27 ms·
Ebert never mentions Arthur C. Clarke, who wrote the short story that the movie is derived from, who wrote the script with Kubrick, and who also wrote a first-c
by garyrob 16y ago
Ebert never mentions Arthur C. Clarke, who wrote the short story that the movie is derived from, who wrote the script with Kubrick, and who also wrote a first-class sci-fi novel with the same name and basic plot as the movie.
The Clarke novel is far more literal in spirit than Ebert's interpretation of the film. The most important difference is probably the bedroom. In the novel, it's a place where the aliens try to make Bowman comfortable while they study him. The novel describes how Bowman spits out the water he finds there, because it doesn't taste right: turns out it's too pure. The aliens knew he was supposed to have water, but they didn't understand about all the other trace chemicals we're used to. It's all very concrete.
That being said, there was a book about the making of 2001, and it talked about how there was some conflict between Kubrick and Clarke over the literalness issue. For instance, when the Star Child appears at the end of the movie, Clarke needed there to be concrete explanation of what he was doing there near Earth and why he was doing it, and suggested reasons to Kubrick, who was (in Clarke's description of the scene) "unimpressed." Clarke was also upset when he went to the first screening of the movie and saw that some of the explanatory plot was not there.
My takeaway is that Kubrick was more oriented toward 2001 being a visual poem, intended to convey his vision in a deep, evocative, non-literal way. And in that sense, it seems that Ebert's take on it is consistent with Kubrick's vision, if perhaps not consistent with what Clarke had expected/intended the movie to be.
- ars 16y agoKubrick's version makes no sense at all unless you read the book, and it left me with a lasting dislike of all of his works and a bafflement that people consider him such a great director. It's a story first, and a work of art second. I suppose some (lots?) of people like art that makes no sense, but not me. And I think Ebert never mentions Arthur C. Clarke because Ebert didn't read the book either, and like everyone else has no clue what's happening in the film. There is an actual story here. A great one, and Kubrick was unable (or unwilling) to actually include it in the movie. For anyone who hasn't seen it yet, do yourself a favor: Read the book first, then watch the movie. In the book I read Arthur included a preface that explained how the book and movie were created together.
- garyrob 16y agoI read the book before the movie came out (I was 12 at the time; I vividly recall begging my mother to take me to the bookstore to buy it, at which time she presented it to me because she'd already bought it for me for Christmas or my birthday (not sure what month it was)). So, I have always understood the movie in light of the book. And yet, I love Kubrick's films -- he's my favorite director, and I think I would have loved 2001 even without having read the book. In that case, I think my interpretation would have been a lot like Ebert's, although I wouldn't have been able to express it as well. But, I'll never know, because I simply didn't have the opportunity to have that experience.
- ars 16y agoI think if you did have that experience you would hate him :) I watched the movie, thought it was horrible and incomprehensible, read the book, then watched it again and enjoyed it - somewhat, I kept getting annoyed at how unwatchable it was without the book knowledge. But except for the warp scene the visuals were great.
- bradleyland 16y agoMakes no sense at all? That's rather unfair. Would you say that abstract art makes no sense at all unless the author explains it to you? Who says that film is story first, art second? Frankly, I don't want to live in a world where film is limited to works of literal dictation. You are free to dislike someone's work, but to say it makes no sense is an objective statement about communication. There is an abundance of sense in 2001.
- mhb 16y agoPoets say science takes away from the beauty of the stars - mere globs of gas atoms. Nothing is "mere". I too can see the stars on a desert night, and feel them. But do I see less or more? The vastness of the heavens stretches my imagination - stuck on this carousel my little eye can catch one-million-year-old light. A vast pattern - of which I am a part... What is the pattern or the meaning or the why? It does not do harm to the mystery to know a little more about it. For far more marvelous is the truth than any artists of the past imagined it. Why do the poets of the present not speak of it? What men are poets who can speak of Jupiter if he were a man, but if he is an immense spinning sphere of methane and ammonia must be silent? Feynman
- Jun8 16y agoSimilar comments also apply, I think, to Kubrick's adaptation of Stephen King's The Shining. Several critics talk about how it has hidden meanings about the massacre of American Indians.
- huxley 16y agoI don't know if it is the "making of" book you mean, but there is a good book called "The Lost Worlds of 2001" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lost_Worlds_of_2001 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lost_Worlds_of_2001 I found one at a used bookstore ages ago and it was a fascinating look at the partnership and conflict between Kubrick and Clarke as well as a look at the different ideas and plots they discarded.
- bwanab 16y agoKubrick's films before 2001 (Spartacus, Paths of Glory, etc) tended to tell the story with words and pictures. From 2001 on, with the notable exception of Barry Lyndon, he seemed to become obsessed with imagery, or as you say, creating visual poems (and even Barry Lyndon with its simple plot was a visual powerhouse), but I'm afraid his storytelling became secondary. For those of you who haven't read Clarke's book 2001, you should consider putting it on your list. As garyrob has implied, it's very different from the movie - very concrete - and yet, possibly as a result, almost more hallucinogenic than the film could ever be.