criterionforum.org

I recently watched this again, for the first time since the late '70s (when I saw it on TV as a 15 year old). I was a huge science fiction fan, and pretty much viewed it no deeper than the narrative. I recognized that the science was better (no sound in vacuum, no the artificial gravity was represented realistically, and the station dcking took a reasonable amount of time, instead of the "Star Wars" shorthand version) than its contemporaries in science fiction, and that it was really, really long. My fresh viewing (on my 2007 purchased HD-DVD player, holla!) gave me a new appreciation.

I never noticed the "tribal war" theme before. I caught that the ability to use tools gave the one tribe the ability to overcome (i.e. "kill") the other. For the first time, I caught the USA/USSR tribal competition aspects. The US has found this artifact on the moon, and rather than share it with the rival tribe (lack of trust and desire to profit alone) it was going to take on this huge mission alone. When I saw the film 30 years ago, I missed this aspect. In 1978, cooperating with the Russians on something so appropriate was unthinkable.

They made just one mistake. They took an unexpected "rival tribe" along- HAL, the new reasoning computer that they suspected may actually be aware.

Yes, HAL was aware. HAL had been briefed on the mission before the astronauts. The movie doesn't tell us if HAL guessed the aliens were going to introduce a next step to the sentient beings that made it to Saturn (and wanted to take it himself), or if, as the book explains, he didn't trust the humans to complete the mission correctly. I suspect the former, mainly because it fits the "tribal war" theme.

Anyway, it's a far richer film than I remembered.

statsman wrote:HAL had been briefed on the mission before the astronauts. The movie doesn't tell us if HAL guessed the aliens were going to introduce a next step to the sentient beings that made it to Saturn (and wanted to take it himself), or if, as the book explains, he didn't trust the humans to complete the mission correctly. I suspect the former, mainly because it fits the "tribal war" theme.

I always felt the most interesting explanation was similar to yours, except that HAL was sabotaging the mission because he suspected (rightfully) the "next step" would mean physical technology would no longer be needed by humans, and he was trying to prevent that.

Also, it always seems almost surreal to me whenever I remember that a sequel to this magnificent film was made by the director of "A Sound of Thunder" and "End of Days."

I wish more people could see this on the big screen. Even HD doesn't hold a candle to the immense power this film has when it's filling your range of vision.

So true. I manged to see it in theater a few years back, and it was absolutely breathtaking. My favorite experience in a theater ever.

Magic Hate Ball wrote:I wish more people could see this on the big screen. Even HD doesn't hold a candle to the immense power this film has when it's filling your range of vision.

It was on at the BFI Southbank at a Kubrick retrospective recently. I couldn't make it. So disappointed.

It's probably the first WTF film experience I ever had, watching it at home with my parents. Spent the whole Dawn of Man sequence wondering what the Hell was going on.

Magic Hate Ball wrote:I wish more people could see this on the big screen. Even HD doesn't hold a candle to the immense power this film has when it's filling your range of vision.

The only time this worked for me was when I saw it in 70mm (as a last hurrah for a 70mm-equipped cinema that was closing down). The visual splendour really needs to drown out the pseudo-profundity for me to take it seriously (i.e. it needs to deliver revelation rather than just talk about it).

zedz wrote:

Magic Hate Ball wrote:I wish more people could see this on the big screen. Even HD doesn't hold a candle to the immense power this film has when it's filling your range of vision.

The only time this worked for me was when I saw it in 70mm (as a last hurrah for a 70mm-equipped cinema that was closing down). The visual splendour really needs to drown out the pseudo-profundity for me to take it seriously (i.e. it needs to deliver revelation rather than just talk about it).

I always hear that about the Matrix but never 2001. Wow, thank you.

zedz wrote:

Magic Hate Ball wrote:I wish more people could see this on the big screen. Even HD doesn't hold a candle to the immense power this film has when it's filling your range of vision.

The only time this worked for me was when I saw it in 70mm (as a last hurrah for a 70mm-equipped cinema that was closing down). The visual splendour really needs to drown out the pseudo-profundity for me to take it seriously (i.e. it needs to deliver revelation rather than just talk about it).

That's an odd statement to make about a movie with so little talking (and without a single philosophical discussion, if I recall). I do realize you were making an analogy and that you weren't literally accusing 2001 of being over-verbal, but I can't think of any other movie less likely to equivocate about, and digress around, revelation.

Mr_sausage wrote:That's an odd statement to make about a movie with so little talking (and without a single philosophical discussion, if I recall). I do realize you were making an analogy and that you weren't literally accusing 2001 of being over-verbal, but I can't think of any other movie less likely to equivocate about, and digress around, revelation.

Sloppy expression - I meant the difference between delivering revelation in visceral, aesthetic terms rather than as a component of the narrative. Or delivering revelation direct to the audience rather than via the characters: "I'm undergoing an unimaginable experience" rather than "that astronaut looks like he's undergoing an unimaginable experience".

zedz wrote:

Mr_sausage wrote:That's an odd statement to make about a movie with so little talking (and without a single philosophical discussion, if I recall). I do realize you were making an analogy and that you weren't literally accusing 2001 of being over-verbal, but I can't think of any other movie less likely to equivocate about, and digress around, revelation.

Sloppy expression - I meant the difference between delivering revelation in visceral, aesthetic terms rather than as a component of the narrative. Or delivering revelation direct to the audience rather than via the characters: "I'm undergoing an unimaginable experience" rather than "that astronaut looks like he's undergoing an unimaginable experience".

You, sir, are a clever one. I might answer, if I find myself up to the challenge.

I've seen this twice in a theatre (once when I was too young to really appreciate it, though it left quite an impression none the less) and it is quite an experience. Home theatre equipment can't do it justice. I'm still kicking myself for missing it in 70mm a few years ago (with Keir Dullea and Gary Lockwood in attendance, no less).

I appreciate the film more as a ballet and a symphony of images than I do as a philosophical exercise. Like many great works do, it changes and becomes unclear every time I watch it, but I think I get what Kubrick is saying by now. Maybe it's an inevitability with the passing of time and the influence of this film, but the 'point' of the film just isn't all that compelling to me, or at least, not as much as the experience of surrendering to the flow of images.

Does anyone else think that the conversations with HAL are hilarious?

Does anyone else think that the conversations with HAL are hilarious?

Yes. Hal's deadpan attempts to decieve and (later) bargain emphasize "his" sentience.

Oh, a lot of critics have commented in the past on the understated performances of the crew. I actually am an aerospace engineer, and I can tell you that there are people in this industry that talk like that.

I assumed it was SK's intention for HAL to be more "human" than Lockwood/Dullea, as if to make you empathise with a computer.

thirtyframesasecond wrote:I assumed it was SK's intention for HAL to be more "human" than Lockwood/Dullea, as if to make you empathise with a computer.

HAL 9000 wrote:Stop, Dave.

I'm af-raiid.

I think the apes are also more human and sympathetic than the central human characters.

HAL is certainly one of those characters that defies any sense of good and evil one has watching the film. I would like to believe that that was Stanley's intention, for the audience to make their own conclusions. My simple reaction to Dave re-entering the Discovery upon the first viewing was a brave act, and that his disconnection of HAL was an act of self-preservation possibly mixed with some sense of revenge for the death of his human colleagues. I'm sure I'm not alone in that, as when I came across this on the iMDB:

Anthony Hopkins has stated that he saw the character of Lecter as similar to HAL in Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey; that is to say, a highly complex, highly intelligent, highly logical killing machine who seems to know everything going on around him

Later on, when Arthur wrote the sequel (which has way way more depth than the movie adaptation), he managed to make HAL a more sympathetic character. The victim of a paranoid bureaucracy, mourned by it's creator, once again revived only to sacrifice itself in the end for the greater good. That much is in the film version, and Bob Balaban did a wonderful job of conveying that kind of relationship he created with HAL.

This brings me back to something that I was originally going to post about but the discussion thus far of HAL inspired these comments I've made so far, so thanks I remember watching the episode of Charlie Rose with Martin Scorsese, Stanley's widow, and her brother who was also Stan's producer. Martin made the comment that the scene where HAL kills the hibernating astronauts was one of the greatest murder scenes ever. I always thought that was kind of funny, considering how well known he has been for the violent deaths in his movies, to say that a scene with such minimal physical action had that kind of impact on him.

solaris72 wrote:17 cut minutes found

What's even more interesting, is how in the world did the footage end up in a salt mine?

Napier wrote:how in the world did the footage end up in a salt mine?

There's a salt museum/mine in Hutchinson, KS that is used to store thousands of film prints because of it's controlled temperature and humidity. That has to be where this was found, I would think.

Jeffrey Wells (he of "film grain is for monks/Spartacus is one of the best Blu-rays of the year" fame) has had some pretty good info on this: first a post (confirmed by Robert Harris) stating that the footage was actually found decades ago, and now an official statement (which was presumably sent out to other outlets as well) confirming that this is old news and that WB has no intention of doing an extended cut.

I'd like some sort of official (and justifiable) reason Trumbull's in-progress doc on 2001 was canceled

Rock Hudson: Not a fan

Roger Ebert wrote:Stanley Kubrick played it safe with "2001: A Space Odyssey," which merely started at the Dawn of Man, and even then at its world premiere in Hollywood Rock Hudson walked out, passing my seat as he audibly grumbled: "Will someone tell me what this piece of shit is about?"

I'm seeing this in 70mm on Sunday in Silver Springs, Maryland.

It was supposed to be "Porgy and Bess" in 70mm, but it was cancelled due to rights issues.

Anyone have any idea of what I'll be seeing? Will it be a recent print or one that is decades old?

Also, how far removed is it from the camera negative? I've always been impressed that Kubrick/Trumbull did all the effects in the camera to avoid generational loss, so I'm curious how far away from that this print is.

Thanks for any info!

domino harvey wrote:Rock Hudson: Not a fan

Roger Ebert wrote:Stanley Kubrick played it safe with "2001: A Space Odyssey," which merely started at the Dawn of Man, and even then at its world premiere in Hollywood Rock Hudson walked out, passing my seat as he audibly grumbled: "Will someone tell me what this piece of shit is about?"

LOL, not that long ago, I tried watching 2001 at my parents' home, and my dad was passing through the room just as it began. He sat down and decided to watch, but a few minutes into the apes, he started complaining, "What's going on? What's this about? There's no people."

Before the apes discovered tools (maybe even before the monolith), he said something like "this is stupid," got up and went upstairs (which wasn't even in the direction he was heading when he was passing through). I was like, "man, I thought Rock Hudson was bad..."

Assuming we're the same-ish generation, I thought all parents had at least a passing familiarity with 2001. What on earth did he watch when he was stoned?!

marknyc5 wrote:Also, how far removed is it from the camera negative? I've always been impressed that Kubrick/Trumbull did all the effects in the camera to avoid generational loss, so I'm curious how far away from that this print is.

I imagine there'd have been at least one interim stage, given that printing directly from the camera negative would be an insanely time-consuming process because everything would have to be regraded. But without knowing precisely which print it is, it's impossible to be any more accurate.