What makes 2001: A Space Odyssey so surreal? How come it speaks with so many people on many different levels?
2001: A Space Odyssey is film as art. It is visual poetry. And like great poetry it demands something from you. Many people don't care for this. They want escapist entertainment and there's nothing wrong with that. Stanley Kubrick made films for people who want more than that. And with 2001 he gave us a lot more with an audacious conceit that is truly staggering in its ambition. He would represent through film the idea of the 'Cosmic Ascension'. Now that takes gravitas.There is real beauty in 2001, akin to the great masters of painting. The famous 'Space Ballet' is arguably the most beautiful sequence in film history. And it was done without computer graphics. It not only holds up to today's visual standards in a technical sense, it has yet to be surpassed. So much of the story is told visually, something film audiences today aren't used to and many find disconcerting. But if you disconnect from what you are used to, answer to the demands made of you, you may find rich rewards.The story is epic in its scope. Man was created, by design, by happenstance, in the context of the film this is unknown. Some time after the creation there was an intervention leading to an 'ascension'. Who intervened? God? An alien intelligence? Unclear. Move ahead a million years or so and Man has moved into space using his creation: machines. And here in space will come the great battle. A battle between Man and his creation. Machine will seek to claim the 'Cosmic Ascension' in the place of its creator. Once the battle ends the victor 'ascends' in one of the most visually stunning sequences ever filmed. What these visuals specifically mean is open to interpretation. Like one of the great epic poems, 2001 will say different things to different people. It challenges you, both visually and intellectually. You are required to invest in it. Many filmgoers today aren't used to such demands. But if you're looking for depth you will find it here.
Is the 2001: A Space Odyssey book better than the movie?
I personally prefer the book, but the novel and movie are very different experiences.The book is more cerebral. In the book there’s a bridging chapter on evolution making the transition from the man-apes’ time to the 21st century and helping tie the theme together through the whole novel. Lots of the novel is dedicated to an attempt to realistically portray how commercial space flight might develop, a classic topic for Clarke. After Bowman passes through the Star Gate and as he transforms into the Star Child, we get wonderfully detailed descriptions of alien civilizations and locales and interesting narrative.The movie is, ironically enough, more visceral. You feel the man-apes trauma and the edginess of the astronauts investigating TMA-1 on the Lunar surface. Bowman’s trip through the Star Gate is overwhelming and even while it’s a fair criticism that that particular sequence goes on too long, it must have seemed like an eternity to Bowman as well. It’s an excellent film, but the pacing is glacial compared to more modern fare.Both are outstanding achievements in their respective media. I have a strong preference for the book, but there’s a lot of Science Fiction novels of similar quality. The movie on the other hand is a singular achievement. It’s the quintessential serious-science-fiction movie. It moved the genre significantly forward and its influence weighs heavily on everything since.
Why is 2001: A Space Odyssey so hard to understand?
2001: A Space Odyssey had no narrator. Simply put, that’s why it was hard to understand. There’s no one who explains to the audience what is going on.It’s surprising how hard to understand some movies are if you turn the sound off to not have a narrator.When I saw the movie first run and watched how the astronauts acted, I remembered Apollo astronauts that were in the news at the time. Astronauts really do act and talk the way they are depicted in the movie. But the movie does not have news anchors explaining the events the way the Apollo moon shots did.Then I got to the star-gate sequence. At first I thought it was just psychedelics for fun. It WAS the 1960s after all. But them I noticed scenes of stellar atmospheres. And then I noticed that the crystals that appeared were clearly alien spacecraft accompanying Dave on his star-gate trip. Wait a minute, this was a trip across the stars.Once we got to the scenes with the hotel room and the aging, I had to read the novel to understand that. But I’d read other Arthur C Clark novels so I did know it had to be about alien contact.Finally there was the “space infant”. I had to read the sequel novel then watch the sequel movie to understand that.All because there was no narrator explaining it to me in the movie.
Is the physics of 2001: A Space Odyssey correct?
The centrifuge on board Discovery was said (in the book) to be 35 feet in diameter, while the actual film set was 40 feet in diameter. Putting 20 feet into SpinCalc as the radius with a desired acceleration of 1 G, it yields an angular velocity of 12 rotations per minute, or one rotation every five seconds. That’s reversing an astronaut’s position relative to the ship 180° every 2.5 seconds. Now, with no frame of reference to look at, perhaps they didn’t notice, but I would think that would make you pretty dizzy.It’s possible that the astronauts got used to it after months in space, or that the centrifuge didn’t actually provide 1 G (though in the jogging sequence it sure looked like it). But even reducing it to a third of a G, it’s still almost 7 rotations per minute.If you’re going to fake gravity by centripetal force, it’s best to use a very large slow-moving centrifuge so you don’t feel seasick.