2001: A Space Odyssey Film Review

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

This film is considered a classic of film writing, with instantly identifiable cinematography associated with the director’s artistic visual library. Stanley Kubrick is a director with a very stylised standing on screenwriting perspectives, including analysis of form which plays a big part in most of his films to the point of people dedicating their times to theorising about his films ad nauseam (1). Many people or film critics would criticise his movies for catering to the hippy or drug –taking demographics, due to psychedelic scenes in the film that provoked the usage of LSD, however, the director had said he disagreed with drug usage since it would’ve affected his work negatively. 'No. I believe that drugs are basically of more use to the audience than to the artist. I think that the illusion of oneness with the universe, and absorption with the significance of every object in your environment, and the pervasive aura of peace and contentment is not the ideal state for an artist. It tranquilizes the creative personality, which thrives on conflict and on the clash and ferment of ideas.' (2).  This movie was one of the first of a long line of sci – fi based movies during the 1950s to 70s after its release, inspiring such films as Alien (1979), Planet of the Apes (1968) and of course, Star Wars (1977).

This film has merit for a number of reasons, one because of the heavy symbolism and metaphor. For example the monolith the is a recurring element throughout the film could be considered as some kind of beginning and end sort of object. Hal, the on-board ship computer, appears very similar to the monolith in appearance which may be a indication of its personality and motives. On that it bring us to the next point, something else that may make the movie more appealing to some people would be the degree of theorising about what actually happens in that film. It is almost a talking point in itself if the other recipients have had the patience to sit through the entire marathon film. Even if they didn’t maybe it would be nice to watch the movie in the background, so they could be entertained by the masterful visual aspects that make everything so much easier to view. Despite it not having a thriller genre it definitely generates a very thick atmosphere, absorbing the audience into its own universe using a combination of aesthetics, even though it uses a generic soundtrack it still hold a great sense of meaningfulness. Kubrick had a soundtrack made for this film, but didn't use it because by the time it was finished a lot of the scenes were perfectly choreographed to the musical score.

On that note I will link back to the running time of the film, which to be exact is two hours, twenty eight minutes and fifty four seconds if you include the introduction screens and credits. This can be very hard to sit through especially the scenes when the characters are talking, which I looked up for the sake of clarity as well as analysis. The formic quality of the dialogue is directly known as a sort of naturalism (4) which in more modern eyes is seen more of a sin than it was, since for the sake of clarity in movies and theatrical presentation, it simply doesn’t get to the point. In short, it doesn’t trim the fat or cut to the point, a perfect flesh out for a movie, but hardly a tool to keep people glued to the screen in classic Hollywood fashion. It would be unfair to go as far to say the movie has aged, however since the visual aspects and philosophy completely makes up for it. The plot is extremely convoluted and not directly explained, giving the viewer the opportunity to fill in the gaps themselves, which may not be completely suitable for all members of an audience. Some people may even find it to be an anti-climax to the long movie, a movie with no thrill and no interest. That is exactly the reason the G rating on this film may be unsuitable; it is a movie with a lot of adult themes that are not immediately apparent, nowadays, the film would be more likely to receive a pg-13 for unsettling content.(5)

In conclusion, 2001: A Space Odyssey is a great film for analysis, not only does it stand up in its own rights,  it also provides a basis or other sci-fi films created post production, which have the tendency to share a lot of characteristics with this production's design. No wonder it became a classic with the icons and scenes providing a perfectly constructed visual library for years afterwards, it stands as some kind of monument to film making of that period with its naturalistic properties, unique screenwriting and definitive shots. As a result of all that it has become very reflective of its period, including the worse parts. In more recent times Hollywood styled movies have become more clarified than they were in order to attract bigger audiences, but during the early seventies people had different preferences in terms of content. The content has kind of evolved with people over time, but bear in mind this can only apply to the general public, this movie is still a massive inspiration of even movie directors today since it has set such a guideline for the state of sci-fi. If you are a true sci-fi fan it is absolutely necessary to have watched this at least once.

Bibliography

(1)    Adams S (2014) Indie Wire http://www.indiewire.com/2014/11/why-stephen-king-is-utterly-wrong-about-room-237-125518/ 13/10/16

(2)     (Agel, The Making of Kubrick's 2001, 1970, excerpted from the Playboy interview, p. 346)

(3)    http://www.centennialofflight.net/essay/Social/2001/SH8.htm

(4)    Akers W (2011) Your Screenplay Sucks! https://yourscreenplaysucks.wordpress.com/2011/04/01/movie-dialogue-vs-naturalistic-dialogue/  19/10/16

(5)    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062622/parentalguide