Although I am in the scientific community and love science fiction, I had never seen 2001. I barely even knew anything about it. What I knew is that it contained a monolith, played Strauss's 'Also Sprach Zarathustra' while some apes screamed, concerned a rebellious robot, was pretty slow and might be boring, and somewhere deep in my mind I knew there was a fetus at some point. After watching it I'm pretty sure these will be the things that I continue to associate with 2001.
I won't bother with a detailed plot review because there really isn't that much of a plot. We learn early on that this monolith has helped an ape ancestor of ours to evolve, and that it makes a reappearance on the moon thousands of years later. It is determined that the moon monolith sent a strong EM signal to Jupiter and that there should be an exploration to figure out the destination of said signal. The exploration ship's computer, the notorious HAL 9000, decides that the logical way to achieve this mission is to kill all the humans. However, the captain succeeds in shutting HAL down and hence saving himself. Once the captain makes it to Jupiter he eventually encounters another monolith and the rest is really left up to interpretation. I believe it has something to do with the next step of human evolution, and possible interaction with an alien life-form, but it's pretty open ended.
It's understandable that this movie has inspired such extensive debates and conversations. It's difficult enough to connect the first 20 minutes or so of the ape footage to the rest of the film, but the ending goes off in such a crazy direction that claiming that you know the 'definitive' interpretation would be foolish. Although the novel by Arthur C. Clarke clears up some of the vagueness with respect to the monolith and the ending, Kubrick wanted the film to be open ended. I can respect a director not wanting to spoon feed us explanations (heck, I love David Lynch) and thus have no real qualms with the themes or events in the film.
What I find a little bothersome about the film is the pacing. The shots of space, the colors and mood of the ship, and much of the cinematography are spectacular. For a film made in 1968 the special effects are fantastic. There are just too many shots of slow moving spacecrafts that remind me of 'Star Trek: The Motion Picture' in the worst way possible. I realize that forty years is a long time for popular culture. It's impossible to require things that were interesting so long ago (in movie years) to hold our interest just as well now, considering how much stimulation we now have as a modern society. I don't mind slow beautiful shots of the moon or other objects in space, nor do I mind long stretches without dialog or even human beings. However I just don't think that 10 minute shots of a slow moving spacecraft are that interesting.
Speaking of the beautiful camera work, I often see old movies and think to myself 'man I wish I saw that when it came out on theaters.' Although I think seeing any movie on the large screen improves the experience, I think movies like this would really be enhanced. Having the large screen, loud speakers, and big dark room really makes you focus on the film. It's very convenient to be able to watch movies at home, but slow movies (like this one) tend to test one's attention span. Not being able to pick up the computer, or walk around the room makes you pay attention to the movie, and overall I think improves the viewing experience. I wish there were more theaters that showed old movies so that you could experience the original intention of the director.
The themes of human evolution, alienation, the conflict of our rational selves with our irrational selves (which could have been developed more), and sentient robots found in this movie all fascinate me. Almost every science fiction movie ever made owes something to this film. I'm glad that it exists and think that it is an important part of our culture and history. 2001: A Space Odyssey is a seminal film, I'm just not sure if I ever need to see it agian.
Yay! A blog.
ReplyDeleteI know what you mean about 2001. I've seen it on TV (DVD) and I've seen it projected in a theater. I think it makes a considerable difference. I also wonder if it might be interesting to note how the way that people watch movies affects how they are made/what they look like/narrative structure etc. (e.g. with movies on VHS or DVD, films can be watched over and over which allows for extremely complicated plots that function best upon multiple viewings - and more recently, with people watching media on smaller and smaller devices, what is going to happen to set design and art direction?) Anyway, all of this is to say, even though 2001 was remarkably experimental for a Hollywood film when it was released, I think you're right in that it is also very much a product of its time, when people would see the film at the theater.
If you can see it at a repertory screening sometime, I would reccomend it.
I just saw Metropolis for the first time last night at the theater with live accompaniment and it was fantastic! (Again - close to original conditions (even though something like 25% of that film is supposed to be lost))
Gretel!
ReplyDeleteI definitely would see it again if it were playing in a theater, I imagine it might be fantastic.
I also think that the invent of VHS and DVD has changed TV even more than movies (see next post). Because now the shows (like LOST) will be seen more than once online or on DVD, the show can be much more nuanced and detailed and the creators don't have to spoon feed us as much.