Re-review of 2001: A Space Odyssey

[JonathanLB]

Well I rewatched this movie today, as part of my attempts to finish the AFI list and as I have mentioned, I never review a film without seeing it closely beforehand, even if I at one earlier point saw it (this even applies to Star Wars, which I have seen more than 75 times!).

Anyway, I saw it for the first time perhaps 4 years ago, 5 years ago? When I was 15 or 16, and I remember railing against it on this very forum. There were some heated arguments I had with Palpatine (the poster here) about it.

First, let me say I still don't think it is the greatest sci-fi film ever (Star Wars, Blade Runner, 12 Monkeys, so many great ones...).

HOWEVER, the 2.5 star rating I gave it before was BS. I'm not sure what I was smoking then or whatever. I must have been too immature at the time to appreciate it. I just don't think my film tastes had quite expanded to the level they are today, where I appreciate films from all cultures and eras and genres with a lot more open-mindedness (if that's a phrase I can use) than before.

Anyway, I would re-rate it four stars. I think 2001 is one of the great sci-fi films and expertly crafted. I have come to appreciate Kubrick's other work since the time I saw this, too. At that time 2001 was his first film I had seen. Now, I've seen Dr. Strangelove and A Clockwork Orange, at least, both of which I love. They are two of my favorite films, actually, of their respective genres. A Clockwork Orange is twisted, but brilliant, I think. Dr. Strangelove is right there with M*A*S*H as one of the greatest subversive, dark comedies ever made. Genius work.

2001 is visually splendid, not as boring as I remember and I'm not sure why I said that before. I don't find it boring now. I was wrong, I think. It's not "exciting," but it's artistic and brilliantly crafted. The cinematography of HAL is just eerie, how you commonly see this one red "eye" (if you will) peering out at you. The dialogue, while there is not much of it (about 40 mins. in the film), is actually great, but especially HAL's. I loved HAL when I first saw the film; I still love HAL.

Now I must say, maybe I just am not thinking enough about it, or maybe it is as many people say, open to endless interpretation, but I do not understand the final part, or act. It is visually magnificent and ponderous, and I think I might have an inkling, kind of, for what it is getting at, but I don't claim to understand it. I thought it was saying something about the cycle of life, how you see Dave (apparently?) as an older man, then on his death bed, then you see this baby. I thought that was maybe indicating the cycle of life, but I could be wrong. I wasn't sure what to make of it. I'd love to hear other interpretations of this ending in general because I must say I'm perplexed.

I don't want to pompously say the ending is a "weakness" of the movie, but IMO it tries too hard to be profound and is overly artistic, though I won't fault the movie for this. Kubrick is a thoughtful director. He liked to make movies to make his audiences think, but in this case I might argue that as much thinking as you can do, you're still not going to get a lot out of that ending. Feel free to disagree, and maybe when I read more about it I will, again, change my mind and appreciate it more. Right now I'm not there yet.

Anyway, opinions welcome, whether you dislike the film, like it, love it, etc. I've been in both groups now ;)

I didn't want to see this movie the 2nd time with a bias. In other words, I didn't want to see it like, "Ok I know this movie isn't very good because I saw it before," but rather I tried to wipe the slate clean and think of it as a film I hadn't truly seen because last time I saw it, I was not the same person (my film tastes were just vastly different, that's all). Also I didn't want to go into it the second time thinking, "Well now that I'm a critic and it's an AFI Top 100 film, I must give it a great review." Nah, that's even worse. I honestly really like this movie after seeing it again and have before changed my mind about films, though usually only from one rating to a higher rating (I've rarely thought a movie was good and then decided it was bad; however, I liked Armaggedon in theaters, then when I saw it on video I thought it was the stupidest pile of dunk imaginable and was embarrassed for liking it before...).

I also argued before that 2001 had very little influence on Star Wars. I think that is an idiotic statement, too. It's relatively clear from watching the film that Lucas was greatly influenced by the movie. The landing bay early in the space sequence before the Jupiter mission looks exactly like a landing bay on the Death Star. The Aries spacecraft (lunar landing module) looks from the back like the escape pod that R2-D2 and C-3PO jettison from the Tantive IV early in ANH. There are probably other similarities I missed, but it seems clear to me that a film like 2001 also helped pave the way for Star Wars perhaps to a similar extent as The Searchers, Seven Samurai, The Hidden Fortress, Metropolis, or what have you.

Edit:

Oh yes, in my defense, the critics of 1968 also thought 2001 was boring and didn't understand it. So perhaps it is just fair to say that many people needed two viewings or more before really appreciating it. Sometimes, this happens. I've seen movies before where the first viewing couldn't possibly do the film justice and it was not a fault of the film or director, but rather just a result of the experimental, unconventional nature of the film. (I watched 13 Conversations About One Thing twice in two days because the first time I honestly couldn't say I fully understood it and I felt that it did deserve my attention a second time; on my second viewing, I raised my rating 1/2 star to 3.5 and it is a very philosophical movie that I'm glad I saw twice).

[Dutchy]

Originally posted by JonathanLB
Also I didn't want to go into it the second time thinking, "Well now that I'm a critic and it's an AFI Top 100 film, I must give it a great review."

Hmmm... fair enough, though it does seem it bit like that. At least it fits in our discussion in this (http://www.swforums.net/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27655) thread (you haven't posted in it again, so I don't know if you've read it all).

Or, like Ryla Relvinian said in that same thread:


That's the whole point of a movie, to be enjoyed or to disturb or to draw out an emotion or memory. The purpose of a movie is not to be analyzed stoicly with no humanity.

That's exactly what I meant there. Those are also the "emotions" I was talking about, which are not tears and kleenex, but any possible emotion.

Tastes in movies do change indeed, mostly because of a change in life, how you can relate to certain things after that change. Also after discovering a whole new genre you hadn't seen before.

I don't know what caused this change by you, but it's remarkable to say the least. Are there any movies of the past, let's say, 4 years you've become to like after disliking it first?

[JonathanLB]

Yes, of course there are, but sometimes I cannot blame that on anything other than intoxication the first time I saw them. :D

I didn't like Chinatown when I first saw it because I had probably downed about 3 beers by the start and 3 more half way into the movie, and honestly when I was sober I had trouble making sense of the movie, so when I was drunk it was HOPELESS!!! lol. I loved it the second time I saw it...

I don't know why you'd say, "It seems that way," though. That seems like a rather idiotic comment, no offense. I mean, I just gave West Side Story 2.5 stars and didn't care for it, yet it's on the list, so if that were true, how come I had no problem giving A Streetcar Named Desire 2 stars? That argument doesn't hold a glass of water. I give a film whatever I think it deserves, regardless of critical sentiment. It happened that when I was only 15 or 16, obviously my taste in film hadn't progressed enough, which is why I often argue that you really should wait until a certain age before even attempting to review movies (not to say you shouldn't enjoy them earlier).

I disagree with your emotional comment. Normal moviegoers watch movies like that. Critics are above that level of viewing. How often does a normal moviegoer say, "Wow that is interesting how the camera moves like that and the director chooses to cut after the pan rather than before it." It just doesn't happen often. Most moviegoers know very well whether they like a movie or not and their opinion is very valid, absolutely, but they aren't expected to know the finer details of filmmaking and simply look at movies differently, that's all. There's nothing wrong or worse about that. It's just different. It's not like you need to be able to analyze the cinematography to appreciate whether it's good or not, but if you want to explain it in a review, then yes, it helps if you can analyze it more critically.

As for watching movies like a stoic, well, no. I mean comedies -- you're supposed to laugh at them. I laugh at any good comedy. The effect of a horror film, however, is not the same. I am not scared by horror movies, but I'm impressed with the craft of the great ones. How do I explain that? I'm not sure, but humor is more effective than horror apparently, to a seasoned moviegoer of any sort. Interesting how that effect differs, actually. I had never considered that until now. I'm convinced you could watch an endless number of comedies and still laugh at the jokes, but after a certain number of horror films you will no longer jump at the quick scares or be frightened with them. I just consider the craft and production of a horror film usually or how well it is building suspense, or whatever else.

Reviewing movies is and should be a more, oh, what's the word I'm looking for... analytical procedure. Now just watching movies as a viewer really is entirely different than watching them as a critic. It's funny because I can sit here and tell you that, or anyone here on this forum that, and I'll get negative comments and feedback about how it's not true, I'm crazy, wrong, etc, but you won't know until you become a critic. You really won't. I can't explain to you what it's like if you've not experienced it before. It's probably like love -- I have seen it in numerous movies, I know what it is right? Well not really. Maybe in theory, but since I've never experienced it, how could I really know? I don't think I could.

When I saw Star Wars as a boy, I just loved it because I loved it. No explanation needed because I was 7, or whatever. Now, the way I watch the films has really changed as the lines have different meanings that are more profound than before, or the way the films are edited is of special interest that is different than before. Now when I watch a SW movie I can't help but think, "Oh here we go, this is formalist editing," but before about 3 months ago I had no idea what formalism was, so how could I have known to watch for that? I just think the way you think about movies when you have to review them is so different from how you do as a moviegoer just enjoying them for entertainment value.

There really isn't anything wrong with either way, as I said. I just found it especially interesting watching Groundhog Day again after I hadn't seen it in a few years. When I had to write my review of it, I found so much more there that I had never seen before, even though I must have seen that movie at least 15 times before.

[JediBoricua]

I know what the ending means, but that is because I cheated. I read the book! Mwahahahahaha.

[JonathanLB]

Well I mean the ultimate ending of the film is certainly open to interpretation. There are still film scholars and critics, and moviegoers, who debate about it.

Nonetheless, I have my own take on it after considering it a bit more fully, though it ultimately presents several unanswered questions for audiences to consider.

[Marcus Telcontar]

The book is excellent.

HOWEVER...

No matter how technically brilliant it is, no matter how it holds to physics... 2001 is still one of the most boring and overrated films I have ever seen. Oh, I understand it allright. I understand all the stuff going on cause I i love the book so much. THIS MOVIE IS SO BORING IT ALMSOT MADE ME RIP MY EYES OUT. What emotion and impact were wiped out by the deadly slow pacing and shots that dwelt for far, far, far too long.

[Jedieb]

"I would not think of quarreling with your interpretation nor offering any other, as I have found it always the best policy to allow the film to speak for itself."
-- Stanley Kubrick

Despite all the contributions from Clarke, Kubrick wanted the film to stand on its own. A unique vision that each film goer could interpret as they saw fit. You can make your own conclusions after reading the novel, but they would be just as valid as someone who stayed away from them completely. I got hooked early on and read the novel and the subsequent sequels. The novels have gone on to 2010, 2110, and 3010. There may even be more, I might have even screwed up the dates. The point is the film isn't meant to be a straight translation of the book. It's meant to stand on its own. If you want to take insights from the novel and translate them to the film then you're free to do so. That's what the Kubrick quote is all about.

I think the film is unique enough and different enough from the book that you can have a completely different view of what the Starchild and the monolith could represent. Here's a neat site that has ONE view of what the film COULD represent;

http://www.kubrick2001.com/

[Jedieb]

I actually loved the pacing that you abhorred Marcus. It's great to have a scene for 3 minutes in which all you hear is breathing. By comparison, the sequel starring Roy Schrider was much more traditional and it failed to have any lasting impact. It's mostly forgotten. I may actually watch the DVD again tonight. It's been a few months since I've last seen it.

[JonathanLB]

I agree, EB, it just depends what you're in the mood for I guess. I was ok with the slower pacing when I watched it last night.

2001 was actually based on Clarke's short story The Sentinel, so if you look at the Academy Award nominations, it received a nom. for Best ORIGINAL Screenplay, not adapted screenplay, which is more proof you can't look just to the novel for answers. I have understood the purpose of the film as Kubrick says, for each person to decide for themselves what the end means. That's what I always heard he wanted...

[Jedieb]

Kubrick and Clarke wrote the story together and then Clarke wrote the novelization. I've always treated both of them as seperate entities. Some could decide to pick up the novel to help them fill in the blanks, but it doesn't provide a definitive set of answers IMO. Just another interpretation.

[JonathanLB]

Yup, I agree with that.

Kind of like the TPM novel. It's fun the extra details it gives, but I personally don't see it as "definitive." I honestly mainly just consider the SW films the definite text.

[Dutchy]

Originally posted by JonathanLB
I disagree with your emotional comment. Normal moviegoers watch movies like that. Critics are above that level of viewing. How often does a normal moviegoer say, "Wow that is interesting how the camera moves like that and the director chooses to cut after the pan rather than before it." It just doesn't happen often. Most moviegoers know very well whether they like a movie or not and their opinion is very valid, absolutely, but they aren't expected to know the finer details of filmmaking and simply look at movies differently, that's all.

How often does a critic say stuff like that? Not often, fortunately. I sure am not interested in reading that. Not as the main content of the review, anyway. I'm much more interested in the critic's experience of watching the movie, just like a "normal" viewer watches it. For me there isn't much difference between a critic and Joe Popcorn. The first gets paid for his review, the latter pays for the movie. A critic usualy has a better way wording his opinion, but Joe's opinion is just as valuable as his is (as you said as well).

I have to add that most of the time I read reviews after I've seen a movie, so for me a critic doesn't have to give me advice on whether I should see the movie or not. In which I am the exception, of course.

I hope critics keep their passion for movies and don't watch it solely for their profession.

[JonathanLB]

I missed your post here.

I agree with your last comment. The rest, though, well I don't think you are quite right there.

"A critic usualy has a better way wording his opinion, but Joe's opinion is just as valuable as his is (as you said as well)."

I don't think that's always true, though. I think that for new releases you're more likely to be able to defend that viewpoint. Movies are made for people, normal people, moviegoers, paying customers, etc. For a new release, a 2003 film, most moviegoers should have opinions that are just about as valid as any critic.

Nonetheless, critics are going to make more educated statements about films than most normal moviegoers. A person who has seen Schindler's List and then sees The Pianist will have more to say about how the latter compares to the former, which is important, than someone who has only seen The Pianist, who will know nothing about the comparison.

Also, while it may be true that critics and moviegoers are on much more level ground for new releases, it's not true of older films or older foreign films.

A normal moviegoer just watching The 400 Blows without any other knowledge of it besides someone recommending them to see it does not have as valid a opinion of the film as a professional critic who has studied the French New Wave and knows how the movie fits in, why it's important, and what it really is.

My review illuminates a lot of those points, but Joe Popcorn, as you say, is simply not going to know anything else about the movie without reading my review of it or reading a film book or reading other reviews online.

A valid opinion needs to be backed up by reason and research. It's not a valid opinion whatsoever if I say that I'm against abortion. It's only valid if I explain my reasons for it and if I've really researched the subject and examined it morally. Then, my opinion is not "right" and yours "wrong," but mine is valid, even if it is different from yours.

If my film teacher says he thinks The Majestic is a terrible film, which he does think, then I say his opinion is valid because he's a film expert and he says the reason he doesn't like it is because it butcher's the black list and what really happened and does not reflect an important time in U.S. and Hollywood history. I was able to excuse the film as a more naive moviegoer because I didn't know the history surrounding the black list as well, so for me it was more about just enjoying the way it was made. I still think that it's a good film and I really enjoy it, but he has a valid reason for not liking it, which stems from his dislike of movies that bend or warp history too greatly. I don't really mind too much if a film chooses to bend history in the name of filmmaking, but that's just my view.

When I saw The Rules of the Game, I think my opinion of it only became valid after I had studied it and learned why it was such an important, acclaimed film. Now I still have the same opinion of it. I still feel it wasn't a good movie and it was, frankly, somewhat boring and silly at times. Nonetheless, I appreciate what Renoir wanted to accomplish with it and I am familiar now with why other critics and film historians think it is a great movie. So now I believe my opinion is valid because I have given fair reasons why I did not care for it, but at the same time I've acknowledged its influence and done my homework, so to speak.

I am not sure I can agree with this relativist opinion that "all views are equally valid, all opinions are the same, everyone's opinions are just as good as everyone else's." No, I really think that's wrong. The Nazis were wrong. Their opinions were wrong. Their views of Jewish people were simply wrong and so, yes, my opinions ARE better than theirs! Communism is an inferior system. Their views are wrong and less intelligent than capitalism. A murderer is wrong to kill other people and his opinion that doing so is right is not justified and not acceptable. It's an inferior opinion.

In the same sense, a critic who has seen 50 German expressionist films is going to have a more valid opinion on German Expressionism than I do because I've only seen 4 so far (and 2 more soon). I'm just beginning my appreciation of those types of movies, so my opinion is not just as valid as a film expert like Roger Ebert. When it comes to movies, Ebert's views are more valid and superior to mine in many respects because of what else he knows that I do not.

My opinion of 2001: A Space Odyssey back when I was 16 was wrong I believe now. It's not that "I was right then, but now I've changed my mind, and I'm still right." Nope. I was wrong before, now I have seen that the view I held before was not supportable and not valid. It would be like if I stole something and thought it was ok, but four years later I decided that it really was not ok and that I was wrong to steal it.

It's hard to quantify exactly what makes one person's opinion more valid, but it can be done in extreme cases. You take my opinion versus Ebert's on a German expressionist film and maybe he just knows way more about that than I do. But it has its bounds. If I've seen 19 Akira Kurosawa films and Ebert has seen 20, it would be tough to argue that his opinion is more valid simply because he has seen one extra movie. It would seem, then, that we are both very well qualified to discuss the director and neither one of our opinions should be invalidated.

My opinion on nuclear physics is fairly worthless and not valid at all, though, because I have not studied the subject. If you asked me a question in the field and I replied, you'd get a stupid response because I have no clue what I'm talking about.

Same if you ask me about Italian film history in the 1910's. I don't know, couldn't tell you. Give me a week and I could look it up and research it though ;)