I’ve never seen the movie in theaters and only once or twice on a TV screen. Whether it was because of that or my young age at viewing, I never understood the movie. I liked its visuals but I remember being confused by this “difficult, ambiguous, modernist landmark”. I’d love to be able to see it as an adult and see if I understand it any better now. Probably not.
“2001: A Space Odyssey” trailer
I got to see it (with a fresh print, no less!) about 1978 at the last theatre in Tucson here with a 70mm projector. Also got to see ‘A Clockwork Orange’, ‘Apocalypse Now’ and ‘Reds’ in 70mm there, too. That was a wonderful theatre…long, long gone, of course.
And yes it’s a ‘difficult, ambiguous, modernist landmark’ for certain, and takes a couple of viewings to understand.
And all these years later (and numerous viewings), I only THINK i understand the ending…
The experience of it is the understanding of it. Without seeing it on 70mm with Cinerama you can’t really apprehend the effect it has.
Its worth seeing on the big screen in 70 mm.
I’ve said this elsewhere; 2001 presents a conundrum. I love watching it because its serious treatment of a potential future is something of a vindication for an entire maligned movie genre.
Visually brilliant and almost deliberately elliptical, the film’s narrative didn’t exactly resolve itself in a manner which many moviegoers could follow. “Jupiter and Beyond” is more of a sensory bombardment than a sequence of events presented with a conventionally presented narrative, as much of the rest of the film is.
Of course, I already knew what the story was supposed to be about, because I’d already been reading science fiction for years when I first saw it. And now I wish I hadn’t read the book before seeing it for the first time during a 1972 screening at a local theater. Because that means I’ll never know what the movie was like for someone who didn’t know Clarke’s backstory for everything. So I’ll never know how well it holds up for someone unprepared, who lacks the fan’s inside baseball.
I used to tell folks that “you had to read the book to fully appreciate the film,” but that’s not exactly the best recommendation for a movie that should stand on its own.
I saw it when it was originally in theaters. I was blown away. Other movies I remember like this were THX-1138, Logan’s Run, Silent Running, and Bladerunner. I saw them all when they first hit theaters. Of course now they pale in comparison to today’s movies for special effects. etc. But they were just as important back then as any movies now.
Yep. No distractions, no food, no effing phones, no idiots yammering at you to ruin the mood. I was lucky enough to see it in 70mm in 1969 and it blew me away. It also ruined almost all the previous and following space westerns for me, especially Star Bores.
I didn’t understand the message then and I don’t now, except that it’s a brave, unflinchingly realist view of our use of tools and science, and what we could have expected in the 21st century, much of which has been realised.
I experienced it in the exact opposite manner. I had seen the movie at least twice…once as a very young boy…and then again while in college…and was, like many, both charmed and perplexed by the movie.
And then I read the book on which it was based, by Arthur C. Clarke, and I came to fully understand the movie. And in that understanding I grew in appreciation of the movie. Without the full understanding of the plot, my appreciation of the movie would not be complete.
After reading the book, I saw the movie again shortly thereafter, and it became even more of a revelation to me.
So my recommendation would be for someone to see the movie first, if they haven’t already, and then read the book, and then see the movie again. IMHO, that’s the best way to fully enjoy and appreciate this masterpiece of a movie.
Funny story. My father and Arthur C. Clarke were pretty good friends. Close enough that when my Dad’s work took him through Asia, he’d stop and stay with Arthur in Sri Lanka. Anyway…
One afternoon a few years back, while I was home visiting, my Dad and I turned off the lights, closed all the blinds, and watched “2001: A Space Odyssey”. When it was over, we both tried sussing out the meaning of the ending with differing opinions and no real understanding.
So my Dad picks up the phone and calls Arthur and asks him what the heck it was supposed to mean. Arthur replies “shit Frank, I don’t understand it either.”
He was a very warm, and funny guy.
My understanding of “the book” is that Kubrick asked Clarke to write it essentially as the story for the film, but Kubrick kept changing it as it was his story. And that’s what he does. Also, the monolith supposedly represents knowledge. Or an iPhone X.
Ha ha ha! well put!
I love 70’s sci-fi but I’ve watched this movie several times and it just makes no sense to me whatsoever. I love the look and feel of it, but it’s just so abstract in places. I finally broke down and read a synopsis of it just to be able to piece it together.
You have my envy; that would’ve worked a lot better for me.