2001: A Space Odyssey -- I don't get it *spoilers* (1 Viewer)

[Edwin-S]

---This is a film for the ages. And, again, one that's ageless.---
I watched this film recently and I like it,however, I would not say that it is ageless. The effects shots are still pretty good and hold up well, considering that they did not have an entire raft of digital effects to rely on. Some of the incidental moments that occur in the film show that it does show its age...somewhat. The scene with the Russians, where they talk about their base as opposed to the American base, shows that this film was made at the height of the "Cold War" and the politics of that time filtered into the movie. The secrecy that Dr. Heywood Floyd engages in with the Russians, also reflects that the "Cold War" between the Russians and the Americans has continued into the 21st century. The depiction of the Russian women as scientists, while the American women are all shown in "coffee and tea" roles shows that, obviously in Floyd's 21st century, women's progress in equality hasn't changed much from the sixties. Then there is the Pan-Am reference but that is just being picky. It is a still a visually stunning film.....even if it is completely incomprehensible and to me, generally meaningless. I consider the film the Atheist's view of what the creation story should have been; just remove any reference to "God" and drop in a Black Monolith which represents the "higher power". It is still a good film and one of the few true SF films made but is it really "ageless"?
------------------

 

[Rich Malloy]

The scene with the Russians, where they talk about their base as opposed to the American base, shows that this film was made at the height of the "Cold War" and the politics of that time filtered into the movie. The secrecy that Dr. Heywood Floyd engages in with the Russians, also reflects that the "Cold War" between the Russians and the Americans has continued into the 21st century.

I completely disagree. Floyd was no more secretive with his Russian counterparts than he was with the American ones - it was kept secret even from the families of the Americans studying the Clavius monolith. The cover story went out to everyone, American and Russian alike.
And their conversation clearly indicates that there's been a history of cooperation and joint projects that's utterly beyond the Cold War mentality. Audiences of the day would see Floyd and the Russians interacting like any other professionals, discussing old projects, asking about their spouses, when they will come to visit, etc. There's no Cold War belligerence here at all. These are close friends and colleagues.
And, yes, there are "American" bases and "Russian" bases, but just because there's no indication of a one-world political system doesn't mean there's Cold War antagonism. Just look at the world today: the Cold War is over, the US and the Russians are doing joint projects in space, but there remains a political "separateness". I think Kubrick might have gotten lucky on this - although we haven't yet reached the level of technological sophistication that he shows in his film, the degree of cooperation between the US and the Russians comes fairly close to the mark. If anything, the Americans and Russians are shown to have worked together more closely in the film than we have in actuality.
------------------
"Only one is a wanderer; two together are always going somewhere."

Link Removed
Al's Criterion Collection

 

[Jack Briggs]

Mike: As soon as I made that remark about the Clarke novel, I was concerned that you would think I was singling you out. Not so. The topic comes up in several 2001-related threads, and I was just heading it off at the pass.
I applaud Rain's comment about that 1984 travesty by hack director Peter Hyams. In regard to that excrutiating piece of trite tripe, I quote from another film: "Run away, run away."
And it looks, overall, as if another excellent discussion is brewing here. Interesting that this, and the previous excellent discussion about The Masterpiece both started with posts that were less than enthusiatic about Mr. Kubrick's work.
Scott, consider 2001 in terms of literature: the director employed literary artistic devices to create a uniquely cinematic experience. This is not a film that can be enjoyed passively; it must be engaged, with the viewer firing on all thrusters. Then, it helps to go back to it again and again. To this day, I am still detecting nuances in the film. On the other hand, if you simply do not like the film--end of story. But I do hope you give it another chance.
------------------

 

[paul o'donnell]

May as well chime in here. Recently saw 2001 in 70mm in London and the big screen really does add another level of greatness to an already great experience.
Its hard to explain but I'm just drawn to this movie and can watch it over and over without getting bored. Its just entrancing.
As has been said with other Kubrick films, the more you watch, the better they get. I think this certainly applies here.
point to remember: There is no other movie experience like it. Truly one of a kind.
------------------
Thanks,
Paul O'Donnell [email protected]
Link Removed