Wed
Nov 9 2011 9:00am
“I Am Completely Operational, And All My Circuits Are Functioning Perfectly”: 2001: A Space Odyssey

Where Dr. Strangelove may require a squint and tilt of the head to look like science fiction, there is no such problem with Stanley Kubrick’s next picture, 1968’s 2001: A Space Odyssey. Kubrick’s ambition, as he expressed to co-writer Arthur C. Clarke in his introductory letter, was to make “the proverbial good science fiction movie.” That was in 1964, some years before the rehabilitation of genre cinema’s reputation by the critical establishment, a huge element of which was the movie the two gentlemen would end up making. With no exaggeration whatsoever, it is a simple fact that science fiction cinema would not exist in the form it does today without 2001.

The movie itself was not simple in any way. Kubrick’s initial interest in making a movie about extraterrestrials ended up evolving into nothing short of a story about humankind’s evolution from ape, to a point in the foreseeable future — one which we, in many ways, are living in now — where humans exist in a state of symbiosis with the technology they created, and where the possibility that one of those creations may surpass humanity in its humanity, and from there move to a point where, as Kubrick put it, they evolve into “beings of pure energy and spirit... [with] limitless capabilities and ungraspable intelligence.” This kind of ambition, and the amount of money Kubrick intended to spend realizing it, was unknown to science fiction cinema at the time. But, of course, Kubrick wasn’t particularly interested in doing something others had done before.

That spirit of innovation extends to the picture’s structure, which favors four distinctly separate episodes that lead to the next, rather than the usual three acts. In the first, titled, “Dawn of Man,” we’re introduced to a tribe that are a bit more than apes but not quite human yet. Their existence is a little bleak, consisting mostly of being eaten by leopards and being driven off the local muddy water hole by a louder tribe of ape/humans, until one morning they awake to see that a large black monolith has appeared. This, as one might imagine, changes things, and sets events in motion that lead us to the gleaming spacecraft orbiting Earth and shuttling people back and forth to the Moon.

The next chapter, millions of years later, finds us in space, where humanity become a bit less hairy and more talkative. We meet Dr. Heywood Floyd (William Sylvester), an American scientist on his way to the Moon on a mission shrouded in a bit of secrecy. The journey is pleasant, full of Strauss’ “Blue Danube” and long, lingering shots of the technological marvels humanity has wrought, eventually leading to the revelation that what’s really going on is that we’ve found another black monolith that was deliberately buried several million years prior (probably around the same time the other one was left on Earth). Once the monolith sees its first sunrise, it emits a loud, piercing, sustained note, that deafens Floyd and the other present scientists.

This leads to the next episode, where a manned mission to Jupiter is in progress. Our crew consists of the very taciturn astronauts Dave Bowman (Keir Dullea) and Frank Poole (Gary Lockwood), three hibernating scientists, and the ship’s computer, HAL 9000.

(Brief aside: HAL 9000 is the coolest computer to ever exist, and a very important milestone in the history of SF movie computers. He combines the “big with lots of flashing lights” archetype of 50s SF cinema — which established a truism that holds to this day, to wit, the more flashing lights it has, the more powerful a computer is, both in movies and life — with a very modern tendency to get overwhelmed and freak out; as a sub-aside, whoever starts and successfully maintains a fake HAL 9000 Twitter a la Death Star PR or the thousands of Dalek ones one will win my undying love.)

Everything is going fine until HAL misdiagnoses a fault in the unit that makes it possible for the spaceship to communicate with Earth. Bowman and Poole grow worried at how HAL might react, and with fairly good cause, as HAL proceeds to . . . well, not take their distrust very well. Bowman is eventually the last man standing, and manages to disconnect the part of HAL that gets paranoid and has nervous breakdowns. At this point, a pre-recorded message from Dr. Floyd activates, informing Bowman of the ship’s true mission: the monolith’s signal was sent to Jupiter, and they are to investigate why.

In the movie’s final chapter, Bowman arrives at Jupiter and finds another, much larger monolith, and dutifully goes to investigate. What happens next is a bit difficult to describe literally, and open to a number of different interpretations. Rather than attempt to describe or analyze it, I’ll say that it represents another step in evolution, to the level of whomever it was who built and placed the monoliths, if indeed that was all done by an entity similar enough to humanity and existing in the same physical universe that they build and place things. It all makes more sense the way Kubrick lays it out.

2001 is an absolutely tremendous film, one of the best and most innovative ever made, and widely hailed as such. A number of its champions make the slight mistake of referring to it as “surreal,” though. The picture makes perfectly logical, linear sense, even if that takes several viewings to ascertain. The first three chapters, while short on dialogue and long on meticulously constructed, geometrically precise camera shots highlighting humanity’s evolving relationship with technology, are all fairly straightforward in terms of story. Sure it’s loaded with signs and signifiers every way you look, but it all takes place in a real — if extrapolated several decades into the future and largely set in outer space — world. Even in the concluding sequence, with all the bright colors and weird images, what’s happening makes logical sense, at least the way I read it: an attempt by the aliens, whoever they are, to establish a means of communicating with Bowman. The images, gradually, become more and more familiar to human experience, concluding with some oddly colored but distinctly recognizable helicopter shots of Earth desertscapes, before arriving at the fully realized, three-dimensional simulation of a hotel room in which the aliens hurry Bowman through the last several decades of his corporeal life, before he becomes one of them, and one with them. The last shot of the movie, where this unearthly creature contemplates Earth, underscores the length of the journey he, the audience, and humanity itself has taken.

Anyway. I could go on for days talking about 2001. Many before me have, many after me will. It’s a genuinely great and important work of art. Its impact on SF cinema was indescribably vast. Not only did Kubrick and his crew essentially invent modern special effects (and, 43 years after its release, 2001’s visual effects are still as cool as anything put on screen), but 2001’s enormous cost and several times more enormous commercial success — I once wrote that “there has never been a weirder commercial hit in the history of cinema” than 2001 and I stand by that — led to the obsolescence of the way of thinking, explicated by legendary Hollywood executive Lew Wasserman to Kubrick when he passed on 2001, “Kid, you don’t spend over a million dollars on science fiction movies. You just don’t do that.” Thanks to the success of Kubrick and his team of collaborators (many of whom went on to cement SF cinema’s place at the table in Hollywood by working on George Lucas’ Star Wars), spending over a million dollars on science fiction movies became something you did do.

I’d characterize giving an entire genre legitimacy as a good day at the office. Even if that day took four years and meant going several hundred percent over budget. But show me someone who can make an omelet without breaking a few eggs and I’ll show you one of those camera-shy aliens who run around putting black monoliths all over the universe.


Danny Bowes is a playwright, filmmaker and blogger. He is also a contributor to nytheatre.com and Premiere.com.

This article is part of Kubrick’s SFF: ‹ previous | index | next ›
15 comments
Drew Holton
1. Dholton
I too could talk for days on this film, but I'll highlight just one aspect that not many people talk about, which was his use of sound...or lack thereof. He was meticulous in portraying life in space as accurately as possible, adhering to the laws of physics, and one of these is that there is no sound in the vacuum of space. But rather than letting this limit him, he used this constraint as a tool.

The best example is in the scene where Bowman goes out to recover the body of his crewmember in the pod. We hear nothing but silence from outside the pod, but inside, there are only two sounds. The sound of Bowman breathing, and the radar pings of the pod. The combination of these two sounds and only these, along with periods of silence in vacuum are used to ratchet up the tension to an almost unbearable degree.

I have nothing but admiration for this film and Kubrick in that he used the constraints placed by an accurate portrayal of science and science fiction to create a true work of art.
mordicai
2. mordicai
Easily my favorite film. By leaps & miles. The only similar situation I can think of is how Twin Peaks is my favorite televisions show, by a wide margain.
Michael Burke
3. Ludon
before arriving at the fully realized, three-dimensional simulation of a
hotel room in which the aliens hurry Bowman through the last several
decades of his corporeal life, before he becomes one of them, and one
with them.

I didn't read it as the aliens trying to rush his life. I read it as time rippling and folding back on itself and we - the viewers - were getting caught up in those ripples. EVA Boman while in the bathroom hears something then looks and sees dinner Boman eating. Dinner Boman's getting up seemed to be sparked more from a memory than from hearing EVA Boman. Remember, from dinner Boman's point of view, EVA Boman was not there. Then, after knocking over the wine glass, dinner Boman looks up and sees old man Boman in the bed. We jump to old man Boman's time. Dinner Boman and the table are not there. (Those of you who have never seen this movie must be totally confused by now.)

After that jump cut from Moonwatcher to the satellites and Pan Am Space Shuttle, and the jump from TMA-1 to the Discovery mission, my mind had no problem with these transitions.

By the way. Many years ago I came across on line (Underman's 2001 site, if memory serves) two pictures and an account of someone seeing a kid carrying a familiar looking spaceship model (not pictured) then a little farther down the road coming across the battered remains of the space station resting in the grass among broken and emptied crates near the locked gate to a town dump. I wonder if any part of those models still exist somewhere.
Mike Conley
4. NomadUK
2001: A Space Odyssey is, quite simply, at the top of my list of best films ever made. It is astounding, and we are unlikely ever to see its equal.

Virtually every single shot, virtually every effect, is as near perfect as one could want. It is sublime.

The abortion that was 2010: The Year We Make Contact shall not be mentioned further.
mordicai
5. a-j
Kubrick's greatest film imho, though I've not yet seen Barry Lyndon. HAL is the only truly sympathetic character, when he wishes Poole 'happy birthday' the human just shrugs it off.
Ludon@3 - that's how I read that sequence.
One thing no-one's mentioned yet is the humour of the film. There's no 'Gentlemen this is the war room' moment, but the film is imbued with a mischevious sense of fun throughout.
Oh, and I don't have the hate for 2010 that most do. I treat it as a film of the novel, not a sequel to the film, and it comes out all right that way.
Angela Korra'ti
6. annathepiper
A friend of mine used to tell this story about how when 2001 came out, he'd stand outside the theater with a sign reading "Ending Explained: $5". He made a decent amount of pocket change that way!
Danny Bowes
7. DannyBowes
@annathepiper -- That's awesome. I should set up one of those stands to make some extra cash hahaha
mordicai
8. Pendard
I love this film. No one could ever tell me what the ending ment. I distinctly remember sitting in math class in about 8th grade contemplating it, and suddening figuring it out. I felt like I had touched a monolith!
Warren Ockrassa
9. warreno
Keir Dullea and Gary Lockwood were told to keep their performances flat and low-key, to make HAL seem more vibrant, rather than try to make HAL chirpy (a la Eddie, the shipboard computer on the Heart of Gold). I think it worked.

Pretty much all the dialog in 2001 is flat and insipid (the film is more than 20 minutes old before there are any spoken words at all). I liked how Kubrick used that to make everything happening - spaceflight, AI, moon shuttles with rubbery dry sandwiches, etc - seem mundane. The dialog is little more than commentary to explain, as briefly and unobtrusively as possible, what's happening onscreen.

The man-apes were fantastc, and there's a bit of trivia regarding the costumes. Planet of the Apes won the Oscar for best makeup that year, not 2001, because the Academy judges thought the apes in 2001 were real.

I agree with the read that @3 and @5 have on Bowman's time with the aliens. The star gate alone proves these creatures had the technology to override conventional spacetime, and Bowman's overlapping of his own life demonstrates that effect. That doesn't mean, however, that his lifetime wasn't compressed as well.
mordicai
10. roadsider
If you're confused about the premise of the movie, read the book. Arthur explains it all for you in most explicit terms. It's a great read.
Emmet O'Brien
11. EmmetAOBrien
roadsider@10: I am pretty sure there is something somewhere in one of Clarke's essay collections to the effect that the end of the book 2001 is not necessarily what Kubrick would have said he meant by the end of the movie 2001 though. Myself, I am inclined to think that any way of parsing it into something humanly comprehensible is lessening the impact of the alienness of it.

Dholton@1: agreed entirely. The other thing that really makes 2001 stand out in terms of depictions of humans in space, even compared to the bits in Apollo 13 shot in actual free fall, is the visceral undestanding of what lack of gravity means in terms of not having a consistent vertical. Some of that is as simple as odd camera angles, but the gestalt effect is amazing.

warreno@9; I think it was Mike Ford who observed that everything spoken in 2001 is either a banality or a lie.
A.J. Bobo
12. DaedylusSL
I really need to watch 2001 again. The last time was 15+ years ago. But I was struck by a few things. First, this was the most realistic science fiction movie that I had ever seen. It still is, in fact. That is a good thing and a bad thing. I like seeing what space travel would really be like. I love seeing Dave jogging around the curved floor. I liked that the time delay in communication with Earth was discussed. But on the other hand, Kubrick spends how much time showing Dave (was it Dave or the other guy?) spacewalking out to get the part that appears to be malfunctioning. Fine. Walking in space takes forever. I get it. Did Kubrick have to show it twice? I think sometimes that he was so in love with his effects (and who can blame him, really) that he forgot there was a story in the movie.

I was also struck by HAL. He's one of the best characters that I've ever seen in a movie. He's a freaking computer and is supposed to be understandable and predictable, but he isn't. Way cooler than a human that's off his rocker. Also way cooler, for reasons that I don't know, than any of the psycho robots or computers that have come since. Oh, and HAL's final scene is wonderful. Daisy, daisy....
mordicai
13. David R Robinson
I saw this just after its release in Australia,I was thirteenish.I still remember walking home, totally alight,buzzing trying to understand it(mostly the end).I have watched it every few years since with my feelings varying.......it is on my desert island list.At the time it was considered mainstream,now it's arthouse(so btw is Bullitt,both very measured working at their own pace).My nephew (20's) thinks Alien is slow,god knows what he would make of 2001,I mention this more as a comment on the fast food era we live in now than a reflection of him or the movie.Seriously influential cinema.Thanks.
mordicai
14. Eugene R.
A fantastic film, one that I saw in the theaters as a re-release prior to its broadcast TV premiere in 1976. I agree with Mr. Bowes that the film is never "surreal", even in the "Journey through the monolith" light show. The word reviewers are looking for is "psychedelic". (Hey, it was the '60s, after all.)

Warreno (@9) - To be slightly fair to The Academy, the Oscars did not include a "Best Makeup" category until 1981 (as a result of everyone yelling at them for not recognizing The Elephant Man for its contributions). What John Chambers won in 1968 for Planet of the Apes was a Special Achievement award (the second one issued, following the first in 1964 for William Tuttle's work on The Seven Faces of Dr. Lao). So, there was not a competitive Oscar for which 2001 would have been nominated at the time. Which, I agree, does not really lessen the Academy's blindness. Though, again, to be slightly fair, the opening sequence *did* have real apes - the two infants were baby chimpanzees!
mordicai
15. (still) Steve Morrison
Planet of the Apes won the Oscar for best makeup that year, not 2001, because the Academy judges thought the apes in 2001 were real.
AFAIK this didn’t really happen; it was only a sour joke on Arthur C. Clarke’s part. In chapter 6 of The Lost Worlds of 2001, he says:
To my fury, at the 1969 Academy Awards a special Oscar was presented for make-up—to Planet of the Apes! I wondered, as loudly as possible, whether the judges had passed over 2001 because they thought we used real apes.

Subscribe to this thread

Receive notification by email when a new comment is added. You must be a registered user to subscribe to threads.
Post a comment