From the very beginning of the movie, it becomes evident to the viewer that Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey is a movie unlike any other. The movie is set into multiple acts , almost like a play. The first part of the movie focuses on the prehistoric apes, who are surprised by the presence of a black monolith. The apes learn to use bones as tools and weapons and become a smarter species. The movie goes into the next part, which switches way to the future, with a man, named Dr. Heywood Floyd, who is traveling to the space station. After docking, they head to the moon where, once again, the monolith presents itself in the movie, only this time the humans witness it. From there, the movie flashes forward to a ship on route to Jupiter. The ship is run by a computer system named HAL 9000. The astronauts aboard this ship are afraid that HAL has failed and that he is after the astronauts. After the deaths of most of the crew, HAL is shut down and Dave, the remaining astronaut, travels into a new dimension. This helps open up the last part of the movie where Dave grows old and dies in a bedroom, where once again, the monolith appears. The movie finally ends with the image of what seems to be a fetus.
For its time, 2001 incorporates many futuristic and innovative technologies that give a sense of realism, making it a one-of-a-kind movie. The music and lack of dialogue that Kubrick put into his movie also separates his it from the others in the genre. With all of these different techniques brought into one movie, it causes the viewer to go on a psychological journey through the movie to try and interpret what happens throughout the film.
While watching the movie, the viewer is easily able to notice the strict and defined detail in the technology and ships throughout the film. Each scene is filled with vastly complex and high tech gadgets that improved the overall sense of the film. Everything from a video phone, HAL, the pods, and even the way the astronauts slept, helped define the movie and set the tone throughout the film.
Kubrick also took a huge gamble by filling the movie with slow moving classical music and very little dialogue. For most, the movie came off as boring because the ideas and plot was not thrown out to the viewer. He required the viewer to step into the movie and envelop your mind into the movie and make predictions as to what the movie was really saying. The music set an ambient tone and helped the viewer keep perspective into the movie. The music Kubrick chose was enough to keep sound in the film, but it wasn't overwhelming to the point where it gave away the movie. Once again, it caused the viewer to think about what was going on rather than just have it spoon fed to them. Roger Ebert states that, "When classical music is associated with popular entertainment, the result is usually to trivialize it. Kubrick's film is almost unique in enhancing the music by its association with his images."
The main factor that sets Kubrick's film apart from so many other sci-fi films is the fact that it brings in a psychological element that other movies cannot mimic. The movie forces the viewer to think about what is going on since it is not shown or verbalized, like most films. The movie, in a sense, plays with the mind of the viewer and makes them think in depth about what they are watching. Even after much questioning, Kubrick only replied with this statement, ”You're free to speculate as you wish about the philosophical and allegorical meaning of the film, but I don't want to spell out a verbal road map for 2001 that every viewer will feel obligated to pursue or else fear he's missed the point." With that, the audience is able to gather that Kubrick intentionally set the movie up to be one where every viewer can and will see the movie in a different light. The fact that he leaves it up to the viewer to ponder the plot makes it a movie unlike any other.
Good job Jordan. I really like your paper. This sentence : "The music and lack of dialogue that Kubrick put into his movie also separates his it from the others in the genre." doesn't make much sense. I think you accidentally put an extra word in there. You also could talk more about the symbolism of the monolith in each part. Also, I don't know if it's just the way it posted on your blog but your first paragraph seemed very lengthy. Other than that your paper was great and definately entertaining.
ReplyDeleteJordan, i really liked your paper! The words you use flow so easily. There are a couple small errors like a contraction or added word. Look out for those things,but obviously this is just a first draft. I agree with Anna. I think you could make it very interesting if you talk about the symbolism of the monolith.I love the quotes you used. they fit really well with what you are talking about. Im not exactly sure how we are supposed to cite in our essay but dont forget to do ... if we are supposed to.. ;) ya know MLA syle. Great paper! im so proud :) jk
ReplyDeleteYou need to include your overall opinion of the film upfront. Your summary should be shorter, enough to provide context for someone who hasn't seen the film. Discuss the film in terms of yourself, not a nameless "viewer." Take responsibility for your own opinions.
ReplyDeleteTalk about films in the present tense.
The movie doesn't "come off as boring," rather some people perceive it as boring.
Another reason to avoid 3rd person "one" is that you slip into 2nd person "you." Stick with first-person "I."
How does music help someone "keep perspective into the movie"? What does that mean? How does the music enhance the film rather than trivialize it (as Ebert claims). What music is it? Who composed it? Why was it chosen?
You say the film forces viewers to think about what is going on in the film. What is going on? Provide examples of thought-provoking moments to back up your statement.
End with your overall opinion of the film, not a general statement that no one could argue with. Does leaving the meaning unclear make the film better? worse? How does it make the film "unlike any other"?
Your paper was very good. I think you need to explain the plot of the movie a little bit more. Also, I think you should state your opinion of the movie at the beginning of your paper. Other than that, I thought you did a really good job of interpreting the movie in your own words. Watch out for grammar and spelling mistakes, of course.
ReplyDelete