Humankind, Evolution, Fourth Dimension

2001: A Space Odyssey

“2001: A Space Odyssey” was very advanced for its time, from the story to the special effects. As a huge fan of sci-fi movies, I absolutely loved this story and plot. It captures aspects of human history, cosmic exploration, metaphysics, extraterrestrial life, obscure mysteries (monolith), and psychedelia. And at the same time, provides a captivating story about a possible explanation of our human evolution and the next step for mankind (immortality? Becoming a God-like spirit in space?) I was also so amazed at how realistic it looked for 1968, the time it was released. Two examples are the ape suites (which look pretty descent, much better than “Planet of the Apes”) and the spaces scenes, which take up more than half of the movie (-- due to Krystal Roush's criticism, I deleted a play on words which used to be at this spot of my blog that I thought was fun, but apparently was too childish to her critical ear--). Going further with these aspects of the film, I will explain how this movie powerfully created and distorted reality through special affects and space-like sets.
The films we have been watching in class, for the most part, created a reality using human dialogues and social relationships. But what separates this movie, apart from being a different genre, is the unconceivable reality that it creates. Most people really don’t know how a huge space station, space men traveling millions of miles in our solar system, or an extraterrestrial monolith looks like or should look like. But, Kubrick really convinces us that these things are real, such as how the space men ARE IN the space stations and space ships. Obviously, we can guess that the space stations and space ships were little props or computer generated (if they had that technology back then), but when watching, our imagination doesn’t have to go that far to imagine that they are in fact reality and that there are men having meetings inside.
Outer space is something humans are so alien to: its magnificence, grandeur, obscurity, strangeness. This is why we can sit through this long movie and its VERY long scenes. Often the scenes only provide one main point (sometimes none at all) in the movies plot such as the spinning space station and the space ship trying to land in it. If it wasn’t so intriguing and awing to us, it would be torture to sit through it. I believe that this movie could have expressed its story, minus the entertainment and emphasizing, in one hour; quantity wise, not much is going on. On the other hand, the quality of the scenes is what captures our attention, in turn creating an intriguing reality and making length of scenes no longer an issue. Here are some examples:
(Beginning Act) We are shown vast landscapes and empty lands. With the music and scene set-up, we travel in time, 4 million years! (35:00) A stewardess walks in a circle, eventually upside down, defying gravity with her grip shoes. This scene is pure entertainment, not a crucial advance of the plot, but we love it; it strikes our attention. (56:30) Dr. Floyd is running and exercising in a vertical circle, again defying gravity. Kubrick’s special effects mess with our sense of reality and consciousness. (158:50 – ending sequence) This is the most psychedelic thing I have even seen. I was on the edge of my seat because of how amazing and strange it was. In this scene, the space man finds the monolith near Jupiter and travels through it (I assume). The monolith opens up a 4th dimension or some sort of incomprehensible traveling hole. Amazing colors dominate the screen and shoot past us really fast. Then, we see psychedelic landscapes, clearly something we are not accustomed to. But, watching the film, you are warped to this strange experience and it is real! The special effects are that convincing! Since the universe is still such a mystery to us, we can accept that this can or is reality (meaning it could be a possibility). And then, he lands, or rather appears, at a strange Victorian-looking room (probably symbolizing a 4th dimension). This ending sequence is the climax of Kubrick’s distortion of reality and truth. He creates an unconceivable, yet convincing reality out of his creative film techniques and special effects (again, in 1968).
“2001: A Space Odyssey” is a breath-taking movie. It seems very unconventional at first, such as its long scenes, but due to its brilliance at capturing our attention and creating an extraordinary reality, it succeeds as an irreplaceable movie.


__________
Pauline Kael argues that “2001,” among many other films, is trash disguised as art. She regards it as a lousy pop movie that stole ideas from other past artists. She writes, “Simply to be enjoyable, movies don’t need a very high level of craftsmanship: wit, imagination, fresh subject matter, skillful performers, a good idea- either alone or in any combination- can more than compensate for lack of technical knowledge or a big budget” (342). “2001” was a hit because of its entertainment value, not its claimed artistic value. She argues that youth have caught on to this film partially due to its stoning value; the movie will stone you. Kubrick, to Kael, only did “every dumb thing he wanted do, building enormous science-fiction sets and equipment, never even bothering to figure out what he was going to do with them” (361). Rather than being a masterpiece, it’s only an amateur movie, a cop-out, in her opinion.
Kael has a good argument. Copying past techniques and creating pop movies are far from what we can celebrate as pure art. But, I believe “2001” is truly a commendable piece of art. Even if Kubrick copied past ideas and used top notch, expensive technology at an amateur level, “2001” created a unique reality through film with so much creativity and personality. It utilized technology and reality manipulation to its best and created an intriguing story. Regardless of its “playfulness” or lack thereof (according to Kael), this film reflects the director’s creativity and artistic expressions. Kael has an influential argument, but I do not agree with her points. The nature and definition of art are very controversial (I had a discussion about art in philosophy class), yet I believe “2001” and all other films can be considered as art (the truer argument would be if it is good art or bad art). “2001” is good art, much more than just entertainment.