Mr Kubrick's masterpiece, in retrospect.
Viewpoints Page 5
Things you have written.
As if any proof were needed, the fact that the 30 Years On Web site now contains five pages full of views expressed by its readers, with no sign of repetition or running out of ideas, is evidence of how much "2001: A Space Odyssey" and "Solaris" mean to people all over the world, so many years after their release.
Page 5 contains contributions from "only" four sources, but what makes it rather special is the length of those contributions, the level of thought that has gone into them and the highly literate standard of expression. Not that earlier viewpoints have not also been literate, all I mean is... oh, heck, you know what I mean. There are also several "hot" links to keep you amused and informed.
Starting points for these contributions are:
![]() | Running around with plastic ears | ![]() | Something a bit better with a brain | ![]() | Losing our grip on reality | ![]() | Truth in Cinema |
VIEWPOINTS: YOUR WORDS
Running around with plastic ears
I made the decision to pursue a film career after seeing 2001 when I was 6 years old in 1968. Today I am an online editor at a video post- production company and I can directly link my career choice to the impact that film made upon me. Although I realize that others might disagree, I firmly believe that 2001: A Space Odyssey is the single greatest expression of human emotion ever put on film.
In addition to offering my congratulations on your page and support for your future endeavours, I am also writing to ask a favor. The current owner of 2001 is Ted Turner; founder of CNN and other television networks. On Sat. Dec. 27, Turner Network Television (TNT) will be broadcasting 2001 as a prelude to the premiere of Babylon 5 feature film. Bruce Boxleitner and Jerry Doyle are the celebrity hosts for the telecast which will include background information, little known facts and trivia about the film and reaction from around the world since its release in 1968. Because of my interest in the film (I own an anamorphic widescreen print of it), I have been asked to assist in the research of the links which will be presented. After reading some of your pages, I found two passages which I believe might be selected for inclusion in the telecast. May I include your comments in my research submission to TNT?
A private citizen in Dayton, Ohio has virtually single- handedly restored a theater to show Cinerama in its original curved screen magnificence! In November 1996, they showed our favorite film, 2001, on the most accurate and lovingly restored curved screen in the world... the print shown at the special screening was a new 70mm contact print made directly off the original 1968 negative! Although I did not hear about the Neon theater in Dayton until months later (after 2001 stopped running there), I did make the trip and saw "This is Cinerama" and "How the West Was Won" the way they were originally intended. Check out these sites: http://www.cybertheater.com/Ads/Neon_Cinerama/cinerama_ad.html and http://www.erinet.com/newneon/.
Good luck in your endeavours. If you ever decide to travel to the US to see Cinerama, please let me know, I would love an excuse to see Cinerama again!
I've always thought 2001 fans were a solitary lot; after all there aren't 2001 conventions like Star Trek conventions. It's nice to know so many people are thinking about the issues raised in 2001 instead of running around with plastic ears and toy phasers as other fans apparently do.
I didn't see a single Klingon mask at Cyberfest. There was a 2001 T shirt I quite fancied, but the bloke wanted to keep it on. Underman
2001 is one of those "definitive" events that historians like looking back on and saying, "This was a definitive moment...etc, etc...". As a landmark, the film has already stood the test of time and there is no reason why it should not continue to provide something for anyone with an interest in it, no matter in what generation. In fact, I look forward to seeing your "2001: A Space Odyssey - One Hundred Years On" site. BTW, check out our web page at: http://www.vta.com.
Since 1992, I have assisted in organizing an annual memorial ceremony for the three Apollo One astronauts killed on Jan. 27, 1967 by a flash fire which swept their spacecraft during a launch simulation at Cape Kennedy. 1997 was the 30th anniversary of the tragedy. Two hundred people attended including fifty members of all three families. Three television networks were present as well as other journalists. Bob Castro
Something a bit better with a brain
If you have not already found it in my Other Movies page, Larry Klaes has produced a major Web site about Carl Sagan's "Contact". Here are some of the notes he has exchanged with me. If you have not come across SETI, the acronym stands for "Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence", a group committed to making contact with aliens. Oh, the other acronym, BTW, stands for "by the way"... Underman
Thank you very much for linking to my Contact review site! It is a privilege to be part of your 2001 site. In my article, you will note some references to 2001. As much as I like Contact and consider it to be above the usual Hollywood fare (see this editorial I wrote for the SETI League at: http://www.setileague.org/articles/oscarnom.htm . I do agree it cannot compare to 2001. Zemeckis just did not dare to take the bold steps to place Contact in the exact same category with 2001, chickening out when it came to appeasing the general audience, especially with the wimpy and PC "Can't we all just get along?" ending. Still, I would rather see more efforts like Contact from Hollywood, but I dare say 2001's position is still very much intact.
I want to say that your site is like the film itself: There's a lot going on with it, and every time I check it again, I always find something new. :^)
BTW, two items: Did you know that Howard Johnsons, the restaurant with the orange roof here in the United States, came out with a 2001 booklet for kids in 1968? I have an actual copy somewhere in my parents' home, where I pray it is still in good shape. It told the story of two kids going to see the film (very clean- cut, no hippies, BTW :^)), whom I remember were thrilled by the amazing ending without saying what it was. I also remember that they avoided any mention of Poole's death at the pod claws of HAL while still showing him floating outside the Discovery. They called it a rescue mission for a stranded astronaut. HJ (or Ho-Jos) made such a big deal about the film because they showed the restaurant name on Space Station V. I must find that copy. Just wanted to make you aware of it for your new section.
Also, I am the Vice President of the Boston Chapter of the National Space Society (NSS), http://www.spaceviews.com/boston/. On April 5, we are having a premiere party for the new HBO miniseries From the Earth to the Moon (http://www.hbo.com/apollo/). Before this event, we are showing 2001 as a tribute to its 30th anniversary premiere, which I believe was April 5. I will be bringing the tape. While this is not a fancy shindig, and I know you are a bit of a hike away, should you come I guarantee you free food and a front- row seat. I just wonder how many people will be viewing 2001 for the first time?
Are you a SETI person, then? I must confess I tend to be rather scathing about them, searching for company out there tells me more about the needs of human beings than the likelihood of finding anything. I suppose it's good fun, so long as they don't get too serious.
But don't mind me! I'm even more perturbed when spokespeople for NASA, which I've always thought of as the sensible ones doing the REAL work, start blathering on about inconclusive pieces of rock being evidence of life on Mars, or a suspicion of ice proving that life might have existed on the Moon. Whatever happened to "scientific research"? ;-) Underman
I am a SETI person in the sense that I was the first editor of SETIQuest magazine and am currently the U.S. Northeast Regional Coordinator for The SETI League and the General Coordinator for the Columbus, Ohio, Optical SETI Observatory. You can find out more about them and me from this Web site: http://www.coseti.org/lklaes.htm. I am also a SETI person in that I only concern myself with the scientific search for alien intelligence, mainly through radio and optical methods. No UFOs and alien abductions, please. The odds in finding ETI may be low in this regard, but since I don't think NASA is ready to build a starship any time soon (they can't even get their act together on a manned Mars mission), it is better than nothing, and certainly more realistic than expecting them to land on the White House lawn. My interest in SETI is mainly that I want to know who or what else might be out there just from sheer scientific curiosity. I also keep secretly hoping there is something a bit better with a brain out there than this noisy species called humanity. :^)
I must confess some surprise at your not being a fan of SETI, in light of the theme of the film you have devoted so much to. But perhaps you are just dissatisfied with the ways we have gone about searching for aliens in the past, and for that I certainly cannot blame you. I am hoping we will become much more serious about it now, with the discovery of exoplanets and films such as Contact to help.
I agree about the Mars meteorite. I think it is a combination of NASA scientists really thinking they have found something and a secret desire that this would spur NASA into putting humans on the Red Planet. Sometimes I think it will take Jupiter being turned into a sun with a stern warning before our governments ever do anything noble for the sake of humanity. :^) NASA did jump the gun in announcing the Mars rock "life" well before they should have done even more research on the subject. The media naturally did their part to blow the news out of proportion as well. Now everyone is seeing the usual scientific debates before the community comes to a conclusion and it makes them look like they don't know what they are either saying or doing. This is almost as bad as the cold fusion fiasco in 1989.
Don't suppose you can change the date for that 2001 session? I'm out there next week for two weeks, but will be gone again before April 5. Curses. I noticed the HBO trailers for that series when I was over there last month. Underman
I am afraid not. It is a very set date. HBO actually gave NSS HQ money to distribute to each chapter to promote the miniseries, and they want the premiere parties to take place on April 5. Where will you be in the U.S.? I suppose inviting you to see 2001 on my home television is not much of an consolation? :^) Seriously, I am sorry if you cannot attend then.
I didn't know that about Howard Johnsons and would be fascinated if you are able to tell me any more. It seems like all the time some other odd little long- lost memento of 2001 turns up. They turned up as "Johnson's Starlight Room" or something on the space station, didn't they? Have to check (still can't understand how anyone found 2001 "boring", there are still things that I miss after all this time). Underman
The next time I visit my parents, I will make a point of looking for it. I am now even more concerned for its state of preservation. I also remember in the booklet how the kids raved about seeing the Howard Johnsons logo on the station wall, amongst all the other amazing cosmic things going on. Gee, I wonder why? :^) Oh well, who can blame HJ for jumping on the bandwagon with such a big blockbuster like 2001? Do you know if real product names were promoted in films much back then? This could also explain the larger interest.
At the risk of sounding elitist, I have often considered 2001 to be a litmus test to see who really hopes and dreams for a human future in space (meaning progress) and those who just want to satisfy their needs in the here- and- now (meaning stagnation). We can't get everyone to like 2001, but perhaps we only need enough of certain people to be inspired by it so that one day we will live on other worlds and eventually become a more highly evolved species - though we will probably do it on our own without an alien intervention.
Thanks for your interest, and good luck with everything! Larry Klaes
Same to you, Larry! Underman
Started to write you in your box, but found myself rattling on for minutes on end. Found your article on "Solaris" very interesting. "Solaris" is (and always has been) my favorite film. I first saw it at the Pacific Film Archive in Berkeley nearly 20 years ago (Parts I and II!), and was enchanted. There was a horribly truncated print released theatrically in the late 1970's, shorn of nearly 30 minutes. Thankfully it disappeared without a trace. The movie kept turning up periodically on the repertory circuit, but there was only one print and it got worse and worse. Finally it got released on laserdisc in a widescreen version, which I promptly bought.
What is it that makes it my favorite film? I don't know; perhaps because it's so life- affirming (I know that sounds trite), but there are several things that come to mind.
1. | Personally I feel that the opening shots are extremely important because they reflect life in its most primitive states: Water, grass, trees, dirt, etc. Is this God- given? Have we become so blase (read: bored) that we need to leave the planet in order to seek an experience? How unaware we are that space deprives us of the very things we are seeing: water, air, color, plants. And only by re- creating it can memory be made valid. |
2. | Why does Solaris send (and keep sending) memories to the space station? Is it that lonely, or thinks that we are that lonely? (It is not good for man to be alone...) Does it realize that the replicants aren't the real thing, and they don't understand why they're there any more than the cosmonauts? (Shades of "Blade Runner".) Is it a flaw of Solaris' "character" that they aren't 'perfect'? Is Solaris testing our sanity by bringing them back unrelentingly - perhaps until we "get it"? |
3. | Why do we destroy (irradiate) that which we cannot penetrate, understand, or comprehend? Is it because we want/need "evidence"? Or is it just because we've spent too much time and energy trying to figure out something that is beyond our comprehension? Is it too much to say the words "I'm sorry, I don't have an explanation; you're just going to have to accept it"? And what happens if we do irradiate it and get a glimpse? Is it going to be any easier to comprehend, much less explain? Is Berton saying "You must have faith in me"? Do we believe it because we see it? (Doubting Thomas perhaps?) |
4. | Notice how things are constantly a reminder of what we had on Earth. Pictures that a child would draw, the rustling paper on an air vent to remind us of leaves blowing, the songs we used to sing, the books we used to read. Is this all we have? Is there no past, present, or future in space because the Sun doesn't rise or set anymore? |
5. | In the end what is there, and what does Chris have to hold onto? He left with nothing (the burning of the papers) and he came back with nothing (physically, that is). Is this right and good? Is it yet another experience in a lifetime of experiences? Where does he go from here? I think "Solaris" has some very powerful things to say. It toys with the very essence of our being -- curiosity, belief, doubt, and memory. Do we accept whatever manifests itself, or do we try to explain it away? How important is memory when we have nothing to hold onto? Do we start losing our grip on reality (whatever that is) because we're seeing things that we believe are "dead"? |
Enough said for now. I don't think I've talked this much about the film in years. Would love to hear from you. Chris Decker
Chris, I've enjoyed reading your thoughts on Solaris, not least because it isn't often people write about it! I originally saw Solaris just once not long after its release, and there was something about it that I couldn't get out of my mind even though it was many years before I saw it again. Even now it is shamefully neglected, but for me the perfect counterpoint to 2001. 2001 is the product of the ultimate individualist working in the West; Solaris is the same, but with that far more introspective exploration of human relationships and other themes that characterises Russian cinema. Neither film could possibly have been made by the opposite director with the same result, yet both films allow viewers almost unlimited freedom to decide for themselves what they "mean", and I suppose that is why they continue to fascinate people years after they were made. Have we really lost that in cinema today? I fear so. Underman
We thought you might like to know about our brand new web site called "Truth- in- Cinema Quest" at http://www.hal-pc.org/~questers, which includes a page devoted to Andrei Tarkovsky. Other filmmakers with their own pages include Ingmar Bergman, Robert Bresson, Pier Paolo Pasolini and Sergei P Aradjanov. Gregory and Maria Pearse
Thanks for the news about your Web site, I am delighted to hear of Tarkovsky receiving some long- overdue attention. I have long been hugely disappointed with the output of mainstream Hollywood, you could combine the "talents" of all its directors and scriptwriters and still not succeed in finding a single decent imagination or vision, so I think it's great to see coverage being given to people who treat viewers as people with brains. The best of luck with it! Underman
Thank you!
As always, it is a great pleasure "doing business" with you.
All text: Copyright © 1997, 1998 by Underman and writers identified.