Skip to main content

I enjoy working with human beings and have stimulating relationships with you.

2010: The Year We Make Contact
(1984)

(SPOILERS) The deal with 2010: The Year We Make Contact, of course, is that it pales into insignificance if sat next to Kubrick’s film. The further deal is that, just because it isn’t a worthy sequel that doesn’t make it a bad film. Indeed, I’m always rather impressed by it. With the proviso that, like pretty much all Peter Hyams’ best films (see also Capricorn One, Outland, The Star Chamber) it doesn’t quite come together. And that, most damagingly, it feels like an 80s SF movie, whereas 2001: A Space Odyssey for all its psychedelia and monkey suits, hasn’t dated at all. And for that, Hyams really does have to cop the blame.

Less so for the oft-criticised – Kubrick doesn’t appear to have said much about the movie, but what he did say was pretty much this – decision by Arthur C Clarke to explain everything that previously puzzled, or at most was implied. I’m not sure this aspect is that damaging. It is, after all, not much more than Kubrick himself was given to elucidate at the time of 2001’s release. There’s still enough of the uncanny in the sequel for 2010 to find some kinship, but it’s undeniable that the combination of a more literal plot and a much more literal director steers the picture in a largely tangible, defined direction.

Hyams was, after all, a very “solid”, journeyman choice. Both his prior science fiction exercises were very grounded, one dealing with a very plausible fake Mars mission (only the Telly Savalas in a biplane ex machina is a bit much) and the other with post-Alien blue-collar mining on Io. Here, the focus is another of Jupiter’s moons, Europa (Clarke retained Kubrick’s switch from Saturn in his sequel). Roy Scheider – a very different Dr Heywood Floyd to William Sylvester – commented that Hyams take on the treatment was consciously to avoid aping Kubrick: “he told me he didn’t want the people in his film to be dull like in 2001 because the device won’t work twice. That grandiose space movie Kubrick did can’t be done again. You can’t pull the same stunt twice”.

I suspect that’s partly true. Certainly, you could no longer rely on visual splendour and awe at the never seen before to carry sequences (Star Trek: The Motion Picture tried it, and only nostalgia kept its box office head above water). On the other hand, a director with a distinct sensibility might have tipped the picture more in favour of its uncanny elements, the way Ken Russell or Nic Roeg achieved highly idiosyncratic results when they forayed into SF. You could readily imagine 2010’s characters fitting into the same universe as Aliens or Outland. 2001, not so much. Indeed, you need reminding there are tourist flights into space in this future, as you’d easily believe this is an extension of Challenger-era space exploration rather than the Kubrickian.

And this is where Hyams takes a wrong turn in respect of 2010 achieving any longevity. Clarke’s novel featured a joint US-Soviet mission, without any of the Cold War tension Hyams foisted upon it in the name of upping the ante. He was probably correct to streamline the narrative by ditching the Chinese Tsien mission that gets the drop on them and is destroyed by whatever is on Europa, but talk of détente puts the picture squarely in The Abyss territory; one might note that Kubrick originally included a Cold War theme in 2001 (complete with the Star Child destroying nuclear weapons carried by orbiting satellites). One might also note there was a good reason he dropped it.

Despite this, for the most part, the human material works pretty well. Scheider instantly brings with him a certain baggage, not in a bad way, but it means the picture instantly has a lean, rugged dynamic (you can see the same thing in All That Jazz). He’s a smart but not cerebral actor. Helen Mirren is good in a then-rare Hollywood excursion (she had been up for Shampoo in the 70s, but it seems she walked in on some involved “method” activity between her prospective romantic co-star and one of those who inspired his character). The standouts are Bob Balaban as Dr Chandra and John Lithgow as Walter Curnow, the designer of HAL and the builder of the abandoned Discovery 2 respectively (Chandra converses with a female HAL called SAL, voiced by Candice Bergen, which is the kind of slightly cheesy choice mocked in Red Dwarf when Holly changed to Hilly. Or by Doctor Who in casting Jodie Whittaker. Oh wait, that was serious).

Lithgow brings both intensity during his hyperventilating spacewalk and an easy camaraderie with Elya Baskin’s Max. Balaban gets the most engaging subplot as the derelict Discovery is reactivated and Chandra re-establishes communication with HAL. Balaban’s a natural for the boffin (Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Altered States) and there’s real emotional weight and tension to his deliberation on how much to communicate to HAL, for fear the computer may go haywire again. Indeed, this whole climactic sequence is superbly sustained by Hyams, as the countdown reaches crunch point while HAL equivocates on proceeding in view of insufficient information. When Chandra tells him the truth, the payoff is additionally affecting (“Will I dream?”: “I don’t know”). Chandra even offers to stay with him.

I was always hugely impressed – and still am – by the revelation of the growing spot on Jupiter, in turn revealed as consisting of multiplying obelisks (accompanied by the eerie atonality of David Shire’s score). It’s an inspired and genuinely resonant idea, possibly the best hook Clarke has in his plot, and certainly 2010’s most filmic “twist” (although "It's reproducing exactly like a virus" shows scientific rigour isn't Clarke's strong point). Elements like this, along with the return of David Bowman (Keir Dullea, wheeled out of cold storage after a decade and a half), ensure 2010 has a lift beyond the mere materialistic, even if it means its closest genre relative during the decade of its making is probably The Black Hole.

The Bowman plot serves both the plans of the alien entity and the sentiment of the picture’s desire to explore “real people” – Bowman visits his dying mother and remarried wife (Mary Jo Deschanel), but the attachment itself is of one who no longer carries deep emotion. He is, after all, also serving a transhumanist agenda, propelled onto the next stage by the mech obelisks/AI (there is no need for God in Clarke’s schema; we can dress the material up as Bowman transcending to the status of an energy-based lifeform, joining those controlling the monoliths, but the effect is one of machine intelligence altering mankind’s development). Bowman comes across as more bewildered than enlightened, not truly perceiving the means and purpose of his behaviour. Rudolf Steiner warned that without direct perception of the spiritual world, there will be “immersion in a trend of thinking merely as mental activity”. Bowman only “appears” as a spiritual being. That facet is an illusion.

Indeed, the falling away of emotional response is a key aspect of the transhumanist ethos, and connects with Clarke’s Childhood’s End, in which humanity is destined to integrate with a hive mind. There, the aliens are revealed as resembling demons (some might argue this as a sleight, and the truth is the other way around). This is a theme later found in the likes of Nigel Kneale (Quatermass and the Pit) and Doctor Who (The Daemons).

On which theme, it is curious and telling beyond the mere surface level that Clarke chose to rename Jupiter – now transformed into a second sun, lighting the night sky – Lucifer. Kubrick was surely aware that Venus is already intrinsically linked to the name Lucifer (the morning star), so one wonders at his motives. In Steiner lore, Luciferian influences are very much of the mind. Lucifer “stirs up in man all fanatical, all falsely mystical forces” (and with Ahrimanic very much of the material, one can easily see the thread connecting this to the transhumanist path of rejecting the spiritual). The Luciferic force (which Steiner views as having a necessary evolutionary purpose as per the Ahrimanic, but both to be held in check) “strives to draw the human being away from the earth and the tasks connected with it”, leading him into “the heights of self-experience”. Which sounds a bit like becoming a Star Child, doesn’t it? Whereas, of course, the obelisk would be Ahrimanic. In Steiner terms, “faulty spiritualism and excessive materialism” are the snares of Lucifer and Ahriman. One might see them as defining Clarke’s science fiction. Curiously, Steiner’s evolution for humanity ends in the new Jupiter phase, so Clarke might in a sense be offering a direct rebuke of that.

More prosaically, one might be given to ponder the implications of such linguistic creations as the Star Child (and Childhood’s End) in reflection – Ahrimanic reflection? – of Clarke’s known predilections as a confirmed resident of Sri Lanka, and the rumours and allegations that followed him around in that regard. It’s notable that Spielberg was attached to 2010 for a spell, when Fox assumed they had a right to the rights. That’s Spielberg, who lately has enough rumours circulating to make Clarke tattle seem like small potatoes, and who made a film of Kubrick’s A.I. – itself a coded tale of paedophilia. There’s little doubt that the berg would have upped the ante of all 2010: Odyssey Two’s worst tendencies (think various sappy SF/fantasy material from that decade, including his contributions to Twilight Zone: The Movie, *batteries not included and E.T.) Curiously – or tellingly – another Hollywood figure with probably the most abundant rumours swirling about him was, at one time, at the beginning of the millennium, attached to adaptations of 2061: Odyssey Three and 3001: The Final Odyssey: Tom Hanks.

2010: The Year We Make Contact is a very much an adaptation of the novel and very much a Peter Hyams film and very much an 80s SF film (one with dolphins in the family swimming pool, in keeping with the eco-conscious deep dive of Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home a few years later. The evocative image on Europa in the 20,001 final shot is also very resonant Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan’s final shot). None of those are necessarily bad things; it’s just that none of them are great things either. I suspect “bad” would have been the prevailing adjective if either of the other, increasingly destitute sequels had got off the ground.


Popular posts from this blog

You were this amazing occidental samurai.

Ricochet (1991) (SPOILERS) You have to wonder at Denzel Washington’s agent at this point in the actor’s career. He’d recently won his first Oscar for Glory , yet followed it with less-than-glorious heart-transplant ghost comedy Heart Condition (Bob Hoskins’ racist cop receives Washington’s dead lawyer’s ticker; a recipe for hijinks!) Not long after, he dipped his tentative toe in the action arena with this Joel Silver production; Denzel has made his share of action fare since, of course, most of it serviceable if unremarkable, but none of it comes near to delivering the schlocky excesses of Ricochet , a movie at once ingenious and risible in its plot permutations, performances and production profligacy.

He’ll regret it to his dying day, if ever he lives that long.

The Quiet Man (1952) (SPOILERS) The John Wayne & John Ford film for those who don’t like John Wayne & John Ford films? The Quiet Man takes its cues from Ford’s earlier How Green Was My Valley in terms of, well less Anglophile and Hibernophile and Cambrophile nostalgia respectively for past times, climes and heritage, as Wayne’s pugilist returns to his family seat and stirs up a hot bed of emotions, not least with Maureen O’Hara’s red-headed hothead. The result is a very likeable movie, for all its inculcated Oirishness and studied eccentricity.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Well, something’s broke on your daddy’s spaceship.

Apollo 13 (1995) (SPOILERS) The NASA propaganda movie to end all NASA propaganda movies. Their original conception of the perilous Apollo 13 mission deserves due credit in itself; what better way to bolster waning interest in slightly naff perambulations around a TV studio than to manufacture a crisis event, one emphasising the absurd fragility of the alleged non-terrestrial excursions and the indomitable force that is “science” in achieving them? Apollo 13 the lunar mission was tailor made for Apollo 13 the movie version – make believe the make-believe – and who could have been better to lead this fantasy ride than Guantanamo Hanks at his all-American popularity peak?

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

You think a monkey knows he’s sitting on top of a rocket that might explode?

The Right Stuff (1983) (SPOILERS) While it certainly more than fulfils the function of a NASA-propaganda picture – as in, it affirms the legitimacy of their activities – The Right Stuff escapes the designation of rote testament reserved for Ron Howard’s later Apollo 13 . Partly because it has such a distinctive personality and attitude. Partly too because of the way it has found its through line, which isn’t so much the “wow” of the Space Race and those picked to be a part of it as it is the personification of that titular quality in someone who wasn’t even in the Mercury programme: Chuck Yaeger (Sam Shephard). I was captivated by The Right Stuff when I first saw it, and even now, with the benefit of knowing-NASA-better – not that the movie is exactly extolling its virtues from the rooftops anyway – I consider it something of a masterpiece, an interrogation of legends that both builds them and tears them down. The latter aspect doubtless not NASA approved.

We’ve got the best ball and chain in the world. Your ass.

Wedlock (1991) (SPOILERS) The futuristic prison movie seemed possessed of a particular cachet around this time, quite possibly sparked by the grisly possibilities of hi-tech disincentives to escape. On that front, HBO TV movie Wedlock more than delivers its FX money shot. Elsewhere, it’s less sure of itself, rather fumbling when it exchanges prison tropes for fugitives-on-the-run ones.

Drank the red. Good for you.

Morbius (2022) (SPOILERS) Generic isn’t necessarily a slur. Not if, by implication, it’s suggestive of the kind of movie made twenty years ago, when the alternative is the kind of super-woke content Disney currently prioritises. Unfortunately, after a reasonable first hour, Morbius descends so resignedly into such unmoderated formula that you’re left with a too-clear image of Sony’s Spider-Verse when it lacks a larger-than-life performer (Tom Hardy, for example) at the centre of any given vehicle.

So, you’re telling me that NASA is going to kill the President of the United States with an earthquake?

Conspiracy Theory (1997) (SPOILERS) Mel Gibson’s official rehabilitation occurred with the announcement of 2016’s Oscar nominations, when Hacksaw Ridge garnered six nods, including Mel as director. Obviously, many refuse to be persuaded that there’s any legitimate atonement for the things someone says. They probably weren’t even convinced by Mel’s appearance in Daddy’s Home 2 , an act of abject obeisance if ever there was one. In other circles, though, Gibbo, or Mad Mel, is venerated as a saviour unsullied by the depraved Hollywood machine, one of the brave few who would not allow them to take his freedom. Or at least, his values. Of course, that’s frequently based on alleged comments he made, ones it’s highly likely he didn’t. But doesn’t that rather appeal to the premise of his 23-year-old star vehicle Conspiracy Theory , in which “ A good conspiracy theory is an unproveable one ”?

He doesn’t want to lead you. He just wants you to follow.

Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore (2022) (SPOILERS) The general failing of the prequel concept is a fairly self-evident one; it’s spurred by the desire to cash in, rather than to tell a story. This is why so few prequels, in any form, are worth the viewer/reader/listener’s time, in and of themselves. At best, they tend to be something of a well-rehearsed fait accompli. In the movie medium, even when there is material that withstands closer inspection (the Star Wars prequels; The Hobbit , if you like), the execution ends up botched. With Fantastic Beasts , there was never a whiff of such lofty purpose, and each subsequent sequel to the first prequel has succeeded only in drawing attention to its prosaic function: keeping franchise flag flying, even at half-mast. Hence Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore , belatedly arriving after twice the envisaged gap between instalments and course-correcting none of the problems present in The Crimes of Grindelwald .