2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

Directed and produced by Stanley Kubrick

In the far distant past, the lives of a small tribe of ape-men are transformed by inspiration provided by a mysterious monolith that appears amidst them one morning. Millions of years later, a similar monolith is found on the moon, and its sudden radio transmission toward Jupiter sends Earth’s first manned mission to that planet. What happens there will change humanity as much as did the monolith’s first manifestation.

2001: A Space Odyssey seems to be a movie that viewers either like a great deal or dislike as much. I think one’s opinion depends upon whether one understands - or believes one understands - the content, plot and idea of the film. It is a work of true science fiction, using science to create the fiction and as a central theme. I compare it in that regard to the highly regarded work of literary fiction, Mission of Gravity.

One of the problems with real science fiction is that it can be highly technical or involve rather a lot of exposition, neither of which are bad, but can be off-putting. 2001 avoids this - though not to the extent of some films - largely by implying scientific explanations. Compare it to another, much simpler, movie from nine years later, Star Wars, which, though enjoyable, is an example of another genre - that of fantasy sword-and-sorcery - dressed up as science fiction: it has no science - indeed, it could have taken place in the Dark Ages or in World War Two with very little change of plot - and has proved immensely popular and enduring.

2001 avoids extenuated exposition, but it introduces another element, which may be seen as beyond science fiction, while remaining a part of it. The monolith that appears at various times in the movie represents both the power and intentions of what is probably a vastly superior alien race, intent on evolving humanity. That their - or its - motives are never touched upon, that the origins of their power are left unexplained, gives the impression of magic - something merely wished to be accomplished. And yet is not science often seen as that to those who don’t comprehend it? This is one of the reasons, I think, why explanation is omitted.

Therefore, much of the film is given to the viewer free of interpretation, and the viewer must sort it out on his own. This can sit uneasily with many who prefer plots and complications explicitly explained. The movie has what one might call a European feel to it, especially in its disregard of dialogue through much of its extent. (The first and last twenty minutes are entirely free of speech.) This encourages further thought by the viewer.

It is this reliance on sight that has generated much criticism, though I find it strange that a visual art medium such as a motion picture should be criticized for conveying much of a story in images.

This leads naturally into the topic of direction, which is the greatest strength of 2001. It is a visually impressive, at times astounding, film. The vision of Kubrick is expansive and detailed. It is equally successful in depicting the vastness of space as it is the fear of a simple animal-like proto-human trying to survive a night in the wilderness. Much of what we see is concerned with fixing the atmosphere of a place or event; much of the direction is meant to convey feeling.

The movie is unusually short on dialogue, and what it has is unremarkable; vastly so, and, except for some segments, such as that involving HAL, the super-computer, much might as well be left out. The ordinary quality of the dialogue – along with the hospital-like sterility of the sets - gives the paradoxical impression that the future, while filled with interesting aspects, is itself rather boring.

Acting gets rather left behind by the direction, production values and special effects. The sparsity - what many have called the banality - of the dialogue should not obscure the quality of the acting, when it is given a chance. Astonishingly, the heavy make-up and body suits worn by the actors portraying early humans does not erode their ability to tell the viewer exactly what needs telling, while Keir Dullea - the only player with a sizeable role, aside from Gary Lockwood - does very well. His brief expression when he realises that HAL has gotten the better of him says more than a thousand words. The most memorable character, however, is HAL, whose complacent, superior and vaguely sinister voice (that of Douglas Rain) would surely never be given in real-life to any intelligence whose creators want it to be liked or trusted.

Though 2001: A Space Odyssey has its flaws - in particular, I found the scene covering an astronaut’s descent to Jupiter to be far too extended - it is a true masterpiece of cinema, most of it excellent, and parts superb.