Where to start with 2001: A Space Odyssey? As a young lover of film, it is a piece that I had seen without seeing; such is its influence on not just the world of film but on popular culture (Where would GLADOS of the video game Portal be without HAL?) directed by Stanley Kubrick, you may have heard of him, the film was initiated by the man himself saying that he wanted to make the, “Proverbial good science-fiction film” for many including directors such as James Cameron, he made the ultimate science-fiction film.
For many including myself, this film does not have a story, except it does. For me this is a thematic film, when asking what 2001 is about the response will not be an IMDB-esque one sentence plot summary but instead, it’s about human evolution, technology, the life, universe and everything. The first line of dialogue in the film is spoken twenty-five minutes in and Kubrick set out to make a film, which would be a sensory and visual experience, akin to a symphony, sculpture or painting. In fact the two elements of 2001, which surprised me the most, were the visual effects and the sound.
Technologically this film is a masterpiece and a landmark in the history of film. Released in 1968, the film’s effects in 2012 are not outdated in the slightest. What is even more admirable is how images such as a floating pen were realized through sticking a pen to glass. 2001 was a film ahead of its time in many ways, visually is where it was arguably most so. The art direction, cinematography, costumes, sound effects, soundtrack, visual effects and the stunning make-up work were all worthy of Oscar wins and it is one of the worst Academy decisions of all time, that 2001 did not sweep the technical categories on the year of it’s release. In fact this year we are faced with the frightening possibility of Transformers: Dark of the Moon winning more Oscars than 2001: A Space Odyssey.
As a fan of the science fiction genre, 2001 is one of those films, which proves why it is one of the ultimate, if not the ultimate, genre of storytelling. Science fiction stories can deal with the very core of our existence and the great mysteries of mankind. If you give your mind over to 2001 it will leave you pondering your place in the universe, the origin of humankind, its future and its purpose. As a fan of filmmaking and of science fiction it impossible not to appreciate 2001 due to the groundbreaking nature of its visuals and the scope and density of its themes.
What also gives 2001 such a timeless quality, is the incredibly interpretative incidents, which permeate the films presentation. As somebody who writes film reviews and analysis it is incredibly gratifying to be given a film with such room for discussion. Upon finishing watch 2001, my first reaction was to go on Youtube and search the web to read, watch and listen to what others think and feel about the film. Due to the film’s stature as a classic and its long presence in the public conscience, it is hard for me on a first viewing to provide a new perspective on this piece, however this gives me the chance to discuss and highlight my favourite theories on this film.
Arthur C. Clarke (Who wrote his book alongside the production of its film adaptation) describes the monolith that appears throughout the film, accompanied by an incredibly chilling piece of classical music, as an artifact left by another civilization to trigger the next step of human evolution. However it is important to note (As many already have) that the book version of this story should not be used as the key to unlocking the film’s mysteries due to the side by side, yet not linked, development of both of them and Kubrick’s deviation from original source material in films such as The Shining.
robag88 (Who does superb film analysis on Youtube, particularly on the films of Stanley Kubrick) proposes that the monolith, regarding its shape and structure, is representative of a wide cinema screen. The moments when the screen is dark (Most notably for the film’s first four minutes) accompanied only by music, is according to robagg88 Kubrick’s way of getting the audience to experience the monolith the way that the characters do in the film. For me however this connection between the monolith and a cinema screen has two possible meanings, either the audience must take an evolutionary-esque step in order to appreciate and perhaps understand the film, or that cinema as an art form can facilitate or in fact leads to a, albeit less dramatic and literal, evolutionary step.
For many including myself, this film does not have a story, except it does. For me this is a thematic film, when asking what 2001 is about the response will not be an IMDB-esque one sentence plot summary but instead, it’s about human evolution, technology, the life, universe and everything. The first line of dialogue in the film is spoken twenty-five minutes in and Kubrick set out to make a film, which would be a sensory and visual experience, akin to a symphony, sculpture or painting. In fact the two elements of 2001, which surprised me the most, were the visual effects and the sound.
Technologically this film is a masterpiece and a landmark in the history of film. Released in 1968, the film’s effects in 2012 are not outdated in the slightest. What is even more admirable is how images such as a floating pen were realized through sticking a pen to glass. 2001 was a film ahead of its time in many ways, visually is where it was arguably most so. The art direction, cinematography, costumes, sound effects, soundtrack, visual effects and the stunning make-up work were all worthy of Oscar wins and it is one of the worst Academy decisions of all time, that 2001 did not sweep the technical categories on the year of it’s release. In fact this year we are faced with the frightening possibility of Transformers: Dark of the Moon winning more Oscars than 2001: A Space Odyssey.
As a fan of the science fiction genre, 2001 is one of those films, which proves why it is one of the ultimate, if not the ultimate, genre of storytelling. Science fiction stories can deal with the very core of our existence and the great mysteries of mankind. If you give your mind over to 2001 it will leave you pondering your place in the universe, the origin of humankind, its future and its purpose. As a fan of filmmaking and of science fiction it impossible not to appreciate 2001 due to the groundbreaking nature of its visuals and the scope and density of its themes.
What also gives 2001 such a timeless quality, is the incredibly interpretative incidents, which permeate the films presentation. As somebody who writes film reviews and analysis it is incredibly gratifying to be given a film with such room for discussion. Upon finishing watch 2001, my first reaction was to go on Youtube and search the web to read, watch and listen to what others think and feel about the film. Due to the film’s stature as a classic and its long presence in the public conscience, it is hard for me on a first viewing to provide a new perspective on this piece, however this gives me the chance to discuss and highlight my favourite theories on this film.
Arthur C. Clarke (Who wrote his book alongside the production of its film adaptation) describes the monolith that appears throughout the film, accompanied by an incredibly chilling piece of classical music, as an artifact left by another civilization to trigger the next step of human evolution. However it is important to note (As many already have) that the book version of this story should not be used as the key to unlocking the film’s mysteries due to the side by side, yet not linked, development of both of them and Kubrick’s deviation from original source material in films such as The Shining.
robag88 (Who does superb film analysis on Youtube, particularly on the films of Stanley Kubrick) proposes that the monolith, regarding its shape and structure, is representative of a wide cinema screen. The moments when the screen is dark (Most notably for the film’s first four minutes) accompanied only by music, is according to robagg88 Kubrick’s way of getting the audience to experience the monolith the way that the characters do in the film. For me however this connection between the monolith and a cinema screen has two possible meanings, either the audience must take an evolutionary-esque step in order to appreciate and perhaps understand the film, or that cinema as an art form can facilitate or in fact leads to a, albeit less dramatic and literal, evolutionary step.
Regarding the direction of Stanley Kubrick, there is a cut in this movie, which is probably the most famous cut in film history. As an ape throws a bone into the air we cut millions of years into the future, as the bone in the sky becomes a satellite in space. In a one second cut, Stanley Kubrick visualizes the advancement of humankind and the tools, which they use to maintain their dominance, if only the rest of the film had such efficiency. As mentioned earlier, 2001 is a film I deeply appreciate and no film fan no matter what they say can dislike 2001 because the fact of the matter is, any film fan who loves a science-fiction movie is indirectly paying reverence to the work done by Stanley Kubrick in 2001.
However while 2001 had me in a hypnotic trance at times, at others I would be lying if I said my attention didn’t drift. Stanley Kubrick is somebody who wanted to and did say a lot through his visuals. However as mentioned with the jump cut, he can say the same thing, to more dramatic effect, in a shorter period of time. There are shots and scenes in this film which although are beautiful to look at, do go on too long. This film is undeniably pretentious and self-indulgent and I could completely understand, although not support, somebody hating this film. It is not close-minded, dumb or a betrayal of film to rightly criticize 2001 for a lack of discipline when it comes to the editing and structure of the film, as a lot of, if not all of the same ground could have been covered to arguably greater effect, with a shorter running time.
Many compared last year’s The Tree of Life to 2001 and I agree in the sense that all the worst elements of 2001 are exacerbated in The Tree of Life. Why I find the pretensions, indulgence and nature of 2001 more acceptable than The Tree of a Life (A film to which I gave a negative review) is that from the outset 2001 sets itself up as and remains a visual, thematic, sensory experience. Whereas in The Tree of Life, it sets itself up as a personal family drama, takes a imitation of 2001 detour, gets back to the family drama and effectively conveys it, then for its conclusion snaps back to imitating 2001. 2001 is for its whole length is what it sets out to be, now I am not saying that films cannot and should not morph over its running time, however unlike The Tree of Life, 2001: A Space Odyssey is consistent and has the strength of its convictions.
While 2001: A Space Odyssey is a film not remembered for character, it does contain within it one of the most famous film characters of all time in the mechanical shape of the paranoid android known as HAL 9000. Voiced by Douglas Rain, HAL is still with us today in video games, films and most eerily in our phones in the shape of Siri. It is in the middle movement of the film where 2001 becomes a timeless commentary on the dangers of man’s over enthusiastic technological advancements. Another thematic message that will be timeless, as it is human nature to ironically build something more powerful than it. This second act of the film is part horror, part black comedy and wholly science-fiction and perhaps the most agreeable part of the film in the sense that it can appeal both to those who love and loathe the sections that bookend it.
Many compared last year’s The Tree of Life to 2001 and I agree in the sense that all the worst elements of 2001 are exacerbated in The Tree of Life. Why I find the pretensions, indulgence and nature of 2001 more acceptable than The Tree of a Life (A film to which I gave a negative review) is that from the outset 2001 sets itself up as and remains a visual, thematic, sensory experience. Whereas in The Tree of Life, it sets itself up as a personal family drama, takes a imitation of 2001 detour, gets back to the family drama and effectively conveys it, then for its conclusion snaps back to imitating 2001. 2001 is for its whole length is what it sets out to be, now I am not saying that films cannot and should not morph over its running time, however unlike The Tree of Life, 2001: A Space Odyssey is consistent and has the strength of its convictions.
While 2001: A Space Odyssey is a film not remembered for character, it does contain within it one of the most famous film characters of all time in the mechanical shape of the paranoid android known as HAL 9000. Voiced by Douglas Rain, HAL is still with us today in video games, films and most eerily in our phones in the shape of Siri. It is in the middle movement of the film where 2001 becomes a timeless commentary on the dangers of man’s over enthusiastic technological advancements. Another thematic message that will be timeless, as it is human nature to ironically build something more powerful than it. This second act of the film is part horror, part black comedy and wholly science-fiction and perhaps the most agreeable part of the film in the sense that it can appeal both to those who love and loathe the sections that bookend it.
2001: A Space Odyssey is undeniably an intellectual rather than emotional experience, however if emotion comes through in any way, it is through HAL 9000 who is more human than the humans, depending on your interpretation of his actions. Ultimately on a first viewing it was intimidating and challenging to even start writing this over one thousand word analysis/review and I have a feeling each time I revisit the film, I could write another thousand words on it without repeating myself.
Honestly, it is a film I greatly appreciated and sporadically enjoyed. It is a film, which will grow on me just as much watching and reading interpretations of it as watching the film itself. It is groundbreaking, inspirational, intellectual, influential, challenging, chilling, self-indulgent, pretentious, artful, ambiguous, and atmospheric. It goes from the dawn of mankind to the birth of a new civilization and in doing so creates a film which will never be forgotten, whether this film will be cherished by my generation who have been raised on Transformers and Call of Duty, is debatable, however its influence on the craft of film and the scope of its themes ensures that those who love cinema, will remember it, though not necessarily wholly affectionately, as a monolith in this history of moviemaking.
By Movie Parliament Prime Minister,
Michael Dalton
Honestly, it is a film I greatly appreciated and sporadically enjoyed. It is a film, which will grow on me just as much watching and reading interpretations of it as watching the film itself. It is groundbreaking, inspirational, intellectual, influential, challenging, chilling, self-indulgent, pretentious, artful, ambiguous, and atmospheric. It goes from the dawn of mankind to the birth of a new civilization and in doing so creates a film which will never be forgotten, whether this film will be cherished by my generation who have been raised on Transformers and Call of Duty, is debatable, however its influence on the craft of film and the scope of its themes ensures that those who love cinema, will remember it, though not necessarily wholly affectionately, as a monolith in this history of moviemaking.
By Movie Parliament Prime Minister,
Michael Dalton
RSS Feed