 There
are two kinds of people in this world - those who think that there are two kinds
of people and those who think there isn't. But seriously though: there are actually
two kinds of moviegoers, those who fell asleep during 2001: A Space Odyssey and those
staring slack jawed at the screen towards the end in awe.
I count myself to be among the latter. However, I can absolutely understand
the sentiments of those who don't feel the same way. The other day I read a posting
on a newsgroup in which the writer divides science fiction fans into two categories:
the Star Wars fans and the Star Trek fans. While there is some truth to the statement,
after all, I do know many people who wouldn't hesitate to go see the Star Wars
- Special Edition trilogy but couldn't bother with Star Trek: First Contact (1996),
that is, besides the latter being one of the better science fiction films we saw
on the big screen recently. But there isn't much truth to the statement. Many
people (myself included) like both.
 Where
the posting on the newsgroup really went off the wall was when its author claimed
that Star Wars fans are inherently right wing and Star Trek fans primarily left
wing. The argument goes that the Star Wars films offer a "grungy" future
whereas Star Trek is all zippers and high-tech, nary a dust speck in sight. This
is, of course, the main distinction between left and right-wing ideologies: the
left believes in progress and the right doesn't, the right view people as such
with suspicion and the left believes that people can be educated and can attain
a level of "perfection." The very idea of a Star Trek future in which
private property has almost been abolished and the biggest good mankind can attain
is its own "self-actualisation" (the last step in Maslow's scheme of
things) is obviously anathema to right-wingers. (See the scene in Star Trek: First Contact (1996)
where Captain Picard describes life in the 23rd century to Alfre Woodard.)
 But
this is digressing from the point, the point being that to my mind fans of 2001: A Space Odyssey
tends to be fans of so-called "hard sci-fi" as opposed to the more whimsical
Lord of the Rings fantasy variety. The odds of finding Arthur C. Clarke
and Robert A. Heinlein volumes, as opposed to numerous Terry Brooks
and David Eddings tomes, in such a person's book shelf is more of
a likelihood. Or then again, maybe not. But 2001: A Space Odyssey has the distinction
of being one of the few "pure" sci-fi movies out there. And that isn't
merely because the film was difficult to understand or anything, many of the ideas
expressed in it are those we find in better sci-fi novels. 2001: A Space Odyssey rekindles
that "sense of awe" many of us feel when watching news about the Pathfinder
mission on Mars or the moon landing. It is more sci than fi, more science than
fiction.
Despite the staggeringly obvious (that sound doesn't travel in a vacuum - unlike
those Tie Fighters we always hear screaming in Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (1980)),
take as example the "aliens" in 2001: A Space Odyssey. Their only physical
manifestation is the out-of-place monoliths, silhouetted against the primeval
sky. They are as resistant to twenty-first century man's scientific probes and
sensors as they are to the limited comprehension of early man. They are beyond
comprehension. If ever creatures do devise ways of spanning the enormous distances
between stars and planets, they will be like the "aliens" in 2001: A Space Odyssey
and not like those in Independence Day (1996) or the The X-Files (1998).
(The singular failure of UFO believers is their lack of imagination. It is extremely
unlikely that such extraterrestials will visit the earth in tacky 1950s science
fiction pulp style flying saucers and be humanoid sexless green dwarves.) Such
beings, able to fold time and space in total contradiction to all the scientific
knowledge we have at our disposal, will be completely incomprehensible.
 Perhaps
like 2001: A Space Odyssey the film itself. Those who find themselves in awe at the
end of 2001: A Space Odyssey (and hasn't lost interest in this very slow-paced movie)
often do so in bewilderment. What is Stanley Kubrick trying to tell
us with the various images he has thrown at us? Books have been written about
this, author Arthur C. Clarke offers a view pointers in his own novelisation
of the movie and the 1984 sequel tried to explain some of the events, but that
isn't the point really. Despite unlike most of today's movies (both science fiction
and non-genre) 2001: A Space Odyssey gives us something to think, talk and argue about
afterwards. Maybe the point of all art. Or maybe the point is that aliens won't
be using Apple compatible computer systems...
Review by James O'Ehley from The
Sci-Fi Movie Page. |
