Whoa...2001: Mixed Emotions (spoilers?)

While watching 2001 A Space Odyssey for the first time, I could not decide whether I should keep watching, fall asleep, or keep it in the background while I tried to find out why it was liked so much. Now I'm not saying this movie was bad. I realize it was not made for my generation (my teacher likes to call it the "MTV" generation) and that it was even out of the boundary's of its own generation but it still managed to entertain me in some ways. It made me drowsy, it made me wonder, it made me curious, and it made me confused. It led me to these forums because for some reason I really need to discuss this film.

Hopefully there are some people on these forums who have watched this movie and have enjoyed it because thats who I'm looking for. I knew from the beginning of this movie that it wasn't going to be like the the two Die Hard movies I watched before it. The first 25 minutes made me reconsider what I was getting myself into. So instead of trying to find a little scrap of entertainment I tried to interpret the movies message and understand it's story.

Ok... so it's the year 2001. Mankind has improved it's knowledge in space travel and is venturing off beyond the moon. An object is focused on greatly in the beginning of the movie and at the end during the Jupiter sequence. It appears on earth, the moon, and Jupiter. I'm pretty sure this object is a probe created by an intelligent race of aliens which can create copies of itself and sprout off on to other planets.(for exploration purposes) This I understand. I also understand that the HAL 9000 part of the movie was to show that humans had created a being capable of emotions and thinking that it resembled them in many ways. Thats why I felt sadness during the scene where Dave(I think) was shutting HAL down. The only part about the movie which I did not understand was the very last part where Dave goes onto Jupiter? Is that what he does? Thats the thing... I'm not sure. At first I thought he took some LSD or something and I just missed it. My question is... what the hell was going on during that... let call it "eye ball" scene! Someone please explain it to me.

Edit: Ahhhh!... didn't realize I went on for so long. Guess you got some reading to do .

He was evolving into the Star Child. One of the basic concerns of much of Kubrick's work was the idea that, in Modernity, man the Tool Maker has in essence become enslaved by his Tools. This is most explicit in Dr. Strangelove (where man is seen as destined for doom by the love of the Machine) and 2001 (where the idea that man must evolve in some Nietzschean sense beyond the reliance on tools our tools provides some ray of hope), but it's also implicit in most of his other films, where obsessions with the means of control lead ultimately to the loss of control. If there is an idea that unifies all of Kubrick's work, it is this notion that those contrivances which allow us the illusion of control and power will ultimately unravel (and disastrously) in the face of a universe in which there is no real order or control to be had.

I said it once and I'll say it again.

As an art film, 2001 is brilliant. But as a film in the entertainment industry it fails horribly. Thus I'm 50/50 on the film as to whether I like it or not.

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

Just because it was made in 'an entertainment industry' does not mean it has to be entertainment. 2001, while still a unique and original film, is not the only 'art film' in existence.

There are many more visual-driven, themes-over-plot works, like Zerkalo and Koyaanisqatsi. If Kubrick wasn't an American filmmaker, I'm sure 2001 would be complained about less. Lynch's movies as well.

Film is a medium that is ment to do many things. One of the things that I loo for in a film is indeed entertainment...on any level. Small or big, if the film does not entertain me...or for a better sense of the word, keep my attention, then what's the real point of watching it?

If I wanted to watch a film with little to no dialogue or see how many colours an eye can change into then maybe I would watch this film again. It was a bad LSD trip that seems to go really slow and never end. The filmmakers said that if the film is understood by anyone then they have failed as filmmakers. Seems like a poor excuse for a poor film, that no one really got, but hailed as brilliant because they didn't get it.

There are many things wrong with this film, one of my main gripes is the 20 minute opening of APES. I understand what he was trying to convey, but was it necessary to have 20 plus minutes of this? Not really.

In space no one can hear you scream, true, but it's also pretty freaking boring up there. Kubrick apparently knew this and wanted us to feel that. Mission accomplished.

I give the film credit for it's special effects, which for that time are amazing.

Lynch films, on the other hand, do have entertainment qualities. Even his short lived TV show Twin Peaks, was brilliant. Lynch is responsible for some of the weirdest and creepiest films we've seen. Most of his films are LSD trips as well, but they are no where as near as bad as 2001.

I think it's more that some of us don't need explosions and titties to be entertained.

You know, if you don't have enough SACK to own up to your own opinions, you're not a man at all.

Great addition to this thread. When your "I'm better then you" ego is over, maybe you can contribute something intelligent.

Right, whereas your 'it's not entertaining because I don't understand it' logic is really contributing something of value. It's not a complicated film, nor one that is particularly difficult to grasp, it does require that people set aside their expectation that film is there to titillate them every few minutes. Like a visit to the Louvre, it can be incredibly entertaining for those with the intelligence and attention span to hack it, but it's not going to do your work for you.

Understanding a film and it being boring are two different things buddy. I find it funny how if someone doesn't like it they are told from the get go they don't "understand it" and just like you told me, want sex, explosions, have a slow attention span and want the plot handed to you on a silver platter, this is just not the case.

I love Kubrick films, but this one falls flat, with next to no story, horrible acting, 20 minutes of apes and probably 5 pages of dialogue throughout its total running time.

I've stated reasons why it was boring and I do not like it, but you fail to recognize those things because it doesn't fall into your "because there are no boobs" take on it.

And just for the sake of things, I went to the Louvre and enjoyed myself very much.

You're free to speculate as you wish about the philosophical and allegorical meaning of the film—and such speculation is one indication that it has succeeded in gripping the audience at a deep level—but I don't want to spell out a verbal road map for 2001 that every viewer will feel obligated to pursue or else fear he's missed the point - Kubrick

Call me one of those viewers who has missed the point, but this film is more pretentious then Magnolia.

What, precisely, is 'pretentious' about a filmmaker suggesting that he would rather allow people to watch the film and draw their own conclusions than announce some sort of 'official canonical' meaning from the director's chair?

Sure, there's not much dialogue and the acting is deliberately minimalistic, but it is a film in large measure about the loneliness of intelligence - it's supposed to feel isolated and empty.

Sooo...having no story and only five pages of dialogue means a film is bad? I'd love to see your reaction to the likes of Wreckmaster Harmonies and The Last Laugh.

I understand that it's not your kind of thing - it's an unconventional film and not all audiences will be able to enjoy it, but rather than just saying "it's not for me", you're declaring that the film is objectively 'bad' because of the above 'flaws', which is a very silly thing to do. If it's a fact that film is a medium that's all about stories and dialogue, Kubrick would not have made the film the way he did. It's not like he accidentally forgot to give the actors' more lines. It's like saying the original Dawn of the Dead is "poorly written" because it spends too much time focusing on the human characters, rather than the zombies.

This is what I meant by my comment earlier...many people react negatively towards 2001 because they're watching it as if it's going to communicate to them in a conventional, familiar way. Which it doesn't, and so it has to be watched differently from other films.

I actually really enjoyed The Last Laugh. Never seen Wreckmaster Harmonies though.

I think the film is brilliant. Agreed- there isnt so much to appeal to our american sense of the word 'entertainment', but nonetheless, 2001 was an incredible achievement in terms of cinematography, music direction, editing and directing.

In essense, this is perhaps the single most dedicated piece of directing to have come from Kubrick. Such a dedicated film requires equally dedicated viewers. It is more than necessary to take as much as a few days to open your eyes before you even consider putting this flick in the dvd player.

Sure, i might be a bit biased, being one of the most avid Kubrickians you'll ever find, but i stand by my point on this one.

And anyone looking to criticize my overall taste in movies, then take a look at my DVD binder. 2001 is two pages from Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles III, and only one page from Reign of Fire.

Im not that big of an art-film guy.

I love the film. Not going to attempt to explain it, as I think one should grow to find their own conclusions with this film, which requires multiple viewings. Next time you watch, think about the tool concept someone mentioned above, and consider the Nietzsche concepts of beast, man, superman, as well. Kubrick had a large interest in this philosophy, and it is present in much of his works. Also think about The Odyssey, and how some of the framework applies to this story, as well. I mean, it is David BOWman , and he must slay the cyclops (HAL) to find the path to growth or progress...

Beast needed to find technology to become man, as illustrated by the monolith teaching the apes how to fashion crude tools. Man then becomes enslaved and lifeless by the tools, and then struggles to transcend the technology to reach the next level. The parts that probably bored you to tears were supposed to, as they illustrate how lifeless, mechanical, and well, boring we had become enslaved by the tech....

Hunt around for LordSlaytan's review thread on this board. He has a great 2001 review, which is followed by more discussion on the film... That said, this film leaves plenty open to dream, which was the director's intent, so you won;t lock down a solid, quantifiable explanation for the film, as it doesn't exist.

"My God, it's full of stars"

__________________

I know people who dislike the film are in the minority, but I stand by my statements.

I think this film takes a movie fan to a different level. Not a better or more intelligent level, but more like a climate level. Some like the heat and can revel in it and be comfortable, others just do not like that and prefer the cold or more mild temp's. This is a film where I can understand how some will not like it and some will love it, kinda like liver: a lot of people hate it, but those who love it love it a lot. Oh well. I love this movie but I detest liver.

__________________

“The gladdest moment in human life, methinks, is a departure into unknown lands.” – Sir Richard Burton