2001: A Space Odyssey (1 Viewer)

[Sebastian_M]

A question: I always hold my breath during the period when Dave is entering the emergency entrance. Do you?

Actually, yes. I watched this film again and I found myself holding my breath. Don't know why though...

Seb
------------------
"I deem him one of the greatest beings alive in our time. I do not see his like elsewhere. His name will live in English letters; it will live in the annals of war; it will live in the legends of Arabia." - Winston Churchill on T.E. Lawrence

 

[Jack Briggs]

That's called "being caught up emotionally in the film." When said film is 2001, that is entirely understandable.
Here's one I go through: Every time I watch what must be one of cinema's greatest moments--when Moonwatcher discovers new uses for old bones--I'm always tensing out that our favorite man-ape is not going start smashing the tapir's bones before the opening bars to Zarathustra finish. Sometimes I think to myself, "Hurry up, Moonie, the music's almost over!"
------------------

 

[tyler O]

One day I'll figure out how to quote...
I do agree that virtually any incident is changeable up to a certain point. There are so called points of no return, but those usually are only when the action is ocurring. Otherwise there is always a chance in the realm of probability of an action not occurring.
EG (not Marshall): The Discovery could have been torn asunder by a comet. HAL could have detonated the ship. HAL could have been turned off via a working AE-35 unit. Dave could have inadvertantly committed suicide by sucking a straw in his throat.
Any of these things fall within the realm of possibility, but not many in the realm of probability, and none within the realm of actuality. By actuality I mean the work as presented by Kubrick. That is the totality of existence. I try not to count the book, or any subsequent books or movies. This, of course, is out of respect to the original.
I guess it is rather easy to state that anything that occurrs in an already written, scripted and fabricated universe is predetermined. I just am rather vague and obtuse from time to time.
Kind of like my favorite movie.
------------------
Share and Enjoy - The marketing division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation.

 

[Sebastian_M]

Tyler,
To quote, put [quote ] [/ quote] around the text you wanted indented. Don't put the spaces I put or else it won't work. The spaces are there only so the UBB code shows up in my message.
You're totally right, it is easy to say everything in a written script is already predestined.
Seb
------------------
"I deem him one of the greatest beings alive in our time. I do not see his like elsewhere. His name will live in English letters; it will live in the annals of war; it will live in the legends of Arabia." - Winston Churchill on T.E. Lawrence

 

[Jay W]

I must say I'm sorry I wasn't here for the last few weeks and missed this thread. Having spent a few hours reviewing it and some other older material I had on 2001 I am grateful to be a member here. Some wonderful contributions and it really 'enhanced' my viewing of the restored disc.
Al, Jack, Tyler, Seth, Peter and all others I hope you keep contributing to the forum (and any lurkers out there should join in :>)
------------------
Home Theater
DVD Collection

 

[Dan Lindley]

Hi,
Does anyone remember a scene in the original uncut theatrical release in the 'sterile' room at the end (where Bowman is aged) and when Bowman explores a little room in off the main room (bathroom or kitchen) and finds a blue substance - kind of like half-dried playdough or something?
This has been bugging me for years - a made up memory or did I really see this.
Too bad the uncut version is not part of the new release. Is there any hope of ever seeing it again?
Thanks, Dan

 

[Jack Briggs]

To my knowledge, Peter Kline is the only HTF member to have seen the original cut. However, almost all the deleted footage involved Frank Poole preparing for his extra-vehicular activity, kind of repeating what we had already seen Bowman do. Further, the act titles ("The Dawn of Man," Jupiter Mission--18 Months Later," and "Jupiter and Beyond the Infinite") were added in the final cut.
I remember having read that the aging Bowman was originally to have seen certain things as he inspected his environment--you might want to read the current issue of Cinefex for some insights into that.
------------------

 

[Sebastian_M]

Jack,
How is the article on 2001 in the current issue of Cinefex? Is it worth picking up?
Thanks,
Seb
------------------
"I deem him one of the greatest beings alive in our time. I do not see his like elsewhere. His name will live in English letters; it will live in the annals of war; it will live in the legends of Arabia." - Winston Churchill on T.E. Lawrence

 

[Bill Buklis]

The strange blue substance is referred to in the book. I didn't know there was any part of the movie that had this. I guess they don't have a "deleted scenes" section on the new release, eh?
In the book, Dave is in a hotel room. He goes to the fridge which is stocked with pop and food. But, he discovers that everything isn't real, it's actually made out of this blue jello-like substance. The alien entities reached into his mind to create a suitable transition environment, but couldn't make it actually real. The environment is only simulated.
In context for the movie, nothing that Dave sees during his transformation is real. It's only his perception, what he can understand and interpret. The blue substance puts a stamp on that. It's not real - only an illusion.

 

[Dan Lindley]

Thanks, Bill.
That's great that the blue stuff is in the book -- maybe I'm not crazy. I just looked it up (pp. 211-213 -- on my shelf in the office, next to Agel, and Dr. Strangelove...)
And Jack, maybe I'm halfway to being the second HTF'r to have seen the original. My memory of it seems so real and movie like, but maybe it's just from reading. I was only 7 or 8 then, perhaps impressionable (with a cool Dad).
I now show 2001 to my 3 (4 since last week) old daughter, editing out some ape and other violence. She loves it.
Great discussion here. Great forum. People really care about ideas and craft.
Dan

 

[Jack Briggs]

The article's fine, Sebastian--though there's nothing really new in it. Of course, given the nature of the magazine, the story focuses on how the effects shots were accomplished. If you love 2001, you should pick it up.
------------------

 

[Sebastian_M]

I see. Thanks, I guess I'll pick it up.
I wish I could have seen the original theatrical cut with the blue stuff. Even seeing it now at the theatre would be great. Anyone know if it is planned to be shown in Toronto sometime soon?
Thanks,
Seb
------------------
"I deem him one of the greatest beings alive in our time. I do not see his like elsewhere. His name will live in English letters; it will live in the annals of war; it will live in the legends of Arabia." - Winston Churchill on T.E. Lawrence

 

[StephenT]

I just watched my new Kubrick box set copy of 2001 last night. It looks fantastic on a widescreen set! This was only my third time seeing the film, and what struck me this time was not just Kubrick's use of music, which is brilliant, but his decisions on where not to use music. The scene where Dave and Frank learn that the HAL 9000 on earth did not find a malfunction, and HAL tries to tell them everything's cool is very tense. There's no music to tell you what emotions to feel, but the scene conveys them perfectly.
It's the same with the scene where HAL won't let Dave back in the ship. When HAL ends communication Kubrick continuously shows Dave's face. You can read everything he's thinking: I'm pissed at HAL, I'm in a lot of trouble, I'll have to dump Frank's body if I want to open the air lock, etc. Again it's very tense, but that fact isn't thrown in your face by some cheesy music. In short it's fan-friggin-tastic!
Then there's HAL's death scene. That just gets better the more I see it. I love it when Dave asks HAL to sing Daisy. It's like he's trying to ease HAL's pain and fear at the same time he's killing him. Damn that's good stuff. It's interesting how that's the only thing he says since he ended communication with HAL outside the ship.
I'll need to spin it a few more times to get in on the meaning of it all conversations. I'm still a 2001 novice. Last night it was the brilliance of the actual Kubrick direction that hit me. I'll have to wait and see what hits me next time. That'll probably be later this week. This thread just makes you want to watch the movie again!
------------------
Stephen

 

[Jack Briggs]

quote: "There's no music to tell you what emotions to feel..."[/quote]
Bingo, Stephen! You've broken through one of Stanley Kubrick's major assets as an artist--and, indirectly, have shown up the principle shortcoming of this era's most hugely popular director of mass-market cinematic entertainment. Mr. Kubrick relied on art, and the conventions of literature and cinema, to convey an idea--and you, the viewer, were left to your own emotions. The result was an unforgettable experience that made you want to come back for more--and more.
Whereas with that most-hugely-popular director of our current era has openly admitted to going directly for specific emotional reactions from the audience by employing brazenly obvious and manipulative tricks. Though enormously talented, that filmmaker looks far too often to cinema as a means of emotional manipulation (and, as a result, huge box office receipts) than as, say, commercially viable art. "Product" versus The Ageless.
To think that this most-hugely-popular director of our time and the master artist Stanley Kubrick actually liked each other a lot. And so it goes. ...
------------------

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

Whereas with that most-hugely-popular director of our current era has openly admitted to going directly for specific emotional reactions from the audience by employing brazenly obvious and manipulative tricks.

Jack, I fear we are steering towards film snob territory, here. Spielberg is a master craftsman when it come to these "tricks". Kubrick has his own bag of tricks which are not regarded as "cheap" as Spielberg's since they aim for the intellect moreso than the emotions, or at least take a more indirect route to the emotions. Look at all of the hack directors who are not capable of what Spielberg does. This is like complaining that Chuck Berry is not as good a songwriter as Bob Dylan or Smokey Robinson. They are all very good at what they do and I'm sure they admire each other's abilities and will be remembered fondly for quite some time.
Regards,
------------------
Ken McAlinden
Livonia, MI USA

 

[Jack Briggs]

True, Ken: Steven Spielberg is masterful at what he does. It's what he does that irks me so. But based on Schindler's List, I know Mr. Spielberg can do so much more. However, Mr. Kubrick never tried to do one of his "tricks" to produce a specific emotional reaction. I know Steven can do the same if only he'd try. Since I still haven't seen A.I. yet, I'm hoping he's closer to making the kinds of films worthy of his prodigious talents.
As for bordering on being a snob, hey--I passed that boundary long, long ago. Sometimes I hide it better than at other times.
------------------

 

[Scott Calvert]

Jack, what are you doing posting here? GO SEE A.I. RIGHT NOW!
I think you'll be pleasantly surprised
------------------

 

[Rain]

And I think you will be disappointed....but maybe that's discussion for another thread.
AI left me wondering what the film could have been had Kubrick made it.

On the topic of this thread, there seem to be several hints at 2001 in AI. See if you can spot them all!
By the way, someone asked a while back if anyone was lurking but not posting on this thread. I am. I make it a policy to try to encourage people to seek their own conclusions from 2001, so I don't usually share mine. Similarly, I avoid Clarke's books and other documents claiming some sort of "official truth" in terms of disecting the movie. This doesn't make me seem very interesting in discussions of this sort!
My advice is always to let the movie speak for itself. That being said, some of the theories and interpretations offered have been extremely interesting.
------------------
Rain

 

[Evan Case]

(For the purpose of the following minor discussion, I will eliminate Spartacus from Kubrick's canon)
In regards to Kubrick and Spielberg's use of music, I really think it has much more to do with the stories that they are trying to tell rather than being simple "tricks."
As many Kubrick films are not possessed of easily defined emotional content, it is only natural that the musical selections are likewise ambiguous, ironic, and uniquely Kubrickian (witness Dr. Strangelove or the classical music as counterpoint in Clockwork Orange). On the other hand, I believe, he was not "above" the use of music for specific emotional reasons. When Also Sprach Zarathustra accompianies Moonwatcher's bone-bashin' is it possible to feel anything but awed at Man's evolution. Similarly, the Blue Danube convey's the majesty of spaceflight as well as anything John Williams could have written. I also found much of the music in Barry Lyndon, while not Mickey-Mousing the action, to be fully in touch with the feelings felt by Redmond, be it adventure, love, or sadness. And of course The Shining is filled with music specifically designed to creep the hell out of us.
Spielberg has never really done a film where the narrative would benefit from ambiguous music (although there is some of it in his work: parts of Close Encounters and, depending on one's interpretation, the ending of A.I.). In E.T., for example, one can't convince me that the film's final 20 minutes could be improved by inserting Ligeti (or no music) in the place of Williams' soaring score. E.T. earned its musical finale because of its narrative strength. The music expressing the awe and majesty of the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park is no different emotionally than the early music in 2001. The difference is that the composer is a Williams and not a Strauss. The score for Jaws terrifies an audience in the same way The Shining does.
Perhaps another reason that the music in a Spielberg is considered a "trick" by some is because the movies themselves don't work for them. Let's take an example of one of the few Spielbergs that doesn't work for me: Hook. Divorced from the film, I think the music might be the best Williams ever wrote for Spielberg. But because I don't buy the emotions in the film, the music seems to reach for a feeling that just doesn't exist. The music is the only thing creating an emotion. In E.T., however, the feelings I have when the bikes take off are echoed in the music, not provided by it. Similarly, the emotion in the film is enhanced by the music, not created by it.
In deciding between the two styles, it all comes down to a matter of preference. Much like the two filmmakers themselves, I enjoy and appreciate both.
Evan
P.S. I should also say that Kubrick is my 2nd favortite director and Spielberg my 3rd. My 1st, Hitchcock, was into narrative-centric music perhaps even more than Spielberg.
P.P.S. To keep this thread on topic, 2001 rulez, and A.I. rocks, yo but not as much (Seriously, Jack, go see it. I've found it one of Spielberg's densest and most thought-provoking, to say nothing of Hollywood in general. Even if you end up comparing it unfavorably to Kubrick on the whole [I don't], there's more than enough Kubrickian ideas to make it worth your $5.)
------------------
"* * * * * * * * * * * * *" - Buster Keaton
AFI List: Meesa finished!
S&S: 26 films left

 

[Sebastian_M]

Jack,
I have found Kubrick's use of music in his films brilliant. But I can't agree Jack that he didn't use them to convey emotion. While Kubrick certainly didn't turn up the slow, sad tones for death scenes, the music in his films leave the viewer with some deep emotions.
2001 and Clockwork Orange are good examples. Imagine watching 2001 without the music that's there now. Would it still be as emotionally impacting? The visuals of the film are stunning, but the music adds so much to it. In Clockwork Orange, Kubrick matches arguably the most profound piece of music to some of the most inhuman and disgusting deeds imaginable. We hear "a little of the old Ludwig van" as Alex and his droogs beat the piss out of opposing gang members. Upon first glance - and listen - they seem mispaired. But as the scene and music moves on they seem just right. And of course, who could imagine The Shining without that music. Even when I know whats around the next corner, I still jump at the music Kubrick used.
I do agree with you that Spielberg does use music to implant emotions in the audience. Most directors today do - and while being able to just use visuals to have emotions well up in the viewer shows talent, matching even better music to those breathtaking visuals that makes the film that much better, shows even more talent.
Seb
------------------
"I deem him one of the greatest beings alive in our time. I do not see his like elsewhere. His name will live in English letters; it will live in the annals of war; it will live in the legends of Arabia." - Winston Churchill on T.E. Lawrence