2001: A Space Odyssey Review
by Tim Wick
I recently read an article by Roger Ebert saying that you can never truly
appreciate 2001 until you have seen it in a theatre in 70mm. By sheer
coincidence, the Heights theatre decided to show a revival of that very film
- on 70mm - for two weeks. So I figured that I should give the movie
another try.
See, Ebert has written extensively about 2001. He thinks it is one of the
greatest movies ever made and frankly, I never understood why.
I do now.
I think I had seen the film about three times all the way through. I could
appreciate the artistry and even the historical significance of the film but
I can't honestly say that I ever actually liked it. It was long, often
boring and didn't seem to make a whole lot of sense.
Somehow, the film is transformed when it moves on to the large screen.
Don't just take my word for it. I saw the film with five other people -
four of whom had seen the film before. The five of us with prior knowledge
of the film were transfixed as if we had never seen it before. The sixth
couldn't understand why everyone was so hard on the movie.
What the big screen does to 2001 is hard to explain. I think that the most
important thing it does is give the audience a sense of extreme isolation
that is central to the film. The long, silent sequences in space just feel
long when viewed in your living room. In a theatre, you begin to feel as
alone as Frank Poole and Dave Bowman must feel.
The genius of the film is that Frank and Dave never tell us that they are
lonely. They don't have to because we feel it.
Kubrick seemed obsessed with exploration of the human condition. Just about
every one of his films seemed to be an allegory for the life cycle of
mankind. 2001 is a film that follows humans from the dawn of rational
thought to the point they have reached the pinnacle of what they are capable
of. Then it suggests that there is an evolutionary step beyond that point.
Much of the movie is not clear and that is intentional. Are we as a species
always aware of the steps we are taking through life? Do we know where we
are going next? Kubrick does not expect us to have all the answers and he
does not feel obligated to provide them. Much like last year's impressive
Mulholland Drive, 2001 is a film to be puzzled over but you can't expect
anyone to hand you the solution.
I was taken by the fact that the special effects have lost little of their
effect over time. While they are certainly somewhat dated, I never found
myself distracted by "old" special effects. Kubrick took great pains to
ensure he was presenting a future that was plausible. That his future never
came to pass is more likely a function of politics that technological
limitations.
The film is a journey of the mind and a mind occupied by the phone, the
dishwasher and whatever else will most certainly be unable to completely
process the film. Perhaps it is the fact that when in a theatre we have no
choice but to engage ourselves in the film.
The isolation, the freedom from distraction - certainly these are reasons
the film plays better on the big screen but I can't believe they are all
that there is. The remainder, I expect, is simply the directors intent. I
don't think Kubrick expected the film to be shown on a TV screen and it
simply doesn't live there. Like the void of space itself, this movie is too
big to fit in someone's living room.
Quite simply, 2001 is a masterwork by a master director. I never thought it
was until today. Now I can appreciate that I have experienced a great work
of art as the artist wanted me to see it.
As I write this, the film will be showing at the Heights for another week
(until the 9th of May, 2002). Until you have seen this film on the big
screen,, you have never seen it at all.
|
