Sign in with Facebook
Jack Beltane's Reviews > 2001: A Space Odyssey
2001: A Space Odyssey (Space Odyssey, #1)
by
by
The book is always better than the film, but I'd never read 2001 before. What I didn't know, until reading the foreword, is that this novel was literally written in tandem with the film, with Clarke and Kubrick feeding each other ideas. At some points, however, filming overtook writing, or vice versa, and the two stories, though similar, split along two different paths.
After reading the book, the film becomes little more than a very well crafted container: It's pretty and neat to look at it, but open it up, and it's empty. There is none of Clarke's vision of how a being we'd call God would communicate with us across unfathomable time spans, or teach us, or lead us into higher consciousness. Stripped away by Kubrick is the sense that this being truly wants us to be in its image, and that the whole breadcrumb trail of monoliths was designed to do just that. And completely erased is the notion that David Bowman, as Star Child, is now one with the Universe, in some Zen-like way, and also much more like something we'd called a god.
Don't get me wrong, 2001 is still one of my favorite films, but to get the full meaning and understand the full weight of why 2001 has been called "the perfect science fiction story," you must read the book. Clarke marries science, mysticism, theory, and fantasy in ways like no other. Unfortunately, Kubrick stripped away the mysticism and theory and left us what is, in comparison to the book, only a glimmer at something bigger.
Kubrick touched the monolith, but Clarke went inside.
After reading the book, the film becomes little more than a very well crafted container: It's pretty and neat to look at it, but open it up, and it's empty. There is none of Clarke's vision of how a being we'd call God would communicate with us across unfathomable time spans, or teach us, or lead us into higher consciousness. Stripped away by Kubrick is the sense that this being truly wants us to be in its image, and that the whole breadcrumb trail of monoliths was designed to do just that. And completely erased is the notion that David Bowman, as Star Child, is now one with the Universe, in some Zen-like way, and also much more like something we'd called a god.
Don't get me wrong, 2001 is still one of my favorite films, but to get the full meaning and understand the full weight of why 2001 has been called "the perfect science fiction story," you must read the book. Clarke marries science, mysticism, theory, and fantasy in ways like no other. Unfortunately, Kubrick stripped away the mysticism and theory and left us what is, in comparison to the book, only a glimmer at something bigger.
Kubrick touched the monolith, but Clarke went inside.
Sign into ŷ to see if any of your friends have read
2001.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
February 22, 2008
– Shelved
Started Reading
March 22, 2008
–
Finished Reading
Comments Showing 1-42 of 42 (42 new)
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Mal
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Dec 08, 2010 07:01PM
Spot-on review, Jack. I couldn't have said it better.
reply
|
flag
I'm glad this is better than the movie. While it was pretty deep and had a good plotline, there was something about the movie that just bored me to tears, confused me, and made me want to press the fast-forward' button all at the same time.
The tandem (film and book) are counter-points, each expressing the same ideas in different ways. The film is more puzzling and less didactic--more open-ended. It also (still) wonderfully captures the wonder of near-earth space travel that utterly escapes us today. And the soundtrack adds a majestic dimension lacking in the book. The book is quite good, but the film is a visual masterpiece (if not to everyone's liking). An interesting question is, is it better to first read, then watch, or the other way around?
@David: Experience the book or movie first? Hard to say. They're quite different. I think the movie may disappoint you if you read the book first. Having said that, the movie is a masterpiece of visual media, and the intent may be more the visuals than the plot... So yeah, I'm no help.
Seriously, this is perfectly phrased. I'm going to use your empty container analogy when comparing the two versions of the story, now, as it is exactly right.
I think you missed the impact of the novel and film being done in tandem. At some points, one or the other had to react to what the other was doing and unfortunately, the book suffers from that. BTW, the two stories didn't split along two different paths. One is a written work. The other is an A/V experience. They have different foci and, again, the written work suffers from NOT having split more from the A/V experience. 4 pages of prose to explain going through the star gate. Really?
I don't think you understand books...
I know you don't understand film and I know you don't know much about science fiction.
I'm glad to hear that someone (Clarke?) gave some background about the Clarke/Kubrick/collaboration (say that three times fast). I don't think that was the case when 2001 came out in pocketpaper - but then that was forty years ago.
Despite the stated collaboration, I have always regarded the novel to be one interpretation of the film. The film was quite oblique. It demands much inference of the viewer - if he will decide to do so. Without filling in the gaps, what is left is the container you describe. Kubrick expected more of you.
My forty year recollection is of a straight-forward hard-science novel (God need not apply). I may have to pick it up and re-read.
I disagree with much you said about the film. Of course Clarke had a different vision than Kubrick, but that doesn't make Kubrick's a hollow shell. It's more subtle than Clarke's. After hearing Douglas Trumbull speak about the film, I felt like I had a better understanding of Kubrick's version. He wanted to show that these aliens communicated with us and had us evolve, but unfortunately the way people evolve is through destruction of ourselves, and the only way to save us was to create a separate evolution of man (which ends up being the space child, our savior). It's a technically brilliant film, but also deals with plot subtleties unlike any other. Clarke's novel felt rooted in science, whereas Kubrick's was more interested in philosophy of humanity. Don't get me wrong, Clarke does it too, but it doesn't feel like that was his first priority.
The film was based on Clarke's short story, "The Sentinel," which I've read and studied. I'm a film grad student and a huge Clarke fan, and also a huge Kubrick fan. SK touched on much more than alluded to, here. HAL's internal conflict, the visual spectacle of the monolith appearances, and the final shot of the evolved Bowman are all Kubrick's vision. Clarke writes in a literal medium, which is by nature more cerebral than film. He is probably my favorite scifi writer, but that qualification aside, Clarke's novel is still beautifully and lyrically written, and was published (IMHO) to try and answer everyone who was scratching their heads after the film was released. Clarke's anti-war theme is obvious in both mediums, and that's the universal message he wants us to "get."
Having read the book first, The movie did disappoint me. No movie can do justice to the power of human imagination
However, it is pretty hard to translate the ideas from 2001 into a movie.
Great review Jack. I didn't understand the film when I was a kid and was left with a feeling of awe and confusion. I'm so glad I read the book which gave the film the context it needed when I recently watched it again. Probably one of the best sci fi books I've read. I just couldn't put it down.
Agree, agree, agree!!!
Jack , from what you say Kubrick as far as I know has done that twice , basically bastardised kings the shining adaption by having nothing to do with film but only done half of that to this book ... if only he’d done that to the shining movie , at least king has done his own adaption , but thanks to you I will read this series , i always thought Kubrick movie of this was odd like the shining before I read it and have always enjoyed 2010 more it seemed it had a way better plot, had a story I looked it up to find it was based pretty much plot for plot to the book 2010 then I just read your post , il say this though best review I’ve read , you’ve given away no plot , only mad more sense of what happened to bowman ? The astronaught ?
I was planning on watching the movie at first but because it was kind of 'old', I decided to read the book first and also to fill the gaps in the movie. So this is how I found the book: The moon-watcher part was amazing. The parts about Dr Floyd were good as well. The Hal part was really a sad one. It was like the more I read the more I get interested about what will they found out but when I reached the end (The last part of the book) I didn't quite understand. I mean how would David bowman communicate what he found to the human race or did he do it ? did I miss a link ?
I disagree with the sequence. I think it is a mistake to watch before read. But I am rataher an imaginer than a thinker.
You fucking nailed it. Spot on.
...and Eyes Wide Shut is as empty as empty as a pair of water with a hole in the bottom.Sorry, not sorry.
thank you for this perfect review
Cookie wrote: ""After reading the book, the film becomes little more than a very well crafted container: It's pretty and neat to look at it, but open it up, and it's empty."What? In what world can the film be c..."
the film doesn't give its viewers anything. You can't possibly understand it without reading the book. Kubrick basicly ripped away anything that gives viewer information and left them just like that. Some say he did it to leave the interpretation to viewers, but what possibly not showing the victorian hotel suite wasn't real could make the movie more open to interpretation? None. Kubrick could've done those things, even if it was 1967. He simply decided not to. Thus all those things made the movie empty. Even characters doesn't feel like humans, they lack of emotion. I am sure Kubrick asked the actors to do their role like that. Just like all the movie, he made actings feel empty.
As of 2022 March, i believe cinema and book should not be compared that much. I also understand Kubrick's intention and direction and think 2001: A Space Odyssey is a masterpiece that has unique techniques never seen before in cinema history. You can read Rob Ager's 2008 analysis and see for yourself. Just like how the lack of emotion was intended, the most lively being in the movie is an AI that makes the question at what cost humanity improved upon.
To echo other comments here, your review is spot on. The book is a masterpiece of Clarke's visionary power. The film has great qualities, but doesn't hold a candle to the book for the very reasons you described. The film, by any measure, feels desolate and empty in comparison to the book, which is rich in substance.
Cookie wrote: " Again, as Gino said, you don’t understand film."By this logic, you and Gino don't understand storytelling or fiction or literature if you don't recognize the book as vastly superior to the film. There is not one thing the film does as well as the book, and about three dozen things the book does better. Books are, in general, better than the films based on them.
The review I wish I could’ve written. Bravo!
Great review. My thoughts (almost) exactly. I am glad I watched the film first to have the sense of confusion and disorientation, then read the book about ten years later, and now I’ll watch the film again with a deeper understanding of the concepts.
I can’t help but feel the film aims for a widely different kind of story, so it’s hard to say it doesn’t live up to the book. Not to mention, I don’t think films and books intend toward the same artistic goals. What films lack in complexity of ideas, they make up for with an unparalleled viscerality of depiction. Films aim for the heart/spine/lizard brain and puncture this target with singular intensity. Kubrick doesn’t want you to follow a logical train of ideas toward a hyper-specific science fiction concept, he wants you to FEEL the inconceivable primal weight of the monolith, the scorch of the ancient African savanna, the sinister pragmatism of HAL, the incommunicable horror of a machine (which is so advanced as to have essentially achieved consciousness) as it faces death by slow deactivation. Kubrick’s film sinks beneath the skin, it feels as heavy as led and as universal as God, even if it doesn’t “tell� the audience these things. That’s just my two cents at least.
Miles wrote: "*lead"you can edit your comment.
I do not think one is necessarily better than the other. What we have here is examples of two people who are masters at their own media. Take the prehistoric scene. Kubrick has a couple of minutes to convey 4 chapters of words. Yet he achieves communication of all the primary ideas without using a single word. In the Book you get more detail. In the film it is more cryptic and lends an atmosphere of mystery to the whole story.
I've looked for big-name reviews for this and your succinct yet spot-on take is the one that I find close to what I felt reading it.
Excellent review. Sums up my own thoughts in a much better package than I ever could have written.
The book is not always better than the film
I am stunned. Read this book when I was 12 years old. Just read it again (63 years old now!). A.C. Clarke is a master. Prophetic.
I actually think the ambiguity of the film opens it up to a multitude of interpretations. For me, at least, the film and novel each have the same skeletal structure, but different flesh so to speak. Kubrick’s camera gave me a different understanding of the imagery than Clarke’s words. Each work functions independent of one another and I think they’re better for it. As far as which one I prefer, it’s a toss-up. Today, I, might prefer the book. Tomorrow, I nigh prefer the film. Either way, both are incredible works of art.
perfect description
