2010: The Year We Made Contact

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.

2001: A Space Odyssey

I know movie theaters are hurting these days.  Home theaters are just getting better and better, and a lot of folks are choosing to watch movies in the comfort of their home instead of going out to the movie theater where they have to deal with expensive tickets, crying babies and rude jerks talking on their cellphones.

And I get it.  I personally like the communal aspect of seeing a movie in the theater, but also do get annoyed a lot.  So why deal with other people when you can chill back on your comfortable chair, eat and drink what you want, and pause the movie whenever you need to?  And honestly, home theaters are good enough that a lot movies are going to be just as good as if you saw it in the theater.

But not every movie.  Not 2001: A Space Odyssey.  Sometimes the experience truly is different on the big screen.  Now, let me backtrack a little.  A couple of years, I wrote a review of Gravity.  I had seen the film in the theater and I was in awe of Alfonso Cuaron's filmmaking.  And as you can see in that review, I was just smacked silly by the movie.  But fast forward a few years and I watched Gravity again on TV.  And it was...fine.  I was still impressed with the filmmaking.  I still loved Sandra Bullock's fantastic performance.  But I was not in awe of the film.  The experience had changed.  It was truly a different and more powerful film in the theater.

So let's take that experience and multiply it by 50.  Because that is what happened with 2001: A Space Odyssey.  When I first saw 2001, I thought it was just okay.  I respected it and I recognized its place in film history.  But I generally reduced my feelings about the film into this sentence: "2001 is four different movies.  The monkey movie is okay, the space trip movie is intensely boring and kinda pointless, the HAL movie is pretty cool, and the last movie, the psychedelic space trip, is just weird."  Looking back now, I feel almost embarrassed with myself!

Parts of that description do still apply.  There is no overarching traditional narrative to 2001 and the film is indeed broken into those four parts.  But there is a single narrative theme.  2001 is the story of human evolution itself.  Starting with the dawn of man and then fast forwarding through time to our explorations of space, 2001 is about an ambitious a movie as you can get.  Conceived by Stanley Kubrick (The Shining) and renowned science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke, 2001 attempted to do something new.  Science fiction up to this point was basically fantasy - all UFOs, lasers and alien invasions.  Some of it was very good, some of it was very smart, but it was hardly realistic.  But Kubrick and Clarke did their homework and really tried to show what space travel would be like.  Remember that this movie was made before we landed on the moon.  And yet so much of the imagery of space travel and technology is pretty spot on, from the spinning space stations to the experience of zero gravity to artificial intelligence and even the use of ipads.  Even the handling of the alien presence is handled pretty realistically because, well, it makes no sense.  Which, to be honest, if we ever did make contact, do we really think we would understand what was going on?  It would be so foreign to us, possibly even something our minds couldn't comprehend, confusion that Kubrick captures extremely well.  In 1968, audience minds must have been blown.

But this brings me back to my experience.  My mind had not been blown.  I saw the film, respected the film and was content to not really see it again.  And then I had a chance to see it on the big screen...and my brain just exploded.  It is interesting because as I was watching it, I could still feel the length.  2001 is sslllloooowwww.  My butt was falling asleep.  I was not necessarily enjoying myself.  And then the movie ended and I turned to my friends, and said, "damn, I just went through something.  I think that just blew my mind."  And I felt invigorated because I suddenly got it.  This was a film that changed cinema forever, and I didn't just acknowledge that objectively, I could now  feel it.

Let's take that boring space journey, for example.  A ship is floating through space to the strains of beautiful classical music, slowly making its way to the space station.  This journey feels endless and when I saw it the movie at home, I fought hard to stay awake.  Sure, the ship looked neat...for the first 10 seconds.  But I had what felt like another 15 hours of watching it before we moved to the next scene.  In the theater, on the other hand I thought, geez, that looks incredible.  How did they get that shot?  And how did they get that shot?  And wait, in 1968, how the hell did they get that shot?!?   I could see the details of the model work and the special effects that mostly look as good as anything we have today (I do say mostly because there are spots that definitely don't age so well).  All in all, this was just incredibly impressive.  And I don't think audiences in 1968 were necessarily bored, because they had never seen anything like this before.  I imagine their eyes were glued to the screen the whole time.

On the big screen, I even caught little jokes I had missed before - like the instructions on how to use a toilet in space!  Of course, the joke isn't that there are instructions, but that they are so long!

I feel like I have been rambling and haven't even gotten to some of the more memorable parts of the film, such as astronauts Dave Bowman and Frank Poole (Keir Dullea and Gary Lockwood) and their journey to Jupiter aboard a giant ship that is run by the computer HAL 9000.  HAL has become probably the most enduring part of the film, a character that has entered pop culture as one of cinema's great villains, and certainly one that has been imitated or parodied multiple times.  This is the part of the film that I have always enjoyed, probably because it takes advantage of an actual narrative with a true conflict, life and death situations and some really great acting and writing.

I could keep going, but I should think about wrapping this up. I'm not going to say the movie is flawless.  It is still too slow and I still can't say I necessarily enjoy stretches of it.  But it is brilliant masterpiece.  And the only way to properly watch it is in the movie theater.  Your mind will explode, and you will thank me for it!

SPOILER:

So what about that psychedelic trip at the end?  Is that still just weird or is that part better, too, now that I have seen it on the big screen?  The newly restored film is so vivid and the colors are so powerful that I was even in awe of this sequence.  And again, I found myself asking, how did they put on this light show without the benefit of computer graphics?  In 1968?!  It's crazy to me.  It does go on for a bit too long.  Once we start seeing the negative images of desert landscapes, I feel it's time to move on.  But the sequence kept me entranced up to that point.  And again, you start to notice details intercut in this light show that foreshadow the ending of the film - the birth of the star child, the next stage of human evolution.  Is this sequence symbolizing the act of conception as astronaut Dave Bowman enters the star gate?  Within the light show, there are certainly shots that resemble sperm and eggs.  I think we are literally witnessing the creation of this new being.  I had never noticed that before.  I may have even fallen asleep in that earlier viewing (this sequence does go on for awhile!).

MVP:

I don't think there can be any doubt.  You can credit Arthur C. Clarke, HAL 9000, Douglas Trumbull, and even Johann Strauss...but if there is a true MVP for a film that changed movies forever, then it has to be the man who pulled it all together: Stanley Kubrick.  I've always been a bit mixed on Kubrick.  I love some of his movies, but others leave me cold, and I've heard stories of erratic behavior or perfectionism to the point of craziness (he did make Tom Cruise walk through a door 95 times during the production of Eyes Wide Shut!).  Or while I know he wrote a lot, he also often worked with other screenwriters who did not get any credit, which really bothers me.  But there is no doubt that as a filmmaker, he was brilliant.  With 2001, he was involved in every aspect of the production.  He even won the Oscar for Best Special Effects, which weirdly is the only Oscar he ever won.  He never won for directing or writing.  No, one of the cinema's most famous directors won his only Academy Award for Special Effects, which is crazy to me.  And it is well deserved; as I mentioned, those effects still hold up today!  In any case, it is clear that Stanley Kubrick is the MVP here, the man who pulled all these pieces together into something innovative and crazy, and yes, a little dull at times, but oh so brilliant!

BEST LINE:

This one will take some context because it is also one of my favorite shots of the film.  I have another spoiler alert coming on this one!  Most of the film, when we hear HAL speaking, we see the now iconic closeup of his red eye.  But during the climactic confrontation between HAL and Dave Bowman, we also keep cutting to this other shot instead:

It was kind of an odd choice, I felt.  We have our now famous dialogue: "Open the pod bay doors, HAL."  "I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I cannot do that."  And the two continue to have their tense exchange, cutting between Dave in his space pod, HAL's eye and this random shot of the pod bay.  And finally Dave threatens HAL to leave the pod and enter the space ship through its emergency airlock, and HAL replies:

HAL: Without your space helmet, Dave, you're going to find that rather difficult.

And then you see it.  And you understand why Kubrick has been cutting to this wide shot of the pod bay throughout the entire scene - you have been staring at Dave's red helmet the whole time and didn't even realize it.  I think that's pretty amazing filmmaking, and definitely my favorite line of the movie!

TRIVIA:

This is funny and I really hope it is true and not some amazing urban legend.  So when Samsung released their version of the tablet, they were immediately sued by Apple who claimed they were stealing their idea of the iPad.  The trial went to court.  And when it came time for Samsung's lawyers to defend themselves, they pulled out exhibit A - shots from 2001: A Space Odyssey, which clearly show the astronauts watching videos on a tablet.

So really, if anybody owns the design of the tablet, it is Warner Brothers, the studio that produced the film!  And Apple was just using a design that had already existed for decades.  In any case, Apple lost that lawsuit, and I like to think this bit of trivia had something to do with it!