If 2001 is your #1 movie, tell me why

Different strokes.

For me the film is nice and slow and contemplative without the first act. We're not talking about nipping and tucking in this case, just skipping a section.

Repeat viewers, who have not watched the film to exhaustion (i.e., no need or desire to watch it at all) may not want to repeat this part of the ride. I am one of those riders. I already know what happened and (paradoxically) I enjoy being thrown into the mystery by riding along with Dr. Floyd (being politely interrogated by Russians and the briefing that follows and then the visit). Also, we learn enough, on the moon, to get that the monolith was planted ages ago and that it send a signal when someone found its EM signature (i.e., something a space-faring species would find when they traveled to the nearest body to the Earth). A first time viewer (who is paying attention) would still "get it."

We should keep in mind that, for example, some people favor the training segment of FMJ over the war segment and vice versa. Why should we begrudge someone who just likes watching the 1st or 2nd half?

2001 wasn’t on my ballot. It’s not even my top Kubrick. It falls somewhere around #3-#5. I’m going to have to do a rewatch of his films this year to properly rank them,
I had Clockwork and Stranglove on my ballot, and those two will always be my top 2.
This doesn’t mean I didn’t care for 2001, mind you. It’s a phenomenal experience.

LIttle Things. Not Bad. I enjoyed it with some good moments and no cliche ending. If you like those films I think its worth your time

__________________
Film Lover

Yes, indeed. The Little Things has been released on HBO Max and is available for many people to view. What does that have to do with 2001: A Space Odyssey?

__________________
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra

Kubrick films usually are phenomenal experiences. The thing is that because of that, he ends up in the "five of his films are in the top 40" status that collaborative communities typically put them in, usually on accident. 2001 is usually the top films (The only exception I've seen is Imdb. The Shining has a higher Imdb rating and more votes).

Well, that’s a little over simplistic explanation to it. It’s more then *just* a phenomenal experience. As are most of his films. Paths of Glory and A Clockwork Orange are deeper films that most give them credit for, particularly Clockwork.
And controversial opinion: The Shining is merely ok.

I'm not really talking about how people choose to watch it, or even what they'd prefer it to be. If some prefer to skip over the Dawn of Man sequence, fine. If they like the idea of it being shorter, be a champ and fast forward through the parts you think are too slow till your hearts content. I'm also fine if one also prefers to be told the story by interpretive dance, or read the synopsis of it on a McDonald's place mat. S'all good.



I'm only addressing, on one hand the assertion the first section is not that necessary, and on the other hand that the film itself should be shorter. I'm making the case that the movie, as a whole, works better as it is. There are reasons why we begin with apes. And there reasons why the film moves so slowly. If these reasons don't make any difference to the opinions of anyone at hand, so be it. You can argue why you disagree with my points, and you can certainly continue to not like what you don't like. We're all adults here, We make decisions how we want to best live. I watch my movies submerged in gazpacho, and I wont' have anyone tell me differently. Especially all of you Dawn of Man haters.



Ultimately, we can talk about what we prefer to we're blue in the face. And we all have our reasons why we want things to be a certain way. Personally, I prefer my version of El Topo without the subterannean mimes. But I'm also open to trying to understand why Jodorowsky felt the need to include this. Maybe mimes were unavoidable. Maybe mimes are always unavoidable. Maybe I'm a mime. Maybe you're a mime. I think mimes have possibly taken over this conversation, as their quietly mischievious ways are known to do when we don't fortify ourselves against them. Silent but deadly, they say, and I will attest this is not exclusively about farts.



But as much as there are movies that do things I don't necessarily like, this doesn't mean I'm advocating for those things to be removed, or for the artists who made them to have done any differently. I accept the authorial voice of the director, as long as I believe they are doing what they set out to do. As an insignificant member of the audience, I am just a bit player here. I accept some things wont' work for me and somethings will, but ultimately, I'd rather see what they have to show me, instead of what I want them to show me.



Kubrick, with 2001, is so deliberate with what he is doing with character, pacing, and the scope of his story, I personally find it much more beneficial to my viewing to just go along with what he's trying to do, and not resist it. I get that not everyone wants to go along for that ride, or some might resist it at different parts, or maybe the entire thing to some is worth kicking in the dick. Like said, S'all good either way.



But this still doesn't change the fact there are good reasons why 2001 is as it is. It's in fact, a fairly easy argument to make, if one is so inclined and can't resist themselves (raises hand). Of course it helps though that this Kubrick guy seemed like he knew what he was doing and no doubt knew what he wanted his movies to be better than all of us. And thank God for that, because if it was up to me, I would have just had them find a giant mummified cock on the moon to the strains of Bobby Pickett's "Monster Mash". It might sound stupid, but just imagine it in zero gravity!

Cool. No worries.

Well, that is why I qualified it as my opinion and noted that was "heretical." That I have shared that opinion, however, means that I have to take some responsibility for it. I am open to criticism here, but I want to be clear that I want to stay in the middle ground (i.e., I am neither merely expressing a preference which cannot be criticized nor am I taking a strong stance insisting on agreement from everyone who reads my claim).

I don't know that I want the film to be shorter, per se. Others may be arguing that.

I do, however, feel (especially upon repeat viewings) that the first section is not necessary.

Yeah sure. You've got good reasons here and I get it. I just happen to think that not everything needs to be expressed. We don't always need the fearful symmetry of formal completions (e.g., here is where we were, here is where we are, here is where we're going). Knowing what to leave out is as important as knowing what to put in. Some things are better left as suggestions, implications, enthymemes, and in general to the imagination of the viewer.

That stated, if I had a viewer who was a little bit "slow" (and MANY people were confused the first time they saw it) and who had never seen the film before, I would recommend that they watch the whole thing so that they had the best chance of getting it.

Film does not work independent of the viewer. Like a book, the film takes place in our minds (this is harder to accept in the case of cinema, because seemingly everything is "there" as an image on film, but really it isn't). How the film functions depends on the time place and viewer. You seem to hold for the autonomy of the work of art and this is tempting, especially for seemingly "timeless" classics, but we can push this view too far.

By this standard, if an author intended to produce garbage we would have to judge their work a success if they produce garbage. This is setting the bar a little too low.

There is no escape from the author-function, but we're not always looking for the voice of the director. Sometimes we're more interested in a subversive reading or particular performance. The artwork is a dance, and we're dancing with us. It is not an autonomous thing that entirely exists apart from us. Rather, there is give and take.

To be clear, I am NOT suggesting that future copies of 2001 should be sold having cut the first act. I am rather, suggesting an alternate way to "read" the text.

Master-servant? Text active-reader passive? Director God?

Your Shining opinion isn't very controversial at all. Kubrick and King disliked the movie. But his movies are usually (emphasis on usually) missing something.* Too much build-up in The Shining, a little more characterization needed in Paths of Glory, and ACO went out of its way to be vulgar a little too often. Still, they're all five star films.

This thread is starting to unspool like some kind of ball of yarn.

Just here to state the obvious, eh?

Hello Janson Jinnistan.

I thought it was obvious.

Obviously 😏

I didn’t feel that way at all about Paths. I’ll have to rewatch it. *
Clockwork needed to show Alex’s degradation, and whole over the top, set the tone for his transformation. No issues with it there. *

2001 is not my personal cup of tea, but it's a really good movie for what it is I think. For people to call it slow or boring, I have seen far worse.

Of course. That's why I personally think the moon discovery is fine being a fairly small scene, for what feels probably should be a much larger piece of the film. All that feels essential to know about this moment is that they have found another monolith, now further out in space as if it has been waiting for them all this time to catch up. To extend these moments beyond just giving us the basics, I feel would just tell us things we already could surmise on our own, and that are much better left in some kind of mystery. No exposition here, thank you very much.


The Dawn of Man scene, for my tastes though, is not only essential to be included, but essential to be an extended sequence. We need to live in the dirt, slowly moving towards the discovery of tools. We need to see the sweat and blood and time involved to get to what to our modern eyes seems like such a miniscule advancement. This is what lends power to the bone that has been thrown into the air, turning into the space shuttle. Oh the marvel of everything that came in between! It would hardly have the same effect if a monkey came across the bone and immediately started using it to play the In-A-Gada-Da-Vida drum solo, taking us into the future as he twirls it between his fingers.



*this segway brought to you by Motley's Crue's Tommy Lee*



Depends on how I feel about the kind of garbage they produce. Not all garbage is created equal.



I'm trapped with my own perspectives and preferences all day long and so I've got more than my fill of myself. So I'm perfectly fine handing the reigns over for the short duration of time it takes to watch a film. For these moments, I'm at least trying to absolve myself of the servitude I have to my own limited field of vision. Once the movie is over, I can have my poisonous brain juices take the steering wheel again.



So is the director God? No, because I don't feel any piece of art is above criticism (no, not even 2001). But even if they aren't a god, I feel we are at least a guest in their home while under the spell of the films they make. Or, at least, ideally. So, I try and make do with the customs they present for me to abide by while under their roof. Good manners and all. Then, once I'm back in my own domicile, I can kick off my shoes and go back to barfing on my rug as I'm accustomed to.

I can see what you're saying even though I disagree with this instance. I think, for example, that we need that slow silent opening in There Will be Blood or we would have no sympathy for Daniel Plainview at all. He would just be a domineering shyster oil man. We need to be stuck in that hole with him to understand how hard he had worked and how much it cost him to understand his contempt for other people who are just greedily bumbling or standing in his way. The scene in 2001 just doesn't resonate with me in the same way.

The creation and consumption of a literary work of art is an act of violence. It is tear in reality that moves us into another place.

Once you send the story into the world it is no longer yours. We might decide that Turn of the Screw is not a ghost story and James cannot tell us we're wrong.

And once a guest has been in your home for a half-century, you can take some liberties with it. I am not talking about stealing the first reel of the movie at its premier for its original audience. I am simply talking about a private recipe -- for a switch start with the trip to the space station. This is a very minor thing to do and one can always start at the beginning if they please.

This is a genuinely interesting question. I'm not a huge fan of "Death of the Author," or at least in the way people often use it to float away untethered from the work sometimes (I admit in its Steel Manned form it's pretty hard to disagree with, though). But putting that aside, I wonder if "the author can't tell us what the work means" simultaneously obligates us to consider the entire work. If the underlying belief is that the work itself stands apart from intent, that would seem to imply that the work is the primary thing, which seems inconsistent with altering it

To be clear, I'm not saying people can't or shouldn't watch as much or as little of anything as they please. This is just me trying to tease out the assumptions and implications of these interacting views. And I'm only talking about our respective obligations when engaging in capital-C Criticism, what's fairest if we're trying to seriously consider something as a work of art, etc. I certainly pop in Inglorious Basterds just to watch a few scenes in particular now and then, I just don't render judgment on those scenes in any formal capacity when I do it, if that makes sense.

Interesting stuff to think about.

I have tried to watch the film twice and fallen asleep twice.

What I have seen, I noticed how impressive some of the shots he got were, especially for the time. For me, there wasn’t much of a story and it was just visually stunning.

Having only a 35 inch screen tv, I don’t think it did the film justice. If I saw the film on the big screen or had a big screen tv with surround sound, I feel I would be encapsulated! *

I need to get a set of speakers and a nice tv. With that money, I could also buy a projector, screen and speakers for outdoor viewings. Not sure which direction I want to go atm