The stars of 2001 join us for a Q&A after our screening of Kubrick’s science-fiction masterpiece and share their memories of the film’s production. tiff.net
These guys must be so proud imagine being a part (and a very big part) of something so classic and timeless. They have both become immortal in a certain artistic way. Gary Lockwood was also in the original Star Trek show with Kirk. That always freaked me out as a kid.
I remember Gary from TV in the 60's. Always liked him. The scene where Keir pulls out the modules of HAL to destroy him is technological murder with all the passion and anger that it can muster. It is good to see both guys aging well
@@alecfoster6653 She was supposed to be Russian. Not one of Dame Helen's most memorable parts. I actually like "2010" but it is on a much simpler level compared to "2001".
Keir looked great in 2010! Loved having him in that film. It was a wow moment when he appeared on screen. I loved 2010, too! It was a movie of hope. I've seen it a half dozen times.
Made an indelible impression on me. I saw it as a teenager when it first came out. I’ve used “habitat” since then to refer to the buildings, infrastructures and landscapes (such as they are) we inhabit.
That was terrific. Regarding Lockwood's story about working on SPARTACUS in the USA, I don't entirely understand the correlation between Kubrick's SPARTACUS photographer changing a shot in California and Kubrick's appeal to Kirk Douglas to move the production to Spain. To circumvent a labor union? To work in a culture where a director's control is respected and fulfilled 100%?
8:50 - Change didn't always happen in human experience ... for thousands of years and then for hundreds of years there was no change at all, now the rate of change is driving everyone crazy.
I think she was Russian wasn't she Gary? I had a crush on her myself. but no, it (2010) wasn't memorable, besides the cute girl in uniform .just when I think I understand the film for the most part, Kier says the monolith is on the moon. I thought the monolith was like God, everywhere. was 'the Dawn of man' on the Moon? Darwin called and wants to know. but seriously, you guys were great!
Not that I don't love this movie, but I do often criticize it for failing to tell the story properly. After watching this film nobody knows what the heck happened. Most of the praises for this film focus on themes and visuals rather than the plot elements. Certainly the book explains it much better. And the sequel (2010) helped a little also. But if you have to watch the sequel or read the book to figure out what happened then haven't you failed at telling the story? The backstory behind the monoliths, why they appeared, what they were, who were responsible, and what became of Dave at the end is fascinating if only the audience were ever actually told that story. Of course there are so many great things about this movie, but it's ability to tell a story just isn't one of them. And, just in case you're still wondering, yes I do love this movie! :)
Why be spoon-fed explanations? It took me about two viewings of 2001 to grasp it's vision. It was fairly obvious to me from the first viewing that the Monoliths were extra-terrestrial tools there to kick start evolution. I caught onto this the first time I watched it as a kid. The "habitat" sequence at the end of the movie was the only part that puzzled me, but I figured it out. And I loved figuring it out. It sounds like I'm boasting as I was some genius as a kid (I most certainly wasn't), but I don't think somebody's misinterpretation or frustration with 2001 is a fault of the movie itself, quite the opposite; It's enigmatic and open-ended nature is what makes it a special piece of filmmaking that you can see again and again. Kubrick mastered this form and I think most directors should aspire to achieve this. Check out Peter Greenaway's lectures on cinema and paintings if you want a clearer interpretation of what I'm getting at. He cites "2001" as a major example of rising above the confines of literal narrative and that most movies are artistically regressive due to their heavy reliance on dialogue (Literature.)
Probably that is why Ridley Scott made Alien so confusing ... to add to the mystique. I think they were just finding that kind of audience behavioral stuff out at this time. When movies started to get too manipulating they were not as good as the classic movies of earlier times.
@@justgivemethetruth I've watched the film many times and read the book many times (and the same for 2010). I still haven't worked out EXACTLY what 2001 is about - and that is the whole point of it.
@@EricIrl It's fine with me if that is your conclusion, but the movie and the book to me speak about the evolution of the human race, and the hope that there is some power, force or intelligence out there looking after us. It is basically a new mythology that functions as faith/religion in a way.
LSD was at the time, or shortly before, perfectly legal to use. but there are always people somewhere sometime, who are worried that somebody, somewhere, is having a good time. I don't advise getting into it, tho . but John Lennon, who reportedly saw it daily for a long time, was on either acid, reefer or both. I guarantee. I stick to the ol' 'funny cigarettes'.
