Review of 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) by Tom E — 01 Jul 2017

I forget who said it, but someone once said that "2001: A Space Odyssey" was the first film ever made ... that virtually all other films could exist as plays, musicals, books, concerts, etc without losing too much. I'm not sure I agree completely with that sentiment, but I do understand where it is coming from. "2001", in my opinion, remains the finest work of film ever made, and I'm not sure what comes in second.

The controversy comes, perhaps, in the acting. The acting is fine, but there is so little for the actors to say and do because the film is so rooted in visual storytelling. One could argue that the high point of acting in the film is Daniel Richter who plays the un-named ape man (called Moon-Watcher in the credits and novel). The other acting high point may very well be Douglas Rain who voices HAL. There is no weak acting for sure ... and Keir Dullea and Gary Lockwood give great performances as astronauts keeping a cool and collected demeanor under pressure.

Kubrick famously dumped Alex North's score for the film, and replaced it with extent classical music. Clearly, this had an effect (even people who have never seen the film, know that Strauss' "Also Sprach Zarathustra" is associated with this film). I think this was used for great dramatic impact. Not simply that the music was good (it was), but in using music that has its roots in a shared culture, it emphasizes the idea of mankind's past being so critical to the film, especially as the film transitions to the future.

Here was Kubrick's great conundrum: How does an artist pose great questions about humanity's past and its links to the future ... about the dualistic nature of man as creator/explorer and destroyer, about how humanity has evolved and continues to evolve, and the still unknown nature of evolution's link to technology (both as a function of evolution and a driver of it), and doing so in a visual medium? Raising such deep questions without words would be virtually impossible for many, but Kubrick is a grandmaster of the medium of film, and that is what I think he accomplished. I say "think", because the film itself is something like that monolith. One can never be sure what Kubrick's actual message was, and until his death he refused to say much other than to say that the film speaks for itself.

That might be the great beauty of this masterpiece - it is a film, like any great work of literature or art that requires a repeated viewings, and provokes and requires great thought ... not simply about what the film is saying, but how the viewer individually connects to it.

No film that I have ever seen has moved me to such contemplation as this one has.