released, it may have been well made, but for a horror film, it wasn't very scary.

I also recomend Barry Lyndon, i don't see it being as talked about compared to his other films, it was a true moving painting.

 

[redhawk23]

I have only watched 3 Kubrick films, and the only one i didn't really like was The Shinning, i can see how it was laughed at when it was released, i may have been well made, but for a horror film, it wasn't very scary.

I also recomend Barry Lyndon, i don't see it being as talked about compared to his other films, it was a true moving painting.

Kubrick has zero empathy for the character's in the Shining so its difficult to really give a **** when things go wrong for them. Plus Jack Nicholson just plays Jack Nicholson #214.

 

[Teelie]

Yeah Kubrick constantly was trying to fight against plot. He was trying to make a film that wasn't so plot/dialogue driven. He once again focused on avoiding a constant plot in Full Metal Jacket, which is one of the reasons why the plot just completely disappears once they get to Vietnam(the other reasons being he wanted the structural training section to go against a plot-less war section as a way of showing both man's duality and the randomness/brutality of war). He wasn't doing this to be smarter than anyone or to be hip. He started out as a still photographer and genuinely felt moving photography(film) could exist as an art-form without conventional story-telling. 2001 was his biggest attempt at this. As Lord said, you don't have to like the results(though I love them), but he wasn't doing it to be pompous and, believe it or not, some people genuinely find this film entertaining.

I realize I should have been clearer that the movie has a lot of pompousness to it because he was trying to do something new, not because it was new (although Kubric was a pompous ******* at times). I don't care for it (although Full Metal Jacket and several other Kubrick movies worked for me) but it's the audience and critics who give it this extra air of sophistication, like it has this deeper meaning and extra layers which may or may not be there.

The movie has, in my view, gotten this godly image of perfection and superiority to other movies and when I hear that it always reminds me of people who will look at (particularly controversial or unconventional) art and pretend like they get the vision of the artist. Usually they have no clue what the artist is trying to express but those viewers would rather act like they knew what it means than admit their to ignorance.

I have no problem saying I don't get what he was trying to convey, mostly because the "true cinema" part is just so boring to me. That's a problem Kubrick ran into; his vision wasn't always easy to see or sit through.

That so many people who say it's there likely don't understand it or parrot what someone who does get it is saying. The hipsters I mean are those who claim they "get" the movie even though their understanding of it is shallow at best.

That doesn't mean the movie is bad or no one understands it (good and bad being subjective). Some of the responses here show there are people who either know what they are saying or are good enough at relaying other people's opinions on it that did.

I'm still not a fan of the movie but I'm not knocking those who genuinely enjoy it for what it is. I just get sick of hearing high praise from people who have no idea what the hell they are praising.

 

[Tanin]

The “Dawn of Man” sequence portrays several important narrative elements.

The context is pre-historical: Humans are at their “man-ape” stage of evolution and barely managing to subsist on the meager resources of the savannah. (Despite plentiful game, they don’t appear to know how to hunt [indeed, they are the hunted]. Moreover, there’s an ongoing squabble with a rival tribe over access to a small watering hole.) The situation is bleak - with extinction being an obvious possibility.

A strange monolith appears. Whatever “its origins and purpose,” it’s clearly not natural.

Subsequently, one of the man-apes experiences a kind of epiphany: a bone can be used as a tool. And instead of scavenging, the ape-men are now able to hunt and feast. Additionally, it’s discovered that this same type of tool can be repurposed as a weapon. So during the next confrontation with the rival tribe, (what is presumably) the first ever murder occurs. This is a triumphant - yet chilling - moment in the evolution of intelligence. And the implication is that the presence of the monolith had something to do with this advancement. Jump-cut from the savannah to outer space.

Of course, this opening sequence (which runs 15 minutes) does not employ any dialogue or narration. It is, if you will, “pure cinema” - a story told with pictures, not words.

I understand everything about this film, from the literal on screen to the subtext. That doesn't mean I have to like it though. I may not be very verbose in my explanations or responses but please don't misunderstand that as ignorance.