{"id":1142,"date":"2014-11-29T12:39:55","date_gmt":"2014-11-29T18:39:55","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.hyperboreans.com\/heterodoxia\/?p=1142"},"modified":"2014-11-29T12:39:55","modified_gmt":"2014-11-29T18:39:55","slug":"scifi-film-in-dialogue-with-2001-a-space-odyssey","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.hyperboreans.com\/heterodoxia\/?p=1142","title":{"rendered":"Scifi film in dialogue with 2001: A Space Odyssey"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"2001:<\/a><\/p>\n

A few weeks ago, I came across an article on Grantland<\/em><\/a> that pushed forth the thesis that all science fiction films after 1968 are in dialogue with 2001: A Space Odyssey<\/em><\/a>, and shared it with my colleague in intellectual crime, Paul. He asked the following:<\/p>\n

No, I was thinking more of the way Solaris is about people rather than about scifi – the line the Lem famously used about people not seeking others world, just looking for a reflection of themselves. I just wonder if that\u2019s what we used fantasy literature for. I suppose a scifi fan might argue that it\u2019s about what the universe might look like or ultimately mean but I interpreted Lem as making an indirect point about the function of the literature as well as about man\u2019s exploration of the universe.<\/p>\n

In 2001<\/em>‘s defense, I argue that it is not just<\/em> a standard scifi film, thanks to Stanley Kubrick’s creative reading of the original script by Arthur C. Clarke.<\/p>\n

A little biography before I sink my teeth into the meat of the question. After I told an old friend that I hadn’t seen 2001<\/em>, back in the summer of 2000, he bet me that I would not be able to watch the film without fast-forwarding the slow parts. He also made the claim that the sequel, 2010<\/em> was the superior film. After renting 2001<\/em>, I watched it at late night, in hushed silence, letting the imagery work on me.<\/p>\n

After I won the bet, naturally, I realized that 2001 <\/em>was not a typical scifi film, one with typical scifi pretensions of the genre \u2013 like 2010<\/em>.<\/p>\n

It took me a while to figure that out, though. \":mrgreen:\"<\/p>\n

The ultimate difference between 2001<\/em> and the original screenplay by Arthur Clarke is what the director Kubrick prioritized over the story: cinematic art. It all comes down to this simple formula: Symbolic imagery, pregnant with meaning over dry, objective scientific explanation.<\/p>\n

In 2001<\/em>, Kubrick poses the philosophical questions: why are we here? What is the meaning of existence? Is there a God?
\nIn 2010: Odyssey Two<\/em><\/a>, Clarke poses more modest questions, and ends on a humanistic note with an optimistic flourish. It’s just too bad that only 2010 <\/em>feels dated today with its Cold War logic, unlike 2001’s <\/em>triumphalist futurism.<\/p>\n

Science fiction often relies on the following conceits: good story with solid characterization and an interesting plot. On the other hand, 2001 <\/em>explored greater themes as a cinematic experience, working visually in the place of dramatic conventions.<\/p>\n

Therefore, 2001 <\/em>was not a genre piece \u2013 but a masterpiece.<\/p>\n

It follows that the only successful scifi films after 2001 <\/em>are those that transcend the conventions of scifi itself.<\/p>\n

\":cheers:\"<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A few weeks ago, I came across an article on Grantland that pushed forth the thesis that all science fiction films after 1968 are in dialogue with 2001: A Space Odyssey, and shared it with my colleague in intellectual crime, Paul.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_is_tweetstorm":false,"jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_options":[]},"categories":[13,1],"tags":[151,312],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p1Af2X-iq","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.hyperboreans.com\/heterodoxia\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1142"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.hyperboreans.com\/heterodoxia\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.hyperboreans.com\/heterodoxia\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.hyperboreans.com\/heterodoxia\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.hyperboreans.com\/heterodoxia\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1142"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.hyperboreans.com\/heterodoxia\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1142\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1144,"href":"https:\/\/www.hyperboreans.com\/heterodoxia\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1142\/revisions\/1144"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.hyperboreans.com\/heterodoxia\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1142"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.hyperboreans.com\/heterodoxia\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1142"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.hyperboreans.com\/heterodoxia\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1142"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}