Ebert on 2001 70mm showing in Chicago (1 Viewer)

[TheoGB]

Hmm. I saw it for the first time at the weekend on DVD and I was certainly torn about it.
Fantastic direction but painstakingly 'deliberate' at times which left me feeling restless in the opening sections before we got to the Jupiter mission. But I felt this was the point. I want to watch it again when I am totally relaxed...
As for the final section at the monolith...Well it was just too much, too weird for me. I kind of lost concentration.
I am intrigued by how different it could be on the big screen.
Is there an appreciation thread out there where I can read some stuff about it? (Jack? ) I tried a search but obviously 2001 pulls up just a few hits!!!

 

[Mark Pfeiffer]

Theo, I think you'd feel less restless seeing this in a 70mm print. Aside from the miniature size in watching this on a television, there are always so many more distractions when watching movies at home. Like I said earlier, this film didn't totally work for me until I saw it theatrically.

 

[Jack Briggs]

I'd provide a link to an archived 2001 discussion, but I'm on a borrowed machine at the moment, and it's not cooperating in letting me use the link function. Wait until I get home, if possible.

But, all you 2001 newcomers need to realize these facts: The film does not follow a conventional narrative at all; instead, Mr. Kubrick utilized the visual grammar of film to tell a radical, complexly plotted story in a purely cinematic way. It is, as Roger Ebert has noted many a time, a highly experimental film--unique, too, in that this experimental film was a major release by a major studio.

As for any reissues, so what if it's the year 2002? What relevance does that even have now? The film itself is timeless as art, so it should be entirely satisfying in the year 2101; the story is ageless, regardless of the technological achievements that have ensued since its release.

 

[TheoGB]

Cheers Jack. I await your return to your own machine...

 

[SteveP]

How many cities still have a Cinerama or even Dimension 150 screen left to show it on properly? Not many.

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

Actually I saw a 70mm print of 2001 at the IMAX at the Navy Pier about seven years ago. It is true that you cannot fully appreciate this film until you've seen it presented this way.

I'd give a lot to see 2001 in 70mm. I saw Apocalypse Now in 70mm at an Imax theatre (Cinesphere, at Ontario Place, in Toronto), and I saw Branagh's Hamlet in 70mm at The York, which, depressingly, closed at the end of last year.

70mm presentation is eye-popping, even on The York's "smaller" screen.

 

[Michael*K]

OK, I'm psyched. I was too busy to see the movie this past weekend, but am very much looking forward to finally seeing this film given its proper due. I'm one of the many people that has only ever seen this film through a television screen and I expect to have a MUCH greater appreciation of it after seeing the 70mm print.

 

[RolandL]

How many cities still have a Cinerama or even Dimension 150 screen left to show it on properly? Not many.

The only Cinerama houses I know of are:

LA Cinerama Dome

Seattle Cinerama Theatre

Washington DC Uptown

Pictureville Cinema in Bradford, England

 

[Jack Briggs]

For a pretty decent HTF discussion about 2001, go here.
Watching this film is not a passive experience; the director engages the viewer, and if the viewer diverts his or her attention only slightly, he or she will be left behind. The film is demanding.

 

[TheoGB]

Cheers Jack, it's going to take me a while to digest this one!!!
*One long read later...*
Wow. Tell me something - if I add to that thread Jack linked does it stay in the archives? Do people read there? I have a feeling I'd best ask my question here:
How did Kubrick achieve the 360-degree stuff inside The Discovery and to a degree earlier with the air hostess delivering food? Is it just a rotating prop and does anyone know how hard it was to achieve.
Also, I concurr with whoever said the scale of the Discovery is wrong. The pod bay doors are too big compared to the set for the inside and there's no way the circumfrence of the inside of the sphere could be as large as it obviously is when we see right round it. IMO.

 

[TheoGB]

D'oh! Just realised that but editing the above post 12 hours later it didn't shunt it up the list where someone might notice!

Sorry - but a legitimate 'bounce' I hope...:b

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

Theo,
For the 360-degree shots in the Discovery and the Moon Shuttle, Kubrick had sets built which could rotate on their axis while keeping the camera in one place, creating the illusion you see. A similar technique was used in the famous dance number in Fred Astaire's THE ROYAL WEDDING.
Go to Patrick Larkin's (an HTF member): Kubrick Multimedia Film Guide and click on "The gigantic machine..." photo to see what the Discovery set looked like from the outside.

 

[TheoGB]

Cheers. That must have taken a LOT of work to sort out. It was the only way I could think they could do it but just seemed so unlikely!

 

[Michael*K]

Well, I'm very happy to have seen this on the big screen, even if I could have gotten two copies of the film on DVD for what it cost me to see this in the theater. Still, anyone with a chance to see the 70mm re-issue should definitely do so. If you've only seen this on video (like I did prior to today) then you really can't appreciate the sumptuous visuals. The scenery during The Dawn of Man in particular is a huge step up from the television images. The remastered soundtrack is great too. I picked up a lot of subtle sounds that I hadn't heard before. And the radio signal that the monolith sends out from the moon is ear-splitting, now befitting the scientists' reactions.
The only downers...the second reel of the film had scratch marks along both the right and left sides of the film. Also, the projectionist slacked off a bit and didn't have the final reel cued up. There was about a five second delay. Like someone earlier mentioned, I was also a little restless during the film. But that's because I'd forgotten that the seats in the Music Box were not built for comfort.
Oh yeah, I still don't get the ending. That's one thing that hasn't changed between the small and big screens.
One more thing...they were advertising an upcoming spanking new 70mm remaster of Patton, which makes me very . I think it's also going to be featured at Ebert's Overlooked FIlm Festival.

 

[Mark Pfeiffer]

One more thing...they were advertising an upcoming spanking new 70mm remaster of Patton, which makes me very . I think it's also going to be featured at Ebert's Overlooked FIlm Festival.

Yes it is. April 24th. Can't wait.

 

[MathewM]

But that's because I'd forgotten that the seats in the Music Box were not built for comfort.

Do they still have the furnace vents under all the seats? I remember seeing films there in the middle of the winter and coming out of the theater with my socks drenched with sweat, then walking 5 blocks to await the el in sub-freezing temperatures. Those were the days. As bad as that sounds the worse theater has to be the Davis (is it still open?) or the Lincoln I believe. Both are three screen theaters that were originally one big screen. The middle screen is fine, but the other two; you feel like a canned sardine. I did have some memorable film going experiences at these theaters though.

 

[Michael*K]

Do they still have the furnace vents under all the seats?

YES! And about 20 minutes into the film I started feeling like I actually was IN Africa! Not only that, the vents were under the seats right in front of me and I kept accidentally kicking the damn things.

 

[Jack Briggs]

As an aside, shall we start another thread devoted to explication about "the ending" of this film?

Everyone: If you have a chance to see this film in 70mm, take it. You will be treated to far greater resolution than is currently possible in home theater--until the film gets transferred to D-VHS D-Theater or whatever eventually assumes the form of high-def DVD.

For now, this is as good as it gets when it comes to the experience of viewing 2001: A Space Odyssey.