I finally viewed 2001: A Space Odyssey

  • Thread starter Thread starter Della
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Della

How refreshing to read your candid appraisal. Without a shadow of a doubt, 2001 A Space Odyssey is the dullest movie I ever sat through in a theater. My wife and I went to watch it on first release, nearly fifty years ago now. From time to time I said to her, or to myself, “This is Kubrick. He’s a good director. It must start getting better soon. Let’s give it another ten minutes.” But it never did get any better, unless you count the abstract bit at the end with the colored lights flashing past. That was marginally less dull than all the rest that had gone before.

2001 still turns up on cable from time to time and sometimes I watch bits of it again, out of curiosity. After all, we had friends at the time – and still have some of them – who find it one of the very best movies ever made. Inexplicable. Not long ago I timed the opening sequence, first a bunch of extras jumping around in gorilla suits, then a bored passenger arriving at a space station. It’s fifteen minutes, give or take, before the first line of dialog is spoken, and when it comes, it’s so crashingly trite it’s a joke. Something like this:

Man to receptionist: Good morning. I have an appointment with Dr. Klein at 10 o’clock.
Receptionist (picking up phone): Yes, sir. I’ll see if he’s in his office.

We’ve been kept waiting all this time to hear a character, any character, say something to any other character, and when at long last our patience is to be rewarded, this is what we get?

The movie is a sheer waste of time from start to finish. And yet there are other Kubrick movies I like a lot, such as Dr. Strangelove, Spartacus (at least in parts), A Clockwork Orange, and, above all, Barry Lyndon.
 
…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. 😛
Trust me, Della, it’s one of those films you have to watch multiple times before you begin to understand it. It’s actually an extremely deep film, from the opening scene 'til the very end. It’s pacing is very slow and deliberate, which can be off-putting, but it grows on you once you begin pondering what it posits regarding, God, Ultimate Reality and human evolution. It really is an exceedingly religious film, in my view.🙂
 
We’ve been kept waiting all this time to hear a character, any character, say something to any other character, and when at long last our patience is to be rewarded, this is what we get?
Its called “realism.”

How many people do you encounter in the course of a day who speak like most actors in movies?
The movie is a sheer waste of time from start to finish. And yet there are other Kubrick movies I like a lot, such as Dr. Strangelove, Spartacus (at least in parts), A Clockwork Orange, and, above all, Barry Lyndon.
You like A Clockwork Orange and Barry Lyndon but call 2001 a “sheer waste of time from start to finish?”
 
It’s pacing is very slow and deliberate, which can be off-putting
That is a hallmark of Stanley Kubrick’s movies. They are purposely slow, cold and off-putting. Ever seen The Shining? There isn’t hardly a sympathetic person in the movie but it all builds until it explodes in the end.
 
One of my favorite films, but MUCH better viewed on the LARGE screen!
 
. Anyway, fans of the film, what did I miss?
You missed being there in 1968 when technology and the universe were such fascinating horizons opening up for us. The film is not boring. It is contemplative. Have you ever spent an hour in a perpetual adoration chapel? Was it boring? Have you seen Into The Great Silence about monks?

I don’t think the movie is about answers but about wonder. People came out stunned, “What did we just see?”
 
That is a hallmark of Stanley Kubrick’s movies. They are purposely slow, cold and off-putting. Ever seen The Shining? There isn’t hardly a sympathetic person in the movie but it all builds until it explodes in the end.
I grant you the right to enjoy watching films that are “purposely slow, cold, and off-putting.” I do not enjoy such films, and I certainly don’t want to pay hard-earned cash to endure them.

If I’m in the mood to watch apes doing nothing, I’ll flip on National Geographic and get some commentary.

I like words. Other people like pictures. There’s room for stories told both ways, but it’s not mandatory that everyone needs to like them all, even if they’re masterpieces in their style.

I’m all for unique presentations of stories and themes. I like shows which many Catholics would not be able to sit through, like South Park and* It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia* and the film Life of Brian. I appreciate the word usage. Comedic use of words is my native language.

Others relate to visual images. In that area, I’m handicapped. How a visual image translates into a concrete idea escapes me. I’m not saying it’s impossible to do. I’m saying that it’s impossible for me to see it - so I don’t waste my time.
 
If I’m in the mood to watch apes doing nothing, I’ll flip on National Geographic and get some commentary.
You are certainly free to like or dislike whatever strikes your fancy but to say something such as what is highlighted in your quote above sadly shows an absence of depth.

I think Neoflight’s comment that "many people prefer romance novels and comic books to literature" is certainly apt for this film.
 
I think Neoflight’s comment that "many people prefer romance novels and comic books to literature" is certainly apt for this film.
I was really hoping to not have to hear the if-your-taste-isn’t-mine-you’re-a-Philistine argument.

I did not pull out the maybe-you’re-just-projecting-private-theories-onto-nebulous-images argument.

I’m a scifi fan and I read 2001 after the first time I saw the flick. I had to read it to try and understand what I was supposed to have seen.

I do not object to an ape sequence. I object to a 15-minute ape sequence with only 2-minutes of story.

I have never liked romance novels. I haven’t read comics since college, but I wouldn’t mind picking up a Spiderman.
 
I think Mr. Kubrick’s reputation is firmly established.

Oh, how I would love to hear your reaction to A Clockwork Orange. :eek:
A Clockwork Orange? … makes gagging sound and feels stomach turning…

That covers it.

Ed
 
A Clockwork Orange? … makes gagging sound and feels stomach turning…

That covers it.
As with most Kubrick movies, you need to know how to take it.

Yes, it is a shockingly offensive movie but there is no denying that it is sinfully addictive.
 
I do not object to an ape sequence. I object to a 15-minute ape sequence with only 2-minutes of story.
I do not object to your not liking an ape sequence. I object to your opinion that its “only 2-minutes of story.”

If you want a story, watch the Wizard of Oz. 2001: A Space Odyssey is a visual movie. The images in it are meant to be viewed, not just as a background to the actors, just as the music is an integral part of the film. Every scene in the dawn of Man sequence is riveting. Do you dismiss the scene where the leopard attacks the ape and the scene fades to black? Do you see no artistic merit in it? I’m sure that it would have been more exciting if Spiderman swung onto the scene and saved the ape but then that would run into all kinds of continuity problems…:rolleyes:
 
A Clockwork Orange? … makes gagging sound and feels stomach turning…

That covers it.

Ed
The novel’s awesome, Ed. Pure poetry. The NadSat lingo worked pretty well in the film, but it’s just fantastic on the page. Plus, Kubrick mangled the story by completeing removing the final chapter. Honestly, I bet you’d love the book.
 
Plus, Kubrick mangled the story by completeing removing the final chapter. Honestly, I bet you’d love the book.
Actually, Kubrick read the American version of the book which the publishers altered by removing the last chapter. I doubt that at the time he knew of a 21st chapter.

Still, you gotta admit that the movie ends quite powerfully. I’ve often wondered if the air would have been let out of the ballon had he filmed the last chapter.
 
As with most Kubrick movies, you need to know how to take it.

Yes, it is a shockingly offensive movie but there is no denying that it is sinfully addictive.
I don’t find a group of diaper-clad young males as anything other than a group of psychopaths. I have nothing to say about Mr. Kubrick since I don’t know what his thinking or motivations were at the time.

Ed
 
Actually, Kubrick read the American version of the book which the publishers altered by removing the last chapter. I doubt that at the time he knew of a 21st chapter.

Still, you gotta admit that the movie ends quite powerfully. I’ve often wondered if the air would have been let out of the ballon had he filmed the last chapter.
I didn’t realize it was the publishers themselves who did that! Huh.:hmmm: I thought it was just because it worked better cinematically that way, without Alex growing up and putting his transgressive youth in perspective. Anyway, I think the story works a lot better the way Burgess wanted it, which is immeasurably less grim than the way Kubrick ended up doing it, for whatever reason.
 
The kernel of the idea for the movie was a short story, “The Sentinal,” written by Clarke which first appeared back in the 1950’s, about an advanced artifact found on the moon and capable of signaling back to whoever placed it there once it was discovered and activated. Although Clarke scoffs at the idea that the movie is “based” on the short story, that’s really where it came from.

2001 ASO was the first “realistic” SF movie. There were no computer generated effects back then. The lengthy uninterrupted shot of one of the astronauts running around the circumference of the spinning portion of the spacecraft had to be done with a ferris wheel like construction.

If I recall correctly, “The Planet of the Apes” got the Oscar for best costumes that year, and Kubrick complained, “What? Did they think my apes were real?”

It seems to me that there is a mistake at the start of the sequence where Bowman approaches the black monolith near Jupiter. The camera shows the monolith growing larger as he approaches it; then the camera pans outward toward the stars, and there begins the sequence of him being drawn into a colorful spacetime warp. The spacetime warp should have been shown as beginning from within the monolith. I believe that the book puts it that way.
 
The Jupiter spacecraft looks like a long spermatozoa, approaching the bright ovum of Jupiter. Then Bowman is reborn as a star child, after a long and bewildering trip though a space-warp birth canal.
:hmmm:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top