I don't usually write about 'old' films, but there's nothing 'usual' about my single all-time favourite, now re-released to selected cinemas marking 50 years since its initial appearance, now in a pristine new print, cleaned up both visually (with colour restored) and sonically, to provide those of us who retain a unique awe for it offering a repeat of a truly glorious, cinematic experience.
Don't waste your time writing about how it's one long yawn or series of yawns, enigmatic to the point of being unfathomable - or even 'daft'! I've heard it all before and people are entitled to their opinion, as am I. Nor will I attempt to explain it (including the mysterious, travelling plinth and the 'Star Child'). If the director himself and the writer of the original story didn't know then how can I?
I dare say that just about everybody has seen it in one form or another so I'll say very little about the content. I must have viewed it at least fifteen times in various cinemas (still not the film with my most cinema viewings!), the last time being some 30 years ago in Munich on what turned out to be a smallish screen in a multiplex and, even worse, dubbed into German - even the computer HAL's singing of 'Daisy, Daisy' was substituted with a German nursery song! So, despite my having videos of it - though of course all videos are very much inferior to seeing a film in the medium for which it was created - I needed something to reassure me that my former thoughts and evaluation of the film remain unchanged. And I can now repeat with assurance that it remains my absolute favourite film of all.
My first encounter was in February 1969 when I saw it on a cinerama screen - the long arc-wide screen, about a third of a circle or just a little less - a format which was to become defunct in the 1970s. This was when film was shot on a single, extra-wide lensed camera rather than the earlier method of using three cameras simultaneously with the films then melded together (when one could sometimes 'see the joins'!). This was one of the final films shot in cinerama format, the only remaining major ones being 'Ice Station Zebra' (also 1968) and 'Krakatoa: East of Java' (1969).
I was living in Middlesbrough at the time, the nearest cinerama screen (one of less than a dozen in the country) being 42 miles away in Newcastle upon Tyne. But I didn't wish to miss the chance so took the train up even though I knew the film would come to my local cinema in 70mm format. It was well worth the effort and expense - and remains my sole experience of cinerama.
This showing today was one of just four screenings in the area - at the same large screen Brighton cinema I mentioned recently when I was one of a tiny handful of spectators in a 274-seat auditorium. I was afraid that this time I might have a similar experience. Thankfully not. The cinema must have been 90% full, and at a midday matinee too, though it being a weekend helped, no doubt. The audience was attentive and despite, I guess, nearly all of them having seen the film before in some way or other, perhaps this was the first time most of them were seeing it in a cinema. In the soundless space sequences you could have heard a pin drop, with no whisperings or extraneous noises, the entire audience being every bit as rapt as I was. And at the conclusion there was general applause - so I reckon that many of them were as huge fans of the film as I am.
I've mentioned in previous blogs that I've had a lifetime passion for Astronomy and one of the positives of this film is that 50 years after it first appeared it's by far still the most accurate portrayal of space travel than any film since, amazing - and frustrating - as that is. It's primarily due to the influence and direct involvement of that science genius, Arthur C.Clarke who, incidentally, later said that he would never agree to working with Stanley Kubrick again, even if he was offered all the money in the world!.
I've read more about this film than any other - as, for instance, it being released in the same year as the original (and splendid) 'Planet of the Apes', but it was the latter which picked up the Oscar for 'Best Make-Up' because, the rumour goes, it was thought that the apes in '2001' must have been real!
Arthur C. Clarke who wrote the original short story 'The Sentinel' which was expanded and morphed into '2001' is quoted as saying that he made two major errors in the film. First, he didn't foresee the extreme miniaturisation of computers (in this film, HAL is huge!) and secondly, when astronaut Dave Bowman is trying to get into the mothership without a helmet, HAL having denied him entrance, before diving through the open door into the airless docking bay he takes a deep breath, which actually would have made his lungs explode when in a vacuum, even for a couple of seconds! This time around I also especially thought the astronauts walking on the surface of the moon had a gait that looked too heavy for the much weaker lunar gravity. But in the context of sound scientific principles as a whole - and where it really matters - these quibbles verge on nit-picking.
It's by no means a perfect film. The section of 'Jupiter and Beyond the Infinite' is too long and indulgent to sustain fascinated interest, and one is left with the time to muse on how they achieved such and such effect - but it's not a critical fault. Also, we now know that even as the film was in progress, neither Kubrick and Clarke had any idea how to bring it all to a conclusion. I must say that what they eventually came up with, for me could hardly have been bettered, even if it had turned out to be only by a fluke.
One final point. The soundtrack music had, in fact, been composed, as Kubrick requested, by one Alex North (his score is available on CD). Apparently, just before release, and without telling the composer, the director decided to substitute North's score with the classical pieces we're now familiar with. In fact the first the composer knew about it was when he attended the premier in blissful ignorance, only to find himself bewildered when, instead of his 'Sunrise' music at the start, he heard Richard Strauss' imposing opening bars from 'Also Sprach Zarathustra' - and waited in vain throughout the rest of the film for his own music to be heard. Obviously someone forgot to rescind his invitation or, more likely, it was just overlooked - or, perhaps, Kubrick or someone else was just too embarrassed to tell him what had happened. Must have given him quite a nasty start to have found it out the way he did.
I'm not sure that using the 'Blue Danube' waltz was such a good idea. It's just a bit too familiar, and I've never been able to hear that music in all the years since without it conjuring up that particular sequence in the film - not necessarily a bad thing, but I do wish it hadn't been so firmly embedded in my mind. Before he decided on 'Danube', Kubrick had toyed with the idea of using (same composer) Johann Strauss' 'Music of the Spheres' at this juncture, which would have had more obvious titular resonance, but decided that the swing of the 'Blue Danube' was more in keeping with his vision. Again, it's not a make-or-break matter.
And then there's the title, '2001'. The film was made just a year before the first moon landing and no one could at that time foresee that lunar expeditions would completely dry up within two or three years because of the costs. So it's necessary, on hindsight, to see the title year as a kind of shorthand for an unidentifiable future time. It doesn't invalidate the concept of future space travel potential at all, unfortunate as it superficially might seem - nor of contact with an extra-terrestrial intelligence. which I believe will happen, even if hardly likely in my own lifetime.
I've said a lot about a film I wasn't even going to post about at all. At least it's off my chest now.
Observe the following rating very carefully. You won't see its like again for a very long time indeed, if ever..............9.
(IMDb........8.3 / Rotten Tomatoes........9.2)
2 hours ago
I am glad you have a film that you are so fond of. It is sort of comforting to have an experience like this with a film. I don't have such an experience with any film, yet. I have never seen this one. The interesting part here to me is your mention of Arthur C Clarke. He was an incredibly clever man in science and in science fiction writing and very ahead of his time. As you say, he was very important in the making of this film. I was listening to a radio programme about him recently and I was so gobsmacked that I had to stop the car to listen. He most certainly was a genius. Thank you for sharing your thoughts on the film. Most interesting.
ReplyDeleteI've read quite a number of Clarke's stories, Rachel - and he really did have an extraordinary mind and imagination, and all with a reliable bedrock foundation of accurate science too.
DeleteMy passion for Astronomy has manifestly influenced my liking for this film, but even if one doesn't share that especially, an interest in philosophy too wouldn't be inappropriate in helping to appreciate it.
If the subject has grabbed you, I hope you can catch up on this film at the cinema as it really demands to be seen on the biggest screen available. So much of the visual detail is lost on TV.
I haven't come down from my 'high' yet. No wonder John Lennon claimed that he watched it every day - though I suspect his 'high' might have had a rather different cause!
I have checked the local cinemas and there is one showing only and unfortunately for me it is in the evening and I don't go out in the evening. I am disappointed now after reading your post, and the interesting comments.
DeleteThat's a great shame, Rachel. I also don't go out in the evenings for, I believe, the very same reasons as you. However, I have made the very infrequent exception, the last time being to catch the live relay from London of Pinter's 'No Man's Land' which I thought was too good a chance to miss - and it turned out I was quite correct. But even so, going out at all and returning in the dark makes me nervous and edgy, such as I can't quite relax while all the while thinking about my return home. Obviously, it's got to be a personal decision but I can totally understand - which doesn't make it any less of a pity for reasons like this.
DeleteBtw: There are so many films coming up which I won't be seeing because of their featuring usually dead animals, though not always dead. I'm wondering if you're going to 'L'Amant Double' which sounds intriguing were it not for what I mention. 'My Friend Dahmer' is another, but it may not have been your bag. I really would have wanted to see it - but alas.........
Having seen the trailer for My Friend Dahmer I
Deleteruled it out. It looked too violent for me. I have thought about L'Amant Double but the story line does not sound particularly my cup of tea but I have not ruled it out entirely.
I don't like the city in the evening, nor travelling back alone.
No surprise with your reaction to the Dahmer film, Rachel. It's the very unusual details and the luridness of the story that makes me curious, but the experimenting on dead animals' bodies completely rules it out for me.
DeleteI did think 'L'Amant Double' had some potential, but once again, seeing several dead, stuffed cats makes it just too problematic as well as being distracting.
I can't even fathom what an awesome experience it must have been to see "2001" as it was intended to be shown in the cinerama format. I have a VHS (!) copy of the cinema scope photographed "How the West Was Won" and yes, the "joins" are jarring.
ReplyDeleteI've only ever seen "2001" on the inferior television screen, but I am still impressed by the intended splendor of the images. For me "2001" is the closest we will ever get to silent, visual poetry.
You express yourself very well, RTG - and I'm more than a little pleased that despite your having only sen this film on a medium for which it manifestly was NOT intended, the beauty of it shines through. I still hope you'll somehow and sometime get to see it in a way which does full justice to the miracle which it is, unlikely though that may be.
DeleteI saw this back in college in the early 1980s. I "had" to see it for a science fiction class I was taking. I could get no one else to go with me, so I traipsed across campus, in the absolute pouring rain, by myself. When I got there, it was me and 2 guys. That was it. And the theater smelled like wet Doritos. Isn't that the weirdest memory? I haven't thought of that in forever but I remember it like was yesterday. Most importantly: I absolutely loved the movie. Still do. I just checked online, and there are no screenings near me. Would love to see it again the way it was meant to be viewed.
ReplyDeleteYour memories are much more intellectual than mine. Thank you for the backstories about Clarke, the music, etc.; this was a very interesting read!
What a miserable way to see this for the first time, Elle - and yet the experience didn't spoil your appreciation even though it deserved to have been a better one. It's a crying shame that this latest re-release, which will almost certainly be its final one, is not one coming to a venue near you when it's those like yourself who'd most have valued it.
DeleteI could have written yet more about the making of the film, but there are limits! However, I've just inserted a further short para about the use of the 'Blue Danube'.
Thanks for your thoughts, as ever.
I read your entries but often don't comment given I haven't seen the films, but my eyes widened to see this one. I enjoyed hearing about your thoughts on a film I know. I hope you do more of these.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Dr Spo. If I did more postings on films released long ago it would open up new far horizons, something I'm not terribly keen to exploit at this stage - but one should never say "Never!"
DeleteRay! I am so pleased to see your critique of this magnificent film.
ReplyDeleteI happen to be watching it right now on my tablet, which you will agree for this particular film is a poor substitute indeed for a cinema screen. Indeed I cringed when I heard Also Sprach Zarathustra at the beginning. Still, beggars can't be choosers, and I have no choice at present.
I have seen it on the big screen in the past, and like you, treasure the experience.
So thank you for your for your wonderful review, as always.
Thanks for that, Rozzie. watching this on a tablet would be a step too far for me. The video alone is something I've only done a couple of times, it being such a weakened experience. I prefer by a considerable margin to leave my dozen-plus intense cinematic memories undiluted by inferior watchings.
ReplyDeleteIt gladdens me to know that you're yet another appreciator of this masterpiece. I had no idea they were so many in number, and my attendance yesterday was most heartening. I had feared that after the interval the audience might have thinned out somewhat but I could discern no difference in numbers. There's a lot of us who recognise quality when we see it, right? :-)
This is fascinating. I haven't seen the film since it first came out. And, yes, I did love it and, yes, I did think it went on (and on and on) at some points. But maybe it's time to see it again, and to read more about its making. You've sparked my interest.
ReplyDeleteI do hope it'll come to a cinema near you soon, Mitch, as it's got a worldwide re-release. By far the majority of feature films are so much better seen on a cinema screen, and there are few, if any, films which more demand to be seen there than this one.
DeleteIt is one of those films that loses something on a smaller screen. It really is epic.
ReplyDeleteThe ultimate epic, Bob, outdoing even those Biblical extravaganzas of the 50s and 60s - and much, much more interesting and challenging.
DeleteRay,
ReplyDeleteI saw "2001" when it first came out. I was very impressed. I remember thinking at that time how far in the future 2001 was. I compared it to my retirement date from the bank where I worked, 2006. Alas, 2001 came all too soon and now look we're at 2018. Time is running out. Back to the film, I liked the film but didn't quite get the ending. Did anybody?
Ron
Not even the director and the writer themselves understood the ending, Ron. but I don't mind that. It succeeding in being one of the most provocative films of all time - forcing everyone who isn't brain-dead to think - and I love it all the more for that.
DeleteYes, when it was made the year 2001 was as far away as 2051 is to us now - and we can hardly imagine the advances that are going to be made, perhaps less in space travel as there may not be significant advances there because of the costs, but in computer technology for instance. You and I may not be around to see it, but it's still a most stimulating and challenging thought.