OK, we have had our say.
We don’t think there is much controversial here, but now you can vote for your favourite Kubrick film or your least favourite.
And there’s a discussion forum, for longer answers: https://www.pwsanders.uk/forums/forum/discussion-forum/the-arts/cinema/kubrick-films/
We first saw 2001 at the Capitol cinema in Scarborough (now a bingo hall, we suspect) in what must have been a 35mm print. It didn’t make a lot of sense, but was impressive.
Coming to London, the Casino theatre, now the Prince Edward, was showing it as intended: huge screen, 70mm or similar print, surround sound, overture and interval. What a wonderful experience.
2001 got mixed reviews when it came out, but, over the years, has become regularly one of the ten best films ever made in many polls.
It is a true cinematic experience. There is dialogue, but mostly it’s inane, you know, normal. The story is told through the images. This is pure cinema.
You have to be impressed that there is no cgi here, so short cuts. But don’t judge the film by how it was made, judge it by what you see on the screen.
Digital scans have done this film no favours. There are big format film copies around. The BFI shows one sometimes, but it is scratched and broken with portions missing and is not great to watch. We have seen another with intrusive French subtitles.
The story? At it’s heart it’s another Kubrick war film. In the first section, the monolith appears to give one tribe a push over another. They learn how to make weapons and how to kill their enemies. War has begun.
Once we are in space, we see objects orbiting Earth. In some version they were bombs. The Cold War continues: the American and Russian scientists have a very cold and wary conversation. The American scientist is evasive and lies to the Russians. And so on. In the Jupiter voyage section, HAL wages war on the humans.
It’s another film that was reduced in length after the first performances, and at some point there was supposed to be a prologue nd narration, but that did not happen.
Like so many Kubrick films, this was edited after release and some scenes removed, in some countries. Recent versions have restored some of these bits.
There has been so much written about this film, and we have very little new to add.
At the time, the photography, especially the use of the new fangled Steadicam, was something of a revelation.
The book on which it is based is pretty awful. The story does not make much sense, and many regard the film rather as Kubrick’s version of Kramer versus Kramer. We are documenting the collapse of a family by tv here.
The use of red, white and blue is unsubtle. There are so many articles about the inconsistencies in the plot, but we just think that the shoot was so long that errors popped in and they really don’t have great significance.
Lots has been written about the multiple takes Kubrick used. This is all very interesting, but it’s what is on the screen that counts, not all the other guff.
