Posted on 03/09/2018 6:09:34 PM PST by Rummyfan
Fifty years ago next month, invitation-only audiences gathered in specially equipped Cinerama theaters in Washington, New York and Los Angeles to preview a widescreen epic that director Stanley Kubrick had been working on for four years. Conceived in collaboration with the science-fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke, “2001: A Space Odyssey” was way over budget, and Hollywood rumor held that MGM had essentially bet the studio on the project.
The film’s previews were an unmitigated disaster. Its story line encompassed an exceptional temporal sweep, starting with the initial contact between pre-human ape-men and an omnipotent alien civilization and then vaulting forward to later encounters between Homo sapiens and the elusive aliens, represented throughout by the film’s iconic metallic-black monolith. Although featuring visual effects of unprecedented realism and power, Kubrick’s panoramic journey into space and time made few concessions to viewer understanding. The film was essentially a nonverbal experience. Its first words came only a good half-hour in.
Audience walkouts numbered well over 200 at the New York premiere on April 3, 1968, and the next day’s reviews were almost uniformly negative. Writing in the Village Voice, Andrew Sarris called the movie “a thoroughly uninteresting failure and the most damning demonstration yet of Stanley Kubrick’s inability to tell a story coherently and with a consistent point of view.” And yet that afternoon, a long line—comprised predominantly of younger people—extended down Broadway, awaiting the first matinee.
Stung by the initial reactions and under great pressure from MGM, Kubrick soon cut almost 20 minutes from the film. Although “2001” remained willfully opaque and open to interpretation, the trims removed redundancies, and the film spoke more clearly.
(Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...
p
When I first saw the movie, I did not understand it. I later read the book and that helped quite a bit. Not sure what they cut from the movie, but it was almost impossible to comprehend the movie version I saw without reading the book.
Open the pod bay door, Hal.
saw it in its first run up in Hollywood, at the Cinerama Dome IIRC.
I think the book was written after the movie.
I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill and think things over.
[Cue Alexa's demonic laugh]
While often extolled as one of Kubrick’s best, I thought it sucked.
Dr. Strangelove, A Clockwork Orange, The Shining and Full Metal Jacket were all masterpieces though.
The pinnacle of movie-making art.
I think the movie is terrible, except for the music.
My favorite movie. I just watched it again with my children. They loved it.
She will actually answer to this. It’s pretty funny.
Kubrick was a true genius. It's an overused word these days, but Kubrick actually WAS a genius. His IQ has been estimated to be close to 190.
He was a chess master, writer, director, photographer - but he knew a lot about many, many subjects. It is said he could read 50+ books over the span of a few days, and recall almost everything.
His films have deep, deep, deep layers of meaning.
He mysteriously died only 3 days after giving the studios the screening of Eyes Wide Shut.
Many people, including me, believe that Kubrick was murdered for revealing too much about the Illuminati.
He had an iron clad contract that he, and he alone, could change the final edit for the film. After he died, the studio cut several scenes, including one purportedly dealing with child sex and sacrifice.
Arthur C. Clarke wrote the book after the movie was finished. The original story that the movie was based on, “The Sentinel,” ended with the discovery of the monolith on the Moon. Everything after that was hatched up by Kubrick and Clarke in the course of making the movie.
Correction, Arthur C. Clarke foresaw those things. The story is based on Clarke’s theme of evolutionary sci fi. Clarke was a true science visionary.
That is interesting. Never realized that the book came out after the movie. I first saw the movie in ~1976.
Even so, the book sheds enough light on things to make the movie somewhat more understandable. The storyline can be followed okay until the astronaut goes through the Stargate. After that, what is happening is anyone’s guess. I’m sure a lot of viewers in 1968 thought they were being treated to an elaborate LSD trip.
The interpretation of the arrival of the “Star Child” on Earth is kind of a head scratcher too, even in the book. It is some kind of God-like creature, but its intent is unknown.
There was a movie sequel (2010), which was okay, but not great.
I often feel like Dave Bowman when watching Congress.
“My God, it’s full of tards!”
Thanks for that info.
I remember seeing 2001 with both my parents at about age 12.
We were all three of us completely bored and confused.
How about Paths of Glory as another Kubrick masterpiece?
kubrick is supposed to be boring because he is an artiste.
I thought I understood it when it first came out - except for the ending. Had no idea whatsoever what that was all about.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
