Sequels can be tricky business. I know in today's cinematic universe, franchises are king and sequels are commonplace. For James Bond or comic book films, they should even be expected. There will always be new villains to defeat and new plots to foil. But let's look at the films that were not meant to be franchises, stand alone pictures that were monster hits, and then the studios forced sequels into production to take advantage of their new cash cow. While there are exceptions, these sequels are generally not very good. Now, what about the filmmakers themselves? I found myself thinking recently about the pressure these directors must face when they are starting production on a sequel. The eyes of all the fans are on you. You better not mess this up, or you will catch a lot of heat. You have to find a way to bring to audiences what they loved about the first film, while putting just enough of a creative spin on the material that the sequel's existence is justified. That's not an easy tightrope to walk.
But there's even a worse scenario. What if you are not making a sequel to a blockbuster hit? What if you are not even making a sequel to a classic? What if you are Peter Hyams, and you have been hired to direct a sequel to one of the most seminal and important films in the history of cinema? How the hell do you make a sequel to 2001: A Space Odyssey?
Now, I know 2001 is a bit of a divisive movie. Some people are entranced by its mysteries, while others find the film to be a cure for insomnia. But there is no doubting its importance in the history of cinema. There are only a handful of movies where you can truly say, "there was cinema before, and then there was cinema after, and everything had changed." 2001 is one of those films. The only other film like that I can think of right now is Citizen Kane, and how do you make a sequel to that?! It cannot be done. Though to be honest, a sequel to Citizen Kane might be easier because that movie at least makes sense. 2001 is striving to be something beyond what we can completely comprehend. That's the point. So what is a director like Peter Hyams to do?
Well, have a story, for one thing!
The big advantage Peter Hyams had was a book to work with. Arthur C. Clark, who co-created 2001 with Stanley Kubrick, started to write a series of sequels to continue the story. In 1982, he wrote the Hugo Award-nominated 2010: Odyssey Two. So it already helps that Hyams didn't have to come up with his own story and could count on one of the two geniuses behind the first film to give him a narrative roadmap. Secondly, Hyams got the blessing of Stanley Kubrick himself. I always heard that Kubrick could be a bit ornery, and I would imagine that he would be enraged if someone dared to make a sequel to one of his films. He even notoriously destroyed all the sets and models after he finished 2001 to prevent their reuse. But contrary to what I would have thought, Hyams has said that Kubrick encouraged him to go for it.
So let's get into 2010: The Year We Make Contact. Almost right away, we know we are watching something different because we are watching a film with a traditional narrative. It's a movie, not...whatever 2001 was. I am honestly split on whether this is a good or bad thing. On one hand, it separates the sequel to the point where it almost doesn't feel like a continuation. It is so tonally different and so traditional in its storytelling that it really could have been a standalone film. But at the same time, I applaud the filmmakers for not deluding themselves into thinking that they could imitate 2001's uniqueness. To try and recreate that film would be to set up yourself up to be directly compared to Kubrick, and that is a recipe for disaster. Ultimately, I think it was probably the right decision. If 2001 set up all the questions, then it is 2010's job to try and come up with a few answers.
Set several years after the incidents in the first film, 2010 features a return trip to Jupiter to find out what happened to astronaut Dave Bowman and his ship, The Discovery. The ship includes Americans, Drs. Heywood Floyd (Roy Scheider, Jaws), Walter Curnow (John Lithgow, Cliffhanger) and R. Chandra (Bob Balaban, Best in Show), as well a crew of Russians led by Tanya Kirbuk (Helen Mirren, The Queen). Written and filmed during the height of the Cold War, the film plays up the mistrust and fear of that era by bringing the Soviet Union and the United States to the brink of war back on Earth while the scientists dash towards Jupiter, adding a thick fog of tension among the international crew as they try to discover why Dave Bowman disappeared. Once they arrive at the Discovery, they return that ship to functionality, including turning on the murderous AI that operated the ship, HAL 9000.
I did have a few problems with the film. First of all, it took awhile to get used to Roy Scheider, who is playing the same character played by William Sylvester in 2001. Sylvester is a smooth operator, a smart and savvy scientist who calmly keeps classified information close to the vest and knows how to run a secret operation. Scheider's Dr. Floyd is...well, Roy Scheider acting like Roy Scheider. This is not a knock on Scheider's acting skills. He was a great actor who had a number of terrific performances in classic films. But he is energetic, excitable, sarcastic and funny, and willing to play some under the table games to get the job done. And he wears incredibly short shorts. All of which is very Roy Scheider, and the complete opposite of the Heywood Floyd in the first film. I'm not sure why this bothered me so much. Maybe it was because I had just seen the first movie before watching this so William Sylvester was fresh in my head. But I was definitely distracted. It wasn't until about 20 minutes into the movie that I was able to force myself to pretend Scheider was just playing another character, and then I could settle back and enjoy his performance. Because it is a good performance. He is just as engaging here as he was in Jaws. I just wish he had been playing someone else.
There are a few other things I didn't like about the film. It felt very 80s to me, from the hair styles to those short shorts to the very fact that the Cold War was playing such a big part in the story (certainly a subplot that would hold less meaning to a lot of audiences today). I also really don't like Dr. Floyd's narration at the end of the film, which is supposed to be meaningful and awe-inspiring, but just comes across as preachy and unnecessary. SPOILER ALERT. I also didn't like a retconning that was used when explaining HAL's malfunction. HAL 9000 ultimately malfunctioned because it was given contradictory instructions that ran counter to its programming. That's fine, except Dr. Floyd says he is innocent and knew nothing about these instructions. Which directly contradicts the first movie when Dave Bowman watches a video that details these instructions, narrated by none other than Dr. Floyd. Now if he was lying in 2010 to cover his own ass, that would have been interesting. But that is not what is happening here. Roy Scheider can't be guilty of this and the movie expects us to believe his innocence...and desperately hopes we don't remember that video from the first film. Okay, SPOILER OVER.
Wow, it really sounds like all my major problems with this film have to do with Heywood Floyd! And maybe they do, because the rest of the movie is really quite good. I admire that this film is a slow burn. It's not trying to be exciting. When the most thrilling sequence of the film features a scientist talking to a computer about honesty, you know you're not in for a roller coaster ride. But this is a good thing. Unlike most science fiction movies today, 2010 is science fiction. It tries to ground itself in reality, it takes pride in showing how the scientists go about their business and doesn't dumb itself down for the audience. Everything that is happening is interesting, even if it isn't exciting. The acting is all quite good, and I really liked how both HAL and Dave Bowman were incorporated into the storyline. And I also need to give some props to a special effects department whose work more than lives up to the high standards set in the first film.
And at the end of the day, the movie's greatest strength is that it resists the temptation to explain too much. While we start to understand what happened in the first film, we never get a clear picture. And that's okay because the scientists are left with a whole slew of questions, too. And while the film may fall short in the "awe" department - especially at the ending - it's still very interesting and enjoyable to watch. Today, it is a largely forgotten film, and that's a shame because there is a lot to enjoy in 2010. It should be allowed to come out of the shadow of its forebear, because it is worth watching and brings a lot of interesting ideas to the table.
Also, I would be remiss if I didn't mention one other thing. There is no way 2010 didn't serve as some sort of inspiration for James Cameron's The Abyss. From the gritty design, to the backdrop of worldwide tension and potential nuclear war, to the way the alien presence interacts with the crew of The Discovery...it's all remarkably similar to The Abyss. I personally like The Abyss much more, but I am still surprised I hadn't heard that comparison before...
MVP
Ultimately, this was an easy decision. There are a number of things I like that about the film. And I would definitely give the special effects team an honorable mention (that shot of Jupiter folding in on itself is crazy!). But at the end of the day, the MVP has to be Peter Hyams. He was a one man army with this film, working as writer, director and even director of photography. But most importantly, he was brave enough to attempt one of the most difficult things to do in Hollywood. He stood up to one of the all time classics and tried to create a worthy sequel. And if he didn't direct a classic, he still put produced a pretty solid movie that honors the original while trying to do something new. So for taking on what was surely a foolhardy and doomed mission, but coming out on top, Peter Hyams deserves the MVP!
BEST LINE:
Dr. Heywood Floyd (to the cagey Russian crew): I do seem to remember a process where you people ask me a question and I give you answers, and then I ask you questions and you give me answers, and that's the way we find out things. I think I read that in a manual somewhere.
TRIVIA
I have some fun ones for this movie. For example, I love that the movie has magazines that feature pictures of the American President and Russian Premier and that those pictures are of Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick, respectively. But since this is a science film, I think I will go with a but of trivia that is more science-based. Hyams was able to keep in constant contact with Clarke throughout the production, picking his brains for insight on the characters and plot. But Clarke was based in Sri Lanka and in the 1980s, long distance calls were incredibly expensive. So instead, they used this technology that was just in its infancy, one that the world didn't even know about yet...something called e-mail. I thought that was pretty cool.
