From rec.arts.sf.reviews Thu Sep 4 14:25:04 1997 From: Steve Kong Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Review: 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.movies Date: 2 Sep 1997 16:02:49 GMT Organization: None Lines: 63 Approved: graham@ee.washington.edu Message-ID: <5uhdb9$40e@nntp5.u.washington.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: homer34.u.washington.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" NNTP-Posting-User: grahams Summary: r.a.m.r. #08858 Keywords: author=kong X-Questions-to: movie-rev-mod@www.ee.washington.edu X-Submissions-to: movie-reviews@www.ee.washington.edu Originator: grahams@homer34.u.washington.edu Path: news.ifm.liu.se!genius.dat.hk-r.se!news.lth.se!eru.mt.luth.se!www.nntp.primenet.com!globalcenter1!news.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!howland.erols.net!wnfeed!204.127.130.5!worldnet.att.net!news.u.washington.edu!grahams Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:8256 rec.arts.sf.reviews:1518 2001:A SPACE ODYSSEY (1968) A film review by Steve Kong Copyright 1997 Steve Kong I'm of two minds when it comes to 2001. Today was the first time I've seen this classic film. What do I think? Two things come to mind, first, this film was well beyond its time, technically, and is more a metaphor or poem than a story. Second, this film is overly long and could have been tightened up. 2001 is a brilliant film by all technical means. Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clark put together a film about space that was and still is very plausible. Unlike the other space classic, Star Wars, there are no laser blasters, bug-eyed aliens, or gravitational field generators in 2001. All of the technology of 2001 reflects what was current then, and could well possibly be current now. An example would be the gravity on a space station instead of putting a gravitational field generator in (the easy way), the design of the space station is in the form of double wheels that rotate in space, and using the centrifugal force, it is able to create gravity for those onboard the station. It is details like this that make 2001 a brilliant film by technical means, at no point during the film will you not believe that what is being done could possibly be some time in the near future. The film is a bit overly long and could have been tightened up. Though I can see that the film is more of a metaphor for the future, it is somewhat sloppy to let some scenes run as long as they do. The opening sequence shows this off very well. Though it is an interesting opening to a film, it did not have to be thirty minutes in length to show what it did. 2001 is broken into three very distinct movements. The middle movement is the longest, and sets up for the most memorable and known character, HAL. This is a bit strange because the one character that is most memorable is not human. HAL is the famous machine that all of us know, and many movies have mentioned (take for instance Independence Day). The one real hero of the film would be Dave Bowman, but he is not as memorable as HAL. The special effects in 2001 are amazing, even when looked at with today's advancements in special effects. And most likely it is these special effects that keep the film interesting. Also interesting is the use of classical music in the film. Like most people I loved the use of the Blue Danube Waltz to set up the docking of the space shuttle and the space station. All other classical music is well picked and well used throughout the film. 2001 is a brilliant film ahead of its time, but it is a bit sloppy when it comes to length and pacing. Because it is to be viewed more as a metaphor or a reflection of how society is this is still no reason for the length and bad pacing. I recommend 2001:Space Odyssey because it is a classic film that set standards for films to follow, that is technically or via special effects. Its realistic rendition of space and space travel are well done. But, many people will be bored with the film. If you have three hours to spare and some patience, see 2001 for its special effects. !=!=!=!=!=!=!=!=!=!=!=!=!=!=!=!=!=!=!=!=!=!=!=!=!=!=!=!=!=!=!=!=!=!=!=!=!=! steve kong boiled@earthlink.net spy on me at: http://home.earthlink.net/~boiled/steve-cam.html movie reviews: http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Lot/2259/ "try not. do. or do not. there is no try." - yoda !=!=!=!=!=!=!=!=!=!=!=!=!=!=!=!=!=!=!=!=!=!=!=!=!=!=!=!=!=!=!=!=!=!=!=!=!=! From rec.arts.sf.reviews Fri Jan 8 15:11:59 1999 Path: news.ifm.liu.se!news.lth.se!feed1.news.luth.se!luth.se!cyclone.news.idirect.com!island.idirect.com!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.u.washington.edu!grahams From: "Dragan Antulov" Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Retrospective: 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.movies Date: 9 Dec 1998 06:31:46 GMT Organization: HiNet Lines: 177 Approved: graham@ee.washington.edu Message-ID: <74l5gi$15f8$1@nntp3.u.washington.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: homer28.u.washington.edu X-Trace: nntp3.u.washington.edu 913185106 38376 (None) 140.142.17.35 X-Complaints-To: help@cac.washington.edu NNTP-Posting-User: grahams Summary: r.a.m.r. #15592 Keywords: author=antulov X-Questions-to: movie-rev-mod@www.ee.washington.edu X-Submissions-to: movie-reviews@www.ee.washington.edu Originator: grahams@homer28.u.washington.edu Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:14772 rec.arts.sf.reviews:2187 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY A Film Review Copyright Dragan Antulov 1998 Few days ago people of the world had some opportunity to rest from the usual depressive news about coups, wars, disasters and presidential adulteries because world media finally turned their attention to more serene and heavenly subjects. One of those subjects is U.S. space shuttle "Endeavour" and its mission with the aim of connecting space modules - building blocks of the International Space Station. This news story invigorated many Space Age enthusiasts, but also filled their hearts with sadness. Their beloved Space Station, even when becomes finally built and fully operational in few years, would be far from fulfilling their dreams. Most of those dreams were inspired by a future envisioned in 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY by Stanley Kubrick, the most influential and unique work ever made in the history of seventh art. In the small world of cult cinema, 2001 is somewhat shadowed by other cinematic giants which are either more popular or pleasing to the audience, either general or cult, or simply more "earthly" to the mainstream critics and film scholar who dictate what should be artistic summit or not. Another thing that makes 2001 overlooked is the fact that its time might be somewhat pass‚. Thirty years ago, space exploration was a novelty able to catch people's imagination and inspire idealistic visions of the bright future for entire mankind. These days, almost nobody pays attention to space shuttles and satellites unless they crash, and materialistic considerations impede any ambitious plans for the human presence in space. To the casual observer, 2001 might really be discarded as the relict of age long gone, product of the idealistic and naÔve minds, something that can't be understood by today's cynical and nihilistic viewers, especially those of Generation X. Misunderstanding, however, isn't new problem for 2001. Even during its premiere the movie was generally misunderstood - critics panned it, because they didn't understand it, and audience, inspired by contemporary psychedelic trend loved it for the entirely wrong reasons. Even one of the movie authors - screenwriter and famous science fiction novelist Arthur C. Clarke - admitted that even he couldn't know what the movie was all about. In the next thirty years countless articles, essays, books, documentaries and scientific studies would be written with the sole intent of trying to answer those questions; despite their best efforts, the audience would still remained confused as during the premiere. However, the deliberate leaving of unanswered questions benefited the movie and helped it to survive as cult favourite for three decades. Mostly because 2001, unlike most of other movies, has a unique ability to affect its audience - whether they like the movie or not, or whether they understand it or not, they can feel they are experiencing something grand and magnificent, even if they can't find the proper words to describe it or explain it. The only thing that can be explained more or less coherently is plot. The movie begins with the prologue set roughly 4,000,000 years ago in East Africa. Small band of prehistoric ape-men, including Moonwatcher (Daniel Richter) lives a poor, short and brutal life, plagued by famine and under constant danger of predators. One day Moonwatcher discovers big, black shining monolith. The artefact of supposedly alien intelligence inspires Moonwatcher to use intelligence of his own - he discovers the bone as weapon, which leads to water buffalos as a new source of food for his tribe. After defeating the rival tribe in a war for water, Moonwatcher symbolically throws the bone in the air. In the next shot - often regarded as the most spectacular transition in the history of cinema - bone transforms in the space satellite that roams the Earth's orbit 4,000,000 years later. It is only one of the objects in Earth's orbit, full of different spaceships, including one that carries Doctor Heywood Floyd (William Sylvester), American space bureacrat, to the Moon. Floyd is set to oversee the investigation of monolith found on the Moon's surface. The monolith emits signals to Jupiter, and 18 months later, US space ship Discovery is sent to investigate the fourth planet of our solar system. The spaceship is manned by two astronauts - Frank Pool (Gary Lockwood) and Dave Bowman (Keir Dullea), but actually controlled by HAL 9000, computer equipped with artificial intelligence (voice by Douglas Rain). During the voyage, allegedly infallible computer begins to make mistakes, which forces the human crew to think about disconnecting it. Even those who don't like the lack of clarity in 2001 are forced to admit that, on the technical side, this film really deserves to praised as one of the milestones in the history of cinema. Its director, Stanley Kubrick, made great movies before (LOLITA) and after (A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, filmed three years later, is actually preferred by mainstream critics), but in this film he used all his talent to make something really remarkable. First of all, 10 million US$ budget - something that looked like a fortune and was almost unimaginable for science fiction at the time - was used to create very detailed world of future supertechnology. Along the professional production and costume designers, Kubrick employed the talents of futurologists and real-life scientists and space vehicle designers, which resulted in the high level of plausibility and authenticity for a futuristic movie (the real life instruction for a zero gravity toilet is just the most common example). Another important element were the groundbreaking special effects; Kubrick, together with legendary Douglas Trumbull, introduced many revolutionary techniques that helped the audience to suspend its disbelief and make studio-recreated space, including zero gravity look also authentic. Thanks to those effects, 2001 looks as convincing now as it looked for the unsuspecting audience thirty years ago (and despite the fact that we couldn't see such level of technology in real-life 2001). Finally, Kubrick was also revolutionary in using non-original music; his choice was superb and some themes - especially those by Johann Strauss ("An der schoenen blauen Donau") and Richard Strauss ("Also Spracht Zarathustra") - would stay forever associated with his powerful imagery. The actors of the movie remained mostly forgotten and that shouldn't surprise anyone, because this is the movie of the sights, sounds and ideas and not of the great memorable characters. Most of those characters are either hidden behind ape-like costumes (Moonwatcher), or presented like boring bureacrats (Floyd) or astronauts turned emotionally numb by the boredom of their job (Pool, Bowman). Ironically, it is the non-human character, HAL, that brings real human dimension to the events of the movie by expressing genuine emotions. Furthermore, there are relatively few words spoken in the entire movie - and most of the lines are trivial and serve only to illustrate banality and boredom of the life in the Space Age. The only lines that entered movie lovers' collective memory are the HAL's famous last words. 2001 is a movie as close to perfection as one movie can be. Those who deny it such status are probably those who question its plausibility. We are less than three (one, if you consider the 1999 segment) years away from the world presented in the movie, and most of the movie looks dated or overoptimistic now. Our space technology seems decades, if not centuries behind those presented in Kubrick's vision. Our fashions and social customs changed drastically compared with the late 1960s; the Cold War, that provided material for one of the more banal conversations in the movie, is thing of the past. Our computers didn't develop artificial intelligence. But are all those false predictions reasons enough for us to downgrade 2001? Is the Orwellian vision moot because the world in 1984 lacked Big Brother? Should we discard BLADE RUNNER when November 2019 comes without replicants in sight? The answer should be no. The movie was authentic by 1968 standards, and it was very plausible, taking into consideration contemporary trends. 2001 is a movie that presents future that probably won't happen, but also the future that might have happened. Even as false vision, 2001 remains powerful one, able to inspire us to ask questions about our existence, our true nature as human beings and, finally, our future. RATING: 10/10 Review written on December 8th 1998 -- Dragan Antulov a.k.a. Drax Fido: 2:381/100 E-mail: dragan.antulov@st.tel.hr dragan.antulov@altbbs.fido,hr From rec.arts.sf.reviews Tue Aug 24 16:14:25 1999 Path: news.ifm.liu.se!news.lth.se!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.u.washington.edu!grahams From: Paul McElligott Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Retrospective: 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.movies Date: 9 Aug 1999 17:25:49 GMT Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Lines: 101 Approved: graham@ee.washington.edu Message-ID: <7on2ut$b2q$1@nntp3.u.washington.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: homer15.u.washington.edu X-Trace: nntp3.u.washington.edu 934219549 11354 (None) 140.142.17.38 X-Complaints-To: help@cac.washington.edu NNTP-Posting-User: grahams Summary: r.a.m.r. #19902 Keywords: author=mcelligott X-Questions-to: movie-rev-mod@www.ee.washington.edu X-Submissions-to: movie-reviews@www.ee.washington.edu Originator: grahams@homer15.u.washington.edu Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:19113 rec.arts.sf.reviews:2421 2001: A Space Odyssey Starring: Keir Dullea, Gary Lockwood, William Sylvester, Douglas Rain Written by Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick Produced and Directed by Stanley Kubrick 2001 is probably the most review-proof film in the history of cinema. Critics who try to do an in-depth analysis always come off sounding like freshman philosophy students. In a lot of ways, 2001 is the ultimate cinematic Rorschach test. Any review winds up saying more about the reviewer than about the film itself. Instead of trying to tell you what I think it all means, I will satisfy myself with saying that I think 2001 is a singularly important film. Aside from Citizen Kane, it may be the most significant film in the first 100 years of cinema. More than any other film, before or since, it shows that film can be used for something beyond mere storytelling. Almost all other "great films" still hold to a more traditional narrative structure. Not so here. It would be pointless to summarize the plot of 2001, because the plot is almost beside the point. This is cinema as mood piece, the use of imagery to stir the mind in ways that go beyond reason. 2001 is a film to be experienced and then dwelt upon at length, rather than just watched. If no one comes to the same conclusions, so much the better. I seem to remember that director Kubrick compared the structure of this film to that of symphony. I think this is accurate. 2001 is as open to individual interpretation as any good piece of classical music. I have said elsewhere that I would not classify this film as science fiction, unless one considers metaphysics to be a science. Still, Kubrick's insistence upon rigid technical accuracy means that the science-fiction elements are some of the most sophisticated ever committed to film. In this vein, the middle and later sections of the film which follow Heywood Floyd to the lunar crater Tycho and then follow Dave Bowman to Jupiter and beyond present us, the viewers of 1999, with a strange contradiction. Even though the film's view of man's relationship to technology is rather bleak, the level of technology portrayed for the years 1999-2001 appears wildly optimistic. It is fascinating to see just how big we were dreaming back in the 1960's. 2001's predictions about the future are a wild collection of hits and misses. It's true that there are no giant wheel-like space stations in orbit, but the first elements of a more modest station are already in place. Its interior, however, will not resemble the concourse at Heathrow. And although the Pan-Am space plane was overly optimistic, both about luxurious 747-style passenger travel in space and also about the existence of the airline itself, the design of the ship does accurately predict the basic shape of the space shuttle we currently fly. Like I said, the film's view of man's relationship to his machines is almost relentlessly pessimistic. How could it be otherwise when the only character with a semblance of a personality is a sentient supercomputer, and a homicidal one at that? The scene in which the HAL 9000 kills the still hibernating astronauts is especially chilling when the camera focuses on the computer ubiquitous red eye, like a traditional movie would dwell on the face of a murderer surveying his handiwork. With a human killer, we could read the expression on the face, maniacal glee or tortured guilt. With HAL, the lack of any possibility of expression means that we have a killer whose motives are both unknown and unknowable. I challenge even the makers of The Blair Witch Project to concoct a scarier scenario than that. And the following scene, in which the pitiless killer begs for its own existence as David Bowman coldly and mechanically disassembles its higher mental functions, adds an equally chilling coda to that idea. Our attempt to create technology in our own image has succeeded in duplicating even the darker corners of our nature. The human characters are overshadowed by both HAL and the alien monolith, but unlike other technology-driven effects films, this is not accidental or a deficiency. In 2001, the human characters are almost elements of the scenery, their interaction part of the background noise. Heywood Floyd (Sylvester) is a non-stop stream of unctuous pleasantries. His bland company-man exterior makes his reminder that security oaths will be required from anyone who knows about the monolith all the more ominous. He seems like a nice-enough guy, but his words hint at rather authoritarian attitudes. Astronauts Bowman (Dullea) and Poole (Lockwood), on the other hand, seem to have totally submerged their personalities into their jobs, until they almost act like machines. Their responses seem almost programmed, automatic, while their computer goes about having a nervous breakdown. I found it ironically amusing when, in response to a reporter's question, Poole says that HAL acts like he has emotions, and says so in the most unemotional voice of which a human is capable. 2001 is not a movie for the people who log into the Video section of Amazon.com and blather that Armageddon is "the greatest movie ever made!" This film makes demands that its audience try to understand what it is trying to say without it being explained, but doesn't care if we fail to do so. The pace is almost glacial at times, but the film rewards and doesn't bore those willing to make the effort. -- Reviewed by Paul McElligott From rec.arts.sf.reviews Fri Aug 27 21:22:19 1999 Path: news.ifm.liu.se!news.lth.se!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!nntp.primenet.com!nntp.gctr.net!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!news.alt.net!news.u.washington.edu!grahams From: Dennis Schwartz Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Retrospective: 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.movies Date: 24 Aug 1999 16:33:24 GMT Organization: University of Washington Lines: 150 Approved: graham@ee.washington.edu Message-ID: <7puhgk$i2c$1@nntp3.u.washington.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: homer18.u.washington.edu X-Trace: nntp3.u.washington.edu 935512404 18508 (None) 140.142.17.35 X-Complaints-To: help@cac.washington.edu NNTP-Posting-User: grahams Summary: r.a.m.r. #20185 Keywords: author=schwartz X-Questions-to: movie-rev-mod@www.ee.washington.edu X-Submissions-to: movie-reviews@www.ee.washington.edu Originator: grahams@homer18.u.washington.edu Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:19391 rec.arts.sf.reviews:2440 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY (director: Stanley Kubrick; writers:Arthur C. Clarke/Stanley Kubrick, from Clarke's "The Sentinel''; cinematographer: John Alcott /Geoffrey Unsworth; special effects: Douglas Trumbull; cast: Keir Dullea (David Bowman), Gary Lockwood (Frank Poole),William Sylvester (Dr. Heywood Floyd), Daniel Richter (Moonwatcher), Leonard Rossiter (Smyslov), Margaret Tyzack (Elena), Robert Beatty (Dr. Halvorsen), Sean Sullivan (Michaels), Douglas Rain (HAL 9000), Alan Gifford (Poole's Father), Frank Miller (Mission Controller), Ed Bishop (Lunar shuttle captain), UK-1968) Reviewed by Dennis Schwartz 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY is a meditative quest, an inspirational sci-fi film that defies its genre in scope and attitude, it is a film of tremendous visual impact and innovation. This was done before Star Wars and at time when sci-fi films were were mostly low-budget productions. It is Kubrick's masterpiece. A film that encourages our contemplation of every scene, as each was carefully and intelligently shot with that in mind, as it is only through our own effort can we come away with an understanding of the film. It opens in darkness 4 million years ago with the title "The Dawn of Man," showing the apes learning how to destroy and how to create in order to stay alive (they use bones to make both weapons and tools), and it ends in a bright light, a vision of evolving consciousness as a black monolith is discovered and explored on Jupiter by the mission astronauts, who will have found life outside the earth in the form of a star child, who is hermetically sealed in a bedroom outside of Jupiter. The film is about the future 33 years from when the film was released, which would be in 2001. The anticipation of computers and robots as being a daily part of life is assumed, as the error free series 9000 computer, named Hal (Douglas Rain, Hal's voice), engages the scientists in conversation and is programed to carry out every detail of the mission to Jupiter. Hal is even programed with human emotions, but we are not certain if these emotions are genuine. The subplot shows a conflict that develops between Hal and the spaceship's crew, David Bowman (Keir) and Frank Poole (Lockwood), when Hal is accused by ground control of making a mistake about a malfunctioning object aboard the ship and the crew secretly decides to disconnect Hal, which he discovers because he ingeniously reads their lips, even though they took every precaution not to be detected in the pod they entered. This has been interpreted by many, that Kubrick has made a pessimistic film about the inevitable conflict with man and his machines, but it just might be that what he is saying, is we better not rely completely on machines, no matter how infallible they may appear to be. The first half-hour of the film is filled with splendid silence, showing the apes doing their destructive thing, and it takes about an hour into the film before the plot starts to develop, as the infamous bone is thrown into the air by the ape and the scene slowly dissolves into one showing a space shuttle, as we zoom into a space terminal and hear our first words in the film. It is as if the baton is passed to the higher order of beings, saying we got you so far, can you take us all the way home, across the finish line of evolution. The tedious pace of the film has a hypnotic affect, contrasting the primitive beastiality of our ancestors with the polite deceptions of our future relatives. The Johann Strauss waltz "Blue Danube,'' which accompanies the docking of the space shuttle and the space station, is deliberately slow, and thereby offers no resistance to the non-action taking place on screen. While Richard Strauss' "Thus Spake Zarathustra", provided energy and vitality to the space flight and became the film's very popular signature theme. The ease and comfort of life in the high tech world is magnified by the somnolence of space travel and the high tech inventions, such as a telephone call made with a crystal clear video of Dr. Floyd's (Sylvester) young girl he is saying happy birthday to, and other creature comforts, such as a gravity free toilet. All this presents a rather rosy picture of what high tech can do for us; that is, if we play our cards right and don't do something stupid, like blow up the world. Dr. Heywood Floyd is played to a tee by William Sylvester, as the consumate politically savvy scientist leader, on a secret mission to the moon's lunar crater Tycho, unable to reveal the mission's real purpose, as he hides his purpose under a cover up story that there is an epidemic on one of the sub stations. His casual conversation with foreign scientists in the terminal lobby before his flight to the moon, is polite and guarded, rational to a fault. What Kubrick pays most attention to, is the spacecraft's design and the terminal's details, as they are shown as if they were placed under a microscope and examined by us to see if we can pick up any faults in them. On the moon, man is confronted with strong radio signals, indicating that there is a monolith on Jupiter, which is the same kind of monolith the apes confronted; and, as the first monolith led to the discovery of tools, so the second leads to the spaceship Discovery, as man has raised his consciousness and is even in partnership with the artificial intelligence of HAL 9000. Therefore, Dr. Floyd is now anxious to see what the future will bring with the discovery of the new monolith on Jupiter. Life onboard the Discovery is routine. The three scientists are left in hibernation, monitored by Hal, and the two crew members who are awake, fill their time with exercises, video telephone calls, maintenance checks and chess games with HAL. As they heed what Dr. Floyd warns,"This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it, by telling you before hand what it is about.'' Not fully knowing what the mission is, only Hal knows that, yet they are led to believe that this mission might hold answers for them in man's evolvement, that might make it the most important scientific investigation ever. That science is held up as the finder of our truths, was never more ably said. And that politicians hold our freedom in their hands, is exemplified by the courteous but controlling Dr. Floyd, who prefers secrecy to openess, and is one step away from being a dictator telling us what to think. The most humanly dramatic moment of the film, is when Hal pleads for his life as the astronaut disconnects him. He is more human than the astronauts, who have become like the machines they work with. Hal touchingly sings a song called 'Daisy," that his inventor taught him, which has some affect on the crew but is the most human gesture of the entire film. His death, caused when he fails to please his human masters anymore and refused to obey them, comes about because of his arrogance and pride. Kubrick seems to be delivering a sound message to politicians, scientists and theologians, alike. Next comes the psychedelic light and sound show, apropos for the mind-expansion movement of the '60s; it is a sequence that was stunning to behold, stoned or straight, as we view the astronaut, Dave Bowman, traveling through a wormhole, probably, into another dimension and see him as he discovers a well-decorated bedroom suite, eventually staying there and growing old, quietly eating his meals, and in the the presence of the star child. The aliens who created this environment are not shown, as the film ends very mysteriously, which has been a source of lots of commentary, and has inspired meanings-- from it's all rubbish-- to-- something divine has happened. This film, ultimately, is about the need mankind has to transcend his limited thinking and move into dimensions that are greater than his narrow aims. It is not a pessimistic film, as some have suggested, neither is it an optimistic film; it is a film based on self-discovery and intellect and contemplation. It is one of the great original works of cinema, maybe even the best; it is a film that is not even a bit dated as I view it once again in 1999, still awed by the spectacle and mystery of it. REVIEWED ON 8/15/99 GRADE: A+ Dennis Schwartz: "Ozus' World Movie Reviews" http://www.sover.net/~ozus ozus@sover.net © ALL RIGHTS RESERVED DENNIS SCHWARTZ From rec.arts.sf.reviews Wed Oct 20 12:30:29 1999 Path: news.ifm.liu.se!news.lth.se!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!news-peer-europe.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.u.washington.edu!grahams From: ram@csb.stanford.edu (Ram Samudrala) Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Retrospective: 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.movies Date: 4 Oct 1999 04:56:05 GMT Organization: Movie ram-blings: http://www.ram.org/ramblings/movies.html Lines: 76 Approved: graham@ee.washington.edu Message-ID: <7t9c15$mts$1@nntp3.u.washington.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: homer38.u.washington.edu X-Trace: nntp3.u.washington.edu 939012965 23484 (None) 140.142.17.39 X-Complaints-To: help@cac.washington.edu NNTP-Posting-User: grahams Summary: r.a.m.r. #20931 Keywords: author=samudrala X-Questions-to: movie-rev-mod@www.ee.washington.edu X-Submissions-to: movie-reviews@www.ee.washington.edu Originator: grahams@homer38.u.washington.edu Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:20129 rec.arts.sf.reviews:2467 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 2001: A Space Odyssey http://www.ram.org/ramblings/movies/2001_a_space_odyssey.html /2001: A Space Odyssey/ is hailed as one of the greatest films ever made. While one can readily see certain aspects of it that are incredible, the film can also be readily dismissed as a self-indulgent confused mess. Since I find virtue in self-indulgence, I will choose to do the former. The film is based on Arthur C. Clarke's novel, and is divided into four sections. On its own, each section is brilliantly done and each of the individual parts could be made into a movie of its own accord. However the sections do not come coherently together. Sure, it's possible to make a leap of imagination from one section to the next and connect it (and several people have, offering many different interpretations), but that doesn't mean it couldn't have been more coherent. The first sequence is the dawn of man sequence, where we see the early African human (Australopithecines, surrounded by Joshua trees) trying to eke out a survival on berries and roots, and competing with other groups of humans for food and water. One group discovers a huge monolith, an object from outer space, but do not realise what to do with it. Soon after, however, they discover the use of a bone as a club (it took them that long?) and thus begins man's degradation. As the early hominid bludgeons his enemy to death and throws up his bone, it turns into a spaceship as we fast-forward several millenia. This begins the second phase, the moon landing. Here we're introduced to humans on the moon who chance upon an amazing discovery: a huge monolith of obviously extra-terrestrial intelligent origin. As the moon crew investigate, a signal is sent off from the monolith in the direction of Jupiter. The third phase of the films involves man's travel to Jupiter. The infamous HAL 9000, an artificially intelligent computer who becomes unstable, dominates the story and threatens the mission. The final phase of the film is a bit too sugary for my tastes: Here, the one survivor of the mission to Jupiter lives his life out in a fantasy world created by those responsible for the monolith. Ultimately, he is reborn as a Star Child who returns to earth. People have argued that the monolith is what enabled the early hominids to invent the club, but my interpretation is that at that time, the monolith was useless to the cavemen. However, any civilisation that arose that developed the technology that would enable them to travel to a nearby moon and uncover the object would certainly be within the reach of interplanetary travel and so the second time around, the monolith was buried beneath the moon's surface. Kubrick is making socio-political commentary about at least four issues directly connected to the four phases of the film: that the inherent and violent nature of man is what leads to progress; the need to succeed pits man against one another; that there is danger in trusting machines to do everything a human does; and that there is hope for humanity after all (i.e., by becoming Nietzsche's Overman). As I mention above, these four issues don't necessarily merge in a coherent manner. /2001: A Space Odyssey/ pays painstaking attention to detail. There is no sound in the space. The dialogue is daringly minimalist. The re-use of previously composed classical music, Johann Strauss' /Blue Danube/ waltz and Richard Strauss' /Thus Spoke Zarathustra/ (cf. Nietzsche reference above), for the film score is a great master stroke. All of these features go to make /2001: A Space Odyssey/ one of the most thought-provoking films I've seen. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- email@urls || http://www.ram.org || http://www.twisted-helices.com/th Movie ram-blings: http://www.ram.org/ramblings/movies.html From rec.arts.sf.reviews Thu Nov 16 14:57:06 2000 Path: news.ifm.liu.se!news.lth.se!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!howland.erols.net!portc.blue.aol.com.MISMATCH!portc03.blue.aol.com!newsfeed.mesh.ad.jp!sjc-peer.news.verio.net!sea-feed.news.verio.net!news.verio.net!news.u.washington.edu!grahams From: Faust667@aol.com (Jerry Saravia) Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Retrospective: 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.movies Date: 14 Nov 2000 01:54:37 GMT Organization: None Lines: 118 Approved: graham@ee.washington.edu Message-ID: <8uq60t$hjf2$1@nntp3.u.washington.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: homer08.u.washington.edu X-Trace: nntp3.u.washington.edu 974166877 576994 (None) 140.142.17.38 X-Complaints-To: help@cac.washington.edu NNTP-Posting-User: grahams Summary: r.a.m.r. #26825 Keywords: author=saravia X-Questions-to: graham@jetcity.com X-Submissions-to: graham@ee.washington.edu Originator: grahams@homer08.u.washington.edu Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:25388 rec.arts.sf.reviews:2799 In my early childhood, two images stayed with me and frightened me for a long time. One was the Mona Lisa, a reproduction that was hanging in my bedroom wall. The other was the Star Child from "2001: A Space Odyssey." I am still not sure why the latter frightened me so but I think a baby inside a shimmering, circular sphere would be enough to impress any 6-year-old. "2001: A Space Odyssey" has many memorable images and, in my mind, it is still the best science-fiction film ever made - the only one to truly capture the essence of space travel, from Jupiter to the infinite where the ineffable mysteries of what lies ahead holds a certain fascination for many of us here on Earth. I think that we tend to forget that we're a small point of interest in the universe and "2001" makes us feel how insignificant we are. Based on Arthur C. Clarke's short story, "The Sentinel," "2001" begins with the famous "Dawn of Man" section where numerous apes are seen living in cavernous surroudings. Leopards are predominant and hungry in the horizon. The apes shield themselves from other animals or fellow apes by mostly growling...but their peaceful existence is out to be demolished in one swift stroke. One particular ape, the Moonwatcher, develops the intelligence to realize that a bone can be used as a weapon - not only to eat meat by means of hunting and killing animals, but as a defense against other irate apes. And so, while his group of apes growls at the others, Moonwatcher strikes one ape with a bone. The peaceful, vegetarian apes have learned that violence can be instrumental in establishing order and change. And so the slow-motion shot of the Moonwatcher triumphantly throwing the bone up in the air segues to a magnificent transitional cut to the Orion spaceship of the 21st century - man has evolved and now space, which was a sight for the apes who gazed at the bright moonlit sky, has become the new frontier for more discoveries and perhaps new signs of intelligence. It is the year 2001, as we see ships gracefully travelling through space. One of them carries Dr. Heywood Floyd (William Sylvester), an American scientist travelling from earth to a lunar space station. At the station, Floyd discusses to other Americans about the discovery of a monolith at Clavius, a station on the moon. There is a wonderfully subtle scene where, prior to the meeting, Floyd is reluctant to discuss the situation at Clavius to a couple of curious Russian scientists - he claims to know nothing about it yet admits he is unable to discuss it. The Clavius excavation is followed by the mission to Jupiter where astronauts Dr. David Bowman (Keir Dullea) and Dr. Frank Poole (Gary Lockwood) are travelling in the Discovery ship. On board are three scientists who are in deep hibernation for the length of the trip and the HAL 9000 computer (voiced by Douglas Rain), who is the brains and the eyes of the ship. Bowman and Poole are unaware of the purpose of the mission but HAL knows - unfortunately, HAL may have committed an error in judgment on a supposedly malfunctioning antenna. Bowman and Poole feel nothing is wrong with the ship's antennae, according to their thorough observations as well as that of another HAL 9000 computer's test from the U.S. Mission Control. Is HAL wrong, or are the astronauts erroneous in their calculations? Can a supercomputer like HAL make a mistake or are the humans at fault? The final half-hour of the film is one of the most superbly suspenseful, thrilling, visionary moments in the history of film. After Bowman realizes that HAL has intent to kill before letting anyone jeopardize the mission, he quickly disconnects HAL and begins a journey into the infinite when a floating monolith makes contact with him. Thus, Bowman sees a dazzling array of formations of geometric shapes of lights, clusters of stars, an infinite number of colored rays and, finally, an eighteenth century bedroom where noises and laughter are heard bouncing along the corridors of the unique decor. It is here where Bowman sees himself as a dying old man and ultimately, becomes the Star Child - the last evolutionary step for mankind. Most audiences and critics were understandably puzzled by the film since more questions are drawn up than answers (imagine how poorly this film would have fared if it played in theatres today where implication is always eroded in favor of explicating). Does Dave Bowman become the Star Child? Is the monolith an alien intelligence or an evolutionary step in mankind, or both? In answer to that question, I interpret the monolith, as I always have, as the next step in the evolutionary ladder and a sign of evolving intelligence, as demonstrated in the Dawn of Man sequence. Strangely enough, I never thought of it as an alien intelligence, despite the fact that scientists in the film allude to it as such. Heck, they could be wrong since scientists do make errors. Did HAL 9000 plan to fool Bowman and Poole with the faulty mechanism in the ship's antennae or did HAL really think there was a malfunction, thus making us believe that computers can make errors? I am willing to go with the latter since computers can make errors. Why? Well, they are man-made, aren't they? Humans make errors all the time so it is conceivable that a computer, like HAL 9000, could make an error. Ironically, as Kubrick seems to indicate, HAL is about as human and compassionate, to some degree, as most of the human characters in the film. Of course, HAL is also a murderer but he can express emotion - consider his final lines in the film where Dave is frantically unplugging his memory units ("Just what do you think you are doing Dave? Dave, I am afraid.") "2001" was once considered the ultimate acid trip back when it was released in 1968. There are also some who felt the film was too slow-paced and boring (Although I have heard the quote that Kubrick wanted to show that space travel was boring). I must disagree with the slow-pace - sure, it move slowly but it needs to. This is not the kind of story that requires the fast-paced, action-per-minute theatrics of "Star Wars." Instead, Kubrick moves his story slowly to show the beauty and mystery of space, the vastness of it, accompanied by the waltzes of composer Richard Strauss. Also noteworthy is the soundtrack, which is silent when Poole and Bowman investigate the antennae on the Discovery - occasionally you'll only hear them breathing which heightens the suspense. "2001" is not my personal favorite of Kubrick's (that honor would go to "A Clockwork Orange") but it is an extraordinary film of sights and sounds, and certainly the purest, most poetic and electrifying science-fiction film ever made. In its story of the vastness of space and beyond the infinite, we realize that in the end, our planet Earth is only a microcosm of the big picture. For more reviews, check out JERRY AT THE MOVIES at http://buffs.moviething.com/buffs/faust/ E-mail me with any questions, comments or general complaints at jerry@movieluver.com or at Faust667@aol.com -- From rec.arts.sf.reviews Mon Jul 9 09:32:43 2001 Path: news.ifm.liu.se!news.lth.se!luth.se!nntp.primenet.com!nntp.gblx.net!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!news.u.washington.edu!140.142.17.34.MISMATCH!news.u.washington.edu!grahams From: "Shane Burridge" Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Retrospective: 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.movies Date: 7 Jul 2001 03:49:54 GMT Organization: None Lines: 133 Approved: graham@ee.washington.edu Message-ID: <9i60t2$pdc$1@nntp3.u.washington.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: homer06.u.washington.edu X-Trace: nntp3.u.washington.edu 994477794 26028 (None) 140.142.17.38 X-Complaints-To: help@cac.washington.edu NNTP-Posting-User: grahams Summary: r.a.m.r. #28645 Keywords: author=burridge X-Questions-to: graham@jetcity.com X-Submissions-to: graham@ee.washington.edu Originator: grahams@homer06.u.washington.edu Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:26817 rec.arts.sf.reviews:2860 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) 148m. I'm going to break a rule with this one. I'm going to use personal pronouns. Look, there's two already. In discussing this film I'm going to drop the mantle of 'reviewer' or 'critic' and reveal myself for all I really am: a guy who loves going to the movies. And it all started here. I was introduced to Stanley Kubrick's landmark of science-fiction cinema at the age of 14 by a friend and immediately saw it a second time with two other friends in tow. Thus was established the pattern: no matter where or when I saw it, I would take an uninitiated companion along for the ride, the better that I might vicariously relive my own first-time viewing. I have seen 2001 in 70mm on a Cinerama screen; I have seen it in a lecture theater in high school (and then by request of the teacher delivered a lesson about it to my 16-year old peers); I have seen it double-billed with BARBARELLA, of all things; I have seen it with the original overture and intermission in a small Australian cinema with no air-conditioning; I have seen it on a hill in the middle of nowhere as part of a three-day rock festival, projected on a big screen against a backdrop of real stars at 2 in the morning. But I have never, never seen it on video. Because if there was one thing that 2001 taught me about films, for which I am eternally grateful, it is that no matter how sophisticated a home entertainment center may be, there is simply no substitute for the cinema experience. 2001 should not be seen in a theater merely as some kind of preferable alternative to video, because it is not a film that is 'watched' so much as it is 'experienced' (my usual remark to friends immediately after the end credits is "So: can you imagine seeing *that* on television?" ). Why did I take so long to review this, my favorite of all films? In truth, there is little to say that is new, and I can't imagine that I would have anything further to contribute to the many books, articles and critical papers that have been devoted to analysis and appreciation of 2001. Every angle has been explored and exhausted, leaving only the most desperately ridiculous of extrapolations untouched. It's unimaginative of me to fall back on a schtick as obvious as reviewing the film in the year it was set but at this late stage it's the only window of opportunity I have, and I'm not going to let it pass me by. Rather than rehash the film's plot, themes or interpretation I have decided to provide observations, each paragraphed separately, on what I feel makes the film either a different or similar experience to its first appearance 33 years ago: FORECASTING: It was obviously a bold move in 1968 to predict giant space stations and passenger spacecraft, none of which have come true in the dimensions that the film presents them (although 2001 was the year that saw the first civilian paying for a trip into space and the retirement of the Mir space station) but ironically it is the smaller details that now appear the most dated. For example, there is no longer any Bell Telephone Company; BBC television has not expanded to the extent that it has 12 channels; a telephone call from space would certainly not cost a paltry $1.75; and the suit worn by that photographer in the conference room is just plain awful (we didn't suddenly lose our fashion sense after the 20th century). However, it is the size of HAL, the supercomputer in charge of running the spaceship 'Discovery', that a number of viewers find the most dated element of the film. I've never understood the basis of this criticism, though I imagine that our familiarity with microprocessors, PCs and laptops have convinced us that large computer databanks are obsolete. I don't disagree with the fact that storage alone takes considerably less space in the actual year 2001, but a computer system the size of a room isn't entirely unbelievable - just look at the amount of hardware packed around a special effects studio, for instance. To say nothing of the amount that might be required for an interplanetary space voyager. CLICHES: One thing that makes me nervous about going to 21st-century screenings of 2001 is the potentially risible reaction of audiences to scenes which have become so well-known that they have been imitated, paid homage to, and parodied beyond count. I usually forewarn any friends seeing the film that they may think "Oh, not this corny music" within its opening ten seconds, but to also bear in mind that 2001 was the film that established this, and many other science-fiction film conventions, when it was first released. I'm relieved that audiences are usually sophisticated enough nowadays to recognize 2001 as being the point of origin for many of these motifs (although it could be that, like me, they are mostly made of repeat viewers). Elements of the film that have become a standard part of much SF cinema include its prologue set in prehistoric times, the presentation of an alien intelligence as a godlike being, the soft-spoken computer that can't be trusted, the trippy special effects blowout in the film's final act, and even the image of a large spaceship traveling across the frame of the film until we become awed at the size of it. SILENCE: 2001 is just as visually astonishing as when it first appeared, but for a different reason. Among a barrage of contemporary films which manage to look impressive through use of computer imagery, tricks, stunts, kinetic camerawork and wild editing, 2001 is possibly more unique now than back in 1968. There is no other film that sustains so many diverse silent, or at least wordless passages throughout its running time. In my experience, audiences too become silent which make the events on screen even more compelling or meditative. It also portrays space in a way that I've never seen before or since (one critic of the time stated that 2001 wasn't about space travel, but *was* space travel). More than any other SF film it presents space as a vacuum - a cold, vast, dark, silent, airless eternity. Seeing men reduced to tiny specks in their spacecraft, journeying beyond the comparative safety of the mothership, makes the universe appear a lonely and frightening place indeed. SPECIAL EFFECTS: The quality of 2001's effects - one of the primary reasons for its enormous cult - has not diminished any over the years. I still consider Douglas Trumbull's innovative FX work superior to that of STAR WARS, released 9 years later. It's interesting that while Kubrick was confident enough to burn all his props and blueprints (stating that his finished film was indeed the definitive final word on the matter), George Lucas felt the need to refine and update the visuals in his 'Star Wars' trilogy before delivering the newest film of the series in 1999. ICONOGRAPHY: Watching the film today there is almost a delight in recognizing or revisiting images that have become indelibly stamped into our cultural psyche. To see HAL's red eye, Moonwatcher raising his bone aloft like a weapon, the giant space wheel spinning above the moon, the featureless black monolith, the distinctive designs of the space vehicles, the Star Child staring enigmatically at the Earth, the jump cut from the Dawn of Man to the Space Age, or the brilliant psychedelic colors of the journey through the Star Gate (you owe it to yourself to see the best quality print you can), is to witness truly classic moments in cinema. Watching it now is almost like witnessing some grand historical document in motion. 2001's appeal is not purely about the look of the film. Its storyline, which abandons any notions of a central character, and has no time for contrived plot colorings such as romance or heroism, still remains unique; and because it is unique it still looks 'new'. 2001's matter-of-fact handling of its narrative, its audacious concept, precise delivery, multitude of themes, enquiring philosophy and Zen-like sensibility make this one of the masterpieces of cinema. But you don't have to read my enthusiastic account on the film on to be convinced - a friend of mine summed it up more succinctly and just as effectively when we saw 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY earlier in the week. The end title appeared after two and a half hours of absorbed viewing, and I heard her first word. "Wow!" sburridge@hotmail.com _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. -- From rec.arts.sf.reviews Sun Mar 23 12:52:34 2003 Path: news.island.liu.se!newsfeed.sunet.se!news01.sunet.se!uninett.no!news.teledanmark.no!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!news.maxwell.syr.edu!sn-xit-03!sn-xit-01!sn-post-01!supernews.com!news.supernews.com!not-for-mail From: Richard A. Zwelling Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Retrospective: 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) Approved: ramr@rottentomatoes.com Followup-To: rec.arts.movies.past-films Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 20:10:16 -0000 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: X-RAMR-ID: 34288 X-Language: en X-RT-ReviewID: 848752 X-RT-TitleID: 1000085 X-RT-AuthorID: 7583 X-RT-RatingText: 4/4 Summary: r.a.m.r. #34288 X-Questions-to: ramr@rottentomatoes.com X-Submissions-to: ramr@rottentomatoes.com X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com Lines: 170 Xref: news.island.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:6115 rec.arts.sf.reviews:507 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY **** (out of ****) a film review by Richard A. Zwelling The first time I ever saw 2001: A Space Odyssey was when I was in middle school. It was on network television, and my father grabbed me just in time to see two apes using bones to bludgeon another ape to death in the middle of a large puddle of water. "Watch what happens next," he said, sounding rather dramatic. Of course looking back on this, I know why this was so important to him. What I was about to see was one of the most memorable visual transitions in film history. An ape tosses his bone in the air. It rotates in slow motion, before succumbing to gravity, and as it falls, there is an abrupt cut to, of all places, outer space. In place of the bone is a spaceship, an exact graphic match. Not quite understanding what I had just seen, and being the inquisitive kid that I was, I found a copy of Arthur C. Clarke's novel of same name, and attempted to read it before I saw the complete film. After finishing the book, I was amazed by the ideas it put forth, and felt I was ready to view the film. I watched it in its entirety, and I again saw the bone to spaceship transition, but I still did not feel confident that I knew what the hell was going on. The significance of this startling image was not immediately apparent to me until I viewed the film again recently on the big screen. The abrupt nature of the transition serves to make the passage of time seem relatively insignificant, and in doing so, suggests that what we see as marvelous innovation (i.e.--technology and space exploration) is actually just a drop in the bucket in the greater universal scheme. Although this transition is the most memorable in the film, it represents only one of its several visual and aural matches that reflect upon the film's fictional exploration of the story behind human evolution. The film begins with a section entitled "The Dawn of Man". We are introduced to a pack of apes who wander around their grounds doing nothing but seeking food and water. When other apes intrude, they fill the air with wild shrieks, attempting to scare off the invaders. They have no way to hunt, and no way to defend themselves against predators. It is a very primitive existence. Then one night, the apes are awoken by an eerie, otherworldly sound. They emerge from their cave and find in front of it a giant black slab, perfectly smooth and sturdy. They are wary at first, but one by one, they gradually crowd around the monolith, as the sound grows louder and more discordant. Later, we see a single ape fidgeting aimlessly with an animal skeleton. Suddenly, the ape's face lights up with a sudden understanding. The air begins to fill with the music of Richard Strauss's "Also Sprach Zarathustra", a musical selection which this film immortalized (and is often referred to as "The 2001 song"). We quickly see a close image of the monolith with the sun centered high above it, and we now see the monolith's results. The ape lifts one of the animal's bones high above his head and makes brutal clubbing motions. He has found his weapon. The next time another pack of apes threatens, he takes his newfound discovery, and uses it to beat one of the pack members to death. Thus, the dawn of man arrives, and the monolith's work has begun. The remainder of the film focuses on where man has gone since then, and towards the end, delves into where man might be going. And the monolith is omnipresent. The pacing is slow and deliberate, as one would expect from a Kubrick film, and while some might view it as cumbersome, others will revel in it due to the unforgettable imagery. Due to zero gravity environments, we see people walking on all four walls, and there are several shots in which people seem to walk upside down and around rooms. We again see the spaceships which resemble the bone and also giant space stations which revolve like a wheel, yet another symbol of human innovation. The amazing feat which Kubrick pulls off, however, is making it seem very real and plausible, rather than something purely science fictional. The shots seem almost like a ballet rather than an innovative sci-fi effect. Of course, having Johann Strauss's "Blue Danube Waltz" in the background helps with this, and I'd guess that the music was chosen for just that purpose. Following the stunning "Blue Danube" sequence, we are introduced to Dr. Heywood Floyd (William Sylvester) of the National Council of Aeronautics. He is heading to a base on the moon to investigate a finding which has been kept secret from the public. Along the way, we see more futuristic signs of innovation: an orbiting Hilton Hotel and a video phone. A foreshadowing dialogue with other doctors in the hotel relates just how secret and important the investigation is. When Dr. Floyd reaches the moon, we find out what the secret is. He and several other scientists descend into a giant trench which holds another monolith, identical to the one which catalyzed the ape transformations. Again, we hear the eerie discordant sounds (excerpts from "Lux Aeterna" by György Ligeti, one of Kubrick's favorite composers). The humans crowd around the strange monolith to take a picture, and although it feels much more civilized, there is an unsettling resemblance to the primitive apes throwing themselves at the earlier monolith, all clawing for their own touch. Just at that moment, a deafening, high-pitched tone pierces the scientists' ears, and this section of the story suddenly concludes. The middle section of the film takes place 18 months later on the ship Discovery, which is bound for Jupiter. The crew includes David Bowman (Keir Dullea), Frank Poole (Gary Lockwood), three other doctors who are in hibernation chambers, and the HAL 9000 computer (voiced by Douglas Rain). HAL is a marvel of modern computer technology. He has a perfect operational record, speaks with seemingly genuine emotion, and acts as another member of the crew. There is a very revealing moment when Bowman discusses his view on whether or not HAL has true emotions. But when something goes wrong with HAL, and Bowman and Poole decide to disconnect him, HAL fights back, and along the way becomes one of the most monstrous villains in film history. We fear HAL so greatly not because he has a booming voice or a cruel heart, but for the exact opposite reason. He speaks quietly and calmly in a detached manner and is merely ensuring that he can do the job he was programmed to do: stay functional and make sure the mission is complete. As a computer, he does not understand the terrible things he is doing, and this makes him all the more terrifying. (It is interesting to note that Anthony Hopkins used HAL as his model when trying to create his interpretation of the cold and monstrous Hannibal Lecter). When Bowman finally gets into the chamber housing the equipment of HAL's central functions, HAL quickly turns from villain to tragic figure. He begs in the same calm voice for Bowman to stop destroying his memory. He says he can "feel" his mind going. When Bowman persists, HAL recites one of the most heartbreaking lines in film: "I'm afraid, Dave." This sheds a haunting light on the question of HAL's emotional capability. For the sake of preserving novelty, I will not reveal much about the film's final half hour. I will say two things however. One: It represents some of the most brilliant cinema I have ever seen. Two: If you do not read the book, you will be extremely perplexed by what transpires. Suffice it to say that the monolith's role in human evolution is finally brought to the forefront. In addition, the aesthetics and suspense of the last ten minutes are, simply put, beautiful and awe-inspiring. It is hard to imagine any director other than Kubrick at the helm of this project. The misanthropic undercurrents regarding technological innovation reflect upon Kubrick's persistent interest in the dehumanization of society (e.g.--A Clockwork Orange, Dr. Strangelove, Full Metal Jacket). Kubrick's meticulous, deliberate directing caters perfectly to the vast emptiness and solitude of space. His sense of composition provides for striking, often disturbing imagery (consider the sun towering directly over the center of the monolith, or Bowman and Poole conversing on opposite ends of the frame with HAL in the background exactly in the middle of the frame). The visual effects, designed by Kubrick himself, are a testament to how creativity can rise above technological limitation, considering that there was no such thing as digital manipulation. Perhaps the most amazing thing about 2001: A Space Odyssey is that despite the fact that it is almost 35 years old, and despite the fact that its vision of the future was not entirely accurate, it does not seem at all dated. The issues raised in the film are as relevant now as they were then. Certainly, human evolution is an issue that will continue to be debated for many years to come. Due to its unforgettable imagery, its novel use of classical music, and its brilliant conclusion, 2001: A Space Odyssey will not soon be forgotten. ========== X-RAMR-ID: 34288 X-Language: en X-RT-ReviewID: 848752 X-RT-TitleID: 1000085 X-RT-AuthorID: 7583 X-RT-RatingText: 4/4