But on that list is 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Yesterday was the 50th anniversary of 2001's theatrical release. It was met by decidedly mixed reviews on release. Many critics and members of the audience didn't get the movie. They didn't understand the ending. Yet it made money and there are many who attribute 2001 to the sci-fi craze that would sweep the country in the decade to come.
2001 is one of the greatest movies of all times. It's one that I've likely seen at least 30 times. I saw it on television in the 1970s before the wide screen TVs and they had to do the pan-and-scan thing and show only part of the image. I've seen on VHS, on DVD, and Blu-Ray. I've seen several times at the theatre on brand new restored 70mm prints. I've seen it with the intermission, and without. I've seen the Steven Soderbergh edit from about three or four years ago that cut about 30 minutes out of the movie -- the Soderbergh edit is no longer available, but here's a good story on why and how Soderbergh did it.
The special effects still stand up, even 50 years later. That's because Stanley Kubrick used models, and those models took years to film. The computer imagery in the film is actually animation. There is no CGI because there was no CGI in 1968, and it's doubtful Kubrick would have used CGI even if it was because Kubrick wanted it to look real. The only parts of the movie that appear dated are the hairstyles worn by the women in the movie, and the ad placements which had Pan-Am sponsoring the spaceplane are obviously out-of-date.
Star Trek gets lots of kudos from people for supposedly predicting things like cell phones and iPads, but Kubrick has video phones and computer pads that are about the size and shape of the first generation of iPads that his astronauts use (here's some more on Kubrick's predictions in 2001). And while the movie doesn't foresee the small, portable computers in use today, who would argue that his view of AI and what AI can do isn't eerily like what is happening now, except of course, that we don't know of any Alexa's that have become homicidal maniacs like HAL 9000.
One of the earliest conspiracy theories that I ever heard was that humans did not land on the moon, but that it was instead faked in a movie studio -- and the guy who faked it was Stanley Kubrick. This is insanity, but the movie itself is rife with conspiracy theories -- one kind of wonders what Kubrick would do today in a world overrun by idiots who believe in just about every conspiracy theory. But look at the cover story that Heywood Floyd gives to the Russians about why the moon base is closed to visitors, a flu epidemic when what's really going on is that they're covering up the discovery of the monolith. Or think of how astronauts Bowman and Poole are not told the truth for why they're voyaging out to Jupiter, or that that truth only becomes known to Bowman after HAL's murder spree has killed every other living being on the ship?
There are many things I love and appreciate about 2001. I love the pacing -- Kubrick lets the movie go at it's own pace. He doesn't rush, yet nothing drags. To me, that serves to show how everything becomes mundane -- sure a trip to space is exciting, and the ballet of docking maneuvers that brings the spaceplane into the space station is a joy to watch, but to the crew, it's a job, they're pilots who have made this trip hundreds of times, like that Southwest pilot making his 10th flight from Houston to Corpus Christi in a month. And HAL is the excitable one on the Discovery because he is short-circuiting from holding a secret while Dave and Frank are just doing jobs and executing steps they've trained for over and over to do without thinking.
I'm not going to get into the philosophy and the big questions and answers and what exactly goes on in that hotel room and the floating baby though remember this, those kind of endings are tricky and very hard to pull off. Just look at Christopher Nolan who tried to do the same type of thing with Interstellar and instead came up with one of the stupidest endings ever committed to film though kudos to Nolan for doing his film much the same as Kubrick -- he used models and not CGI because he wanted it to look real and to become dated in 10 years.
I love that Kubrick doesn't treat his viewers like idiots. He doesn't explain things. He presents things -- images, bits of conversation -- and lets you go from there. That's another of the mistakes that Nolan makes in Interstellar.
I wonder what would happen to 2001 if it was made today, or if Kubrick attempted to make it today. He was known as a perfectionist who would spend years to make his movies, who did take after take. He was constantly editing his movies, and would even edit movies after the premiere and before wide release, cutting and trimming things for time. He recorded narration for 2001, then he junked it. He commissioned a score from noted film composer Alex North, then jettisoned it for the classical score he had used for his initial editing. He supposedly fired co-writer Arthur C. Clarke at one point before rehiring him. What does he do now that film can be so easily edited? Does he continue tinkering with his release edit? His cast for 2001 was primarily no-name actors. Does he do that if he makes it now, or does he go for big names like Matt Damon -- Kubrick used big names in many of his films, after all, casting the likes of George C. Scott, Peter Sellers, Jack Nicholson, Ryan O'Neal, Tom Cruise, and Nicole Kidman -- or does he feel that big names would detract from what he envisioned?
This was an April release in 1968. That for sure doesn't happen now. Serious films are generally only released from October to January due to Oscars and that being the supposedly series filmgoer time. But does the Academy embrace the movie, knowing how it has seemingly gone all in on smaller, independent films instead of big screen spectacle -- and ignore the likes of Gravity and Arrival getting best picture nominations.
I love this movie. I hope that if you have a copy of it at home that you'll pull it out, put it on, and watch it again. Or that if you're one of those cities where there is an Alamo Theater, that you'll get the chance to see a 70mm print of it sometime this year.
Comments
Post a Comment