Great but aloof film

Rating: 9/10 (7 April 2010)

2001: A Space Odyssey is a fantastic example of cinematography. It is also an example of how films can be theme driven as opposed to story driven. I don't think that it is however as good on every level as some of the other films that we have seen so far.
Stanley Kuberick is famous and celebrated for being one of the best directors of all time. The reasons why this is are evident throughout the film. Kuberick uses perfect visual and sound based techniques in setting out what he wishes to achieve. An excellent example of this is the strange but surreal opening few minutes, with nothing but a black screen and music playing. Or perhaps, the excellent shot which has already been mentioned of the bone being thrown into the air which then fades into the modern day space craft.
What this film lacks in simple narrative, it makes up for in it's use of themes. There is perhaps one main theme which the film is presenting, with many minor ones used to back it up and to move the plot forwards. However everything in the film, I think, links into the central theme of Evolution. The character of HAL, is perhaps one of the most talked about, and remembered parts of this film, and this is for a reason, without HAL the film would lack a certain edginess. The use of HAL to back up the theme of evolution is apparent. Where as the Obelisk uses slow advances, teaching the apes to use tools, the humans make massive and uncertain jumps, making a machine which is more intelligent and powerful then themselves. In some ways this could be seen as a religious agenda, with the Obelisks as a god like force, who progress humanity in a correct and sensible way, but with the humans themselves playing God, and ultimately getting it very wrong.
Arthur C Clark, the writer of the screenplay and novel, is an interesting figure. He has stated during his life that he was 'Fascinated by the idea of god'. This statement is proved to be correct in much of his work, especially 2001. However, I wouldn't like to say that Clark uses the film as a vehicle for God, or any such statement. In my view the film is perhaps more of a commentary on how God can be explained as a part of the universe, and not outside it. Although the film has strong religious and divine tones, I would still strongly argue, that the focus is still more on this being a natural as opposed to a supernatural phenomenon.
I must talk briefly about the ending of the film. Since it's release the ending of the picture has been one of the major talking points about the film, and rightly so. It can be interpreted in many different ways what the ending of this film actually means. I like the ambiguity of it, to me it fits with the way the film works. The film is all about Evolution and how we evolved into our current situation, the main option the film offers is of course the Obelisk/God route. However by making the ending so ambiguous it is perhaps a nod to the fact that we don't and are unlikely to be able to know how we came to be, as that fact itself is ambiguous to the extreme. The widely accepted, and my personal view of the ending, is that it is the Obelisk pushing humanity on to it's next big step, and Dave's seclusion and life is his being prepared for what he will become.
There are flaws with the film, and it is by no means perfect. I think that much of the acting is very substandard, although this film was never about the acting I still think that it is a let down to what is otherwise a great film. The only actor I can truthfully say did a good job was HAL. Also the film, as has been said, is really not one to be watched on a Small screen. The full effect of the film is better grasped when viewed in a cinema. Although the narrative is missing for a reason, and has been replaced with the themes, I still think that the film suffers for this.. Something which lacks a strong narrative is likely to become too aloof, and will be hard to follow for many people. The films lack of narrative definitely dents the accessibility of the film, and has given it a somewhat pretentious and intellectual reputation, which in a lot of ways it does deserve, but is still a shame as some people will be missing out on a fine example of what a film should be.
I give 2001 a solid 9/10