|
AFI brings it all together The American Film Institute’s seminar celebrating the 30th anniversary of 2001 in April 1998 brought together people representing a wide range of views about the film. Arthur Clarke, again appearing via satellite, joined the talk eleven minutes late due to technical difficulties. David Stork was there, as well as 2001 actors Keir Dullea and Gary Lockwood. Tom Hanks and astronaut Bill Anders were also a part of the panel, which was moderated by science writer Andrew Chaiken. Each one of these people brought their own recollections and interpretations to the panel, sharing them with the audience. Arthur Clarke at one point complained about Kubrick’s “unrelenting perfectionism” and the “rather pessimistic view of humanity” seen in 2001 and his other films. Gary Lockwood entertained the audience with his stories of friends who dropped acid while watching the film. Tom Hanks compared his first viewing at the age of 12 to “seeing Monet’s ‘Water Lilies’ or Leonardo da Vinci’s ‘La Gioconda’” in that it allowed him to understand concepts without words. David Stork argued that the only thing missing from 2001 “is for scientists to fill in the stage set with the real technology.” But it may have been Keir Dullea who tapped into the real reason that the film continues to have such a wide appeal:
2001 continues to generate emotional reactions within people who see it. In the 1960s it resonated in particular with a Baby Boomer audience searching for meaning in a world filled with turmoil. They were astounded by its sound and special effects, appreciated its commentary on the dangers of technology and commercialization, and inspired by its themes of spiritualism and cosmic rebirth. Older audiences and members of the critical establishment initially judged it on the basis of previously existing expectations about what a film should be, although some gave it a second chance. Arthur Clarke and Stanley Kubrick had different visions of what they felt the story was about, and although Kubrick’s movie made the first impression on many, others came to rely on Clarke’s more technology-oriented interpretation as canon. Through the early 1970s, many film critics and scholars attempted to deconstruct 2001 with varying results, although most agreed that it was some kind of cosmic satire. When the film left theaters and public consciousness during the late 1970s and the 1980s, people relied either on Clarke’s novel, or low-fidelity television broadcasts and home video. Clarke’s sequels to 2001 rewrote many of the themes in the earlier film, and in the more materialistic world of the 1980s and 1990s, they appealed to Baby Boomers and their children who were less concerned with the story’s spiritual or satirical elements as they were intrigued by its promise of futuristic technology. HAL was redeemed in Clarke’s novels and on the Internet. By his 1997 “birthday” even IBM was willing to take him back. 2001 was no longer seen as “The Ultimate Trip”; it was once again “An epic drama of adventure and exploration.” Will the upcoming re-release of 2001 once again surprise those with preconceived expectations? Can a 30-year old film compete next to fast-paced sci-fi adventures like Star Wars, Independence Day, and Jurassic Park? While it is impossible to say for sure, 2001 has demonstrated its ability to retain its appeal to very different people over the last three decades. Perhaps a version remastered for modern theaters, with digital sound and higher picture quality, will once again astonish and surprise those who had only previously experienced the film on television or home video, and 2001 will enter yet another phase of its long and diverse career as an integral part of American culture. Next: Sources |
Home
| Awards | Contact |