Tessa Stech
Tess Evans
Eng. 103
30 Nov. 2009
2001: A Space Odyssey
2001: A Space Odyssey is a science-fiction movie that came out in 1968 showing the evolution of the human race. It was based on a book written by Arthur C. Clarke named The Sentinel and has three main characters: Dr. David Bowman (Keir Dullea), Dr. Frank Poole (Gary Lockwood), and Dr. Heywood Floyd (William Sylvester). The popular movie was directed by Kubrick and won him Academy Award nominations for Best Director and Best Screenplay. It also won an Oscar for Best Visual Effects. Despite these great awards and nominations I would have to disagree with all of them. I believe that the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey is not worth the nominations that it was nominated for because it is not that great of a film.
A Space Odyssey was directed by Stanley Kubrick and consisted of four parts: The Dawn of Man, untitled, Jupiter Mission (18 months later), and Jupiter and Beyond the Infinite. In The Dawn of Man a shrewdness of apes find and are fascinated by a monolith. They also find a skeleton of a large animal and use its bones as weapons, signaling the advancing of minds. Untitled is the section of the movie where Dr. Floyd travels to the moon and meets with the advisors from Clavius who say that a second monolith has been discovered. Dr. Floyd travels to see the second monolith and as the sun hits it sets off an ear-piercing screech. The scientists follow the screeching sound to Lapetus, which is a moon of Saturn.
The movie then leaps forward 18 months into the third section entitled Jupiter Mission. Five astronauts are aboard a spaceship, three of them in hibernation. The sixth member of the crew is an artificially intelligent computer nicknamed HAL. In the end HAL kills all members of the spaceship except for one, Dr. David Bowman. Mr. Bowman disconnects HAL at the same time that a message from the control center on Earth comes on telling them the real reason they’re on the trip. The fourth increment, Jupiter and Beyond the Infinite is Bowman’s travel where he finally lands on Jupiter and he sees himself as an old man and as a fetus being re-born.
Out of 141 minutes the movie consists of only 40 minutes of dialogue. In my opinion this is not enough to keep my attention and keep me interested enough in the movie. To some people the lack of dialogue might leave more time for their imagination to run wild and keep them interested. In our generation all of the movies have a lot of dialogue and if they don’t have a certain amount then they are not considered a good movie to most people. Because of the lack of dialogue the movie also seems to be slow-paced. It seems like it takes forever for anything interesting to actually happen.
Another aspect of this movie that I dislike is that after watching it one time you can’t get the true meaning of everything in the movie. This movie has so many symbols, such as the “star child” at the very end, you have to look them up and read about them before you actually get the whole affect. While some may think that this is a good way for you to work your brain, when I watch movies I like to relax and not think too hard about what I’m watching. “Watching this film needs two qualities that aren’t found in people unless they are among the most sophisticated: patience and a willingness to think” (Berardinelli). Although Berardinelli has a different opinion about the movie than I do I still agree with his statement that he made when reviewing the movie.
In conclusion I did not like this movie because of the lack of dialogue and the idea of thinking and doing research in order to understand a movie. This movie would probably be enjoyable by older people and people who like to think about what they are watching.
Works Cited
1. 2001: A Space Odyssey. Warner Bros. Web. 30 Nov. 2009.
2. Berardinelli, James. 2001: A Space Odyssey. Web. 30 Nov. 2009.
3. Dirks, Tim. 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968). AMC Film Site. Web. 30 Nov. 2009.
4. Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., 30 Nov. 2009. Web. 1 Dec. 2009.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You have some good summarizing here, but you're not clear about the transition from prehistoric times to the year 2001. You also need to think from a reader's point of view: If a reader hasn't seen the film, some of your explanations won't make sense. You need to provide context. For example, you refer to "star child" but that could mean anything from a child made of stars to a child celebrity.
ReplyDeleteWrite about films and books in the present tense.
Your judgment at the beginning when you talk about the film's awards is a logical fallacy (begging the question): Basically, you're saying the film isn't good enough to win an award because it isn't that great. Your opinion isn't evidence for your opinion.
If Hal is a robot, then it follows that his intelligence is artificial.
Don't make sweeping generalizations about the kinds of films your generation prefers. You aren't the spokesperson for an entire generation: only for yourself. Not all young people hate movies that make them think--and not all old people prefer movies that make them think.
Don't use Wikipedia as a source. It's a good starting point, as it can direct you to more stable sources through the links posted, but it can be unreliable as a source itself.
Don't end your essay with "In conclusion."
Your paper was good. I felt like if I had never seen the movie before that it gave me enough information about the movie and that you did not like the movie based on your reaction.
ReplyDeleteYour conclusion could be a little more thorough, like end with something that will make someone think. Not just saying that older people will like the movie because they like to think about things.
In the beginning maybe add something instead of this movie shouldn't have won awards because it was not a great film. Try to add something like the movie lack of dialogue or something like that instead.
Hope this helps.
Becca
Research was obviously done by how you started off the paper, and you works cited has many informative locations
ReplyDeleteConclusion paragraph is kind of short and could be more thorough. Seems like it is lacking something.
other than that good reasons and organization and use of quoting information.