Cutting Down Classics: 2001: A Space Odyssey

Stanley Kubrick is easily one of the most revered director's of all time. Known for his grueling shoots and endless takes, Kubrick's films are defined by impressive visuals, technical mastery, an intense attention to detail, and plenty of memorable moments ranging from the warrior cry of "I'm Spartacus!" to Jack Nicholson's face busting through a bathroom door saying "Here's Johnny!" But to my mind Kubrick has a couple of movies that fall flat. No not the ones you're thinking of (i.e. Eyes Wide Shut or the second half of Full Metal Jacket), but a movie so beloved it ends up on nearly every movie list: 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Considered by many to be a magnum opus of science fiction film-making, I find myself agreeing with critics of the day who famously didn't like the movie before its re-evaluation by film scholars in the years to come. Why? I'll dig into why in today's edition of Cutting Down Classics.

The film takes place in three time periods, the first at the dawn of humanity, the second during humanity's push towards space exploration, and finally during a small manned mission to the reaches of the galaxy. Along the way humanity is hounded by mysterious monoliths and forced to consider the implications, good and bad, of emerging technologies.

Why It's A Classic: A Feat in Film-Making (Literally)

2001 is considered a classic for two big reasons: it's full of iconic moments and it, like all of Kubrick's movies, is an insanely well-crafted film. Be it the apes discovery of tools in time with the music, almost every scene involving Hal 9000 (especially the lip-reading), or the gravity defying job, 2001 is a marvel of movie-making that will stick with you long after you've seen. So why doesn't this resonate with everyone? Probably because there's not enough connective tissue.

Why You Might Hate It

Problem #1: The Structure

While I'm sure most of the reasoning behind the film's three act structure can be chalked up to the source material, I admittedly haven't read it, splitting a science fiction film into disparate parts doesn't work for me. I understand that it's supposed to be about discovery and technology and perhaps the monolith is supposed to be some kind of beacon or guiding force towards human progress. My counter-argument is that the shifts between the three stories are so jarring that they hardly feel related. We literally stand with apes learning how to use bone tools to bludgeon each other to death and that transfers to....space travel and a dig on the moon? And that moon dig somehow leads to two astronauts set upon by a sentient computer before ending in a giant mind f***? The film segment almost works as a film unto itself until the head-turning end which brings up another problem.

Problem #2: No Narrative Cohesion

Not every film needs a beginning, a middle, and an end. I'm well aware of this. I know some movies are about exploring themes and not telling a story. They are not my favorite films, but I can understand their value. What makes 2001 so irritating is that the themes and story seem to shift with every story or sometimes within the stories themselves. If the movie is all about the dual nature of technology and discovery then why does the second segment feel more like the final 20 minutes of Close Encounters rather than pure terror? 

What significance do the monoliths have towards human progress? What does this alien interaction in the human world say about us or them? Oh god this is headed towards Prometheus levels of over-explaining lets bail.

Problem #3: Emotionless

The main reason I can't watch this film is because I have no investment in the outcome. I don't care which apes reign supreme and I barely care about what humanity is discovering on the moon. I haven't been given reasons to care. The only segment that pulls me in the aforementioned third segment because of the inherent terror of being almost alone in space with a malevolent and all-too intelligent AI. That's terrifying, so of course I want our heroes to survive...but to what end? What is their ultimate goal? I'm sure this will be defended as a cerebral move but truly it feels emotionless. I need to care about the outcome to experience wonder.

Conclusion: Watch it a series of ideas not a narrative

While full of memorable imagery and moments, 2001 does not have the human touch to make it truly involving. I'm not opposed to films that ask the audience to make up their mind, but when the audience has to fill in all of the blanks on their own, you've lost me.