Posted on 04/03/2018 2:07:09 PM PDT by Borges
In the 50 years since “2001: A Space Odyssey” was first released, on April 2, 1968, no movie has matched its solemnly jaw-dropping techno-poetic majesty. It’s still the grandest of all science-fiction movies, one that inspired countless adventures set in the inky vastness of deep space (notably “Star Wars”), remaking the DNA of cinema as we know it. It completed the transformation of Stanley Kubrick into “Stanley Kubrick,” and was greeted by critics with a mixture of ecstasy and derision (Pauline Kael: “a monumentally unimaginative movie”). But after its shaky original release, which resulted in Kubrick trimming 19 minutes out of it after opening weekend, “2001” was re-marketed as a psychedelic youth-generation cult film (“The Ultimate Trip”), and that’s how it finally caught on.
It remains such a staggering experience, so mind-bending and one-of-a-kind, that you’d be hard-pressed to think of a moment in the film that isn’t iconic. The awesome opening solar alignment, scored to the sweeping fanfare of “Thus Spoke Zarathustra,” which somehow comes to sound … extraterrestrial. The ape that picks up a bone and smashes down a weapon. The mystery of the monolith. The balletic spaceships twirling around Earth to “The Blue Danube.” The yellow eye — and softly perturbed voice — of HAL, the supercomputer that rivals human intelligence, and human ego too. HAL’s showdown with astronaut Dave Bowman (Keir Dullea), and the computer’s death scene, in which he sings “Bicycle Built for Two,” one of the most haunting moments in film history. The climactic light show that envelops the audience like a hurtling discotheque on acid, leading Dave through a wormhole of space-time, until he sees his ancient self reborn as a star child: a celestial infant baptized in technology.
In the last half century, “2001” has cast its shadow over more films and filmmakers than you can count. You can feel its influence not just in the kinetic grandeur of “Star Wars” — the famous opening shot is pure homage — but in the grit and dread of “Alien,” the transcendental thrust of “Blade Runner,” the floating-in-air playfulness of “Gravity.” You can feel it, as well, in the stoned camera stare of David Lynch, the mystic sprawl of Terrence Malick and the spatial-temporal virtuosity of Steven Spielberg. These are all, in their way, films and filmmakers that reach for the stars. (You could swear, as well, that Michael Jackson styled himself after the star child.)
And by the way: What did it all mean?
“2001” always forced you to ask that question. And it still does. Yet it’s a question that may now be a bit less confounding to answer, since Kubrick’s film, when you see it today, can be experienced as the prophecy of a world that’s only now just coming into existence.
By that, I don’t mean that the film’s vision of everyday space travel, a military moon colony or a future that looks like “The Jetsons” designed by Crate & Barrel turned out to be literally true. No, what’s shockingly prophetic about “2001” is that the film seems to be taking the pulse of the human race just as it’s getting ready to make the evolutionary leap that we, in the digital age, are now swimming in.
The movie isn’t really about space. Its grand theme is that technology can now mimic the intricacies of human feeling, because we humans now mediate — and experience — every aspect of our lives through technology. Transformed, like the apes, by the power of the monolith, we become, in the movie, vessels of intelligence searching for our humanity. Kubrick’s view of all this is both sinister and wide-eyed, ominous and, by the end, weirdly romantic. It’s as if the film were saying: “Relax, let the technology wash over you! Let it … remake you.” The U.S. space program is not what it once was, but in the Internet Age, the power of Kubrick’s vision thrives anew. That monolith now looks like a device designed by Apple. It’s the soul of a new machine.
“2001” wasn’t Stanley Kubrick’s first great film, but it was the first in which he gave himself over to a kind of trance state, achieving suspense by literally suspending the expectations of the audience. The astonishingly tactile and authentic visual effects have aged a bit, but they can still make your eyes pop. And the miracle of “2001” is that the movie, after half a century, still plays like a bulletin leaked from the future, a message to those of us on Earth from somewhere Out There.
The book was better.
I thought a lot of the movie was boring, although the special effects were good.
Understand how certain folks see it as dull, but never heard it described as unimaginative.
—
Only by otherwise dull and unimaginative people - the same ones who hate NASA and anything to do with manned apace exploration.
It was said soon after its release that an IQ test should have been required for admission to the theater.
Finally catching up...
Really?
So they’ve discovered a huge, alien monolith on the moon....?
So the late 60s graphics didn’t meet 1980s standards? Any other pearls of wisdom?
Already available.
I liked it when I was 15, and a big fan of the Classical Music that Kubrick used for the soundtrack.
Elmer Bernstein, Alfred Newman, Maurice Jarre, Henry Mancini, are all terrific, but who can compete with Strauss and Khachaturian?
Maybe Thelma & Loiuse is more their style, or that shades of gray thing?
2001: A Space Odyssey in 5 Minutes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaGEKIjDDcs
“Open the Men’s Room door Hal.”
Yeah, read the book right after and it made is all clear. Left out a lot from the film as well.
“Open the Men’s Room door Hal.”
Thanks for the link.
I love the first comment.....
Rebel Crusader1 year ago (edited)
Incredible, it remains boring even in a 5 minute condensed version. But I give you thumbs up for the effort.
These articles often miss the main point of the movie - Arthur C Clarke’s Eastern infused belief that man must evolve in order to survive in the greater universe. Man doesn’t embrace technology he has to defeat it to get to the next step. Technology is a tool and a dangerous one. The evolved star child’s first act (in the book) is to stop a nuclear war.
Btw if you want to meet the actors playing Poole and Bowman they will both be at the Chiller convention in NJ the end of this month. Two very nice guys and seem to be close friends.
Beautiful blend of music and visuals (ignore jarring first few seconds):
unimaginative?
That’s ridiculous. Think about when this was made jeez. I can see the boring charge, I disagree completely but ok. I saw this at the Cinerama as a young lad which for those too
young to know was a theater with 3 screens side by side that wrapped around your head and I thought it was fantastic.
Kubrick was going to include that but didn’t want to end two straight films with nuclear bombs going off. In any case it works much better left unsaid.
I certainly give “2001” full credit for creating a new world of special effects and a completely new look for space movies.
On the other hand, I find the movie itself to be really, really boring.
Bottom Line...
I classify “2001” as a very successful, very creative, and a lavishly produced “Independent Film.”
The Biggest Problem...
The story and the acting give me no reason to care about what happens to the characters.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.