In this two-hour film, the actual plot content is very small:
1. A certain ape colony was selected by Blackstone, the evolutionary process was intelligently interfered, and it began to master the tools and gained the advantage. The film ended with victory in the war.
2 After a well-known montage switch, enter the excavation section of the black stone on the moon. After the black stone comes into contact with humans, it emits harsh electromagnetic waves (the following plot points out that it provides humans with a Jupiter coordinate). This section shows a lot of hard science fiction details such as the aerospace plane, space station, moon landing process, and video space phone.
3. In the interplanetary spacecraft Discovery heading to Jupiter, the artificial intelligence HAL murdered the dormant and extravehicular staff, but was stopped by Dave and shut down. It shows hard science fiction content such as artificial intelligence, hibernation technology, and space walks.
4. Through Blackstone, Dave is in contact with higher intelligence. What is shown in the film is a completely one-way contact. Use a confusing (comprehensive) montage: Dave's old age is shown in the mirror, eating, and bed. Under the power of Blackstone, it turned into an embryo inexplicably.
Must complain about the fourth ending scene. The vanguard is the vanguard, the avant-garde is the avant-garde, but it has not been able to narrate well. A splendid light and shadow lifted my appetite, and the scenes I touched were mysteriously handled rather awkwardly. To paraphrase the buzzword: I take off my pants and show me this?
The plot of this movie is chapter-like, very incoherent, and it takes more than 2 hours to shoot such a little content, which is not boring. Quite a lot of time is spent showing hard science fiction. For example, the aerospace flight attendant who has nothing to do with the plot delivers meals, the doctor's video phone calls to his daughter, the extravehicular spacewalk repair equipment...There is still a lot of time to set up the atmosphere.
I have to mention the director’s atmosphere. Although I don’t like it personally, the director is really good at it. The high synchronization of classical music (blue Danube) and the picture is very impressive. It is estimated that the picture is first decided after the score. The application of a large number of human voices creates a weird and terrifying atmosphere. Many screens move very slowly and are super ritual. His "A Clockwork Orange" is also in this tone, such as the first long shot from the eyes. Of course, there is also classical music.
There is no denying that this film is "Avatar" from 1968. The breakthrough in special effects it brings is wonderful, but I really can’t watch it today. If we still say that it is a work of God from this aspect, I have to be silent. I think in a few years, movies like "Avatar" and "Gravity" will lose their charm sooner or later. For movies, if they want to spread for a long time, what is more important is the connotation. It is also a technological breakthrough film, "Titanic" must have much more vitality, because it has a good touching story.
I read some film reviews before writing, and found that many people said, "It's too awkward to be able to make such special effects in 1968". Uh... I have to make a complaint here. The special effects of this film are indeed excellent, but they can't afford such a big compliment. People always underestimate the abilities of their predecessors (on the contrary, they overestimate the future development. Human beings have never landed on the moon). Just like there are always people who believe that the pyramids and the Easter stone are artificial aliens, and that the human landing on the moon is a scam... Please have a little confidence in mankind. The roughness of the model in "2001", the falsehood of weightlessness (have to design a space shoe that can be glued to the floor to make up for it), the nebula is full of weird colored ink and smoke... What is earth-shattering? Technical content? Don’t underestimate Hollywood’s special effects photographers and prop artists, okay? In contrast, "Avatar" has a stronger influence on the times. "Avatar" has opened the era of large-screen digital cinema + 3D, which is a major hardware upgrade. In 1968, even a free-falling plane could not be played, and the crew was not poor.
So what is the content of "2001". Blackstone, the soundtrack, and the embryo all show the mysterious temperament of the film. In such an atmosphere, the director and screenwriter present rather than discuss the content of intelligent design, artificial intelligence, and the first to third types of contact. In the space age of 68, it was very popular, but it was not surpassed. Just like "Matrix" was born in the era of Internet popularization, it is a product of the times. I regret that the film does not actually discuss these contents in any depth. It is only presented quietly, so it is a film with no attitude. "Matrix" gave Leo the choice of pills, portraying the group portraits of the rebels and the motives of the characters. Compared with "2001", which didn't even explain why HAL killed people, this is the difference between attitude and no attitude. As for the last shot of the slightly scary embryo covering the earth, I think it is quite superficial. So I feel a little bit inexplicable and deeply regretful for some people's evaluation of this movie as "aroused deep philosophical thinking": this kid must have never seen a few good science fiction.
Hmm...Writing here, it seems to raise a problem that is too big and I may not be able to control: the function and meaning of science fiction. Just bite the bullet and write.
1. Entertainment function. Science fiction can satisfy people's curiosity and desire for curiosity. This is the essential reason for its birth. I also found that science fiction can also satisfy people's superiority. This is the unique value of some bad science fiction works and ancient science fiction works. Give an example of each: bad works. I still have a fresh memory of the various crying settings and plots in "Prometheus". Old works. This film is just one example. Seeing the video phone that needs to be dialed, seeing the female flight attendant walking in the cabin where the female flight attendant is really concerned, seeing the voice controlled chess instead of touch screen... modern people's sense of superiority emerges spontaneously. Although the moon base has not been established so far.
2. Literary function. This is a big category, that is to say, science fiction and fantasy magic are all serving literary appeals such as the plot or the artistic conception of the work. Science fiction itself is no longer the purpose of the work, but just a means of expression. It is convenient for authors to use this tool to construct dramatic conflicts, worldviews, or work atmospheres. Give some examples.
2.1 Aesthetics. To construct the atmosphere and artistic conception of the work, there was another very popular "Paper in Hand, Love in Heart" a while ago. The fantasy part of this work does not actually affect the expression of the theme of the work, but it creates a great fantasy experience and is a relatively pure aesthetic.
2.2 Setting. "Inception" is such a thing, Nolan used the tool of science fiction in order to create a rich level. He also used short-term amnesia ("Fragments of Memory"). Another very extreme example is "This Man Comes From Earth", science fiction only provides a setting for a caveman to live to this day, and the story that is triggered is the highlight.
2.3 Deconstruction. "Time Planning Bureau" is a more typical example. The use of science fiction is actually just to change the story into a straightforward and simple form, which is more appealing or easier to construct conflicts: when time is gone, people will die rather than money. "The Ninth District" also talks about race in another way.
3. Communication function. There are indeed some unreasonable worries, they have superhuman vision and retreat spirit, and pay a deep attention to the future of mankind. Call them thinkers for the time being. They can foresee human development and possible problems. Usually, it is also discussed and discussed in small circles in the way of scholars, but occasionally people who have good things will package and sell them to the general public in the form of science fiction, so that the people will follow them. At this time, science fiction has become a carrier of thought and science, and it should be regarded as a kind of popular science. This is a function rich in thought, apart from entertainment and literary.
I also used this film to sum up my thoughts on science fiction for so long. Going back to "2001: A Space Odyssey" itself, my assessment is: it was excellent, but out of date. This is the unavoidable dilemma of hard science fiction. I don’t like "2001" because it is too hard and soft. A truly excellent work must look like a good bread, with moderate hardness and softness. For example, "Three-Body", apart from the hard science fiction (and many flaws), it also has the profound depiction of human nature and the broad world, which is its real charm. Literary and ideological are the keys to sci-fi works out of the limitations of time and space.
2013.11.25
View more about 2001: A Space Odyssey reviews
