"2001: A Space Odyssey" Discussion: 6/16/02 - 6/22/02

[Morticia]

This is a thread to discuss the technical and/or thematic merits of "2001: A Space Odyssey."

The purpose being to foster intelligent discussion of films without resorting to "It's a piece of crap." or "It's the greatest film ever." (And so that we all can gain a bit of a film education from everyone.)

We'll discuss a new film each week. Either slade or I will post the film in this forum in advance, and lock the topic until the first day of discussion.

Thanks everyone. We are excited and we hope this works (we're open to any ideas of how to make it better).

****SPOILER WARNING**** of course this entire thread is going to be full of spoilers.

[DimWit]

"Hello, Dave."

Would you have thought that a talking computer would be so polite? Calm? Psychotic? Of course, we made him (it?) that way. It’s enough to drive you ape.

Ok, enough with the references… 2001 is the One. Not with Jet Li, but as the movie that started it all. By that I mean it’s the demarcation point between the 50’s creature feature sci-fi flicks and anything we would call science fiction today. It’s astonishing to compare the highly reguarded Pal’s Destination:Moon with Mr. Anal’s 2001 even though there’s only a couple of years in between. Probably less than one since Kubrick started preprod in 1963. Of course, taking 4 years to make it allows a certain sense of permanence which makes you obsess over every detail.

Was it worth it? You tell me… tell me any sci-fi movie over 40 years old that doesn’t look dated, cheesy or just plain stupid? Anyone? Anyone? There isn’t another. Hell, it blows movies half its age away. Shit, on the science alone, it exceeds the standards that things like Wing Commander or Starship Troopers can’t even meet.

Once we get into commercial space travel, I’m sure that if it doesn’t look like what Kubrick envisioned, people will be disappointed. (as an aside – the first interstellar craft has to look like the Enterprise, don’t you think? Which version is open to debate)

[DrDetroit]

I'm just curious to know if there are any other space movies where it's silent in space. Anyone? It seems that nobody takes the hint from Kubrick that it's perfectly effective to keep sound out of space sequences... I mean, even the supposed 'sequel' (which is terrible!) didn't follow this rule.

But I guess Khachaturian and Strauss don't play repeatedly in space either, so it's give and take.

[Scarface]

This is one of my favourite movies of all time. Not only did it use ground-breaking special effects, a unique narrative, and actually have a serious, philosophical theme, Kubrick created a movie that can't be dated (yet, anyway). There are no scenes of Earth, with the exception of the apes, but those scenes can hardly 'date'. Perhaps the only aspects that do date this movie are the hairstyles, clothes, and names 'Frank' isn't as common for a younger person as it was then, for example. Perhaps the ONLY major criticism of the movie (dated, wise) is the title - 2001 - yes the movie is set and based in the titular year, but as we approached the date, we knew that we had not advanced that far in technology as Kubrick had predicted. The title could have been 3001, and we would not question it. Sure, Kubrick had gotten some technical aspects of space travel wrong - just look at the goofs section at www.imdb.com, but of course, this movie was made in 1968 - before Mankind had even reached the Moon - and look how accurate the movie is.

There is no answer to this movie - it is up to the viewers interpretation. Kubrick broke the boundaries with this movie - for a movie that is over 2 hours long (approx. 2hrs. 30 mins.) there is only 40 mins. of dialogue. The innovative camera work leaves the viewer in awe, as the characters walk upside down, run in circles, eat upside down, etc. This is a bleak movie, and Kubrick has followed no rule book - he has shots lasting as long as he wants, from whatever angle he wants. The movie took 4 years to shoot, and Kubrick has full creative control. With the assistance of science fictin writer Arthur C. Clarke, Kubrick formed a script.

What does the movie mean? What does it represent? All these answers, possibly, lie in the Star Child - possibly. With the constant reference to birthdays, the birth of Mankind as we know it, one could easily interpret the Star Child is the next stage of Mankind. What philosophy does Kubrick follow? He intended to make the 'proverbial good science fiction movie' - and he has succeeded. After taking philosophy classes, my view of 2001 has changed. The boredom, the journey, the Star Child, too me, point towards the philosophies of Plato - has Dave Bowman reached the Land Of Forms?

HAL is more of a subplot to the actual 'progressin of Mankind' theory. HAL is (debatably) a psychotic - 'he' is torn between morals; he is asked about the mission, by a crewmember (a friend?), but isn't permitted to talk about the mission - he is programmed to obey the crews requests, but is programmed not to tell of the mission. So he decides to kill the crew. This is, of course, another interpretation. HAL also gives Kubrick a chance to express another theme of Kubricks movies - the faults of Mankind. In A Clockwork Orange, Kubrick expressed the theme of free will, how Man cannot control society. In The Shining, Kubrick explores the insane mind. In Dr Strangelove: Or How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb, Kubrick explored the possibility of nuclear war - how Man will eventually destroy itself. And, in Full Metal Jacket, Kubrick looks at the pit that Man has created through its bickering, and how it dehumanises people to fight. In 2001, Kurbrick shows again how Man has dug itself a hole - creating technology and computers more efficient that humans - another form of destruction.

Kubrick has created a depiction of the future. Those old cartoons and shows that shows us life in the future - flying cars, robot servents, etc. is the kind of angle Kubrick has also added - but not on Earth, but in space. What Kubrick is also giving us is a showcase for future space-travel.

This is my favourite Kubrick movie, and (in my view) his greatest achievement. The possibilities are endless, and what Kubrick has created is something every individual can relate to in some way.

[DimWit]

The beauty of 2001 is how much and what you can read into it. Whatever your philosophy, there's meaning to it in 2001.

My take? HAL represents -- a la Frankenstein -- technology. A far reaching, enabling... crutch. Something that will always let us down in the end if we rely on it too much.

Of course, what does that make TMA 1? Is it not superior tech? Taught us tools. Brought us out of the dark ages? A passable God. Inscrutable. Omnipresent. Fount of knowledge. No wisdom, though. We have to use technology to get to a place where we don't need it anymore.

BTW, Ebert has called the bone/sattelite edit the greatest in moviedom. It IS pretty incredible.

[Flash Ahhh]

Good movie. Very state of the art for the late 60ies.

While I am not crazy about the dawn of man bone pounding ape grunt fight, I think there is symbolism in the first act.

Overall I think Kubrick shows us a future that is much more realistic than one that is full of phasers and beamers and transporters and warp drives that when it comes down to it scientifically, just might not be possible.

While the panaromic shots are beautiful on the big screen and I am sure were absolutely mesmerizing in the late 60ies and early 70ies, I find those scenes slow moving and tedious. I usually fast forward the slow approach and slow pan scenes. At the time of this films release I'm sure those scenes were hypnotic and captivating as no movie had done such realistic close-up outer space and science fiction special effects up to that point.

My favorite scenes are the ones regarding Clavius. If something like that happened, would that be the way the Government handled it?

My favorite thing about 2001 is debating on what the movie is really about. Is it about the monoliths? Is it about an alien race, monitoring our evolution? Is it about the creation of computers to replace man? Is it about the relationship between Bowman and Poole? Is it man vs machine? Is it about discovery, exploration and curiosity? Or is it about all of the above?

One of my favorite quotes from Clarke: "If you understand 2001 completely, we failed. We wanted to raise far more questions than we answered."

-Flash

[herald miffkin]

i love this film.
it is amazing and full of knowledge.

in my mind this is all about evolution in a cosmic sense.
it is not merely about 'humans'
humankind is just one tiny evolutionary phase of the larger picture.

the monolith represents what we inadequately have named 'god'
or 'total consciousness'
there is not a single being creating and judging the universe as our organized religions preach... religion is a human creation and its words cannot possibly encompass reality.

the monolith provides what could be called divine or cosmic inspiration.

it also shows that evolution is eternal and that there truely is no death, but merely a constant changing of properties.

the monolith will be present and provide the necessary tools for teaching the next phase of evolution.

we are all travelers in the universe and our travels are perpetual.

this is actually a very spiritual film...it shows us that when mankind is gone, all of the energy that it was comprised of shall remain and evolve beyond material presence

of course that's just my idea.

[aintnosin]

I wrote this about four years ago:

2001 is probably the most review-proof film in the history of cinema. Critics who try to do an in-depth analysis always come off sounding like freshman philosophy students. In a lot of ways, 2001 is the ultimate cinematic Rorschach test. Any review winds up saying more about the reviewer than about the film itself.

Instead of trying to tell you what I think it all means, I will satisfy myself with saying that I think 2001 is a singularly important film. Aside from Citizen Kane, it may be the most significant film in the first 100 years of cinema. More than any other film, before or since, it shows that film can be used for something beyond mere storytelling. Almost all other "great films" still hold to a more traditional narrative structure.

Not so here. It would be pointless to summarize the plot of 2001, because the plot is almost beside the point. This is cinema as mood piece, the use of imagery to stir the mind in ways that go beyond reason. 2001 is a film to be experienced and then dwelt upon at length, rather than just watched. If no one comes to the same conclusions, so much the better. I seem to remember that director Kubrick compared the structure of this film to that of symphony. I think this is accurate. 2001 is as open to individual interpretation as any good piece of classical music.

I have said elsewhere that I would not classify this film as science fiction, unless one considers metaphysics to be a science. Still, Kubrick's insistence upon rigid technical accuracy means that the science-fiction elements are some of the most sophisticated ever committed to film.

In this vein, the middle and later sections of the film which follow Heywood Floyd to the lunar crater Tycho and then follow Dave Bowman to Jupiter and beyond present us, the viewers of 1999, with a strange contradiction. Even though the film's view of man's relationship to technology is rather bleak, the level of technology portrayed for the years 1999-2001 appears wildly optimistic. It is fascinating to see just how big we were dreaming back in the 1960's.

2001's predictions about the future are a wild collection of hits and misses. It's true that there are no giant wheel-like space stations in orbit, but the first elements of a more modest station are already in place. Its interior, however, will not resemble the concourse at Heathrow. The Pan-Am space plane was overly optimistic, both about luxurious 747-style passenger travel in space and also about the existence of the airline itself, but the design of the ship does accurately predict the basic shape of the space shuttle we currently fly.

Like I said, the film's view of man's relationship to his machines is almost relentlessly pessimistic. How could it be otherwise when the only character with a semblance of a personality is a sentient supercomputer, and a homicidal one at that? The scene in which the HAL 9000 kills the still hibernating astronauts is especially chilling when the camera focuses on the computer ubiquitous red eye, like a traditional movie would dwell on the face of a murderer surveying his handiwork. With a human killer, we could read the expression on the face, maniacal glee or tortured guilt. With HAL, the lack of any possibility of expression means that we have a killer whose motives are both unknown and unknowable. I challenge even the makers of The Blair Witch Project to concoct a scarier scenario than that.

And the following scene, in which the pitiless killer begs for its own existence as David Bowman coldly and mechanically disassembles its higher mental functions, adds an equally chilling coda to that idea. Our attempt to create technology in our own image has succeeded in duplicating even the darker corners of our nature.

The human characters are overshadowed by both HAL and the alien monolith, but unlike other technology-driven effects films, this is not accidental or a deficiency. In 2001, the human characters are almost elements of the scenery, their interaction part of the background noise. Heywood Floyd (Sylvester) is a non-stop stream of unctuous pleasantries. His bland company-man exterior makes his reminder that security oaths will be required from anyone who knows about the monolith all the more ominous. He seems like a nice-enough guy, but his words hint at rather authoritarian attitudes.

Astronauts Bowman (Dullea) and Poole (Lockwood), on the other hand, seem to have totally submerged their personalities into their jobs, until they almost act like machines. Their responses seem almost programmed, automatic, while their computer goes about having a nervous breakdown. I found it ironically amusing when, in response to a reporter's question, Poole says that HAL acts like he has emotions, and says this in the most unemotional voice of which a human is capable.

2001 is not a movie for the people who log into the Video section of Amazon.com and blather that Armageddon is "the greatest movie ever made!" This film makes demands that its audience try to understand what it is trying to say without it being explained, but doesn't care if we fail to do so. The pace is almost glacial at times, but the film rewards and doesn't bore those willing to make the effort.