2001 proves that something can be the best without being enjoyable. I love it because like Moby-Dick or Blade Runner, it's a shape on which I can hang ideas and play with meaning. A good plot and character are usually preferable for enjoyment, and 2001 has neither. But these shapes stick with us and help provide meta enjoyment as they interact with other thoughts.
Isn't that the point, that you leave the cinema, and have a riddle. The first time I saw this film, I spent the next week or two thinking about it, reading about it, informing me. It had such a fascination. I think you are missing the point when you talk about classic story arcs, because this doesn't apply here. This movie is a little bit above that. It also asks all the classic sci-fi questions, and touches also themes that a relevant in daily life: Where do we come from? What is out there? What will happen to us? And I'm glad that there is no voiceover, so that you have time so sit, fully immerse yourself in the visuals. A boring voiceover would have ruined that
Your subconscious rejection of “2001” is on point. Every person who tells me how wonderful that film is stops cold when I ask them what it was about. Here’s a hint: It’s not about HAL. And you have company. At the film’s original screening for the studio executives, dozens walked out. To understand the movie’s story line, I read Arthur C. Clark’s eponymous novel, and I ended up enjoying the book far more than the movie. When you read the book, the movie makes sense. But at what point is the director indulging to excess the aspect of film making he enjoys most - in Kubrick’s case, cinematography? I suggest that point has been reached if you need to read the book to understand the movie. And even then the movie is seriously flawed. Can you name a character from it? Did you understand the final sequencer? Or did the whole thing strike you as a sterile intellectual exercise, something a chess grand master would be inclined to do? And yes, Kubrick was one. Kubrick’s genius with visuals is beyond question. But visuals are valuable only to the extent they help the audience understand the characters and the story. Since the Stone Age we have been a story-telling species. Stories help us make sense of the world and our lives in it. To those who argue that as a genre science fiction is less emotionally involving than, say, a love story, I give you Ridley Scott. This director knows what visuals are for, and who hasn’t been knocked out by “Alien?” When calling up my science fiction favorites, the top two were directed by Ridley Scott: “Alien,” and what I consider his masterpiece, “Blade Runner.” While exciting visually, their most compelling aspect is the progression of the characters through the story line. During production, Rutger Hauer improvised the film’s legendary moment of existential regret: ” . . . All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.” The genre where two-dimensional characters are pretty much required is satire, and Kubrick’s “Dr. Strangelove” succeeds brilliantly. But to those whose worship of Kubrick clouds their judgment I offer as proof, “Full Metal Jacket.” What was it about and why was its ending such an anticlimax? In “The Shining,” Kubrick loses control of his lead character, and as a result, Nicholson is so far over the top, I found his performance bordering on comedic. Never have I seen Nicholson so off course. He needed a director like “the little Pole,” Roman Polanski, to rein him in. The result was Jack’s best-ever performance in “Chinatown.” So yes, when assessed in terms of its emotional connection with the audience, “2001” is not a success. Any work of art that fails to establish this bond is doomed to be second rate, regardless of the scenery.
I was a kid in '68 when the movie was released. Of course, word was like wildfire around school that "you GOTTA go see this weird movie!" BUT there was more talk than just that going around: word was, if you're GOING to go see it... you MUST prepare first by reading: Clarke's original inspiration, his short story "The Sentinel" (which was basically the "moon mission" from the story); Clarke's novelization of "2001" (which, in collaboration with Kubrick, added the "Moonwatcher" [the man-ape] prologue, and the Jupiter mission; and "The Making of 2001" (which also filled in some key points). Kubrick was quite vague about his depiction of the fact that man's evolution was a slightly-less-than-natural process, and that it was helped along by an other-worldly intelligence (in the form of the monolith). (In the book, the man-apes saw images on the monolith's surface, whereas in the film, the touching of the monolith imbued Moonwatcher with new insight: the use of the bone as the first tool - then, a short time later, as the first weapon of murder...) The flinging of the bone into the air - and it's abrupt with to the satellite is also not explained in the film: the satellite in question is a space-based weapon - the ultimate extension of the murderous bone... Bear in mind that ALL of these scenes are a part of the titled sequence: "The Dawn of Man" - even the part in the far future - because the fact that he is still fashioning weaponry means that man has not advanced far beyond that "ape"... yet. I could go on, and encapsulate the rest, if you'd like...
Man, this is a great explanation, though I don't agree with your simplistic synopsis, but I see where you're coming from, I'm glad you still hold appreciation for Kubrick and the important legacy of this film, within it's context, technical achievements and predictions, something that many viewers don't do, which already deserves my respect, I'm sure there are other Kubrick films that you might prefer, that's the best thing, he was versatile, he could do any genre, no matter people's expectations. Still, he's not for everyone, I watched A Clockwork Orange at an early age, it changed my perception about film and other things, is still shocking, but maybe some people don't view it that way cause they might have seen Trainspotting or so, violence, and r4p3 being sadly a normal thing in this world, even the bump from the beginning referenced 2001 ("man on the moon?"), but due to it's nature, it helps that it's pacing is way more frennetic than 2001. Same thing can be said about Star Wars, even fans complain about how slow the Ben Kenobi-Darth Vader duel is, when you compare it with other lightsaber duels, A New Hope has it's slow moments (due to the lack of music in some scenes, I guess), but still has it's badass action scenes to mantain the interest. When I watched 2001, I was already a fan of sci-fi and Star Wars, I knew this film had a huge impact on the genre and other filmmakers (also Wall-E, one of my favorite animated films, you can't have Auto without HAL 9000, by far the most interesting character, he is the pro-pic of many guys online), I'm a classical music fan, so I don't have problems with the long established shots, as long as there's music like Johann Strauss II "The Blue Danube" or Gyorgi Ligeti's pieces (really haunting if you listen to it in a dark room with earphones during the night), this movie made Richard Strauss' Also Sprach Zarathustra an iconic piece (which lead me to read Nietzsche's book, it helps to understand the movie a bit better), to me, music helps pacing in a film. I had the fortune to see it in a theatre in 2023, most people were elder enough to have seen it back in the day, it was like time travelling, it was also a conference about AI, and they gave me the mic to speak about my thoughts, I was one of the youngest in that room, that was one of the best days of my life, no one can take away that happiness from me😊 Some final questions: have you read the novel? Have you seen the sequel 2010: The Year We Make Contact, if so, did you like it better? I would love to see the other books adapted into big screen, it has the potential to be a great saga. Sorry if my comment was very long, is just that I have so many things to say about this film.
I watched 2001 in the middle of the night on Turner Classic Movies and stayed up past 2 am to watch all of it. I loved it, mostly for the visuals and the weirdness of the ending. One of my friends took a class on Kubrick’s films as a college elective because she’s a big fan of The Shining. She hated 2001, for the same reasons you did.
I'm in no way or shape film savvy, I probably watched no more than 30 films in my entire life (I'm 25) but I watched 2001 today and I was completely hooked from beginning to end. I love when films have long atmospheric scenes that convey the setting and feeling with few or no words. I did find, however, the pitch black scenes with only music and the final "wormhole" travel a bit off. Could've been trimmed a little. There's something you say about the first part with the early humans, you say that it has no relation to the plot other than thematic purposes, but this couldn't be further from the truth. It is integral to the plot, as neither the tablet on the moon or the ending would have any significance. It establishes that the device "evolves" species, which is what happens at the end. I think I was able to understand it from the get go by thinking about the opening scene really. Aside from that, I really like that you're honest about it without being condescending, like 90% of people I've seen so far criticizing the movie. I personally like it not because of the way Kubrick "saw the future" and (to me) shallow discussions about the usage of technology and such. I don't care about that. I liked the film because it was such a direct and honest portrayal of a force of nature, the setting is incredibly convincing and the aesthetics are totally believable, unlike many films of today.
For me, it's my favorite movie of all time. Its insane visuals, coupled with my personal interpretation that still holds up, leads me to see it as timeless. Plus, its highly experimental nature showed me that there weren't limits to how a film could be made, thus starting my own filmmaking journey. That being said, it is insanely boring. I don't feel inclined to watch it again. I feel it's my personal experience with it that makes it my favorite.
"Strory Structure" hated it. I loved it. If you expected a film where you sit back and everything is handed to you, then I would understand. That's most films. But, I leaned into this film, when it came out... before Appolo 8. And, I have seen it many times since. I found that it's not just a slow film. It's more like a work of art that demands your attention.., demands personal interpretation.., and demands you jump in.... Otherwise, it's simply not worth the price of admission. To put it another way.., it's truly a filmmaker's film.
Definitely one of the most interesting films to revisit overtime, as I reach my mid-twenties, films like this that were once totally unpalatable due to their slow pace become more and more interesting. Slow-cinema like 2001 feels more meditative experience as opposed to an overtly entertaining one, space (literally) to reflect upon the themes and images that the film conveys. To employ traditional narrative and theming techniques would subvert the film's request for the audience to consider the images on their own terms. It would be super interesting to get your thoughts on Tarkovsky's Stalker, a similar film in terms of approach.
Dear Mr White, You are right to be disappointed if you want a conventional story film with characters, conflict, plot points, and a resolution. What if the film is about landscape and power. What if the story is merely the surround that says Look. LOOK!!! ...until the experience is what surrounds you and you become...? It's a different way to tell a story. It overwhelms the viewer. It includes the viewer. What you feel about the movie depends on what level you choose to engage with it.
I always loved Sci-fi movies, however for some reason I failed to watch this one 22 years ago. I thought this movie was just propaganda for the space race during the cold war. After 5 minutes of rolling I just stopped it. My thoughts were similar to yours before watching it. I was afraid that I wouldn't be able to enjoy it considering it could not be anything not seen before. Most elements of the movie would have been adopted and integrated in other movies during the decades, thus it would have been just boring. Nevertheless, last week I decided to give it a try. Yes, its a heavy and slow movie but it blown my mind in ways that I am not able to explain in a simple comment. I believe you were not ready for this movie. You simply didn't get it. The monolith (same film frame dimensions curiously) did not work on you 😊. This movie for me is truly a masterpiece.
Well, art is art. Once an artist releases it to an audience, it's up to the audience to interpret it. Death of the author! That being said, give it a rewatch a couple of years later and try to dig deeper. I didn't get Kubrick's "Barry Lyndon" in my 20s and thought it was a snore-fest, now it's my favorite Kubrick.
Dave not being relatable is a bit troubling, because his situation is that of a lab animal, and there are plenty of lab animals that suffer all the time for our wellbeing. We do not understand or even comprehend the lab (fancy hotel room), in the same way in which a rat does not comprehend that the room it's in is a lab meant for experimentation. And this is important because, as many other things this film predicted, it forecasts us losing our position as the ruling species on our world to AI like HAL. And when future HAL will hear our complaints that we shouldn't be used as lab animals and the AI should relate to us, HALL will respond: "But you never related to all the rats that you used in your own experiments!"
Though I disagree with you overall take on the film I have to complement your writing, it’s light but informative yet being very opinionated. Really great stuff earned yourself a new sub
I would be willing to bet if you conducted a scientific experiment where millennials (and younger) are tested to see how long they can sit through 2001: A Space Odyssey. I would bet that the experience for them would be absolute bone-crushing, sinew-ripping, excruciatingly agony for them.
Your reasoning is irrelevant because according to main actor's words 200 people left the movie theatre on a premiere. It was boring even for general consumers of 60s.
I don't hate this movie. That said, I do use it to explain the differences between the mediums of book and film. You see, the apes ARE related to the rest of the movie by virtue of the monolith. As is Bowman as the "Star Child". The key difference being that books, as a medium, take their time to tell you about all that. I saw the movie first and the only thing I could think was "what were they smoking when they wrote this??" ;) Then I read the book and it made better sense. You might wanna check out 2010. It's much better, MHO, than the 2001. It's well paced, explains itself better and has a more immersive climax. In this case, I thought it was a much better movie than it was a book. Two cents...
GREATLY PUT, i am a huge fan of space odyssey but this explained really well how i felt about most old movies like this, its absolutely crawlingly slow and very boring. The only reason it wasn't the case for me for this film is the fact that i knew this was filmed before the moon landing yet the special effects still holds up to modern films and also a lot of scenes are very influential like the scene where the ape learns to use the bone as a weapon marking the first use of tools by mankind, it has been endlessly mentioned in pop culture and so has HAL9000.
