TF Issue 201: Is It Just Me? 2001: A Space Odyssey...

[Lizhawkins]

On page 147 of TF issue 201, Stephen Kelly asks:

"Is it just me... or is 2001: A Space Odyssey the most overrated film of all time?"



Perhaps I’m wrong. Perhaps it’s just something I don’t understand – like vegetables or Stoke. Perhaps, I’m just that guy jabbering on about the emperor’s balls when he is, in fact, wearing a rather nifty three-piece suit. But I doubt it, so here it goes: Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey is a film that no one actually really likes.

Now, judging from all the jaws that have just hit the floor, I’m guessing that may have come as a shock to you. “Of course I like it!” I hear you cry. “It’s a masterpiece!” But do you really like it? Or are you merely a victim of pop-culture doublethink – the natural defence of the sacred cow? Because all I ever hear are excuses for what is, essentially, an atrocious mess.

“It’s all about the visuals,” argues one friend, adamantly. “The artistic nuances – the iconography!” A popular point, of course: a space station waltzing across the Earth, the pristine purity of a white space ship interior, HAL’s bleeding-red central core: Kubrick’s vision is striking, and would serve as a template for many others to follow. But looks don’t make an enjoyable film, any more than a polished Cadillac drives without an engine. A point hammered home by the fact that the aforementioned Ms All-About-The-Visuals has never been able to stay awake for the final 30 minutes. (She still insists on it being a masterpiece, though.)

That’s the thing with 2001: A Space Odyssey: it looks lovely, but it’s soulless – a film devoid of warmth, plot or point. All of which could be vaguely forgiven if it wasn’t such a dick about it. For, you see, 2001 is a film that enjoys itself far more than anyone else does. It detaches itself from the audience with a sense of arrogance – sneering from a great height, taunting with half an hour of monkeys, meandering shots of shit floating around and a pace so brutally oppressive it’s like trying to run a marathon while dragging a dead cow behind you. And all for what? A bafflingly boring beginning, a mildly promising middle – with the sinister execution of HAL being the closest Kubrick gets to an actual plot – and a truly catastrophic ending. Three acts that not only bear hardly any narrative relation to each other, but also no reward.

And that’s what grates: it’s one thing to be ambiguous with your storytelling, it’s quite another to hold explanation back from a script in a pretentious attempt at faux-depth and profundity. A trope that, as anyone who’s seen Prometheus can attest, has filtered down to the very worst aspects of science fiction just as much as its aesthetic has informed the best of it.

Can I accept that it’s a worthy foundation for the very best of serious science fiction to be built upon? Sure. But can I call it a classic? I’m sorry, Dave, I’m afraid I can’t do that. Or is it just me?

Issue 201 of Total Film is on sale 23 November 2012.

Agree? Disagree? Have your say below - a selection will be printed in the next issue...

[fortunesfool]

It's not even worth typing a defence for this. It would be a debate requiring both parties to have a basic understanding of film form and craft. And an attention span.

I guess this is it then - Film journalism has finally lowered itself to the level of a typical Hollywood blockbuster: artless, formless, drivel for people who wont watch anything longer than ninety minutes, unless it has giant robots, or Batman.

I hung in there with my Total Film subscription for a lot longer than I should have, mostly due to good will and having read it from the start, but I can get this level of mindless banality for free on the internet, so I don't see anymore reason to pay money for it.

[Jeffbiscuits]

Warmth, plot and point are just three arbitrary words you've plucked out of the air. Why does a film need these three things to have a 'soul'? It doesn't. 2001 could be argued to have all three though.
There are a lot of films I think have more of a soul than 2001that achieve that through less emphasis on warmth, plot or point.

[dojj singh]

I'll be a heathen and say that I never understood how this film has such a following either.
I have seen it several times and, much like Bladerunner, I just don't find it's watchable in one sitting and watching it in several sections just ruins the film altogether.
Average? Boring? Don't believe the hype? All of the above?
I'm not the sort who will wear blinkers and say a film is good when it's crap or defend an actor in a crap role (what was Al Pacino thinking when he signed up to Jack and Jill for example) so regardless of who wrote the book or the screenplay or who directed it.
Don't agree? Fair enough, but just because you can defend a ballerina wearing a tutu while she's dancing, don't try and convince me your favorite actor can wear it down the high street while out shopping for a new telly.

[gatchaman]

Hurray! Someone else who's not afraid to say it like it is.

People seemed to be blinded by some pseudo-spiritual or meta-physical perception of the film, but the truth is, despite some impressive effects work (at least for the time) the film is dull as ditchwater. Just because a movie is boring and uneventful doesn't mean it's classic.

[nikradakovic]

You have highlighted mankind's wider apathy towards space and discovery. Every character in Kubrick's 2001 is completely oblivious and uninterested in the beauty that surrounds them, and this mirrors the critical reception. Films such as Ridley Scott's 'Alien' for example feel the need to create a drama in space, such is the pure lack of interest in space and discovery in itself. You either appreciate the unparalleled contemplation in 2001 of 'are we alone in the universe?,' 'is there a unified consciousness?,' is there intelligent life out there?' or you are bored or unstimulated. This intelligent life doesn't necessarily have to tear the crew of the Nostromo to shreds to be interesting. We always feel we have to have a warm, human element to a film, or a drama in which we can relate to the characters. Yet we can relate to the characters, in that they are oblivious to the wonder of space. We hate the fact that space is cold, and a complete unknown. We welcome apathy, yet we also somehow reject the idea that the most human of characters in 2001 is something manufactured. Who are the machines?? Or maybe this question cannot hold your attention.

[CaptainCrazy]

This film will always be popular with worthy film geeks but I found it very boring and pretentious beyond belief. Yes, there are some jaw-dropping effects where you ask, "How the hell did they do that in 1968?" But great effects, direction and technical wizardry does not a great film make.

I found this film to be cold and empty.

Sometimes you just have to tell the emporer and his minions - HEY, YOUR NAKED BUDDY!!

[morris]

What happened to a film magazine seeing its purpose as to educate and inform? Sure, I realise 'Is It Just Me?' is supposed to be the dissenting voice of controversy...but here it comes across as the whining voice of ignorance.

You should be helping young readers understand this masterpiece, probing and analysing it, not enabling their right to remain clueless by saying "You don't get it? That's OK. I don't either. Let's be dumb together." The problem is, you can't shed any light on something you obviously don't appreciate.
This film is not for everyone. But since when does a film have to have soul, warmth or for that matter, even a linear logical narrative to engage viewers? Sometimes it's enough to experience a film on the big screen. Sometimes stunning cinematography, atmosphere and innovative ideas are enough. There are plenty of classic films which don't celebrate the warmth of humanity, highlighting instead its ruthlessness and detachment. It's a perfectly relevant point of view. Space is an impersonal thing - it's big and yes; it's empty. Don't you get that?

It's inappropriate to compare it to Prometheus. Forty years on people are still thinking about 2001 and still talking about it. It's been referenced and satirised too many times to count. Its classic status is well established. I'd be surprised if anyone is talking about Prometheus in 4 years. You don't have to enjoy 2001: A Space Odyssey or even like it. But if you know film, you should respect it.

[CitizenSnips]

That Prometheus comparison made me wince. Criticise the film if you want, but do NOT compare the team of Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke to Damon bloody Lindelof.

It detaches itself from the audience with a sense of arrogance – sneering from a great height, taunting with half an hour of monkeys, meandering shots of shit floating around and a pace so brutally oppressive it’s like trying to run a marathon while dragging a dead cow behind you.

This sentence has a whiff of tabloid journalism surrounding it. It espouses the writer's right to his own uninformed viewpoint while proclaiming anyone with a better grip on things as 'too intellectual'. Fortunesfool is right, this is more like a blog post, not film journalism. Its the writer offering his own opinion without attempt at analysis or reasoned criticism.

Space is an impersonal thing - it's big and yes; it's empty. Don't you get that?

I'd like to add to that - as is the concept of evolution, especially as it relates to humans. They're both also really, really slow things, and 2001 is one of the only films with the balls to show that in action (inaction?).* The author can still say that the film's length exceeds its depth if he wants, but that he says it 'has no point' when there's these pretty obvious themes running through it, kind of goes to show.

[Kiba.]

Sometimes you just have to tell the emporer and his minions - HEY, YOUR NAKED BUDDY!!

“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But the half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.”

Dream, in Sandman #60: The Kindly Ones: 4