I finally viewed 2001: A Space Odyssey

[Della]

…and found it crushingly boring, and not because it’s sci-fi. I love sci-fi and have read Clarke and many other authors. But I didn’t find any redeeming value in this film.

SPOILERS:

I fast-forwarded through parts, I have to confess–especially when the apes learn how to fight one another. Is that really how an advance alien culture would want to stimulate primitive creatures into developing their creative juices? And the trip to the Moon–again, what was the point of the long pans of a space ship moving slowly through space and docking on the Moon?–to show how it might be done? Too much film time taken up with it. Boring.

As for the central story on board the ship going to Jupiter and HAL–I couldn’t believe the computer couldn’t kill Dave as easily as it had the rest of the crew. I came up with at least two viable options, and I wasn’t even giving it any real thought.

And as for the finale–I got it, I think. Dave ages after traveling in time and space and is “reborn”, but the whole effort seemed like a lot of fuss and bother merely to tell us that man will be a new creature once we make alien contact–the odd old dream of godless social planners who think all we need is a guiding hand from an advanced culture, not redemption. Anyway, fans of the film, what did I miss? Am I being too hard on Arthur C. Clark and Stanley Kubrick? Frankly, I think I was too kind.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

It’s on demand on TCM. I had started to watch it, but I didn’t have enough time, so I put it off.

 

[Della]

It’s on demand on TCM. I had started to watch it, but I didn’t have enough time, so I put it off.

Yeah, it runs for 2 hours 27 minutes. It could have been cut by 27 minutes and lost nothing, IMHO. I won’t advise you to see it or not see it. Maybe you will enjoy it–I may not have the right mind set for it. I only watched it so I could say that I did.

 

[Bataar]

As another person who does not like 2001 due to its boringness and poor story telling, I suggest you now watch the “sequel”, 2010: The Year We Make Contact. It has a different director and is a much more complete narrative instead of trying to be an art piece. It’s much more interesting and actually “completes” the story.

 

[Tim_D]

Anyway, fans of the film, what did I miss?

Honestly, I think you missed the point entirely.

Reading your review reminded me of a recent conversation with a girl at work about Romeo and Juliet. She had to read it in school and thought that it was “stupid.”

 

[Della]

Honestly, I think you missed the point entirely.

I probably have. But that’s okay. I’d like to know what it was, if you’d like to explain it.

Reading your review reminded me of a recent conversation with a girl at work about Romeo and Juliet. She had to read it in school and thought that it was “stupid.”

Well, I wasn’t that succinct nor that dismissive. It’s a beautiful film to look at, in the same way an abstract painting can be beautiful, but it meant nothing to me, I’m afraid.

 

[Tim_D]

As another person who does not like 2001 due to its boringness and poor story telling, I suggest you now watch the “sequel”, 2010: The Year We Make Contact. It has a different director and is a much more complete narrative instead of trying to be an art piece. It’s much more interesting and actually “completes” the story.

“Boringness and poor story telling?” You do realize that people say the same about the Bible, don’t you?

Stanley Kubrick was one of the great directors of all time. He did not make movies for everybody; his movies were meant to be intellectually challenging. The only movie of his that he renounced was Spartacus and that was because he was simply working for Kirk Douglas and was not allowed to do things his way.

You do realize that 2001: A Space Odyssey is considered a classic work of art while 2010: The Year We Make Contact has been totally forgotten, huh?

Some years ago the Vatican screened 2001: A Space Odyssey as part of its greatest movies of all time series. It is not surprising that the people involved knew art when they saw it.

 

[Padres1969]

As another person who does not like 2001 due to its boringness and poor story telling, I suggest you now watch the “sequel”, 2010: The Year We Make Contact. It has a different director and is a much more complete narrative instead of trying to be an art piece. It’s much more interesting and actually “completes” the story.

Indeed to this day 2010 remains one of my favorite films. 2010 was far more Clarke and of course no Kubrick and it was a much better film for it. 2001 the book was closer to the feel and tone of 2010 (both book and movie) and closer to I think what Clarke probably intended for 2001 absent Kubrick. Frankly though I acknowledge his reputation and the respect he earned in the field, I never got Kubrick.

 

[Tim_D]

Indeed to this day 2010 remains one of my favorite films. 2010 was far more Clarke and of course no Kubrick and it was a much better film for it. 2001 the book was closer to the feel and tone of 2010 (both book and movie).

The screenplay was written by Kubrick based on several stories by Clarke.

Clarke “novelized” the movie after it was done. It is the movie and not the book that is remembered and considered classic.

 

[Della]

“Boringness and poor story telling?” You do realize that people say the same about the Bible, don’t you?

But, it’s not filled with long, dull sequences in which nothing of note happens, except for Leviticus and Deutronomy.

Stanley Kubrick was one of the great directors of all time. He did not make movies for everybody; his movies were meant to be intellectually challenging. The only movie of his that he renounced was Spartacus and that was because he was simply working for Kirk Douglas and was not allowed to do things his way.

My sympathies to Mr. Kubrick. I never really cared for Spartacus, either. Too soap opera-ish for my tastes.

You do realize that 2001: A Space Odyssey is considered a classic work of art while 2010: The Year We Make Contact has been totally forgotten, huh?

I know that many see it as a classic, along with Citizen Kane, which, IMHO, is also over-hyped. I’ve never seen 2010: The Year We Make Contact, so I couldn’t comment on it, except to say that I never heard of it until today–that probably says something right there.

Some years ago the Vatican screened 2001: A Space Odyssey as part of its greatest movies of all time series. It is not surprising that the people involved knew art when they saw it.

That’s nice, but it doesn’t explain why it’s supposed to be so good. Sure it’s pretty to look at–all those space shots done so well one thinks one is actually looking at ships in space, and it was a great influence on future space films. I know that. Perhaps if I had seen it “cold”–not knowing anything about it, all those long space ship sequences would have built tension in anticipation of what was to come. But, the apes put me off right from the start, and the eerie singing and the downplayed dialogue–it all felt like being manipulated instead of building excitement.

And HAL, really, I was never afraid for Dave. Once HAL didn’t have the brains to kill Dave I lost interest. Poor old HAL begging for his life instead of zapping Dave or expelling him into space or some other such thing. I didn’t believe it. Sure, we know that HAL wasn’t perfect and it represents the fact that man isn’t perfect because man made HAL–I get it. Still, I had no reason to care about the characters. They existed merely to drive home a “point”. That has never moved me in story telling and it didn’t here, either. It was soulless–that’s the problem I have with it.

And the denouement. All of a sudden, just because the monolith appears and the planets line up, Dave is sent on a long, odd journey though a lot of colored lights and gas anomolies, which appears to terrify and age him, to a Las Vegas style hotel room where he confronts himself as an old man, then watches himself die, and becomes a huge baby in space. Now, I suppose is where the “art” comes in–the deep philosophical meaning of it all is supposed to enrapture one. I got the concept. It simply didn’t do anything for me. Frankly, I was glad when the whole thing was over, and I could say I didn’t ever have to watch it again. You did want me to be honest, yes?

 

[Bataar]

“Boringness and poor story telling?” You do realize that people say the same about the Bible, don’t you?

Stanley Kubrick was one of the great directors of all time. He did not make movies for everybody; his movies were meant to be intellectually challenging. The only movie of his that he renounced was Spartacus and that was because he was simply working for Kirk Douglas and was not allowed to do things his way.

You do realize that 2001: A Space Odyssey is considered a classic work of art while 2010: The Year We Make Contact has been totally forgotten, huh?

Some years ago the Vatican screened 2001: A Space Odyssey as part of its greatest movies of all time series. It is not surprising that the people involved knew art when they saw it.

Exactly, it’s a work of art, like a painting. It’s a painting in film. Paintings do not tell full and complete stories. When a sequel is required to complete, explain and fill in the story, the first part is not complete. It’s not even close to complete. Take the original Star Wars trilogy for example. The first movie, while part of a trilogy, pretty much tells a complete story. If Empire Strikes Back had never been made, we still would have had a complete story from the first film. 2001 does not come close to this level of completeness.

 

[Neofight]

Honestly, I think you missed the point entirely.

Reading your review reminded me of a recent conversation with a girl at work about Romeo and Juliet. She had to read it in school and thought that it was “stupid.”

I tend to agree. The movie was cinegraphic literature, but many people prefer romance novels and comic books to literature. But knowing what you like and what you font like is the biggest part of the battle, I suppose.

 

[Padres1969]

The screenplay was written by Kubrick based on several stories by Clarke.

Clarke “novelized” the movie after it was done. It is the movie and not the book that is remembered and considered classic.

Actually the book and movie were written and produced concurrently (Clarke writing the novel himself and was co-writer with Kubrick on the film) and the book was released shortly after the film in 1968. Which is why while the basic story is the same, as both were based on Clarke’s “The Sentinel” short story and a selection of his other earlier short stories, there are differences in the tone and many major details between the two 2001 works, particularly in the latter half of both. And both are remembered and considered classics in their respective genres of film and literature.

 

[Lisa_Lavadores]

I was a film major and I still write screenplays. I always felt it my duty to love 2001, but I have never been able to do it.

It’s beautiful.

It’s boring.

Whoever said that 27 minutes could’ve been cut from the 2 hr. 27 min. running time got it backwards. Two hours needs cutting, imho.

If one enjoys beautiful images and can watch them for hours, he will probably enjoy 2001. But if one is looking for a story, the film might drive him mad.

 

[edwest2]

…and found it crushingly boring, and not because it’s sci-fi. I love sci-fi and have read Clarke and many other authors. But I didn’t find any redeeming value in this film.

SPOILERS:

I fast-forwarded through parts, I have to confess–especially when the apes learn how to fight one another. Is that really how an advance alien culture would want to stimulate primitive creatures into developing their creative juices? And the trip to the Moon–again, what was the point of the long pans of a space ship moving slowly through space and docking on the Moon?–to show how it might be done? Too much film time taken up with it. Boring.

As for the central story on board the ship going to Jupiter and HAL–I couldn’t believe the computer couldn’t kill Dave as easily as it had the rest of the crew. I came up with at least two viable options, and I wasn’t even giving it any real thought.

And as for the finale–I got it, I think. Dave ages after traveling in time and space and is “reborn”, but the whole effort seemed like a lot of fuss and bother merely to tell us that man will be a new creature once we make alien contact–the odd old dream of godless social planners who think all we need is a guiding hand from an advanced culture, not redemption. Anyway, fans of the film, what did I miss? Am I being too hard on Arthur C. Clark and Stanley Kubrick? Frankly, I think I was too kind.

I saw it shortly after release. First, it contained groundbreaking, plausible things for the time (1968). The space clipper, the moon bus, mining on the moon and realistic spacesuits.

The central “character” in it, and 2010, is the monolith. It certainly has a few god-like powers, such as transforming the apes into men - somehow - and transforming David Bowman into a new kind of human being. As the Artificial Intelligence HAL went on a killing spree, it exhibited confusion when it failed to anticipate David’s unique way of finding entry back into the ship. It may have become conflicted about the killing it did so it did not kill Dave.

The central message of the movie is that some alien thing/device gave man that push to become fully human and that its guidance got us from apes to men - somehow. The closing scene shows Dave’s courage and willingness to investigate the monolith, which did something.

I didn’t find it boring. The spacecraft design for the Discovery was unique for a movie. The movements through space and the mechanism to open a hatch were totally plausible in a zero/low gravity environment. That kind of realism is totally lacking in 99.9% of the space adventure movies that came after.

The monolith is god. It, not God, is responsible for transforming us into the kind of beings we are today. The monolith, however, is nothing. Nihilism personified.

Ed

 

[Tim_D]

When a sequel is required to complete, explain and fill in the story, the first part is not complete. It’s not even close to complete. .

How so? We go from apes, to humans to Dave as the Star Child. How is it not complete?

Take the original Star Wars trilogy for example. The first movie, while part of a trilogy, pretty much tells a complete story. If Empire Strikes Back had never been made, we still would have had a complete story from the first film. 2001 does not come close to this level of completeness.

Star Wars is nothing but a good guy vs. bad guy western set in space. To compare it to 2001: A Space Odyssey is like comparing Billy Joel to Mozart (and I say that as one who likes Billy Joel).

 

[Tim_D]

I tend to agree. The movie was cinegraphic literature, but many people prefer romance novels and comic books to literature. But knowing what you like and what you font like is the biggest part of the battle, I suppose.

Exactly. It is Shakespeare for the senses.

Paradise Lost can easily be considered long and, at times, boring but I will be the first to say that it is a pinnacle of art/literature that has never been equaled.

I guess 2001 would be more popular if it had some fight scenes, chases and laser blasts flying all around…oh, and wookies…you gotta have wookies…

 

[Tim_D]

My sympathies to Mr. Kubrick.

I think Mr. Kubrick’s reputation is firmly established.

Oh, how I would love to hear your reaction to A Clockwork Orange.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Roger Ebert reviewed the film when it came out.

Here it is:

rogerebert.com/reviews/2001-a-space-odyssey-1968

And here is another Roger Ebert piece on this film.

rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/2001-the-monolith-and-the-message

I think I’ll watch it.

On another note, when I was a young girl in the 70’s I would watch “Electric Company” I guess that this video was a tribute to the film.

youtube.com/watch?v=zY0GhNBMkM8

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I think Mr. Kubrick’s reputation is firmly established.

Oh, how I would love to hear your reaction to A Clockwork Orange.

Actually Roger Ebert didn’t like a Clockwork Orange. He was a pretty well respected critic.

rogerebert.com/reviews/a-clockwork-orange-1972

Stanley Kubrick’s “A Clockwork Orange” is an ideological mess, a paranoid right-wing fantasy masquerading As an Orwellian warning. It pretends to oppose the police state and forced mind control, but all it really does is celebrate the nastiness of its hero, Alex.