2001: a space odessey

[Archivist]

Some years ago, 2001 was going to be shown on TV.  As my brother and I had never seen it, but had heard much of its reputation, we looked forward to finally seeing this much vaunted classic. 

I even drew my brother a handwritten invitation that said, 'You are cordially invited to a private screening of the classic scifi movie, 2001 A Space Odyssey, in our TV room,' along with some stars and planets and the moon.

We sat down with snacks and drinks in the light of the TV.  The opening sequence began ... and the movie rolled ... and by the end we looked at each other and said, 'what the hell was THAT???'  It was one of the most perplexing moments in all the times we had watched movies together.  This movie that was an absolute classic scifi hit had left us scratching our heads at its slow pacing and incomprehensible plot.

That was years ago.  I will have to watch it again to see what I think now.

[RCMerchant]

2001 is TRUE sci-fi....in the Robert Heinlen sense.
Reading Heinlan is a chore for non-Heinlan fans.....try reading STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND or NUMBER OF THE BEAST.
It's an aquired taste-one I personally find wonderful.

[Mr_Vindictive]

EYES WIDE SHUT?


(HA, I typo'd an "I" for that "U" in SHUT....should have left it).

Agree with what you said about 2001, by the way.

Doing wrong and having a misstep, are not quite the same thing! LOL  

My main problem with Eyes Wide Shut, and what I think tainted it for a lot of people, was the fact that it was Kubrick's final film.  You expect a master to go out with a bang, something worth remembering.  I loathed Eyes Wide Shut when I first saw it, upon it's release.  After some time, and revisiting it on occasion, it has grown on me.  It is by far the man's weakest film, but it is still just absolutely stunning to look at.  

[Robocop]

The presumption in terms of an explanation for HAL's behavior prior to the backstory that 2010 introduced was that he had malfunctioned. Even so you could interpret it of him being corporately sabotaged by the government anyway by simply connecting the dots, so there was elements of ambiguity.

I love this film. For the most pure experience it must be seen on Blu-Ray. The superb model work, cinematography and general visuals really make a difference.          

[Pilgermann]

I love this film. For the most pure experience it must be seen on Blu-Ray. The superb model work, cinematography and general visuals really make a difference.          

Most pure home viewing at least.  I'd LOVE to see a full-on 70mm print on a huge screen.  When I worked at a theater I watched my Blu-ray copy projected in an auditorium and it looked very good but a real clean print would be even better.

[ulthar]

I'm just wondering why 2001 is in the "Bad Movies" section...

[tracy]

2001 is TRUE sci-fi....in the Robert Heinlen sense.
Reading Heinlan is a chore for non-Heinlan fans.....try reading STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND or NUMBER OF THE BEAST.
It's an aquired taste-one I personally find wonderful.

Heinlen is a pleasure.

[bob]

tried to watch this.  i fell asleep towards the end. i know its critically acclaimed. i know its considered a masterpiece, espescially considering the time period it was filmed. definitley ahead of its time. but damn, its so long and boring. correct me if im wrong, i think i need to give it another try. i found the begining to be the most entertaining part. "monkey touch the monolith!!!". i say that  randomly now, if you havnt seen this movie that phrase makes no sense. say it, you almost always get a wtf reaction from somebody.  opinions of this movie? oh, ive seen 2010, i liked that one.

It takes multiple viewing to get. It took me 3 veiwings to "get it".

[Ed, Ego and Superego]

I read the book, and watched the movie at about the same time.  It was a huge help in getting the big idea.  I love this movie, and often wish I lived in that 21st century.  Space Hostesses!
-Ed

[clockworkcanary]

2001, much like EWS, is one of my favorite movies to analyze/study more so than being an actual favorite, if that makes sense. I love how the movie prior (Strangelove) ends with the world blowing up ...and here we are at the beginning of time (a reset button?). 2001 ends with the Starchild, and ACO (his next flick) starts with the Starchild (Alex). Fascinating stuff.

2001 was pretty unconventional for its time -most stories have three acts; 2001 has four -each significant. Also it's important to point out that this story is not really told with characters and dialog (we don't get until about 20+ minutes in); it's told more with images, concepts, symbolism, and even sound.

I've read that Kubrick designed it more like a symphony (Beethoven to be more exact) rather than a standard rock song. The first parts an introduction, the second part jokey, the third gets pretty serious, and the last is abstract. There are some great analysis of 2001 (along with the rest of Kubrick's stuff) out on the Web -I'll have to look some up and link to them if anyone's interested.

And in my opinion, EWS was really for Kubrick fans (whether they liked it or not is a different question) as it's mainly just a meta reference to all of his other work with Tom Cruise as the butt of the joke (at least that's how I like to see it). Also, EWS is much better than Fear and Desire, Killer's Kiss, and (my least favorite) Lolita.

[Rev. Powell]

2001 was pretty unconventional for its time -most stories have three acts; 2001 has four -each significant.

How do you divide it into four acts? It always seemed to me to divide easily into three. The apeman prologue obviously makes up Act I; then, the spaceflight up until HAL's demise seems to comprise a single subplot; and finally, Dave alone heading to the resolution with the star child.

Oh, and hi again Clockworkcanary, long time no see!

[ulthar]

How do you divide it into four acts? It always seemed to me to divide easily into three. The apeman prologue obviously makes up Act I; then, the spaceflight up until HAL's demise seems to comprise a single subplot; and finally, Dave alone heading to the resolution with the star child.

Oh, and hi again Clockworkcanary, long time no see!

I was thinking the four: ape/man prologue (how many movies have the prologue as an ACT?), the moon base scenes, everything actually on Discovery One, far, far from Earth, and the Star Child.

You put the moon base in with the actual flight as an Act? I suppose that's part of the interpretation-heavy appeal of this movie.  Even categorizing its structure is subject to opinion to some degree.

[Rev. Powell]

How do you divide it into four acts? It always seemed to me to divide easily into three. The apeman prologue obviously makes up Act I; then, the spaceflight up until HAL's demise seems to comprise a single subplot; and finally, Dave alone heading to the resolution with the star child.

Oh, and hi again Clockworkcanary, long time no see!

I was thinking the four: ape/man prologue (how many movies have the prologue as an ACT?), the moon base scenes, everything actually on Discovery One, far, far from Earth, and the Star Child.

You put the moon base in with the actual flight as an Act? I suppose that's part of the interpretation-heavy appeal of this movie.  Even categorizing its structure is subject to opinion to some degree.

OK, I see what you guys are saying.

I was looking at it as three acts because there are three different stylistic sections: the silent, documentary-like prologue, the deadpan drama in the middle, and the surrealistic conclusion.

The way you guys are dividing it is not really what I would call "four acts," but rather three acts plus an extended prologue. Now that I think of it, the apeman scenes shouldn't be considered an "act" because they are unnecessary in a narrative sense. You could cut them out entirely and start at the moon base and it wouldn't change the story at all. It's an unusual structure in any case.

[clockworkcanary]

Hey all - thanks Rev - nice to find the time to post again - work keeps one busy!

Structurally-speaking, yes, it is debatable (and likely intentionally) on where one act stops and one starts...or what qualifies as an act. I've always seen 2001 in these four main segments:

1. pre-dawn of man, the 2nd monolith, rise of the machines (or the first tool of violence, what have you)

2. moon flight to the 3rd monolith

3. HAL segment: man vs. machine

4. Into the fourth and final monolith and the Star Child (ascension of man/mind over matter)

Note: as for the first monolith...you know that part at the very beginning where you're just looking at a blank screen for a few minutes -I think that's the first monolith (or if you will, the whole damned movie is in this monolith).

Of course, that's subject to interpretation, but I think we can all agree this is one unconventional movie in both pacing and story-telling.

"the apeman scenes shouldn't be considered an "act" because they are unnecessary in a narrative sense. You could cut them out entirely and start at the moon base and it wouldn't change the story at all."

Not sure about that - I think the presence of the monolith (it is kinda shown as being responsible for man's evolution) and the first violent use of tools (and the bone's transformation into a stellar ship) are pretty crucial to the overall story. But to each is their own and all that :)

[Rev. Powell]

Not sure about that - I think the presence of the monolith (it is kinda shown as being responsible for man's evolution) and the first violent use of tools (and the bone's transformation into a stellar ship) are pretty crucial to the overall story. But to each is their own and all that :)

They add to the story but they are (really almost the definition of) backstory. The information could have been divulged in a 2-minute prologue, or even a line of dialogue somewhere else. The choice to make it such a major element of the movie is a bold one, and another way Kubrick ignores plotting 101.