The Criterion Collection

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

On request, I'm double-posting my review from the movie thread. It was a joy to watch this film on Blu-ray at long last.

[Show spoiler]
My first exposure to 2001: A Space Odyssey was through the Arthur C. Clarke novel, which was written as Clarke completed the screenplay with director Stanley Kubrick. In retrospect, I probably did myself a disservice by reading the novel during childhood shortly before I saw the movie on television. Kubrick's film eschews traditional narrative styles to present us with a work of art that functions more as a symphony and a celebration of visual wonder than as a typical plot-driven movie, whereas the Clarke novel offers more concise explanations of phenomena that Kubrick purposely left to our imagination. I have not revisited the novel for a couple of decades, and, with each subsequent viewing of 2001: A Space Odyssey, I am compelled to forget that I ever read the novel so that I can simply appreciate the film on its own majestically vague terms.

During my latest viewing of 2001: A Space Odyssey, as I watched the film on Blu-ray for the first time this evening, I pondered the propensity of human nature to seek and explore, regardless of consequences, but also thought about the age-old description of human life as "once a man, twice a child." Astronaut Bowman's quest for understanding reflects a desire to which any viewer can relate, while the outcome of his quest could very well symbolize our own aging process and the maturity that comes with the realization that we will never truly understand everything around us during our mortal lives. The film's final sequences, which I will not discuss in detail here, are wondrous, but also eerie with their images that reflect aging and, quite possibly, a death of sorts that leads to an afterlife where the being finally achieves transcendence. One could interpret the ending in a Biblical way, where a being experiences a rebirth into an afterlife, but this is only one of countless interpretations that each attentive viewer will kick back and forth in his or her mind like pinballs in a game. Regardless of how one's thought processes grasp the visual splendor of this film, my advice to first-time viewers is simply to watch the events unfold without trying to piece loose ends together.

In technical terms, 2001: A Space Odyssey is a marvel. I am inclined to agree with filmmakers who exalt this film as the pinnacle of practical special effects. This is a film designed by engineers to reflect a convincing vision of life in outer space, and its sequences predicted details of our first lunar landing with surprising accuracy. My personal favorite Stanley Kubrick movie is The Shining, but 2001: A Space Odyssey was an earlier demonstration of Kubrick's ability to create unease through bright light rather than with darkness. Kubrick's uncannily clinical brand of storytelling can turn off many viewers, but his style is brilliantly suited to this particular tale.

This 2007 Blu-ray stands shoulder-to-shoulder with many present-day releases in the format, and I personally believe that the glowing reviews of the presentation from that year of release are still helpful to prospective buyers today. I am curious to see what a more thorough restoration of this film would yield in the Blu-ray format, but I am also stunned at how much better this existing Blu-ray looks than any other home presentation that I have seen of the film. As is, it's a beautiful high definition transfer of a beautiful movie. The audio presentation shines in this film that depends heavily on an orchestral score. A myriad of interesting special features, many of which I have not yet gone through, shed light on the movie without doing any mental heavy lifting. When it comes to interpreting this particular wonder, you're on your own, and that's the most enjoyable aspect of this presentation.

Thanks for the write-up Owl, you deftly touch on the reasons why, primarily, 2001 is just an electric experience from beginning to end. It's evident that the film does inspire your imagination as you mention what a pleasure it is to witness both the "Bowman resolution" and the technical mastery on display.

Yes, I too love that the models have a realistic sheen to them in the way the light touches them, all without ever appearing too fakey (as much as I love Robinson Crusoe on Mars, the effects, here, are light years better). Are you a fan of Trumbull's other work, like Silent Running (I know you love his work for Malick)?

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

Thanks for the write-up Owl, you deftly touch on the reasons why, primarily, 2001 is just an electric experience from beginning to end. It's evident that the film does inspire your imagination as you mention what a pleasure it is to witness both the "Bowman resolution" and the technical mastery on display.

Yes, I too love that the models have a realistic sheen to them in the way the light touches them, all without ever appearing too fakey (as much as I love Robinson Crusoe on Mars, the effects, here, are light years better). Are you a fan of Trumbull's other work, like Silent Running (I know you love his work for Malick)?

Funnily enough, I've never seen Silent Running, although I've always wanted to. It's been readily available on DVD for ages, but I've always had something else in mind when it comes to purchasing movies. I do love the other films where Trumbull made visual contributions, namely The Andromeda Strain, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Blade Runner and The Tree of Life.

2001: A Space Odyssey still astounds me in terms of its visual presentation, and I say this being a huge fan of 1950s and early 1960s sci-fi. I hold my Forbidden Planet Blu-ray in high esteem, for example.

It occurs to me that Things to Come, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Tarkovsky's Solaris, and, perhaps, Blade Runner are true science fiction films, whereas most other such films in my collection are "sci-fi." There's definitely a difference.

I'm thinking that I might watch 2001: A Space Odyssey a few more times this week, just to live with the movie for a while.

[lordmorpheus72]

Originally Posted by jw007

I just created a new membership at B&N, so I look forward to receiving fresh new coupons in time for the November mega-sale (coinciding with Black Friday and the holiday Christmas sales). Bring on the savings!

I got mine last week but they end at the beginning of October, so I can't wait until the November sale. oh well, I'll still use as I can to save some $$$$

[blkhrt]

Originally Posted by lordmorpheus72

I got mine last week but they end at the beginning of October, so I can't wait until the November sale. oh well, I'll still use as I can to save some $$$$

Don't worry, there will be new coupons available for the November sale, so you will be able to use them then.

[shadedpain4]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

It occurred to me last night that 2001: A Space Odyssey is a testament to all that has been lost since filmmakers started relying on computer effects for such films. There's a scene where a lunar craft is landing and kicking up dust around the lights of the landing area. The scene is so uncannily authentic in a way that CGI films cannot touch.

.

That's a peculiar scene to highlight considering it's one of the most glaring inaccuracies in the film, scientifically speaking.

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by shadedpain4

That's a peculiar scene to highlight considering it's one of the most glaring inaccuracies in the film, scientifically speaking.

True that, in scientific terms. Kubrick couldn't win them all. Visually, though, it's an incredibly tangible scene that no computer-generated effects can match.

It's just a cool-looking shot that easily comes to mind, especially after the Blu-ray viewing, and, despite the fact that dust would not billow like that, the scene does enforce the illusion of reality in a rather effective way.

For the most part, the film does a nice job of depicting life in space. The emergency airlock explosion was masterful with its absence of sound effects.

[lordmorpheus72]

Originally Posted by blkhrt

Don't worry, there will be new coupons available for the November sale, so you will be able to use them then.

Thanks for the heads up, I'll keep an eye out. I figured there would be, but nice to have confirmation.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

Funnily enough, I've never seen Silent Running, although I've always wanted to. It's been readily available on DVD for ages, but I've always had something else in mind when it comes to purchasing movies. I do love the other films where Trumbull made visual contributions, namely The Andromeda Strain, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Blade Runner and The Tree of Life.

2001: A Space Odyssey still astounds me in terms of its visual presentation, and I say this being a huge fan of 1950s and early 1960s sci-fi. I hold my Forbidden Planet Blu-ray in high esteem, for example.

It occurs to me that Things to Come, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Tarkovsky's Solaris, and, perhaps, Blade Runner are true science fiction films, whereas most other such films in my collection are "sci-fi." There's definitely a difference.

I'm thinking that I might watch 2001: A Space Odyssey a few more times this week, just to live with the movie for a while.

I will have to check out 'The Andromeda Strain'.

I totally agree about thise being prime example of true sci-fi. It's unfortunate that the genre has become synonymous with action and spectacle. I envy that you'll be in its company for the week

Speaking of Sci-Fi, I wrote an appreciation for 'Gamer' just now. Talk about going from high to low

[hoytereden]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

True that, in scientific terms. Kubrick couldn't win them all. Visually, though, it's an incredibly tangible scene that no computer-generated effects can match.

It's just a cool-looking shot that easily comes to mind, especially after the Blu-ray viewing, and, despite the fact that dust would not billow like that, the scene does enforce the illusion of reality in a rather effective way.

For the most part, the film does a nice job of depicting life in space. The emergency airlock explosion was masterful with its absence of sound effects.

During the Apollo 11 landing, the audio transmission from Buzz Aldrin says "picking up some dust."

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

I totally agree about thise being prime example of true sci-fi. It's unfortunate that the genre has become synonymous with action and spectacle. I envy that you'll be in its company for the week

Most of the Blu-rays in my collection that are classified "sci-fi" by this site are actually "space opera" movies.
I cannot help myself, though. I have a huge crush on Princess Aura in Flash Gordon (1980).

During my senior year of college in 1995, I took a course, History of Science Fiction in Literature, where the professor occasionally harped on the differences between science fiction, "sci-fi", and "space opera." One of the students asked the professor what he thought of the Star Wars movies, and he went into a tirade about annoying droids, about spaceships not being able to perform WWII maneuvers in a zero gravity vacuum, and about the general worthlessness of the whole affair. He then looked over all of the dejected faces in the classroom, and said, "I'm sorry that I insulted your religion."

What did this professor think of 2001: A Space Odyssey? He believed that it was an outstanding movie, but he also made a point of saying, "Nobody knows what the hell happens during the last half hour of this movie. Even the people who made the movie don't know what the hell happens during the last half hour."

[SammyJankis]

Popped in Stalker to watch it for the second time (saw it years ago) and then, after watching what had to be five seconds of it, decided to just do what I've been planning on doing: wait for the Blu.

Really hope it gets the transfer it deserves.

[jw007]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

I realized last night that it's been too long since I last saw 2001: A Space Odyssey. I used to own the film on VHS, but I honestly cannot remember whether or not I ever owned it on DVD. (That's probably a bad sign that I bought entirely too many DVDs and sold too many DVDs back in the day.) At any rate, it's probably been a decade since I last sat down to watch the movie from beginning to end by myself at home with no distractions. That's how this Kubrick film should be viewed.

I'm hard-pressed to imagine how the film could be viewed as boring, because I am still blown away by each and every scene. The attention to detail shown by Kubrick's camera eye is just phenomenal.

It occurred to me last night that 2001: A Space Odyssey is a testament to all that has been lost since filmmakers started relying on computer effects for such films. There's a scene where a lunar craft is landing and kicking up dust around the lights of the landing area. The scene is so uncannily authentic in a way that CGI films cannot touch.

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

Funnily enough, I've never seen Silent Running, although I've always wanted to. It's been readily available on DVD for ages, but I've always had something else in mind when it comes to purchasing movies. I do love the other films where Trumbull made visual contributions, namely The Andromeda Strain, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Blade Runner and The Tree of Life.

2001: A Space Odyssey still astounds me in terms of its visual presentation, and I say this being a huge fan of 1950s and early 1960s sci-fi. I hold my Forbidden Planet Blu-ray in high esteem, for example.

It occurs to me that Things to Come, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Tarkovsky's Solaris, and, perhaps, Blade Runner are true science fiction films, whereas most other such films in my collection are "sci-fi." There's definitely a difference.

I'm thinking that I might watch 2001: A Space Odyssey a few more times this week, just to live with the movie for a while.

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

Most of the Blu-rays in my collection that are classified "sci-fi" by this site are actually "space opera" movies.
I cannot help myself, though. I have a huge crush on Princess Aura in Flash Gordon (1980).

During my senior year of college in 1995, I took a course, History of Science Fiction in Literature, where the professor occasionally harped on the differences between science fiction, "sci-fi", and "space opera." One of the students asked the professor what he thought of the Star Wars movies, and he went into a tirade about annoying droids, about spaceships not being able to perform WWII maneuvers in a zero gravity vacuum, and about the general worthlessness of the whole affair. He then looked over all of the dejected faces in the classroom, and said, "I'm sorry that I insulted your religion."

What did this professor think of 2001: A Space Odyssey? He believed that it was an outstanding movie, but he also made a point of saying, "Nobody knows what the hell happens during the last half hour of this movie. Even the people who made the movie don't know what the hell happens during the last half hour."

On your first part, regarding using real models over CGI, I completely agree with you. I think after the 1980s, sci-fi films lost a lot of authenticity when they started using digital spaceships instead of real models. I think a great example of the difference is in Star Trek in fact. Though Star Trek is not considered "science fiction" to many, but more or less a "space opera" or "space western", when the real model of the Enterprise was used up until Star Trek: Insurrection (1998), I felt more of an authenticity. Oddly enough, the very first instance of CGI in all of cinema was in the great film Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982), during a sequence called the "Genesis effect". Getting back to 2001 again, the sheer palpability is there in the models (Discovery 1, Moonbus, Aries IB, Space Station 5, Orion III, pods, etc.), where you feel like you can reach out and touch them. They are real. Though miniature, they exist in real life, as opposed to a digital creation created in a computer. 2001 seizes the belief in "less is more", as in, we don't need jolting explosions every few minutes (such as in J.J. Abrams' "Trek") or spaceship wars and fights and all sorts of destruction seen in today's sci fi, in order to captivate the viewer. 2001: A Space Odyssey shows absolutely no destruction at all, whether it is in the spaceships or the people or creatures on screen. This is the beauty of 2001, as death is left to the imagination and not shown (with the exception of the first part of the film with the apes - but this is part of the evolution). 2001 is a science fiction movie that goes beyond the human condition (as seen in Star Trek) and into the heart of all mysteries of the universe: life and evolution itself.

I have to recommend you see Silent Running (1972). It's interesting to see Douglas Trumbull's work right after he collaborated with Kubrick on 2001. The story is a bit silly but it also is a bit ahead of its time, especially being that there were droids that resembled ones in Star Wars such as R2D2. Furthermore, I love the whole "hippie" or nature message that is the subtext in the film, of how important it is to save the forests and plants and trees from industry. It's more vital than ever today as landscapes are seemingly melting away with new commercial development drilling and excavating everywhere, creating toxic pollution and artifice in its wake. Bruce Dern's character is also absolutely mad/bonkers in that film!

Finally, your professor was correct in that nobody, including the filmmakers and writers, knows what the hell happens in the last half hour of 2001. I wonder if Arthur C. Clarke even knew.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

Most of the Blu-rays in my collection that are classified "sci-fi" by this site are actually "space opera" movies.
I cannot help myself, though. I have a huge crush on Princess Aura in Flash Gordon (1980).

During my senior year of college in 1995, I took a course, History of Science Fiction in Literature, where the professor occasionally harped on the differences between science fiction, "sci-fi", and "space opera." One of the students asked the professor what he thought of the Star Wars movies, and he went into a tirade about annoying droids, about spaceships not being able to perform WWII maneuvers in a zero gravity vacuum, and about the general worthlessness of the whole affair. He then looked over all of the dejected faces in the classroom, and said, "I'm sorry that I insulted your religion."

What did this professor think of 2001: A Space Odyssey? He believed that it was an outstanding movie, but he also made a point of saying, "Nobody knows what the hell happens during the last half hour of this movie. Even the people who made the movie don't know what the hell happens during the last half hour."

To be fair, if I was teaching science fiction literature, I would have said something similar. After all, the genre is for dreamers, people who dare to speculate about what makes us human and where we are going as a species. Star Wars doesn't really do either. It's thrilling to boot, but it's story could have been transposed to a Western/Samurai setting and no one would have been the wiser.

Crazy thought: I think the prequels have more in the way of science fiction concepts.

Owl, I just want to say this: I really appreciate that you post cool new content daily. Your enthusiasm for film saturates all your posts, with the latest being your dream team combination. Best post in that thread, mate.

Have you ever considered opening a Blogspot for your reviews?

[thebard]

Originally Posted by jw007

Oddly enough, the very first instance of CGI in all of cinema was in the great film Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982), during a sequence called the "Genesis effect".

<nitpick>

Technically, a wireframe model of a hand was used in 1976's Futureworld.
... But we'll give Khan the first "textured" cgi!

</nitpick>

Carry on!

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

To be fair, if I was teaching science fiction literature, I would have said something similar. After all, the genre is for dreamers, people who dare to speculate about what makes us human and where we are going as a species. Star Wars doesn't really do either. It's thrilling to boot, but it's story could have been transposed to a Western/Samurai setting and no one would have been the wiser.

Crazy thought: I think the prequels have more in the way of science fiction concepts.

Owl, I just want to say this: I really appreciate that you post cool new content daily. Your enthusiasm for film saturates all your posts, with the latest being your dream team combination. Best post in that thread, mate.

Have you ever considered opening a Blogspot for your reviews?

Agreed 100% about transposing Star Wars onto other genres. It's essentially an outer space Western.

Thanks for the kind words! I was having a bit of fun in the dream team thread, but then sat back and thought, "That actually would be a cool movie!"

I've thought about starting a movie review blog. I've done the blog thing before, and know from experience that content would be sporadic, because I don't like for fun movie discussion to seem like a job. It would be a good endeavor from time to time, as long as I bring something new to the table.

That said, I've become a lot more involved in this here website than I meant to be when I joined last year, and my participation will probably wane somewhat during the fall season as I spend more time outdoors. This is a good place to be, though.

[thebard]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

That said, I've become a lot more involved in this here website than I meant to be when I joined last year, and my participation will probably wane somewhat during the fall season as I spend more time outdoors. This is a good place to be, though.

Outdoors... Out... Doors...?
What is this place you speak of?

Oh... you mean that bright place I see in a lot of films?

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by thebard

Outdoors... Out... Doors...?
What is this place you speak of?

Oh... you mean that bright place I see in a lot of films?

Ain't that the truth? Haha. Almost like Brad Pitt's character in Interview with a Vampire, when his only exposure to sunlight is through watching movies at the theater.

I normally spend a lot of time outside running during my spare time, but I've been derailed by a heel injury over the past several months that has cut my mileage quite a bit. When I get 100% again, my online life will be split in half, so I'll just have to make my posts count.

[Dumbhuman]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

I'm hard-pressed to imagine how the film could be viewed as boring, because I am still blown away by each and every scene. The attention to detail shown by Kubrick's camera eye is just phenomenal.

You really can't see how people would find it boring? I find that a little hard to believe. Don't get me wrong, I like the film, but I can easily understand why many people would lose patience with it. It mostly boils down to the film lingering in places to build atmosphere rather than advance the narrative. At those points, one's perception of the film is going to come down to a matter of personal aesthetics, meaning that if you happen to find those shots beautiful on your own terms then you will be quite content but otherwise you could quite easily become bored and impatient. It's the difference between thinking, "Wow! I'm in space and this is amazing!" and thinking "I get it. Space. Get on with it." When you consider younger audiences in particular, the little kid wonder response to space travel is going to be much less likely to overpower their desire to be force fed a steady diet of jump cuts full of new visual information.

You could probably cut the narrative down to be an interesting Twilight Zone episode without losing any of the essential story. You'd lose a lot of monkeys sitting around, stewardesses walking carefully, and space craft very very slowly making their way towards their objective. As it stands though, most people dislike ambiguous endings enough without being made to sit through quite so much "filler" just to get to that point.

Keep in mind, that's all devil's advocate, really. I do enjoy 2001, but it's not something I readily recommend to all viewers precisely for the reasons stated above. Everyone has their own tastes. I mean, somewhere out there I'm sure there's someone who's really hoping that Criterion releases a Blu-ray of The Brown Bunny.

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by Dumbhuman

You really can't see how people would find it boring? I find that a little hard to believe. Don't get me wrong, I like the film, but I can easily understand why many people would lose patience with it. It mostly boils down to the film lingering in places to build atmosphere rather than advance the narrative. At those points, one's perception of the film is going to come down to a matter of personal aesthetics, meaning that if you happen to find those shots beautiful on your own terms then you will be quite content but otherwise you could quite easily become bored and impatient. It's the difference between thinking, "Wow! I'm in space and this is amazing!" and thinking "I get it. Space. Get on with it." When you consider younger audiences in particular, the little kid wonder response to space travel is going to be much less likely to overpower their desire to be force fed a steady diet of jump cuts full of new visual information.

You could probably cut the narrative down to be an interesting Twilight Zone episode without losing any of the essential story. You'd lose a lot of monkeys sitting around, stewardesses walking carefully, and space craft very very slowly making their way towards their objective. As it stands though, most people dislike ambiguous endings enough without being made to sit through quite so much "filler" just to get to that point.

Keep in mind, that's all devil's advocate, really. I do enjoy 2001, but it's not something I readily recommend to all viewers precisely for the reasons stated above. Everyone has their own tastes. I mean, somewhere out there I'm sure there's someone who's really hoping that Criterion releases a Blu-ray of The Brown Bunny.

I get what you're saying. Kubrick's pacing is deliberately skewed, though, just as it is in The Shining. I think that the film would lose something if condensed, because those long stretches of prehistoric man and of space travel contribute to the actual feel of being in those scenarios. It's a clinical approach, but it suits the film.

The original 1979 theatrical version of Ridley Scott's Alien had a similar luxurious pacing that was heavily influenced by Kubrick's style in 2001: A Space Odyssey. That slow pacing worked wonders when it came to generating a buildup of terror in Alien.
Ridley Scott's subsequent "Director's Cut" of Alien, where he trimmed a lot of the long camera takes in the Nostromo early in the movie, really diminished the effectiveness of the film for me. It was like an attention-deficit-disorder version of the story. On my Blu-ray, I always go with the original theatrical version, and I never bother to revisit the Director's Cut.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

During my senior year of college in 1995, I took a course, History of Science Fiction in Literature, where the professor occasionally harped on the differences between science fiction, "sci-fi", and "space opera." One of the students asked the professor what he thought of the Star Wars movies, and he went into a tirade about annoying droids, about spaceships not being able to perform WWII maneuvers in a zero gravity vacuum, and about the general worthlessness of the whole affair. He then looked over all of the dejected faces in the classroom, and said, "I'm sorry that I insulted your religion."

What did this professor think of 2001: A Space Odyssey? He believed that it was an outstanding movie, but he also made a point of saying, "Nobody knows what the hell happens during the last half hour of this movie. Even the people who made the movie don't know what the hell happens during the last half hour."

It's all a matter of perspective.

At the World SF Convention in 1977, there was a panel on SF movies. One of the panelists was Jack Williamson, one of the premier authors (along with E.E. "Doc" Smith" and Edmond Hamilton) of space opera, as well as the first SF writer to write about anti-matter (in the 1940s, with his novels Seetee Ship and Seetee Shock). His career as an SF author started in the 1920s.

Of course, Star Wars came up, and Williamson said, "Star Wars is exactly the kind of science fiction I've been reading and writing for the last 50 years."

Distinctions between "science fiction, sci-fi, and space opera" is a relatively recent concept, partly due to movies like Star Wars. But back in the day, fans tended not to care. It was science fiction or it wasn't.

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

To be fair, if I was teaching science fiction literature, I would have said something similar. After all, the genre is for dreamers, people who dare to speculate about what makes us human and where we are going as a species. Star Wars doesn't really do either. It's thrilling to boot, but it's story could have been transposed to a Western/Samurai setting and no one would have been the wiser.

Interesting choice of analogy. Would you also say that Seven Samurai wasn't really a Samurai film, because it "could have been transposed to a Western setting and no one would have been the wiser"?