Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Overstreet

2001: A Space Odyssey

Recommended Posts

We don't have a 2001 thread?

Well, let's fix that.

Kubrick Explains 2001

This has prompted me to repost the thoughts I jotted down on the occasion of its 2001 rerelease.

Edited by Overstreet

P.S.  I COULD BE WRONG.

 

Takin' 'er easy for all you sinners at lookingcloser.org. Also abiding at Facebook and Twitter.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That summary is explained in more detail if you read Clarke's other three books in the series--2010, 2061, and 3001. I don't necessarily recommend doing that, but they're there. It's similar to how the sequels to Rendevzous with Rama kind of ruined that series by explaining everything that was mysterious in the first book.


It's the side effects that save us.
--The National, "Graceless"
Twitter Blog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Link to our thread on 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) and 2010: The Year We Make Contact (1984) from a few message boards ago. It includes a link to the Kubrick archive that Kottke links to.

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only managed to listen to an abridged version of 3001, but it was enough to convince me that, as far as I was concerned, the sequels never happened (and that Clarke's distant future was one in which no sane person would really want to live, but that's another kettle of fish). I've happily gone without seeing the movie sequel as well. 2001 works very well without trying to give details, thankee very much. :)

Edited by NBooth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tyler wrote:

: That summary is explained in more detail if you read Clarke's other three books in the series--2010, 2061, and 3001.

FWIW, I'm not so sure that Clarke "explained" the film as much as he offered an alternative interpretation of it.


"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't Clarke go so far as to say that every book took place in a slightly altered universe (to handwave inconsistencies like Saturn in the first book becoming Jupiter in the following novels, etc etc etc)? That tactic makes ignoring subsequent books that much easier, imho.

EDIT: Yes, he did.

Just as 2010: Odyssey Two was not a direct sequel to 2001: A Space Odyssey, so this book is not a linear sequel to 2010. They must all be considered as variations on the same theme, involving many of the same characters and situations, but not necessarily happening in the same universe.

Developments since 1964 ... make total consistency impossible, as the later stories incorporate discoveries and events that had not even taken place when the earlier books were written.

Edited by NBooth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I meant that Clarke's novelization of 2001: A Space Odyssey was, itself, an alternate interpretation of the film. Kubrick was the ultimate author/auteur of the film, not Clarke.

But yes, Clarke was constantly revising continuity in his sequels (and not just because of scientific/technical developments), too.


"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I meant that Clarke's novelization of 2001: A Space Odyssey was, itself, an alternate interpretation of the film. Kubrick was the ultimate author/auteur of the film, not Clarke.

But yes, Clarke was constantly revising continuity in his sequels (and not just because of scientific/technical developments), too.

Right. I get you. In my mind, the novelization and the movie are pretty closely tied--probably because I read the one within a short time of watching the other. Or something like that. Clarke does go into more details on the monolith-builders than Kubrick does, and not necessarily to the story's benefit (although his interpretation does chart pretty closely with the one Kubrick offers in the link above, iirc).

Edited by NBooth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, that link brings back memories. My first online film discussions took place in the mid-'90s in the alt.movies.kubrick newsgroup, out of which grew The Kubrick Site.

I always include 2001 on my list of all-time favorite films, but I don't think I've ever written a word about it. Seeing it in 70mm on the massive screen at the Uptown Theater in Washington, DC a few years ago was among my best cinema-going experiences ever. It really is a different film when it's seen in that format.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I always include 2001 on my list of all-time favorite films, but I don't think I've ever written a word about it. Seeing it in 70mm on the massive screen at the Uptown Theater in Washington, DC a few years ago was among my best cinema-going experiences ever. It really is a different film when it's seen in that format.

Oh, absolutely. I first saw 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY during a televised broadcast at age nine or so. I didn't "get" it, but its imagery and haunting sequences stayed with me (particularly the death of HAL). I ended up seeing it again and again over the years, never completely in love with it, but appreciating it more and more. By the time I got into college, it was one of my favorite movies; I'd grown to love its vocabulary. 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY offers immense ideas expressed immensely.

This past year, I saw it on the big screen, a birthday present from my wife. And this was the big screen, not just some theater with a moderately big screen. This screen filled my entire field of vision. It was like seeing it for the first time; honestly, I've never had a theatrical experience that can rival it. I was speechless and awed at every turn, swallowed up by the enormity of the film's visuals. Has a film ever captured the scale of outer space like Kubrick's 2001?

Regarding Clarke's novel and subsequent sequels, I don't put much stock in them. The film stands best on its own, a kind of enigmatic, grand bit of contemporary myth told primarily through visual and sound. Clarke is not a master of the written page in the way that Kubrick is a master of cinema.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, 2001 at Seattle's Cinerama was awe-inspiring. Only my Cinerama viewing of Apocalypse Now Redux comes close to it in terms of my most immersive cinematic experiences.


P.S.  I COULD BE WRONG.

 

Takin' 'er easy for all you sinners at lookingcloser.org. Also abiding at Facebook and Twitter.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's hard not to feel a genuine sense of awe when you watch 2001 in 70mm. I saw it when it played at the Aero Theatre to a full house a few years ago, and the frame was so wide that during the Blue Danube docking sequence one could actually see the edge of a spaceship hanging out at the righthand corner of the frame before continuing its intended path. This "mistake" would clearly not have been detectable if the film had played on television.


"A great film is one that to some degree frees the viewer from this passive stupor and engages him or her in a creative process of viewing. The dynamic must be two-way. The great film not only comes at the viewer, it draws the viewer toward it." -Paul Schrader

Twitter     Letterboxd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My appreciation for the film grew by going in the other direction: I saw the last 30 or 40 minutes of the film again about a year ago on TV (letterboxed) and could not stop watching it. I've never "gotten" the ending in my previous viewings, which were years ago -- the Kubrick quote helps, seems obvious yet incomplete -- but it was spellbinding even on a small screen.

Edited by Christian

"What matters are movies, not awards; experiences, not celebrations; the subjective power of individual critical points of view, not the declamatory compromises of consensus." - Richard Brody, "Godard's Surprise Win Is a Victory for Independent Cinema," The New Yorker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"spellbinding even on a small screen..."

It is the greatest conversion experience caught on film. Too bad it is in direct conflict with the end of C.S. Lewis' "Is Theology Poetry."

Edited by M. Leary

"...the vivid crossing of borders between film and theology may save the film from the banality of cinema and festival business, and it may also save the church from the deep sleep of the habitual and the always known."

(Hans Werner Dannowski)

Filmwell | Twitter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't oppose this in principle, as I do 2010. But ... really ... why add it? Stanley Kubrick cut it, the film is already perfect and there are no gaps in the film as a result. The link between the monolith and tool use is already perfectly clear. And the sudden OMG!-ness of HAL turning against Frank would be undermined if we saw HAL cut off the radio first.


Yeah ... well ... I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree with you there on that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edited by Peter T Chattaway

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the Portsmouth Sinfonia and Orchestra: an orchestra made up of untrained musicians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portsmouth_Sinfonia

Pomo aesthetics at its most parody-worthy, decadent and ridiculous. The musical equivalent of people who call Ed Wood a genius or call for the canonization of I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE.


Yeah ... well ... I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree with you there on that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That has to be the worst thing I've ever heard. And as a former musician, I've heard some pretty bad things over the years.

It did make me laugh though, a long extended LOL.


In an interstellar burst, I am back to save the Universe.

Filmsweep by Persona. 2013 Film Journal. IlPersona.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pomo aesthetics at its most parody-worthy, decadent and ridiculous. The musical equivalent of people who call Ed Wood a genius or call for the canonization of I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE.

Really? I think it's too tongue-in-cheek and funny for that. They released an single called "Classical Muddly", after all. I wouldn't take too much of their ethos from the tone of the wikipedia article.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2001: A False Flag Odyssey

I'm not sure that I buy a lot that is in this essay, but I will say that the author of this break down of the symbolism of 2001 sure has put a lot of time into it, and it makes for an interesting read.

There are some fascinating aspects, such as the flipped imagery that occurs in quite a few places onboard the Discovery One (I just watched this again last night, and caught this myself. Can't believe I hadn't picked up on it before now).

centrifuge.jpg

Notice how the cryogenic chambers in shots 1 & 3 don't match up in shots 2 & 4 - as though Frank has turned in mid-run - although the scene is presented in the establishing shot that he is making complete circuits in one direction. The author has a unique explanation for this (one that goes quite beyond a lapse in continuity).

I think the author's ideas reach a little too far in his explanation of what the monolith around Jupiter actually is. And I don't buy his conclusions as to the final ten minutes. But, I guess that's why this is such a fascinating film. Generates a lot of different perceptions.

Edited by Baal_T'shuvah

Formerly Baal_T'shuvah

"Everyone has the right to make an ass out of themselves. You just can't let the world judge you too much." - Maude 
Harold and Maude
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bought 2001: A Space Odyssey about a year and a half ago when HMV had a "two movies for $20" sale (I also purchased The Dark Knight). I watched 2001: A Space Odyssey because I knew it was a classic but me, I found it incredibly boring. I just had a conversation with a friend who couldn't get past the twenty minutes of monkeys at the beginning.


He finds no mercy

And he's lost in the crowd

With an armoured heart of metal

He finds he's running out of odd-numbered daisies

From which to pull the petals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...