Arthur C Clarke once famously claimed, 'if you understood 2001 completely, we failed. We wanted to raise far more questions than we answered." When Stanley Kubrick decided to make a science fiction he picked up a short story, The Sentinel, by Clarke to serve as the skeletal outline for 2001: A Space Odyssey. Kubrick wrote the screenplay in tandem with Clarke while the author penned a novel based on the screenplay.
I first saw 2001 in 2000. I was blown by the sheer genius that went into the making of the film. I revisited the film some three years ago and the dawn of man sequence gave me goosebumps all over again. The second time the film felt a tad slow and the acting wasn't too great. When I saw 2001: A Space Odyssey some time I realized that barring the Dawn of Man and HAL everything else in the film is a space filler. Agreed that when the film came out in the 1960's it must have take people some time to realize that they just witnessed one of the greatest films ever made. Now when I see the film i wonder what the hell was Kubrick thinking while shooting the long, seemingly never-ending sequences in which nothing happens besides futuristic space ships flying across the skies!
Even by the most conservative standards the long drawn scenes manage to convey a sense of loneliness and despair but there is hardly any drama in them anymore. I couldn't take my eyes off when Dave tries to manually dock his ship as HAL is pissed off with him and he has to let go off his partner but everything else seems a little boring and might slow now. The entire Stargate and Juipterscape sequences are no match for simple conversations between the humans and HAL. I wonder if Kubrick knew that HAL would become such a great character; would he have increased HAl's presence in the film in any case? Was it intentional that in order to have the desired impact Kubrick decided to rely on shots that would completely catch the audience off guard rather than a more conventional approach? Sure enough the laborious
shots of a space ships, space travellers, futuristic telephone and cuisine, computers and what have you would make people sit up and it has the same effect, though in varying degree, even after 40 years; but I couldn't help but wonder...
2001: A Space Odyssey sure left an impression on future filmmakers who attempted science fiction. To me the basic plot of Solaris seems to be inspired by an exchange of dialogue between Floyd and the people he meets at the moon station. The excellent human-machine interaction of HAL and Dave could be the very element that subsequent science fiction films seem to have taken a shine to. The basic essence of Bladerunner and Minority Report have a greater human-machine interaction than effects and glitz.
Every time I see the film I find something new to look at. This time it was the sheer icy approach of HAL and Dave's unwillingness to give up. Though the end still seems very vague to me. Does it have something to do with the notion that most Arthur C. Clarke stories have great premises but the ending usually peters out? MAybe but if I had understood then both Kubrick and Clarke would have failed. Am not sure about Clarke but Stanley Kubrick sure as hell doesn't fail!
Check out www.kubrick2001.com in order to understand the cult to some extent.
I first saw 2001 in 2000. I was blown by the sheer genius that went into the making of the film. I revisited the film some three years ago and the dawn of man sequence gave me goosebumps all over again. The second time the film felt a tad slow and the acting wasn't too great. When I saw 2001: A Space Odyssey some time I realized that barring the Dawn of Man and HAL everything else in the film is a space filler. Agreed that when the film came out in the 1960's it must have take people some time to realize that they just witnessed one of the greatest films ever made. Now when I see the film i wonder what the hell was Kubrick thinking while shooting the long, seemingly never-ending sequences in which nothing happens besides futuristic space ships flying across the skies!
Even by the most conservative standards the long drawn scenes manage to convey a sense of loneliness and despair but there is hardly any drama in them anymore. I couldn't take my eyes off when Dave tries to manually dock his ship as HAL is pissed off with him and he has to let go off his partner but everything else seems a little boring and might slow now. The entire Stargate and Juipterscape sequences are no match for simple conversations between the humans and HAL. I wonder if Kubrick knew that HAL would become such a great character; would he have increased HAl's presence in the film in any case? Was it intentional that in order to have the desired impact Kubrick decided to rely on shots that would completely catch the audience off guard rather than a more conventional approach? Sure enough the laborious
shots of a space ships, space travellers, futuristic telephone and cuisine, computers and what have you would make people sit up and it has the same effect, though in varying degree, even after 40 years; but I couldn't help but wonder...2001: A Space Odyssey sure left an impression on future filmmakers who attempted science fiction. To me the basic plot of Solaris seems to be inspired by an exchange of dialogue between Floyd and the people he meets at the moon station. The excellent human-machine interaction of HAL and Dave could be the very element that subsequent science fiction films seem to have taken a shine to. The basic essence of Bladerunner and Minority Report have a greater human-machine interaction than effects and glitz.
Every time I see the film I find something new to look at. This time it was the sheer icy approach of HAL and Dave's unwillingness to give up. Though the end still seems very vague to me. Does it have something to do with the notion that most Arthur C. Clarke stories have great premises but the ending usually peters out? MAybe but if I had understood then both Kubrick and Clarke would have failed. Am not sure about Clarke but Stanley Kubrick sure as hell doesn't fail!
Check out www.kubrick2001.com in order to understand the cult to some extent.
0 comments:
Post a Comment