Skip to main content

I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill, and think things over.

2001: A Space Odyssey
(1968)

(SPOILERS) There isn’t, of course, anything left to say about 2001: A Space Odyssey, although the devoted still try, confident in their belief that it’s eternally obliging in offering unfathomable mystery. And it does seem ever responsive to whatever depths one wishes to plumb in analysing it for themes, messages or clues either about what is really going on out there some around Jupiter, or in its director’s head. Albeit, it’s lately become difficult to ascertain which has the more productive cottage industry, 2001 or The Shining, in the latter regard. With Eyes Wide Shut as the curtain call, a final acknowledgement to the devout that, yes, something really emphatic was going under Stanley Kubrick’s hood and it’s there, waiting to be exhumed, if you only look with the right kind of eyes.

That does mean, however, that the relatively less obscure approach found in his other movies post-2001 – the period from which he’s really regarded as setting out his store – is slightly disinclined towards such conspiratorial probing. Yes, A Clockwork Orange and Full Metal Jacket lend themselves to the discussion, particularly of the MK-Ultra kind, but comparatively speaking, they’re open books. Barry Lyndon tends to be conspicuous by its absence in such talk, however. And still, even given The Shining’s blossoming of late, the conversation comes back to 2001.

I know, when I first saw the film, I was aware of its status as a hallowed classic, much in the same way as the various David Lean films I had been introduced to. With 2001, though, it was left to me to discover (I suspect this would have been 1984, the year the sequel came out, courtesy of an afternoon screening on BBC2). It’s a film which, for a novice viewer, requires patience, particularly in the early stages, but even at a tender age, undisciplined in film grammar, it was readily identifiable as doing something very different, even as it occupies the same kind of classical expanse as a Lean epic. Once the bone is thrown, and we land in space, the film has exerted a hypnotic hold. It’s a rare skill, ever more so today, to realise that slow and sure can be more riveting than fast and furious.

Structurally, 2001 announces itself with chapters, but resists linking them by character or location; only the obelisk – the strange, unnatural, intrusive obelisk – is there to guide us onward towards the infinite. Much has rightly been said about how the picture is disincline towards identification with its human protagonists. Dr Floyd (William Sylvester, an unassuming presence known mostly for his TV work) is introduced in the second chapter, nominally investigating the same shiny black brick introduced in the first; in any traditional narrative, he would be our protagonist, which may be why in Clarke’s follow up, and the corresponding feature, he is our protagonist; 2010: The Year We Make Contact is a much more traditional affair, with a much more traditional movie star playing Floyd (which is not to say Peter Hyams’ film, or Roy Scheider’s portrayal of Floyd, doesn’t have its merits).

And much has also been rightly said about how HAL is more human than the humans; “his” fate is far more affecting than the shrug that greets the premeditated murder of Frank Poole (Gary Lockwood). Clarke’s decision to reanimate Poole in 3001: The Final Odyssey is symptomatic of the kind of uninspired desperation that afflicts much of current genre writing; indeed, it’s a tired trope of modern SF/fantasy that no one stays dead and thus stakes are limited. Clarke’s sequels are similarly guilty of revelling in excessive continuity and over explanation, both of which blight much of our prequel and sequel driven age; anything that can have a gap filled must have it filled, whether or not that’s to its ultimate benefit.

Kubrick, in contrast, emphatically favoured ambiguity and the viewer’s own interpretation. While it’s fairly self-evident that the Monolith is responsible for initiating/accelerating mankind’s evolution – with the implicit spark of reasoning comes the quest for power and violence, this via the recognition of difference and superiority, the idea that the development of consciousness requires a descent for millennia before it can hope to raise itself up and beyond foolish things – the wherefores and whys are left to the imagination. Clarke would collapse much of this, most notably in 3001 (the final part of his quadrilogy), in which, in a pre-empting of the flawed creation that has gained much ground in the resurgent currency of gnostic beliefs and creeds and the likes of Ridley Scott’s regretful star-seeders in Prometheus, the First-Born (the creators of the Monoliths) decide to destroy humanity (prevented by a handy computer virus, suggesting Clarke may have looked to Independence Day for inspiration, of all things).

The de-mystification of the Monolith is front and centre of 2010, but even that includes the incredible, iconic scene of the engulfing black spot on Jupiter (notably Saturn was originally intended for 2001 but changed due to effects issues; Jay Weidner would have it that this was no accident); unsullied in 2001, it’s an object of fear and foreboding, particularly in tandem with the accompanying György Ligeti soundtrack selections – one experiences palpable unease and tension, the wailing and distress of a million souls in hell pleading for respite. Anything after this is a retreat: Spielberg’s benign contact, Lucas’ serial simplicity, Scott’s blue-collar corporate malfeasance (and mundane take on a botched creation in Prometheus). Kubrick is wise to keep his alien force nebulous, even though Douglas Trumbull reported that was simply because they ran out of time and money rather than because he didn’t want to.

The artificial intelligence concept at the secondary heart of the film – just as the creators of the Monolith have played God, so has man with his own creation – has also, of course, been the source of much inspiration since, understandably as 2001 is pretty much the baseline for the modern AI, and the evil AI at that; Proteus and Mother would be notable responses over the course of the next decade, while the apotheosis would come with Cameron’s Terminator and Terminator 2: Judgement Day, in which the machines (all but) succeed in wiping out humanity. It’s an ever-more potent theme, bridged by the dangers of humanity aligning itself with their artificial systems and consequent potential/threat of the hive mind, with some more extreme conspiracy theories suggesting this has alreadybeen achieved and done, that our existence itself is an AI-created simulation, our real selves existing, The Matrix-like, in another realm (for which comes first, the SF concept or the “reality” that inspires or was inspired by it – and who knows where the realreality behind that simulation starts and ends – boundary lines can get a bit fuzzy around this point). Amid such convoluted machinations, Kubrick’s vision could be taken as relatively simple and benign – raising us up to eventual enlightenment, but only via the discovery of our worst natures, in whatever form, and from there to God.

That said, it’s interesting how steeped 2001 is in conspiratorial thought. The second chapter says straight up that the plan is to deceive humanity for its own good (“Now, I’m sure you’re all aware of the extremely grave potential for cultural shock and social disorientation contained in this present situation”). Kubrick’s future presents the combination of the wonders of impossible, utopian space travel and the darkness of classified, mysterious, potentially untoward projects; the idea that revealing the truth to humanity will be its undoing (or conversely, salvation) is still the major currency of many in the conspirasphere. People wouldn’t be able to take it. Best of all, HAL is the perfectly manifested conspiracist – one who is cool, logical and precise in his paranoia – voicing doubts regarding happenings on the Moon he isn’t privy to and convinced of his own infallibility (“This sort of thing has cropped up before, and it has always been down to human error”).

Readings of 2001 can go in a number of differently dense directions, some of them ending up with the Monolith as the essence of the cinema screen itself. One popular idea, extending into The Shining, is that this is Kubrick’s confessional of his faking the Moon landings, one the aforementioned Weidner, in particular, has run with. It’s a feature of conspiracy theories, extending to almost any train of thought, to be fair, whereby, when you examine them more closely, they begin to take shape as planned in every detail and minutiae, whether or not that's legitimately so. It’s something that lends itself particularly to analysis of Kubrick’s work, since it is so meticulous in very evident and tangible, recorded and itemised ways (the time spent nursing projects, on getting takes right, on editing). As the many and varied methods for interpreting his work (Room 237 being the tip of the iceberg) prove, however, that doesn’t mean that because one can find something there, it was necessarily the director’s intent (and when we’re talking conspiracy, intent has to be all).

Weidner’s readings are fascinating, nevertheless, up to a point, for the occult and elite extrapolations he makes that guide us (semi-) coherently through the director’s body of work. One can makes sense of why a filmmaker who wasn’t a big fan of science fiction (Kubrick felt the ideas were good but the execution inevitably deplorable) had been considering a return to the genre with A.I. Artificial Intelligence if his real focus was the elephant in the room of even the anaesthetised Spielberg version (that the only reason parents would want a child who doesn’t grow, stays the same etc, is because they’re paedophiles; the berg would have us believe that the most sentimental parts of A.I. actually come from Kubrick, however). And it’s much easier to credit that Eyes Wide Shut was edited after the event – the finger has again been pointed at Spielberg – than that it simply isn’t quite as satisfying a career capper as it ought to be (and I do recognise many of its celebrants’ points; I like the film a lot, but that doesn’t mean it feels entirely finessed).

Certainly, when you have shots in which the Moon surface/Monolith looks intentionally like the outside of a film set (because a film crew has set up there), the idea seems to fit. Weidner also asserts that the Monolith is the Philosopher’s Stone (the quest for gnosis and the immortality of the soul), which is fairly easy to buy into because it isn’t so very far from the film’s overarching text. On the other hand, his assertion that this future is purpose-built by the military-industrial complex and thus to be disdained doesn’t quite translate. Kubrick clearly took delight in the gleaming perfection of his technological future, supported as it is by the Blue Danube Waltz; the music in his pictures is every bit as informative as the images, if not more so, and this is 2001 at its warmest and most exultant, playful even (Weidner asserts that at first it seems as if Kubrick is celebrating technology; no, he is. That doesn’t mean he isn’t also depicting the flipside. Two contradictory ideas can exist simultaneously; elsewhere in his piece Weidner appears to acknowledge this kind of thinking).

Under Weidner’s hypothesis, Kubrick faked the Moon landings – although he asserts man didgo there – in return for being able to make the kinds of movies he wanted… Odd then, that the director didn’tget to make Napoleon not that long after. Weidner also considers it ironic that a supposedly atheist filmmaker made the ultimate religious movie, except that one doesn’t need a religious view of God to embrace 2001’s more spiritual, if you will, leanings. Weidner ultimately gets heavily into an over-baked pudding concerning Aryans evacuating the Earth for Mars via the Secret Space Program, which makes it easy to throw his Kubrick theories under a space bus, if you so wish, but there’s some engrossing material in there.

It’s interesting that the director would go on to make The Shining, because 2001: A Space Odyssey was, until that point, the closest he had come to producing a horror film. A ‘U’ certificate one, admittedly, but one that nevertheless manages to unsettle and conjure a sense of the uncanny in the mode that horror in its loosest – or purest – sense can. Which is why it’s very easy to compare the room Keir Dullea ends up in to the Overlook Hotel. I mentioned David Lean early on, and that director at his peak held sway over a cinema of pure sound and image that could be almost overpowering, in a way few directors have or are capable of (Leone was another). Kubrick, though, trumps him through his willingness to become so much more oblique with baseline narrative and thus the possibilities of content and subjective experience. And the film of his that achieves that the most is this one. It’s his zenith as a filmmaker; nothing he would later embark on would come close to such perfection of concept and realisation.



Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019)
(SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

You're not only wrong. You're wrong at the top of your voice.

Bad Day at Black Rock (1955)
I’ve seen comments suggesting that John Sturges’ thriller hasn’t aged well, which I find rather mystifying. Sure, some of the characterisations border on the cardboard, but the director imbues the story with a taut, economical backbone. 

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

It looks like we’ve got another schizoid embolism!

Total Recall (1990)
(SPOILERS) Paul Verhoeven offered his post-mortem on the failures of the remakes of Total Recall (2012) and Robocop (2013) when he suggested “They take these absurd stories and make them too serious”. There may be something in this, but I suspect the kernel of their issues is simply filmmakers without either the smarts or vision, or both, to make something distinctive from the material. No one would have suggested the problem with David Cronenberg’s prospective Total Recall was over-seriousness, yet his version would have been far from a quip-heavy Raiders of the Lost Ark Go to Mars (as he attributes screenwriter Ron Shusset’s take on the material). Indeed, I’d go as far as saying not only the star, but also the director of Total Recall (1990) were miscast, making it something of a miracle it works to the extent it does.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013)
(SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

I am you, and you are me, and we are here. I am the dreamer. You are the dream.

Communion (1989)
(SPOILERS) Whitley Strieber’s Communion: A True Story was published in 1987, at which point the author (who would also pen Communion’s screenplay) had seen two of his novels adapted for the cinema (Wolfen and The Hunger), so he could hardly claim ignorance of the way Hollywood – or filmmaking generally – worked. So why then, did he entrust the translation of a highly personal work, an admission of/ confrontation with hidden demons/ experiences, to the auteur who unleashed Howling II and The Marsupials: Howling III upon an undeserving world? The answer seems to be that Strieber already knew director Philippe Mora, and the latter was genuinely interested in the authors’ uncanny encounters. Which is well and good and honourable, but the film entirely fails to deliver the stuff of cinematic legend. Except maybe in a negative sense.

Strieber professes dismay at the results, citing improvised scenes and additional themes, and Walken’s rendition of Whitley Strieber, protagonist…

My dear, sweet brother Numsie!

The Golden Child (1986)
Post-Beverly Hills Cop, Eddie Murphy could have filmed himself washing the dishes and it would have been a huge hit. Which might not have been a bad idea, since he chose to make this misconceived stinker.

So you made contact with the French operative?

Atomic Blonde (2017)
(SPOILERS) Well, I can certainly see why Focus Features opted to change the title from The Coldest City (the name of the graphic novel from which this is adapted). The Coldest City evokes a noirish, dour, subdued tone, a movie of slow-burn intrigue in the vein of John Le Carré. Atomic Blonde, to paraphrase its introductory text, is not that movie. As such, there’s something of a mismatch here, of the kind of Cold War tale it has its roots in and the furious, pop-soaked action spectacle director David Leitch is intent on turning it into. In the main, his choices succeed, but the result isn’t quite the clean getaway of his earlier (co-directed) John Wick.

He did it. He shut down the Earth.

Escape from L.A. (1996)
(SPOILERS) It seems it was Kurt Russell’s enthusiasm for his most iconic character (no, not Captain Ron) that got Escape from L.A. made. That makes sense, because there’s precious little evidence here that John Carpenter gave two shits. This really was his point of no return, I think. His last great chance to show his mettle. But lent a decent-sized budget (equivalent to five times that of Escape from New York) he squandered it, delivering an inert TV movie that further rubs salt in the wound by operating as a virtual remake of the original. Just absent any of the wit, atmosphere, pace and inspiration.