Slashdot Mirror


The 50th Anniversary of Stanley Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey"

Today marks the 50th anniversary of the original release of Stanley Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey," a seminal film in motion picture history and one that has awed millions over the years. Kubrick's title has often been credited with paving the way for science-fiction films that took a realistic approach to depicting the future. Even as "2001" has grown to become one of the most iconic movies of all time, the reception it received when it originally premiered wasn't good. An excerpt: 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.
The Cannes Film Festival will celebrate the 50th anniversary of "2001: A Space Odyssey" with the world premiere of an unrestored 70mm print, introduced by Christopher Nolan. The event is set for May 12 as part of the Cannes Classics program. The screening will also be attended by members of Kubrick's family, including his daughter Katharina Kubrick and his longtime producing partner and brother-in-law Jan Harlan.

Further reading: Why 2001: A Space Odyssey's mystery endures, 50 years on (CNET); 50 years of 2001: A Space Odyssey -- how Kubrick's sci-fi 'changed the very form of cinema' (The Guardian); The story of a voice: HAL in '2001' wasn't always so eerily calm (The New York Times); and The most intriguing theories about "2001: A Space Odyssey" (io9); and Behind the scenes of 2001: A Space Odyssey, the strangest blockbuster in Hollywood history (Vanity Fair).

7 of 206 comments (clear)

  1. And it's still basically unwatchable. by Whorhay · · Score: 1, Insightful

    2001 is a prime example of a movie that doesn't age well. I read and enjoyed the book, which was relatively short and to the point. The Movie however was mostly 2 hours of impossibly bad tedium. I'll never forget the spaceship landing scene where a model of a space ship descends at a glacial pace towards a moon base or something while music builds and build and builds... until nothing happens and we cut to the next scene.

    1. Re:And it's still basically unwatchable. by Virtucon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As opposed to the latest Star Wars where the ships land and explode perfectly? Or the version where Lucas made the Death Star explode better? Maybe if the Obelisk turned out to be a Decepticon?

      There's a lot of examples of contemporary, "unwatchable" films. This one is still considered a classic even with all of it's flaws.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    2. Re:And it's still basically unwatchable. by blind+biker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I beg to differ. To me, 2001 is an example of movie that aged awesomely well. Still one of the most re-watcheable movies of all time.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
  2. Re:The moon landings were better by jfdavis668 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Richard Nixon couldn't cover up an office break in. How would he create a world wide conspiracy when the Soviet Union could expose it in minutes?

  3. Re:Oh, God, not again! by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The problem is that you were looking for a typical movie storyline, and instead got a meditation on humanity's place in the Universe. It's like complaining that Beethoven didn't put a guitar solo in the Fifth Symphony.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  4. Re:Inaccessible, Inexplicable and Brilliant by david_thornley · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Right. And that's the problem.

    A highly intelligent person who had read, say, Childhood's End (also by Clarke) could go into the movie and not understand what was going on. If a movie needs a large amount of written material to get a clue about, it's something of a failure.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  5. Re:Oh, God, not again! by crunchygranola · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The DIscovery depended on HAL though for the mission to succeed. It ran the spacecraft. Wanting to immediately shut down the entire system, tantamount to aborting the entire mission, and endangering the sleeping crew, without even discussing it with the only other active crew member means that you should not be a crew member on such a mission.

    --
    Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age