ks@astrovax.UUCP (Karl Stapelfeldt) (10/05/83)
Hold it a moment folks.
I think both of the opinions expressed re "2001" miss the mark. It's
not a leave-in-the-middle bomb, but you can bet it's not the best movie
ever made either. Clarke's story makes fine reading (although it's not his
best); but the movie manages to portray man's future in space as sanitized,
disconnected boredom. This is certainly an allowable view of the future,
but not one that I personally subscribe to or understand the literary/"dramatic"necessity for. It is incredible that the film could portray mankind's
space presence so blandly (even in the midst of a momentous discovery) during
1968 when some of the most exciting events of the U.S. space program were
occurring or about to occur.
There are a few redeeming qualities worthy of mention. The special effectswere a milestone in the history of film; and the music is well used, even if it
is applied out of its composed context. The attempt to bring an intellectually
satisfying story to the screen was also noble. The final result is
memorable in scope and intent, but not in execution.
I find it particularly unconvincing when someone argues "you had to read
the book to understand the movie" (I realize this hasn't exactly been proclaimed
on net.movies yet). Sure, it sounds great to introduce a combined
literary/cinematic art form; but this usually isn't the argument I hear.
The film should be able to communicate its essential thrust and direction
without requiring that the viewer run back to the library afterward to
resolve his/her confusion. When one adapts an established literary classic
to the screen, one can afford
to draw on the average viewer's knowledge of the story and leave much unsaid.
This film, with the novelisation published at or near its release, was not
in such a luxurious position (although its screenplay writer obviously
thought it was). Considering the differences in the story details between the
printed and cinematic versions, it is especially weak to rely on the book
to fill out the viewer's understanding of the movie.
Equally tiresome are those who imply that if you don't understand
the intricacies of "2001", you must be mentally deficient. This snobbery
never convinced me of anything except that these individuals must
rely on their "insight" to justify their opinions of themselves.
Overall: Overrated. I'm sure that if the net existed in 1968-69, this
issue would have been aired out by now. Well, how about making up for lost
time?
Karl Stapelfeldt
Princeton U. astrophysics
astrovax!ks