Sunday, April 18, 2004
The Scifi channel showed 2010 last night. Sceptics might moan "what, again?" but I always find myself captivated by it, as it's all about two of the really big ideas, aliens and evolution. In the case of 2001 Arthur C. Clarke's novel is vastly superior to Stanley Kubrick's sprawling and boring movie. It's one thing to show that docking space vehicles would be a slow and careful process, but when you can't make a story involving a psychotic computer or strange faster-than-light travel interesting then you've got problems. I haven't seen all of Kubrick's ouevre but Clockwork Orange must only have been highly rated because no-one in Britain could see the thing for decades and The Shining killed any suspense or tension by refusing to have anything happening until after the audience was comatose. Only Doctor Strangelove and Full Metal Jacket were half decent and the latter was overlong.
But anyway, 2001 the movie is worse than the book. But, though it perversly seems more obviously dated, 2010 the film outshines the book. I think it's seems dated to our eyes because it needs obviously special special effects, whereas the former was supposed to rely on atmosphere, which it would have had if it was directed by someone with a human heart, but enough Kubrick-bashing. I think the reason I prefer the film to the book comes down to the scene where Bowman makes contact with Floyd. In the book HAL relays the messages and then Floyd sees Bowman build a statue of himself out of dust and that's it. In the film, Floyd see's him, follows him and has a conversation with him as he grows older before finally circling back to the start of his life cycle as the space baby again. The microphone treatment on Bowman's voice, though extremely low-tech, really does emphasise the strangeness of what he's become, and then the final scene on Europa, thousands of years in the future, the moon is all swamp but there stands the monolith, waiting, waiting...
You'll have immense difficulty finding it but if you liked the films and/or the books you really should find a copy of Arthur C. Clarke's Lost Worlds of 2001 which describes the creative process behind both book and film. At one point HAL was a little android character and the film would have ended with Poole and Bowman meeting the alien who built the monolith. It's a fascinating glimpse at creativity at work.
But anyway, 2001 the movie is worse than the book. But, though it perversly seems more obviously dated, 2010 the film outshines the book. I think it's seems dated to our eyes because it needs obviously special special effects, whereas the former was supposed to rely on atmosphere, which it would have had if it was directed by someone with a human heart, but enough Kubrick-bashing. I think the reason I prefer the film to the book comes down to the scene where Bowman makes contact with Floyd. In the book HAL relays the messages and then Floyd sees Bowman build a statue of himself out of dust and that's it. In the film, Floyd see's him, follows him and has a conversation with him as he grows older before finally circling back to the start of his life cycle as the space baby again. The microphone treatment on Bowman's voice, though extremely low-tech, really does emphasise the strangeness of what he's become, and then the final scene on Europa, thousands of years in the future, the moon is all swamp but there stands the monolith, waiting, waiting...
You'll have immense difficulty finding it but if you liked the films and/or the books you really should find a copy of Arthur C. Clarke's Lost Worlds of 2001 which describes the creative process behind both book and film. At one point HAL was a little android character and the film would have ended with Poole and Bowman meeting the alien who built the monolith. It's a fascinating glimpse at creativity at work.
