A Trip To Tomorrowland?
by Fiona Moore
People who don’t like trippy, confusing endings for their movies are in for a bad time of it these days. The ending of 2001: A Space Odyssey at least makes more sense than the ending of The Prisoner (the filming of which series overlapped with 2001 at Borehamwood Studios, meaning Alexis Kanner had to share his dressing room with a leopard). The question is, does this make it a better piece of SF visual art?
The plot of the movie is fairly thin. Millions of years ago, we see human evolution directed by a strange black monolith, in a premise strikingly similar to that of the recently-released Quatermass and the Pit. We then jump to the near future of 2001, where a similar monolith is discovered on the moon and another near Jupiter. A space mission is dispatched to check the latter out, but things go wrong in a memorable subplot when the sentient ship's computer, HAL 9000, goes mad and kills the astronauts before sole survivor Dave Bowman finally shuts it down. The psychedelic denouement contains the distinct implication that the next stage of human evolution has now been directed by the monoliths, and Bowman has become the first of the new species of elevated humans.
Interspersed with the plot is a lot of depiction of the future thirty-three years from now, with its space stations, ships and moonbases. Despite some very impressive and well-thought-through effects, with actors seeming to stand upside down or move at right angles to each other in zero-G environments, the overall impression was depressingly banal and rather like one of the corporate-sponsored imagined futures in Walt Disney’s Tomorrowland attraction. We may be able to travel to the moon, but we still have Hilton hotels and Pan-Am spacecraft. The characters are also banal, in the case of Keir Dullea and Gary Lockwood almost to the point of seeming robotic: HAL is much more of a character than either of the two astronaut dolls.
As an anthropologist, what interested me most was the film’s questions about violence and human nature. The message seemed to be that humans are inherently violent, however evolved we are: the first thing the ape-men at the start of the movie do once they discover tool use is to kill a tapir and then make war on a rival tribe. Bowman’s last significant act as a human is to kill a sentient machine, and we have no idea what the evolved Bowman will do as he approaches the Earth. While the current scientific consensus on the inherent violence of humans is more nuanced (I note that the film also espouses the now-outdated theory about the first tools being discarded bones, suggesting that Arthur C. Clarke isn’t as up on his anthropology as he is on his astrophysics), it perhaps works well as a cautionary note about our current political situation and the possibility that we might wipe ourselves out through nuclear warfare.
2001 is a beautiful and lyrical movie which raises some interesting questions about the nature of humanity, but which also bogs itself down in the dull minutiae of an imagined life in the future. Three out of five stars.
Love At First Sight
by Victoria Silverwolf
Unlike Tony Bennett, I left my heart in Los Angeles.
I happened to be in that city during the initial run of Stanley Kubrick's new science fiction epic 2001: A Space Odyssey. I understand that the director has cut the film slightly, to tighten the pace a bit and to add a few titles to the various sequences. (The Dawn of Man at the beginning, for example.) What I saw was the original version, and it knocked me out.
Instead of just gushing about the movie, let me introduce you to the little demon sitting on my left shoulder, who will do its best to convince me I'm wrong.
Giving the Devil Its Due
ZZZZZZZ. Oh, excuse me. I fell asleep trying to watch this thing. It's got the frenzied pace of a glacier in winter and all the excitement of a snail race.
Cute. Real cute. Some people are going to consider it boring, I'm sure, compared to an action-packed film like Planet of the Apes. But that's a matter of apples and oranges. I found every second of this leisurely movie absolutely enthralling.
No accounting for taste. What about the actors? What a bunch of bland nobodies! They could be replaced with wet pieces of cardboard and you wouldn't know the difference.
First of all, let me deny the premise of your objection in at least two cases. During the Dawn of Man sequence, a fellow by the name of Daniel Richter does an extraordinary job of playing the prehistoric hominoid who discovers how to use tools. (Of course, this character isn't named in the movie itself, but I believe the script by Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke calls him Moonwatcher. We'll know for sure when the novel comes out.)
Not even the demon can deny that the makeup and costuming for this sequence is fantastic, better than in Planet of the Apes.
Then there's my favorite character, HAL 9000. Canadian stage actor Douglas Rain's voice is used to magnificent effect. It's exactly how I expect a sentient computer to talk.
Like everything else in the film, the design of HAL's eye is superb.
OK, I'll grant you those two. And I'll even throw in the costumes, sets, and props that appear in this turkey. But what about the actors who aren't hiding in a monkey suit or behind a glowing red circle? They're as dull as ditchwater.
Unlike Kubrick's black comedy masterpiece Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, this film doesn't have any big name stars in the cast. I think that's deliberate. Nobody is larger-than-life; they all seem like very ordinary people involved in something extraordinary.
Let's take a look at the three main human characters.
William Sylvester as Doctor Heywood R. Floyd.
William Sylvester was born in the USA but has lived and acted in the UK since the late 1940's. He's done a lot of British low budget films. I know him best for his lead roles in the horror films Devil Doll and Devils of Darkness.
Ha! And that gives him the experience to star in a multimillion dollar blockbuster? You've been watching too much Shock Theater, lady.
I can't deny that, but let me continue. Consider the two astronauts aboard Discovery in the depths of the solar system.
From left to right, Gary Lockwood as Doctor Frank Poole and Keir Dullea as Doctor Dave Bowman.
Gary Lockwood has done a lot of TV, and had the lead role in the fantasy film The Magic Sword. Keir Dullea has been in a few movies, and is probably best known for playing one of the two title characters in David and Lisa.
Let me guess; he didn't play Lisa. Anyway, you've just offered up two more minor league players. You're making my point for me. Where are the famous actors who would dominate the screen?
That's the problem. They would dominate the screen, and this is a movie best appreciated for its images and its ideas. You want to escape into its world, and think I am looking at the future and not There's Charlton Heston.
Point taken. So what about that goofy ending? What's that supposed to be, a San Francisco hippie psychedelic light show? Groovy, baby, pass the LSD!
I won't deny that the final sequence of the movie is ambiguous and mystifying. It's also a dazzling display of innovative film technique. In addition to what you call a light show, there's the eerie scene of Bowman in what looks like a luxurious hotel room.
A stranger in a very strange land.
What does it all mean? Don't ask me. Maybe the upcoming novel will make things clearer. But I adore this movie, and I expect to watch it dozens of times in the future, assuming it keeps coming back to second-run theaters. Maybe even if it ever shows up on TV, although it should really be experienced on a very big screen.
And the music! Goodness, what a stroke of genius to make use of existing classical and modern art music instead of a typical movie soundtrack. The Blue Danube scene alone is worth the price of admission. And the recurring presence of Also Sprach Zarathustra! Magnificent!
Five stars, and I wish I had more to give.
***sigh*** No use arguing with a woman in love.
You Damn Beautiful Apes!
by Jason Sacks
Man, who'd a thunk it? Just a couple weeks removed from seeing Planet of the Apes, there's another science fiction movie in the theatres which involves apes.
You might have heard of it, because this new film has the portentous title 2001: A Space Odyssey.
I loved Planet of the Apes. Just two weeks ago in the pages of this very magazine, I praised the film's restrained story, its tremendous special effects, its lovely cinematography and its spectacular use of music. Heck, I thought POTA was perhaps the finest science fiction movie in years. It's a thrilling, delightful sci fi masterpiece.
But 2001, man, wow, it's transcendent.
2001 is immaculate and powerful, smart and elliptical, with the greatest special effects I have ever seen in a motion picture. It tells a heady, fascinating story so vast it transcends mere humanity and expands into the metaphysical.
Many have criticized this film for being slow – heck, look at the devil on Victoria's shoulder to see just one example of that. But the slowness is obviously intentional. Director Stanley Kubrick clearly wants the viewer to see this film as stately and calm, playing astonishing space scenes juxtaposed with gorgeous classical music.
It's a work of genius to juxtapose Strauss's "The Blue Danube" with the image of a spinning space station. This juxtaposition and its stately pace allows the viewer to make connections, to see how a journey down a river in the 1860s will be as ordinary and beautiful as a journey into space in the year 2001. In the same way, using "Also Sprach Zarathustra" invites the viewer to imagine transcendence and evolution in an ecstatic way, bringing both a connection to the past and to the future in a way that perfectly suits Kubrick's themes.
Kubrick makes efforts to tether the viewer to his film with scenes like this.
What makes it even more thrilling is when he cuts that tether and demands the audience make connections ourselves.
What is the strange monolith that appears at different times of human evolution, and how does it propel us forward? Is the monolith a literal gift from alien beings (who might as well be gods – or God) or a symbol of mankind's evolution?
Why does the HAL-9000 computer, perhaps mankind's greatest achievement and an electronic being that achieves sentience, go crazy and destroy people?
What is the meaning of the trippy journey the astronaut takes towards the end of the film, and what is the meaning of the very strange place he finds himself? Why does he age? What is this place?
And what is that strange space baby we see at the end?
What do we make of any of this?
Kubrick asks the viewer to make up our own minds, to build our own interpretations of those scenes. 2001 feels overwhelming, in part, because it is participatory. This film demands we become involved with it as a means of determining some kind of truth and meaning out of it. Take this film in, interpret it, and determine your own truth. Like in life, there are no clear answers when considering the biggest questions.
Kubrick's previous film was Dr. Strangelove, a deeply cynical and polemical film (which is also hysterically funny) in which the director tells viewers what to feel. 2001: A Space Odyssey is the opposite. It's optimistic and ambiguous and highly serious. Strangelove was black and white and 2001 is glorious, rich color.
Stanley Kubrick is American's greatest living filmmaker. 2001: A Space Odyssey proves that fact.
Kubrick's film is an absolute masterpiece. Sorry, Fiona. The angel on Victoria's shoulder is right.
5 stars
I've always liked 2001, although I like some sequences more than others. In some ways, the four parts are so different that it's almost four short movies in one. By far my favourite part is the final sequence, "Jupiter and Beyond the Infinite." It's a wonderful surrealistic vision.
2001 is one of the finest films ever made, and I predict that in that year its masterly film making will be even greater appreciated. The way the banality of everyday life in space is depicted makes the film all the more credible. Test, you think, that is how people would act in those situations. Five star masterpiece.
Fiona Moore: *The message seemed to be that humans are inherently violent, however evolved we are: the first thing the ape-men at the start of the movie do once they discover tool use is to kill a tapir and then make war on a rival tribe. *
Ending that initial sequence, there's the to-become-classic match cut from the protohuman bone/murder tool flying into the air to the human spacecraft in orbit around the Earth and outward bound Moonwards. Kubrick doesn't rub it in, but among the very first spacecraft he shows are orbital nuclear weapons platforms.
So Kubrick's message about human violence is even more on-the-nose than is probably immediately apparent to people. Also, one of Kubrick and Clarke's initial working titles for the project was apparently HOW THE SOLAR SYSTEM WAS WON.
Mark, I missed that — "Kubrick doesn’t rub it in, but among the very first spacecraft he shows are orbital nuclear weapons platforms."
@ Dale N. —
You needn't take my word for it. Here, forex, are some sources —
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_2001:_A_Space_Odyssey#Military_nature_of_orbiting_satellites
'Stanley Kubrick originally intended, when the film does its famous match-cut from prehistoric bone-weapon to orbiting satellite, that the latter and the three additional satellites seen be established as orbiting nuclear weapons by a voice-over … talking about nuclear stalemate. Further, Kubrick intended that the Star Child would detonate the weapons at the end of the film. Over time, Kubrick decided that this would create too many associations with his previous film Dr. Strangelove and he decided not to make it so obvious that they were "war machines". Kubrick… also confronted … the fact that, during the production of the film, the US and USSR had agreed not to put any nuclear weapons into outer space by signing the Outer Space Treaty ….
'…Arthur C. Clarke, in the TV documentary 2001: The Making of a Myth, described the bone-to-satellite sequence in the film, saying "The bone goes up and turns into what is supposed to be an orbiting space bomb, a weapon in space. Well, that isn't made clear, we just assume it's some kind of space vehicle in a three-million-year jump cut". Former NASA research assistant Steven Pietrobon wrote "The orbital craft seen as we make the leap from the Dawn of Man to contemporary times are supposed to be weapons platforms carrying nuclear devices, though the movie does not make this clear." ….'
'…The perception that the satellites are nuclear weapons persists in the minds of some viewers (and some space scientists) … statements by members of the production staff … refer to them as weapons. Walker, in his book Stanley Kubrick, Director, noted that although the bombs no longer fit … Kubrick's revised thematic concerns, "nevertheless from the national markings still visible on the first and second space vehicles we see, we can surmise they are Russian and American bombs."'
'In the film, US Air Force insignia, and flag insignia of China and Germany (including what appears to be an Iron Cross) can be seen on three of the satellites, which correspond to three of the bombs' stated countries of origin in a widely circulated early draft of the script…'
[2] https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/119597/is-there-any-information-about-the-four-spaceships-at-the-beginning-of-2001-a-sp
'OP asks: Is There Any Information About the Four Spaceships at the Beginning of 2001 A Space Odyssey?
'There is, lots….
'…Piers Bizony, in his book 2001 Filming The Future, stated that after ordering designs for orbiting nuclear weapon platforms, Kubrick became convinced … to avoid too many associations with Dr. Strangelove, and he decided not to make it so obvious that they were “war machines”….
'Lots of information at:
http://www.starshipmodeler.com/2001/2001ref.htm
'The orbital craft seen as we make the leap from the Dawn of Man to contemporary times are … weapons platforms carrying nuclear devices, though the movie does not make this clear. Several different designs were featured in the film, before the focus shifts to the ascending Orion III ….
'This section is from the 1965 script that has a description of the orbiting bombs and their nationality.
**(MP: And here's a link to an image of that page in the early script version) —
https://i.stack.imgur.com/rFYNS.png
'The narration, as mentioned above, was dropped but the images of the orbital bombs was left in ….
'…The 4 on screen orbiting nukes are listed in order of appearance:
https://i.stack.imgur.com/R3tDd.png
U.S. Air Force Weapons Satellite
Production concept artwork, notice it is labelled American:
https://i.stack.imgur.com/oZnTT.png
https://i.stack.imgur.com/aA0vQ.png
German Orbiting Weapons Satellite
https://i.stack.imgur.com/xdxa6.png
French Orbiting Weapons Satellite
Production artwork:
https://i.stack.imgur.com/gv2ZK.png
https://i.stack.imgur.com/v49F1.png
Chinese Orbiting Weapons Satellite
Production artwork, indicating they were orbiting bombs:
https://i.stack.imgur.com/lODPP.png
'Model kits were released with the same information:
https://i.stack.imgur.com/DcGRP.png
https://i.stack.imgur.com/yrqo9.png
'Additional:
'Photos of some of the studio models used in filming 2001, along with other film models.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/lee_stringer/albums/72157594495135291/page1
(Note: Less Stringer is a veteran VFX Supervisor on franchises such as Star Trek and Battlestar Galactica and Star Wars.)
'Picking out the decals used on the models:
https://www.collativelearning.com/2001%20chapter%208.html
'This modeller displays all four:'
https://i.stack.imgur.com/AVvAA.png
http://thegreatcanadianmodelbuilderswebpage.blogspot.com/2013/01/german-orbiting-weapons-satellite-from.html
As for all those thoughts on the human race, is the author above all that as he writes his story, or does he sit thinking about what he has written in a mood of morbity as he considers that he is one among others he has written about (IF his conclusions are correct!)?
Hi John: I can't speak for the author's mindset (though I can ask him next time I visit the White Hart Tavern). However, the idea that Man is a hunter is a pretty common one right now, thanks to Konrad Lorenz and his theory that the apes from which we evolved were predatory. I will say that a lot of the anthropologists who do support this theory (I think Miss Goodall's recent research with chimpanzees suggests something more complex) do also acknowledge that Man is not only a hunter, and that Man can clearly overcome their predatory instincts to produce great acts of kindness and altruism.
I suspect this is rather what Kubrick and Clarke are aiming at here with their evocation of this theory. Although they paint humanity as inherently violent, those same humans built the beautiful space station and space ships, and the point of tension at the end is whether Bowman has transcended his violent nature and evolved into something finer– and whether we ourselves can do the same.
People are getting too blithe about agreeing that man evolved from apes. Back when there was a big uproar about trying to ban Darwin from the schools, a defense lawyer made significant points for his client and won the case. After he won it, the offended public still didn't like Darwin or his studies. It's just that his client was safe. There was something unpopular about his studies that other researchers didn't have to face. This victory is cited as people wholeheartedly accept the notion that man evolved from apes. Is this evolution still going on? I assume that the simians represent what Odysseus found on the islands when he was returning from the war, in calling the book and movie an Odyssey. The story of Odysseus did end with his entire crew dead, which is conformance with the story cited in the title.
One criticism I see often is the "robotic, personality-less" astronauts, which frankly, I didn't see at all. I thought bouth Duryea and Lockwood did plenty with what they had.
We came up with two interpretations of HAL's behavior.
The simple one is that HAL had pride and couldn't admit he'd made a mistake, so he killed the witnesses.
The more elaborate one is that HAL knew the truth, wanted to talk to Dave about it, but wasn't allowed to. He manufactured the communications fault so he could break off from Earth and tell them then, but when the humans threatened to deactivate him (that's really kind of a dumb point in the movie, as is Dave after Frank going out in a space suit but no helmet and gloves) HAL panicked. In that light, his pleading at the end is probably sincere and genuinely heartbreaking. His last act of penance (or perhaps simply to salvage the mission) is playing the video for Dave.
I want to believe there's a thematic linking between Part 3 and the rest of the movie. 2001 doesn't feel like a Rorschach film; I'll be disappointed if it is…
Very intelligent and insightful comments. Thank you!