One of my friends in high school was fond of Dune and 2001...a Space Odyssey. I watched both films and read both books as well. Dune made a bigger impression on me, as i hardly recall the 2001 novel and never got around to reading the third book in the series. The first Dune film, on the other hand, was more memorable, and not as true to its novel as i would have liked. With that series of novels...they were a little too politically and religiously involved, even for me. I might be able to enjoy more of it now.
2001, on the other hand...the film has made absolutely no sense to me any of the times i've watched it. What plot i was able to work out was only through other people telling me about it. It isn't relayed through the film itself. Last January we discussed part of the film in my World's Greatest Films class...and the information that the professor relayed to set up the scene is not in the actual film at all. He claimed that the satellites in Earth's orbit carry nuclear weapons (Earth still being in the midst of the Cold War, apparently). It's apparently alluded to in the commentary and interviews, etc., and was originally part of the story, but if you read the Wikipedia page then it's obvious that this information was abandoned. If all you have to go off of is the film itself then such a context never even enters your mind. This is because when the film went to the cinema it had been expunged of all references to nuclear weapons. The original ending, you see, was for the so-called Star Child to make all the nukes detonate. This, i have only learned because of Wikipedia. I'm not taking the time to watch the film again with commentary. While this is purportedly in the novel (i don't remember), this information is not in the film, and Clark and Kubrick seem clear than the two stories are not meant to be identical.
But i did watch the film again last night. I wanted to see it again post WGF Clockwork Orange viewing and since it was referenced on Stargate Universe (which i finally finished watching a couple of nights ago). The biggest thing i noticed was that Alan Tudyk as Sonny in I Robot sounded a lot like HAL. The other thing that i confirmed is that the film lacks a coherent objective, plot, or message. Some people (a couple of my professors, for instance) think that this is an okay thing for a film--or even a novel--to do. I do not agree. Many people seem to go for this kind of art, and accuse those of us who don't to be afraid or dumb or something or other. Personally, i just don't think that something can be considered art unless it is expressive and communicates something. There are lots of pretty paintings out there that are nothing more than blobs of color, sculptures that are nothing but a cacophony of shapes. But without a certain framework, then the artist is just being lazy. That's my feeling about it anyway, it might not be rational, but there it is. Which isn't to say that if i look at an abstract i'm guaranteed to get nothing out of it.
But with film, in particular, i think that it is important for a screenwriter and director to actually do their jobs and not only provide a story but effectively portray and communicate what it is to the audience. Now, the argument with 2001 is that Kubrick was being vague, surreal, realistic, and even that it is impossible to communicate a plot when there is limited dialogue. This last point is ridiculous. I grew up being familiar with several of the Chaplin films which do communicate a plot with minimal textual and no verbal information. I have also watched foreign films, anime, and other silent films that are perfectly able to communicate a message through music, movement, color, etc. I can understand the plot points, if not the details, even without subtitles. I am forced to conclude that Kubrick was either being lazy or thumbing his nose at us.
If i were watching the film with no outside source information from a novel, reviews, or research...i would be forced to conclude that i had watched a horrific film where the computers that are designed to protect us instead murder us and that the alien beings who created and guided our evolution are just as ill-intentioned. However, the final part of the film, that of the Star Child...makes no sense whatsoever. I have no idea why Bowman found the trip to be so horrific and his becoming a huge baby that appears to still be in the womb...only there is no womb and he has no mother...but can exist in space?!? Pure fantasy, impossible, we might as well be tripping or hallucinating.
Technically, the cinematography is menacing as well as beautiful. The music reinforces this. The models and science seem to be accurate but it is all stilted and the presentation bores one almost to tears. In the real year 2001 and 2011 we all use technology and are excited about it (even some of us in Third World countries). In this film the technology seems tedious on one hand, far beyond what we have been able to yet achieve on the other. I am forced to conclude that Kubrick meant to bore us and scare us at the same time. The three tools do not work with each other, in fact their messages are conflicting and cause yet more confusion.
Now i realize that this film was considered to be a landmark achievement and made tons of money. And i know that some people see Kubrick as god. But i really don't get it. After watching all of the Lord of the Rings special features again, and then watching this again, i really do not have a high opinion of Kubrick at all. He did not successfully communicate with the viewer, he did not do his job. To sum up, he failed on an epic scale and was teaching us what worked and what doesn't. I love science fiction, and he turns me off. There is so much potential here but it's all muddled, it's painful for me to watch or even think about. I find 2010 to be so much more enjoyable and the changes, really, are very slight. In retrospect i think that one of the things that is hardest to overcome in this film is how very flat the characters are. We know next-to-nothing about them and do not care whether they live or die. Which is probably what made me think of LotR, besides those films being epic is how very much that is communicated without words. Most of all, you can understand and enjoy the plot without reading the novel, but then, why would you want to? The LotR films point to Tolkien as their source material. 2001...it's just as much fantasy, but not nearly as believable or enjoyable.
No comments:
Post a Comment