Details
Director
Stanley Kubrick
Starring
Keir Dullea
Gary Lockwood
William Sylvester
Douglas Rain
Writer
Stanley Kubrick
Arthur C. Clarke
Length
161 minutes
Plot
A mysterious black monolith activates during the dawn of man. Millions of years later a near identical one is discovered on the Moon which begins emitting a signal to Jupiter. A team is sent to investigate but the spaceships A.I has other plans.
-Spoilers Follow-
There's no denying that people consider Stanley Kubrick a genius. In a feature by Empire magazine of filmmakers and their favourites Christopher Nolan called it a 'mind blowing experience... It just has that sensory stimulation of pure cinema that speaks to people of all ages.' The influence 2001 has had on filmmaking (and popular culture in general) is massive, the opening of Jonathan Glazer's Under the Skin is verbatim to its own, the robot drones in 2013's Oblivion look like HAL's cousins, while Matt Groening's creations have been mining references of it for years - see The Simpsons' 1994 episode Deep Space Homer and Futurama's Love and Rocket eight years later. It has inspired Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, Ridley Scott, jokes in The Big Bang Theory, an LG advert (see here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbMIS6QdR2U) and when you ask Siri of Apple's voice control to "open the pod bay doors" 'she' responds with "I'm sorry I cant do that". It seems that the film, much like the monolith, triggers something inside a person.
Nowadays there is an underlying problem with films that are well known as being the greatest of all time, as they have aged and their reputation has grown, so does the struggle to live up to the hype. The level of expectation surrounding them ensures at least mild disappointment (see The Godfather). The film cannot be seen in its own context, its impact to society lingers in the back of your mind.
And I cant help thinking to myself that my estimation of 2001 is biased because of how respected it is, like that appreciation for it is already built in. There's the possibility that if this film was to have been released today with no preconceived ideas then I probably wouldn't see what all the fuss is about. (It is also equally possible that I have seen it released today in the aforementioned Under the Skin, which Empire magazine called "Odd and sexy, troubling and touching, frustrating and mesmerising, dull and haunting." This could easily be a description of 2001 but a comparison between the two is probably best saved for another post). Would I recommend a casual film-goer, say my Dad to watch it? No, he'd probably think it was overlong, overblown, a little pretentious and didn't make any sense. Did I tell my friends about the acid trip that was the last twenty minutes? Yes. Was I as bored at times as I was immersed? Yes. And here lies both the secret to 2001's success, it is an immensely complex experience.
The special effects in this film are phenomenal, in terms of set design, technical engineering, costume department and visual effects: when we take a walk around the spaceship Discovery; with our perception of up and down, horizontal and vertical constantly changing you know you're seeing something incredibly special. You're wondering how on Earth did they do that. It also becomes obvious where Inception got several of its ideas from. The film employs arguably the most realistic costumes in film during the Dawn of Man segment, it is clear that those prehistoric people aren't computer generated and by having them of countless different sizes (and I'm sure there was at least one real chimpanzee in there among them) the effect is baffling and the segment is believable. Thirdly the 'Star Gate' sequence is undeniably cool, a psychedelic journey through the universe that deservedly won an academy award and makes me wish I was alive when it was in cinemas. There's also HAL's lobotomy and the shot of Discovery going from one side of the screen to another. Visually this film is superlative in thought and execution. Its just on another level.
The same is to be said of the films sound design, the use of The Blue Danube makes the spaceship docking seem like an intricate dance whereas the majority of science-fiction films would choose something synthesized, electronic and cold. Conversely the opening of Richard Strauss' Also sprach Zarathustra creates possibly the most epic opening in the history of cinema.
To review the acting in this film is basically a pointless exercise, there is never enough of the human element to give the humans serious thought, even if that is a conscious choice on Kubrick's part. When Frank dies you don't care because a person has just died, you care because the infallible robot (which controls everything on the ship) has blown a fuse (sorry) and lost its mind. In fact the human characters matter so little that in order to say which died I had to go search for it first. However to say that the human element doesn't matter would be wrong, as the film deals with the entire evolution of man, following the model hypothesized by Nietzsche of ape, man and super-man its just that the human element isn't personal.
However it is oft-argued that this is intentional. One of the many theories as to exactly just what 2001 is about is the widely held theory is that it is about technology and mans relationship with it. For example (during the dawn of man) man is nothing but a savage beast, howling at the wind then he evolves to use technology. In turn the first technology quickly becomes a weapon. Then man develops to the point where technology is so advanced that it is capable of doing everything for him - HAL is the ship, he does everything, for HAL to have malfunctioned means that Dave and Frank's lives are over. Unless man (here personified by Dave) can free himself from technology, freeing himself from its limitations he is in turn able to evolve again, this time into the fetal Star-Child. The ideas presented here on evolution and technology are cyclical in nature, as man evolves so does his understanding, with technology being the apparatus he uses to understand. As he evolves so must his technology or he reaches a point of stagnation (or death, as with Frank). It becomes an ironic matter of life reflecting art as Kubrick's film states that man has lost himself to technology as his film focuses purely on the spectacle and loses sight of the emotional element. If this is an accident its a miracle, if its intentional its genius.
In conclusion there is no denying that 2001 is a brilliant film, its beautifully shot, designed and inspiring. However it sacrifices an emotional connection in order to focus on the bigger picture and it takes the painstakingly long way in doing so (does it have to be so long? so many of the shots could be edited down) and it is arguable that if released today it would be nowhere near as revolutionary and if the film is actually enjoyable to watch is another matter entirely, due to its length, lack of narrative and characters beyond the spectacle there's not an awful lot to engage with. Then again, the evolution of man seems like one hell of a narrative. See I still can't decide.
2001 is less of a film and more of a philosophical experience. Making sense of it (even just with yourself) is its great strength and no movie does it better.
4.5 of 5
Director
Stanley Kubrick
Starring
Keir Dullea
Gary Lockwood
William Sylvester
Douglas Rain
Writer
Stanley Kubrick
Arthur C. Clarke
Length
161 minutes
Plot
A mysterious black monolith activates during the dawn of man. Millions of years later a near identical one is discovered on the Moon which begins emitting a signal to Jupiter. A team is sent to investigate but the spaceships A.I has other plans.
-Spoilers Follow-
There's no denying that people consider Stanley Kubrick a genius. In a feature by Empire magazine of filmmakers and their favourites Christopher Nolan called it a 'mind blowing experience... It just has that sensory stimulation of pure cinema that speaks to people of all ages.' The influence 2001 has had on filmmaking (and popular culture in general) is massive, the opening of Jonathan Glazer's Under the Skin is verbatim to its own, the robot drones in 2013's Oblivion look like HAL's cousins, while Matt Groening's creations have been mining references of it for years - see The Simpsons' 1994 episode Deep Space Homer and Futurama's Love and Rocket eight years later. It has inspired Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, Ridley Scott, jokes in The Big Bang Theory, an LG advert (see here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbMIS6QdR2U) and when you ask Siri of Apple's voice control to "open the pod bay doors" 'she' responds with "I'm sorry I cant do that". It seems that the film, much like the monolith, triggers something inside a person.
Nowadays there is an underlying problem with films that are well known as being the greatest of all time, as they have aged and their reputation has grown, so does the struggle to live up to the hype. The level of expectation surrounding them ensures at least mild disappointment (see The Godfather). The film cannot be seen in its own context, its impact to society lingers in the back of your mind.
And I cant help thinking to myself that my estimation of 2001 is biased because of how respected it is, like that appreciation for it is already built in. There's the possibility that if this film was to have been released today with no preconceived ideas then I probably wouldn't see what all the fuss is about. (It is also equally possible that I have seen it released today in the aforementioned Under the Skin, which Empire magazine called "Odd and sexy, troubling and touching, frustrating and mesmerising, dull and haunting." This could easily be a description of 2001 but a comparison between the two is probably best saved for another post). Would I recommend a casual film-goer, say my Dad to watch it? No, he'd probably think it was overlong, overblown, a little pretentious and didn't make any sense. Did I tell my friends about the acid trip that was the last twenty minutes? Yes. Was I as bored at times as I was immersed? Yes. And here lies both the secret to 2001's success, it is an immensely complex experience.
The special effects in this film are phenomenal, in terms of set design, technical engineering, costume department and visual effects: when we take a walk around the spaceship Discovery; with our perception of up and down, horizontal and vertical constantly changing you know you're seeing something incredibly special. You're wondering how on Earth did they do that. It also becomes obvious where Inception got several of its ideas from. The film employs arguably the most realistic costumes in film during the Dawn of Man segment, it is clear that those prehistoric people aren't computer generated and by having them of countless different sizes (and I'm sure there was at least one real chimpanzee in there among them) the effect is baffling and the segment is believable. Thirdly the 'Star Gate' sequence is undeniably cool, a psychedelic journey through the universe that deservedly won an academy award and makes me wish I was alive when it was in cinemas. There's also HAL's lobotomy and the shot of Discovery going from one side of the screen to another. Visually this film is superlative in thought and execution. Its just on another level.
The same is to be said of the films sound design, the use of The Blue Danube makes the spaceship docking seem like an intricate dance whereas the majority of science-fiction films would choose something synthesized, electronic and cold. Conversely the opening of Richard Strauss' Also sprach Zarathustra creates possibly the most epic opening in the history of cinema.
To review the acting in this film is basically a pointless exercise, there is never enough of the human element to give the humans serious thought, even if that is a conscious choice on Kubrick's part. When Frank dies you don't care because a person has just died, you care because the infallible robot (which controls everything on the ship) has blown a fuse (sorry) and lost its mind. In fact the human characters matter so little that in order to say which died I had to go search for it first. However to say that the human element doesn't matter would be wrong, as the film deals with the entire evolution of man, following the model hypothesized by Nietzsche of ape, man and super-man its just that the human element isn't personal.
However it is oft-argued that this is intentional. One of the many theories as to exactly just what 2001 is about is the widely held theory is that it is about technology and mans relationship with it. For example (during the dawn of man) man is nothing but a savage beast, howling at the wind then he evolves to use technology. In turn the first technology quickly becomes a weapon. Then man develops to the point where technology is so advanced that it is capable of doing everything for him - HAL is the ship, he does everything, for HAL to have malfunctioned means that Dave and Frank's lives are over. Unless man (here personified by Dave) can free himself from technology, freeing himself from its limitations he is in turn able to evolve again, this time into the fetal Star-Child. The ideas presented here on evolution and technology are cyclical in nature, as man evolves so does his understanding, with technology being the apparatus he uses to understand. As he evolves so must his technology or he reaches a point of stagnation (or death, as with Frank). It becomes an ironic matter of life reflecting art as Kubrick's film states that man has lost himself to technology as his film focuses purely on the spectacle and loses sight of the emotional element. If this is an accident its a miracle, if its intentional its genius.
In conclusion there is no denying that 2001 is a brilliant film, its beautifully shot, designed and inspiring. However it sacrifices an emotional connection in order to focus on the bigger picture and it takes the painstakingly long way in doing so (does it have to be so long? so many of the shots could be edited down) and it is arguable that if released today it would be nowhere near as revolutionary and if the film is actually enjoyable to watch is another matter entirely, due to its length, lack of narrative and characters beyond the spectacle there's not an awful lot to engage with. Then again, the evolution of man seems like one hell of a narrative. See I still can't decide.
2001 is less of a film and more of a philosophical experience. Making sense of it (even just with yourself) is its great strength and no movie does it better.
4.5 of 5
Comments
Post a Comment