"2001: A Space Odyssey" (1968), Directed and Produced by Stanley Kubrick, Screenplay by Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke

[DonRocks]

Believe it or not, the only time I'd seen "2001: A Space Odyssey" was when it was released in 1968 (I was six-years old, and quite honestly, I remember being bored) - it was about time I watched it again. The only thing I remembered from the movie - which was wildly promoted and marketed at the time - was an usher in the theater, walking around and hawking programs before the movie started, saying "2001: A Space Odyssey. 2001: A Space Odyssey." Isn't it amazing what trivial memories get implanted in the minds of children? And isn't it upsetting what important things children don't remember? There is a very real possibility I attended the world premiere, on April 2, 1968, at the Uptown, but at this point, there's no way for me to ever know.

As I watch it (I'm still watching it as I begin this post), I'm astonished at how much it reminds me of "Solaris," the film by Russian master Andrei Tarkovsky, who is perhaps the greatest director you've never heard of - he is a legend in his native country, and was heavily influenced by Ingmar Bergman, who said of Tarkovsky:

"Tarkovsky for me is the greatest (director), the one who invented a new language, true to the nature of film, as it captures life as a reflection, life as a dream."

And you can rest assured, Tarkovsky most likely said something similar about Bergman. Anyway, if you love the cinema, and you're not familiar with Tarkovsky, you'd be doing very well to put him next on your list.

So, which came first? "2001" was either a great pioneering masterpiece, or a rip-off of "Solaris" - which was it?

It was a great pioneering masterpiece: "Solaris" came out four-years later, in 1972. I've always loved Stanley Kubrick ("Dr. Strangelove," "A Clockwork Orange"), and thought him most likely a genius, and "2001" only serves to reinforce that supposition.

*One* Academy Award for "2001?" For Best Visual Effects? Not even nominated for Best Picture? No win for Best Director? Are you kidding me? This is the same Academy that nominated the ridiculous "Dr. Dolittle" for Best Picture just one year before, so maybe I shouldn't be surprised: This only serves to bolster my belief that mediocrity is rampant in humanity, even at the highest positions of influence and power. Science Fiction and Horror are two genres of movie making that have always been overlooked, but this goes much deeper than that.

Just the beginning of the movie, with the screen entirely dark, and an "overture" of sorts playing in the background for nearly three full minutes, exudes self-confidence on the part of Kubrick - I'm not convinced it worked entirely, but it most certainly set the tone for the epic nature of the film, as well as preparing the viewer for the bleak darkness of space.

The scene when the B Pod is preparing and performing EVA, the use of deep human breathing as the only sound is incredibly effective - it conjures up primal fears in the viewer. What could be more frightening than not being able to breathe? Out of all the basic human needs (with the possibility of "shelter" during, for example, a tornado), denial of oxygen is the one thing that kills most quickly. And given that we're in space, that possibility is always in the background. This was pure Kubrick, and it was pure brilliance - what could have been a dull, torpid scene to watch invoked a sense of dread, and Kubrick thought of employing this technique out of thin air.

As I write this paragraph, I've now finished the movie - I clearly saw the post-Saturn psychedelic scene within the past ten years or so, probably on YouTube, but that's about the only thing I remembered about the movie. It's a masterpiece, while at the same time being both dated in parts, and fresh as a daisy in other parts.

[DonRocks]

Kubrick thought of employing this technique out of thin air.

Dan, I appreciate you Liking my post, but you're supposed to laugh at my puns without me having to point them out!

[porcupine]

A long time ago I read a book, perhaps called The Making of Kubrick's 2001 (?), that was really quite informative.  Kubrick was always known as a cinematographic innovator (eg the Big Wheels cam in The Shining, and the entirely candle-lit nighttime interior scenes in Barry Lyndon), and this film was certainly no exception.  Although it's often said that the movie was based on a novel by Arthur C. Clarke, iirc Clarke and Kubrick actually wrote collaboratively, with Clarke re-writing parts after Kubrick had tried filming a scene*, for example.  The source material was Clarke's short story "The Sentinel".

Rocks, I totally agree with you about the breathing.  Silence or near silence is incredibly effective for building tension.  As well, I've always loved how scientifically accurate the film is (no sound in space!)

The thing that stuck with me the most, though, is that it's something like 35 minutes before the first words are spoken, and (again iirc) those words are entirely banal.  Kubrick said that one of his goals was to make a film that had to be watched - actively watched - to be understood.  In 2001, very little information is gleaned from dialogue, and I think that's the problem most people have with the film.  Despite  movies being a visual medium, we gather what we need to know from dialogue (or narration).  Consider how well radio plays work, if you've ever listened to one.  It's entirely possible to follow the story in a radio play, but how many movies could you understand with the sound cut?  At any rate, I'm not trying to argue that Kubrick was entirely successful, but just pointing out that that was his intent.

Thanks for starting this topic.

*I'd love confirmation of this; I think it was 35 years ago that I read the book

edited to add: The Making of Kubrick's 2001

[DonRocks]

A long time ago I read a book, perhaps called The Making of Kubrick's 2001 (?), that was really quite informative.  Kubrick was always known as a cinematographic innovator (eg the Big Wheels cam in The Shining, and the entirely candle-lit nighttime interior scenes in Barry Lyndon), and this film was certainly no exception.  Although it's often said that the movie was based on a novel by Arthur C. Clarke, iirc Clarke and Kubrick actually wrote collaboratively, with Clarke re-writing parts after Kubrick had tried filming a scene*, for example.  The source material was Clarke's short story "The Sentinel".

*I'd love confirmation of this; I think it was 35 years ago that I read the book

You have confirmation - click on the very first link in my post.

I didn't like the neoclassical home scene at the end - to me, that was like something you'd see in Star Trek (not that there's anything wrong with Star Trek); just that if Kubrick wanted to confuse the viewer, he should have gone all the way with it.

By the way, there was 20 minutes of no dialog at the beginning, *and* the end.

When this is shown in foreign countries, other songs are used besides "Daisy Bell" - for example, in France, they use "Claire de Lune."

SPOILERS FOLLOW ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you think HAL was programmed by Earth to (pretend to) malfunction? Here's a supposition you'll enjoy reading:

"The Case for HAL's Sanity" by Clay Waldrop on visual-memory.co.uk

Also, I have a question: There were three astronauts awake during the mission, were there not? Frank was terminated during a spacewalk, Dave deprogrammed HAL, but what happened to Heywood? Honestly, I think they could have made it easier on the viewer had they made the astronauts look a little more different from each other (but then again, maybe the similarity served a purpose as well - I'm not sure; all I know is I really had trouble telling them apart from each other). Could there be a literary reason for making them look like such generic men?

(Frank starred in the Star Trek episode "Where No Man Has Gone Before," btw - he was the one who developed superpowers and whose eyes started glowing, and could read a mile a minute.)

My overall impression with this film is that Kubrick swung for the fences, and didn't hit a home run, but he hit a triple. It was about as good as a Science Fiction film *with special effects* could have been made in 1968. We really need a separate Kubrick thread - between Strangelove, 2001, Clockwork, and Shining, that's an incredible lifetime of work just in those four movies (and I didn't even like Shining that much).

[porcupine]

Also, I have a question: There were three astronauts awake during the mission, were there not? Frank was terminated during a spacewalk, Dave deprogrammed HAL, but what happened to Heywood?

Dr. Heywood Floyd was not on Discovery 1.  Frank and Dave were the only two awake on board.

[DanielK]

If you want to know what happened to Heywood Floyd, you have to watch 2010. He was on the moon mission, but not Discovery I.

[DonRocks]

Analysis of the Final Ten Minutes on YouTube

[DonRocks]

Interesting: Never once did it enter my mind that "HAL" was a nod to "IBM" (if you add one letter to each letter in HAL, you get IBM!)

"How Kubrick's '2001: A Space Odyssey' Saw into the Future" by Michael Benson on wsj.com

Regarding the very first sentence in this thread, about me seeing '2001' in 1968 when I was seven-years old: The only thing I remember (other than being bored) is some woman in an "official-looking," Disney-esque uniform, walking around the theater before the film began, selling pamphlets, and saying in a raised voice, "2001, a Space Odyssey ... 2001, a Space Odyssey ...." It must have been here in the DC area - my parents and my aunt made a fairly big deal out of going. My parents and my aunt were very respected educators, so it's quite possible that we went to that widescreen preview that's mentioned under the title of the article - we were also invited to a free visit to King's Dominion (then called "Lion Country Safari") when it first opened (this was while it was still under construction, and before they put in a monorail) ... there were absolutely no rides, and the entire park was about driving your car through open, semi-wooded areas with wild animals such as lions, giraffes, etc. - you could literally roll down your window, and have your hand bitten off if you wanted - as insane as this sounds, I kid you not. There is also a very, very remote (but non-zero) chance that the second car in that photo is us!

(While typing this, I also remember being at Disneyland in 1970 when I was eight-years old: We went on a semi-private tour of the park - maybe a dozen people - and the tour guide looked a lot like the lady at '2001' selling pamphlets. I specifically remember being frightened on "Mr. Toad's Wild Ride" when we heard the train noise and approached the 'headlight,' and also going on "Space Mountain." About the only other thing I remember is my father offering the tour guide $20, and she politely turned it down, saying that they don't take tips (that was pretty darned generous coming from someone making less than $30K at the time)).

Boy, the stories I could tell about our two cross-country trips in 1966 and 1970, but that's for another thread. I wish I had access to wsj.com, but I don't, so I can't read that article.

I almost hate to keep mentioning "Route 66," but if you see Season 1, Episode 1 ("Black November"), you'll see a *very* early performance by Keir Dullea - it's a pretty major role, and you wouldn't recognize him if you didn't know in advance that it was him.