2001: A Space Odyssey. (U.)
Directed by Stanley Kubrick. 1968.
Starring Keir Dullea, Gary Lockwood, William Sylvester, Leonard Rossiter and Douglas Rains. 141 mins.
2001 was, and is, the defining the film going experience of my life. I still have an intense memory of the bus journey home afterwards, being in a daze, feeling what it was to have your mind blown. For a boy whose previous favourites were Herbie Rides Again and One Of Our Dinosaurs Is Missing seeing Kubrick's epic was to be overwhelmed by new possibilities. It blew my mind then and it still does today, and in a way nothing else has really come close to.
I saw it in 1978, when it was re-released to cash in on the previous year's sci-fi boom. The poster's tagline was, “Before Star Wars, before Close Encounters, there was 2001.” This week it is re-released as part of the BFI sci-fi season and the tagline should surely be “Before Nolan's Interstellar there will always be Kubrick's 2001.” And that is not a dig at Interstellar; I like the film but in every aspect it seems inferior to 2001. Even the bits that are improved versions of scenes in 2001 are inferior because they are inspired by a film that is nearly half a century old.
Of course, special effects today are technically better than they were when Kubrick, Douglas Trumbull and the team sat down, before man had landed on the moon, to imagine what that and travelling out to Jupiter would be like. That said, I doubt any special effects since have been quite as effective. The modern computer driven effects are more realistic but they always seem to be used to create images that are a little chaotic and fuzzy. it's a process of sticking bells and lights on everything. In 2001 every frame is so clear, precise and uncluttered. Everything is there makes a point, serves a function. It is so easy for your brain to cling onto those images and store them in the memory. They resonate more strongly than anything that has followed. Some of the background look painterly but the only sequence that shows its age is the Star Gate sequence. It is a visual style that perfectly mirrors the story which is broad and symbolic and can mean just about anything you want it to.
The main complaint about 2001 is its lack of humanity. All the human characters are dull and functional, only the on board computer HAL has any emotions. But by presenting us with these cyphers, the film allows audiences unfettered access into the odyssey and through which we can more fully experience the journey into the unknown. In comparison, Nolan's attempts to rectify this flaw in Interstellar, to add emotion to mix dilutes the wonder of space travel. When Mumbles MacConaughey is fretting about getting back to see his daughter or Hathaway is declaring that love transcends time and space it is as if they trying to downscale the universe for their own convenience. They are like British holiday makers who head off to the Costa Brava and seek out Fish'n'chips in English pubs and avoid all hat foreign muck.
If you don't like the style, the film will seem much longer than its 141 minutes running time. Everything moves slowly in the film but actually it whips through the story, there's no slack. To be honest I wish it were longer. The new two and half cut of The Shining makes the two hours now seem a little clipped in comparison and I rather felt like that watching 2001. I'm sure it was longer in 1977 and if I was watching it on a big enough screen and in some comfort I think I could settle in for a four hour cut.
2001 is still the greatest and boldest expression of cinema the medium has achieved. When Moonwatcher, the ape, throws the bone into the sky and we cut to a space ship in orbit he can't imagine what the future holds. That jaw dropped, spaced out kid on a bus home in 1977, had a head filled with possibilities about the future of cinema. That it hasn't made it past 2001 is disappointing.
Interstellar reiew
Directed by Stanley Kubrick. 1968.
Starring Keir Dullea, Gary Lockwood, William Sylvester, Leonard Rossiter and Douglas Rains. 141 mins.
2001 was, and is, the defining the film going experience of my life. I still have an intense memory of the bus journey home afterwards, being in a daze, feeling what it was to have your mind blown. For a boy whose previous favourites were Herbie Rides Again and One Of Our Dinosaurs Is Missing seeing Kubrick's epic was to be overwhelmed by new possibilities. It blew my mind then and it still does today, and in a way nothing else has really come close to.
I saw it in 1978, when it was re-released to cash in on the previous year's sci-fi boom. The poster's tagline was, “Before Star Wars, before Close Encounters, there was 2001.” This week it is re-released as part of the BFI sci-fi season and the tagline should surely be “Before Nolan's Interstellar there will always be Kubrick's 2001.” And that is not a dig at Interstellar; I like the film but in every aspect it seems inferior to 2001. Even the bits that are improved versions of scenes in 2001 are inferior because they are inspired by a film that is nearly half a century old.
Of course, special effects today are technically better than they were when Kubrick, Douglas Trumbull and the team sat down, before man had landed on the moon, to imagine what that and travelling out to Jupiter would be like. That said, I doubt any special effects since have been quite as effective. The modern computer driven effects are more realistic but they always seem to be used to create images that are a little chaotic and fuzzy. it's a process of sticking bells and lights on everything. In 2001 every frame is so clear, precise and uncluttered. Everything is there makes a point, serves a function. It is so easy for your brain to cling onto those images and store them in the memory. They resonate more strongly than anything that has followed. Some of the background look painterly but the only sequence that shows its age is the Star Gate sequence. It is a visual style that perfectly mirrors the story which is broad and symbolic and can mean just about anything you want it to.
The main complaint about 2001 is its lack of humanity. All the human characters are dull and functional, only the on board computer HAL has any emotions. But by presenting us with these cyphers, the film allows audiences unfettered access into the odyssey and through which we can more fully experience the journey into the unknown. In comparison, Nolan's attempts to rectify this flaw in Interstellar, to add emotion to mix dilutes the wonder of space travel. When Mumbles MacConaughey is fretting about getting back to see his daughter or Hathaway is declaring that love transcends time and space it is as if they trying to downscale the universe for their own convenience. They are like British holiday makers who head off to the Costa Brava and seek out Fish'n'chips in English pubs and avoid all hat foreign muck.
If you don't like the style, the film will seem much longer than its 141 minutes running time. Everything moves slowly in the film but actually it whips through the story, there's no slack. To be honest I wish it were longer. The new two and half cut of The Shining makes the two hours now seem a little clipped in comparison and I rather felt like that watching 2001. I'm sure it was longer in 1977 and if I was watching it on a big enough screen and in some comfort I think I could settle in for a four hour cut.
2001 is still the greatest and boldest expression of cinema the medium has achieved. When Moonwatcher, the ape, throws the bone into the sky and we cut to a space ship in orbit he can't imagine what the future holds. That jaw dropped, spaced out kid on a bus home in 1977, had a head filled with possibilities about the future of cinema. That it hasn't made it past 2001 is disappointing.
Interstellar reiew
