David and Lisa (1962) is one of such films. Carrying profundity and heart towards the then-taboo subject of mental health with care humanity at the time where the subject was looked down upon is a reason for this film to be remembered today.

However, there's more than heart in this underrated film, in that it tells us about life, death, love, and growth.

(note: NG means Not Good — the opposite of OK)

Even before the New Hollywood era of American cinema, the early-1960s was already a time period of challenges in the world of celluloid dark rooms. Films such as The Apartment (1960) and A Child is Waiting (1963) were challenging the world of American cinema with portrayals of mental health and mental problems that are sympathetic to the subjects with these conditions and does not demonize them or painting them as 'scary'.

David and Lisa (1962) nests among those films. Directed by Frank Perry —– who would later direct the infamous Mommie Dearest (1981) —– and written by his then-partner Eleanor, based on the book Jordi/Lisa and David by Theodore Isaac Rubin, it tells the story of David Clemens (Keir Dullea), a 16-year-old teenager with fear of being touched. David is being admitted in a psychiatric hospital by his mother with hopes that the hospital and Dr. Swinford (Howard da Silva) will bring David to a cure. However, David remains withdrawn from the other patients and Dr. Swinford until he caught the attention of Lisa Brandt (Janet Margolin), a girl with two personalities; Lisa — who can only speak in rhymes, and Muriel — a mute. Slowly, both gets drawn to each other and opens up to their issues.

Right from the start, it is clear that the film isn't seeking to be a 'scary' tale of mentally unwell people, but to humanise them. The lovely score by Mark Lawrence gives the film a feeling of melancholia mixed with teen melodrama right at the beginning. This tone stays consistent throughout the film, and while it gives off the feeling of 'teen melodrama', it is quite effective in capturing emotions.

The portrayal of mental illness and treatments of mental illness among teenagers certainly deviated from the stereotypes and stigmas associated to it from the 1960s. It is certainly no One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975), as David and Lisa (1962) instead focuses on the humanity of these young people with problems, and framing it as an coming-of-age story heightened the humanity present in the film, and arguably, makes the film ahead of its time, and yet, even today, this film still manages to be more respectful on portrayals of teenage mental issues, even managing to portray the topic of generational trauma —– that the world of (western) cinema has recently picked up lately. One noticeable trait of this film is how the teenagers act —– they're not 'crazy teenagers', they're simply teenagers with problems. Again, it's less One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975), and more West Side Story (1961) from the natural way the teens act with distinct personalities (especially Carlos, played by Jaime Sanchez).

Ultimately, this film focuses on David whose fear of being touched is portrayed as a result of generational trauma as his mother recalls her harsh life and how it affects her way of raising David and wanting David to appear respectable and 'normal', resulting in David seeing a touch as something that forces him to conform to the image of respectability, and manifested into him not wanting to be touched to avoid inheriting his mother's generational trauma. Which unfortunately can be mistaken as Freudian manifestation stemming from his feelings towards his mother for viewers who are unfamiliar with the concept of generational trauma.

Notably, David starts the film as a child with a fear of death (what his fear of touch is about) and as the film goes, we see him become accustomed to life, and goes from merely living to being alive. In the end we see David actually alive, which is what this film's thesis is ultimately about: What being alive actually is David and Lisa approaches the subject through the love story between the haunted-by-death David and the living-but-sheltered Lisa where both of them finally gets over their issues together and grow up.

Another notable aspect of David and Lisa is the way the film discusses David's fear of death through the theme of the linear nature of time and inevitability gives the film an almost Ingmar Bergman-ish sensibilities, complete with the natural black-and-white photography that gives the film a similar feeling to Bergman's earlier input from 1950s, with David and Lisa having a similar look and feel to Bergman's Summer With Monika (1953) in particular, although this film is sprinkled with fantastical visuals of the clock-guillotine dream that adds a whimsical quality to it. Previously, I have described this film as closer to West Side Story (1961) but this film felt like what if 1950s Ingmar Bergman did something similar to West Side Story (1961) as a drama.

As far as the acting goes, the melodramatic tone does a good favor for the actors in this film. But in particular, Keir Dullea's performance might appear to be 'robotic', but he gave David an interesting growth in that he went from being insufferably 'less emotional' to endearing without being exaggerated. David has a really precise diction, calculated movement, and a certain kind of rigidity that hides his inner pain and closes the path to his soul through the way Dullea portrays David with his expressive eyes (the windows to David's soul —– the only path that is open to others) that could tell many emotions from slight movements, and as the film goes, David becomes more open in his emotions and pain in subtle changes in body motions and expressions without changing too much, it feels that his calculated movements accommodates to his changing openness to emotions. He feels complementary to Lisa's bubbly personality instead of clashing with her as a result. Also the way David talks and shouts feels oddly prescient of the behaviours of Gen Z teens on social media. It is a performance with purpose that feels rewarding, and is clear why this was Dullea's breakout role that established him as an exciting new talent at the time.

Similarly, Janet Margolin felt as she was born to play the role. Her natural beauty works well for the rougher-edged Lisa, and same goes for her performance, she never felt like a 'Manic Pixie Dream Girl' as we clearly see her flaws and how she grows out from it, while hoping that David will come through. She looks like a friend you'd have in real life. Margolin not only plays Lisa sympathetically, but she portrays Lisa's glowing heart in a natural, non-artificial (or exaggerated cuteness) way.

The supporting cast, as previously mentioned before, realistically act much like actual teenagers that heightens the setting. While there are criticisms of how the characters felt a little bit like 'spectacles', this film does remind you that the characters are teenagers. Teenagers acts like that, and David and Lisa felt that the expressive aspect of teenagers is well-shown. Everything about David and Lisa felt alive and 'lived' as a result, giving the impression of the viewer as 'living' with the characters. Special mention to Howard da Silva who portrays Dr. Swinford with full grace and affection that tells us that the children in the psychiatric hospital are well-loved as human beings with actual lives. Another mention to make is Simon, played by Matthew Anden, who provides queer subtext (per the usual for 1960s American films) via his affection for David being more than a friendly affection as evidenced in him wanting David to be friends, with his dismissal of Lisa being a feeling of slight jealousy.

The weakness of David and Lisa, despite the very strong qualities it has —— is the lack of focus on Lisa. This might be attributed to the fact that the original book did not focus on her. While Lisa is given her own story of growing up and opening herself up to others after a long time of isolation all for love (David living in her system!) and care (there is a subtle motif that alludes to this throughout the film), there's still something lacking about Lisa, despite the wonderful performance by Janet Margolin.

Still, David and Lisa remains a strong, wonderful, and heartful work deserving of a second chance that dared to show something 'new' at the time as normal and loving. It is full of heart, wants you to see a reality unseen, feel the reality and step out from the cages of the facade of 'respectability' (a.k.a the illusion of 'normality'). This is a film deserving of a Criterion Collection release, although you can watch this film for free (with ads) in TUBI.

Although forgotten for years, this film acts as a sort-of precursor in the genre of dramas that deals with young people with mental health and mental illness set in psychiatric hospitals such as Girl, Interrupted (1999), I'm A Cyborg, But That's OK (2006) from famed director Park Chan-wook, It's A Kind of Funny Story (2010), The Perks of Being a Wallflower (2012), and most recently in 2023, the music video for OMG by NewJeans (which has unintentional parallels to David and Lisa).

David and Lisa eventually don't let eachother go, they're right there for eachother 24....

#film #Review #OdysseyOfMichiru #OMG #NewjeansNeverDie

David Clemens - David and Lisa (1962)

He has an interesting growth in that he went from being insufferable to endearing without being exaggerated. David has a really precise diction, calculated movement, and a certain kind of rigidity that hides his inner pain through the way Keir portrays David with his expressive eyes that could tell many emotions from slight movements, and as the film goes, David becomes more open in his emotions and pain in subtle changes in body motions and expressions without changing too much, it feels that his calculated movements accommodates to his changing openness to emotions.

He feels complementary to Lisa's bubbly personality instead of clashing with her as a result. Also the way David talks and shouts feels oddly prescient of the behaviours of Gen Z teens on social media, that's a bonus. (speaking as a Gen Z myself)

Steven Lake - Bunny Lake is Missing (1965)

The thing is that even though Steven presents himself as this charming, seemigly-trusty person, his eyes says otherwise, but clouds his true intentions behind his 'helpful' acts to find Bunny, and feels that he's trying to get both Ann and the audience to trust him. Even though this didn't really work due these acts obviously being him trying to cover up his true intentions, there's still a tinge of shock when he revealed himself as the baddie.

As previously described in the previous section Keir's eyes can do a lot, and it really shows in here with how easy it looks for Steven to completely switch his 'mode' from 'charming and composed' to a complete psycho just through eyes and sudden change in body motion.

It is jarring, yet effective and sends you shivers. You can see this in the final sequence as Steven quickly switches his 'little boy' playfulness to again, complete psycho in a switch.

This character felt like a precursor to baddies with suspiciously charming facade in modern thrillers, particularly Park Chan-wook films like Oldboy (2003), Stoker (2013), and Decision to Leave (2022) – which is why I highly recommend checking out his works if you love Bunny Lake is Missing. Same goes for people who like Park Chan-wook, Bunny Lake is Missing feels like a prototype to Park's films and that's why you should watch it.

Paul Grenfel - The Fox (1967)

I really did not expect Paul to not be overtly-condescendingly evil at all, given what The Fox is about. Like Steven, Paul is presented as seemingly harmless, charming even as you get to know him at first. But he's completely repulsive and chauvinistic at the same time. Through eyes and body movements, Keir makes Paul both charming and dislikeable at the same time. It helps that Keir's lower-than-usual voice he used for Paul really brought Paul's malice and desire for dominance forward. As my friend puts it: “His eyes in this movie in particular were incredibly striking, like swords stabbing through you. And his body language definitely put me off several times throughout!”

This also makes Paul dangerous, because he doesn't present himself as a straight-up asshole. You'd expect him to straight up be insulting to Jill but instead, he shows his attempts to dominate the women using stares, expressions, body movements, and the low tone of his voice instead of visible anger to affect and hurt them.His conversation with Jill manages to still be insulting without going straight to actual insults, just through Paul's eyes and condescending tone. You can really feel his dislike of Jill displaying HIS qualities (and subsequently, Jill's role as March's partner) and his anger towards March seeing him as 'an experiment'. He feels like the personification of the malicious Fox spirit from Eastern folklore who preys on people.

The film itself is great. It was pretty ahead of it's time.....and arguably still worth a watch today, since some aspects are still pretty forward, such as the idea that sexuality is a spectrum —– March strikes as someone through a bisexual awakening through a sexual encounter with a man, remembering that bisexuality as an idea was almost unheard of in 1967 (in the West, at least).

Dave Bowman - 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

When I first saw this film as a teen, I actually thought that Dave is a real astronaut from how realistic he acts. Dave is very professional and handles everything like you would expect real-life astronauts handles things (that's why he appears as machinelike)

This doesn't make Dave 'fully unemotional' though, as his face tells the emotions, as is his careful body movements. I have to remind people that Dave isn't given time to grief and cry over Frank's death and the Monolith, he must take serious action to handle it. Even then, you can tell from his eyes and twitches of his lips that he's struck with serious emotions over it. He even sounds like trying to hold back anger when HAL confronts him. Keir plays Dave like actual trained astronauts who are careful and not letting emotions take over him, but at the same time, his graceful body movements makes Dave appear balletic and ethereal (which fits with how 2001 is an operatic film), and it's wonderful.

This is what people tend to not see in 2001: Dave might be 'mechanic' and 'machinelike' (as Keir himself agreed), but to really see his expressions...you'd have to see his eyes, lips, eyebrows...they move accordingly, even twitches on reaction. There's even a little moment where he smiles after he closes the airlock!

Read more on my insights on Keir's performance and the entire film here.

Rick Dylan - Paperback Hero (1973)

The film's tagline of “Every woman's had one....every man's been one....once” is very accurate. My biggest praise for this film is how the character of Rick, a young man trapped in his 'tough-guy' persona who thinks he's 'cool' and 'macho' like the Big Guns in the old west, is portrayed as realistically exasperating, annoying, and worrying.

Rick feels like an adolescent grappling in his cowboy fantasies and when confronted with the reality that he doesn't live in the ideal world of the old west (in other words, he needs to grow up), he instead doubles down on his cowboy delusions, becomes violent (lashes out to the 'Enemy'), and loses his identity in the process. Keir's usual strength of emotional eyes, body motions, and precise tone actually makes Rick sounds both like a cowboy and a (man)child at the same time, and he did a great job for not making Rick romanticised. Rick is real, but his cowboy persona isn't.

I have to point out that Keir normally don't play characters like this, and he still does it pretty well!

#film #review #OdysseyOfMichiru

The Ultimate Trip: A Breakdown and review as I (re-)watch

INTRO (OVERTURE): Two minutes of blackness. With some creepy music courtesy of Gyorgy Ligeti. This is an overture, akin to a night at the opera. While this might sound unnecessary to many audiences watching it on TV, laptops, and phones, this tells you about one of the experiences you will be getting in 2001. Unsettling, but that is what space is. They are preparing us for an odyssey in an unsettling wide space. It is an entracte, so 2001 truly is a theatrical production.

Now it's a sunrise. Also Sprach Zarathustra, a composition about the ubermensch Zarathustra. The sun rises above, a neat parallel to Zarathustra's rise over humanity. The sun, in a sense, is God, showcasing His creation. The fact that the dramatic part of the music is preserved during “A STANLEY KUBRICK PRODUCTION” shows something: Kubrick is showing us a grand creation. A sci-fi to redefine the genre.

Very solid intro, I can say. The music fits the epic scale of the visuals. Let the epic begin.

Dawn of Man: The beginning of mankind. The monkeys fight eachother over a puddle of water, signifying that we as humans weren't so different as monkeys when it comes to right to own things. In a sense, these monkeys are displaying traits that we humans still have. And it came. A black slab —— the Monolith, that was not there, standing still, accompanied with Ligeti's music. And here in this scene we see the monkeys coddling into it, holding it with their hands. Curiosity, it's a natural trait in every single living being. When confronted with something we never knew, it is in our instinct to touch it, feel it —— to understand it. The monkeys are trying to understand what it is.

Very soon we see one of the monkeys cracking bones, interspersed with cuts of a tapir being beaten up. They have discovered means of violence. This realization gets played clearer so soon after it where they once again, fight in the same puddle of water —– now with weapons. The fact this happened after the appearance of the Monolith suggests something sinister —– the Monolith is a 'prophet', or a 'God', enlightening the monkeys (essentially its' followers/worshippers) on the act of violence.

A bone gets thrown. It turns into a spaceship. It is evolution of human history. Viewers might not understand what this sequence is about in first watch, I admit that I myself did not understood it. However, it is nicely photographed, which is to be expected. The fact that I did not believe that the backgrounds were matte paintings says it all. But the problem persists —– it demands full attention to even notice what is going on, and the rest of the movie operates on this.

The Odyssey: This is it. A vision of a future from 1968. A Pan-Am (how ironic) star-liner heading to a space station. With only few passengers on board, there are minimal amount of gravity, and things float. The music is The Blue Danube, a romantic waltz from the 18th century. To use that piece of music to show the future only shows romanticized optimism that humanity can do wonderful things. The usage also turns the sequence into a ballet performance.

This is a ballet in film form. A space-age ballet performed by spaceships. Something you would see in Royal Opera House on a special night. The Stewardess —– the only human being performing the ballet —– is dancing to the Blue Danube, and she is walking in a similar manner to a baby, learning to walk. The circular space station rotates like a ballet dancer spinning graciously while the star-liner quietly 'dances' with small pointe into it.

All the spacecraft, LED computers, and technology looked sci-fi for 1968 audiences, but a lot of them have become reality, and in addition, aged well. This is not so much 'science fiction' —– it is 'science eventuality', as in this is a vision of something we will see in our lifetimes.

This is a continuation of the 'Evolution' theme. Mankind walked the Earth, and now attempts to walk in space. There is a feeling of grandeur, and wonder that is ever-present here, contrasting with the violence of the previous sequence.

Somehow, this is reminiscent of dancing sequences from glorious Old Hollywood Musicals, with the stewardess's movements, she looks like she is dancing to the music. The spacecraft, space stations, all beautifully dancing to the Blue Danube. The release year being 1968 brings a poignancy that this is the bridge between Old Hollywood (1945-1967) with New Hollywood (1967-1980). The epic aspirations of Old Hollywood, but with the messaging and 'agenda' of changing times of New Hollywood. Evolution of cinema. That alone gives this sequence a great impression and awe from me. Incredible all around. This must've blown the minds of people in 1968, and I can understand why. It doesn't even look like a movie from 1968 (1966-67 if you follow the production history)—– it looked like it was made in 1988. The slowness in this sequence isn't a problem. After all, it is a ballet. In actuality, not much is actually happening in this sequence, it's just a spacecraft docking, but Kubrick took this opportunity to showcases the best of visual effects in 1968.

Simply put, it is magic. The beautiful visuals and music are nothing short of feast for the senses.

Dr. Floyd's Mission: We have arrived into the space station, along with the first spoken line in the movie, 25 minutes in. We immediately see a short immigration process, it looks way easier than real immigration processes. The process to go to space is now as easy as getting a flight, which makes the depiction of interstellar travel in this movie quite optimistic than our bleak reality of space travel dominated by greedy assholes. Of course, corporate presence is still present —– Pan Am is the spacecraft, Howard-Johnson has an 'Earthlight Room', and Hilton seems to be providing the goods of space hotels. But compared to our reality, their presence felt like bystanders instead of chokeholds as their presence doesn't even felt like product placement. Undoubtedly, I am sure that Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke would have been sad to learn the reality of planned commercial interstellar travel today.

Just like the the star-liner sequence before it, the design of the space station aged well with its' pristine white interiors and bright lights. Even in 2021, there are still places that looked like it. The whiteness of the room is contrasted with obviously sixties-looking red chairs. However, the chairs has a timeless quality that it also looks futuristic at the same time, as these style of interior design is still popular to this day. This is a running theme in 2001's art and production design. It is obviously a product of 1960s NASA handworks, but it's practical enough to keep it relevant and futuristic.

Floyd then calls his daughter using a pay phone, and this is where 2001 shows its' age. As we all know, we have smartphones, but his daughter's lines (“I want a telephone” / “We have lots of telephones already”) suggests that she has a phone while Dr. Floyd does not. Predicting generations after Gen Z being children raised by smartphones at early age? The generational gap between 'kids these days on their phones' and their older parents as perceived from the older parents? Of course not. Kubrick and Clarke definitely did not consider all that, but it is a strange prophetic moment. (note: the writer of this breakdown/review is Gen Z herself)

The interaction between the American Floyd and the Russian scientists felt like a statement in 1968, that in the future, none of the cold war reality will be carried into outer space. To see them interact professionally without antagonization is a dream that we sadly still dream of today. But it also shows what Kubrick really wanted for humanity —– to just stop fighting and invent tools together. A poignant hopeful message to be made in 1968, especially since 2001 was made right after the bleak, nihilistic Dr. Strangelove. And then this is where the story starts. Floyd is heading to the moon, there is a strange signal coming from it. But it's been closed off, with Floyd's curiosity taking over him. This in a sense, is a showcase on how humans will interact in the future —– not so different than in present, only that the year number is different.

We see another star-liner sequence, now heading to the moon. A trip to the moon, it seems. Just like the previous star-liner sequence, it's also a ballet, while showcasing one of the many 'Movie Magic' moments of 2001, namely, the zero gravity effects, space-walk, the realistic-looking moon, and the elegant and graceful landing. To create this before the moon landing must've been a difficult challenge, but the production team did it beautifully, and the results are mind-blowing, even though they got some of the physics wrong (No, landing on the moon will not produce dust! And also, moon gravity does not work like that).

And now the mystery unfolds itself. They head to a crater in Moon, while talking over space foods. Typical. And then it appears again. The Monolith, now causing a ruckus on moon. There's an interesting switch in camerawork as Floyd and his squad descends into the monolith, as the previously calculated camerawork suddenly shifts into handheld. It looks like they are eager to learn what is it in front of them. Just like the monkeys, Floyd's first instinct is to touch it as a way to understand it. A human being understanding a divine being. Humans in the face of a God in object form.

A buzzing noise blasted on their ears, and the sun rises. Is it transmitting a message, just like in the Dawn of Man sequence? Is it what it sounds like? Immediately, we jump to 18 months later without answers.

Again, just like in the Dawn of Man sequence, we are left with questions instead of answers, and we are also treated with a showcase of evolution. For this entire sequence, it did a good job introducing us to the imagined version of the millennium and the technological feats. However, the characters are not compelling and felt like vessels for audiences (unless it is what Kubrick is going for), Dr. Floyd could've been a better character. The set-up is quite abrupt and a bit sudden, and we're not given enough time to learn more about the motivation of Floyd.

Or was he entranced by the Monolith, compelled to seek and understand the mysterious God-like being? Even then, that is my interpretation.

It is interesting that the Monolith's relationship with humanity (and the monkeys) suggests something: God and Followers. Both sequences shows a God/Follower subtext.

The Jupiter Mission (SCHERZO): Very abruptly we see a new act. 18 Months later since the trip to the moon, and presumably the year is 2001. Just like the jump from the bone to the spaceship, this shot is showing evolution. Was the Monolith enlightening humanity to develop space travel that will go far into Jupiter? That is the question in your mind, probably. The ship design is a round thing with a long tail. Interesting design choice, but certainly realistic to real science. Like the ships in the Floyd sequence, it all aged well.

Cut to a man jogging in a cylindrical room, literally running in circles, exercising to Aram Khachaturian. Just like the usage of Blue Danube, it is an optimistic view of humanity's progress. In this sequence, we see one of the most famous instances of 'Movie Magic' —– the man runs through the cylindrical station with no regards to gravity. He runs upside-down to right-side-up. Although he is fiercely exercising, it still feels like a ballet. Again, not much is happening, but much is happening —– he's doing his everyday job.

Then we cut to him having lunch, joined by another astronaut. These two men are quiet, it looks like it's just another routine for them on the mission. An interesting subtle performance that most don't pick up here is how the other astronaut reacts to how hot the space foods he is holding from the oven (kind of like saying “Every single time! Can the oven stop doing this?!” with hand gestures), but it does not phase him that much. It is a sign of professionalism. They're eating while streaming news on tablets, one thing Kubrick got right, a habit that we would do 40-50 years after 1968. Yet another 'Movie Magic' moment in that it shows something that would only be invented over two decades later. They even look like actual tablets from late-2010s.

The astronauts are very responsible and behaved professionally that you'd be forgiven for thinking that Keir Dullea (Dave Bowman) and Gary Lockwood (Frank Poole) were actually astronauts in real life hired to play themselves, instead of actors playing astronauts. They also look realistic, as they don't wear fancy aluminium/plastic costumes, only practical NASA-grade uniforms.

I can see why Kubrick cast these two, it's in part realism in that real life astronauts are younger people, and he wanted to subvert the tropes of sci-fi characters usually being old scientists with grey hairs. It actually works. Keir Dullea as Dave Bowman looks like a real scientist (although he looked like as if a pretty boy Anime character got brought to life). Meanwhile, Gary Lockwood as Frank Poole looked like he's plucked straight from an Apollo mission. Astronauts in real life looks like him.

We later see mundane routines for these astronauts. To them, it's a job, and they are expected to be professionals. They might seem to be 'unfeeling', but that's what expected when you're doing your job. In addition, Dave and Frank have known each other for so long, they've probably ran out of things to casually talk about, and it won't matter much in their already-good working relationship. So all they can do is just doing their job as professionals.

And also, they WERE definitely chosen in the mission for their not-emotional reactions to things. Let's face it, space is scary and wonderful (like a fairy tale), and for these astronauts to give low-emotion reactions to space? That's a sign of high-level expertise. Dave and Frank are professionals at their best, and this is what people have missed on when they say that the actors were bland and unemotional. They have emotions (it is subtle), but when your job requires space and zero-gravity, all the unknown, exciting, and scary things about it will be sucked out of you to the point that they just become mundane things in your life. Their jobs also requires them to keep their heads levelled in the face of difficulties, however bad and ridiculous it is.

The acting isn't so much 'acting to give out story to audience' —– it's 'reacting to the plot' through subtle expressions and balletic body language and body motions. Dave and Frank are reacting to the world and story given to them. Keir Dullea and Gary Lockwood did a great job at being convincing realistic astronauts, and my praise is sincere.

It is interesting to see HAL being portrayed as more emotional than the human astronauts. On the outside, it seems that HAL is displaying more emotions than the astronauts (well it's because HAL has no physical body to worry about space!) It may feel uncanny, but these astronauts (Dave, at least) regards him as a crew member like them (as HAL said before, he has a stimulating relationship with Dave and Frank). Dave's expressions (that cute smile!) as HAL talks about personal things looks like a comforting smile to a friend. These three astronauts know each other so well that Dave's interactions with HAL comes off as two good friends (heh) communicating with each other. Indeed, Dave and HAL is exhibiting their stimulating relationship with each other. HAL seems to get more human as he interacts with Dave and Frank, but his interactions with the humans suggested that Dave and Frank does not treat him as a mere machine.

And we soon see Dave and Frank do their job outside. There is no music because it is space, space has no sound. This sequence is very slow (again, balletic), but it's to show how it's like in reality to do these things. Being an astronaut isn't that exciting, even though the movie shows us how beautiful space and technology looks. But of course, it's just Dave and Frank's life.

Now the astronauts are back on board. Dave gives a Kubrick stare to HAL, and we soon see that HAL have made a mistake, but HAL contributes it to human error. He read Dave and Frank's lips. Something bad is going to happen, and Dave and Frank are adamant that things are hidden from them.

This sequence, overall, is where the focus of 2001 is in. The story, progression, and everything clears up in this sequence. Everything is gradually explained, we see more of the world and setting, things gets explained, and we see a set-up for actual plot. Overall, better than the Floyd sequence and provides a magic of its' own. Helps that it actually has interesting characters, with HAL 9000 being the most memorable one (and easy on the ears!), though Dave and Frank is also interesting (and easier on the eyes if you ask me). Also helps that it is less slow than the previous sequence.

INTERMISSION: Nothing to say here. Only a black screen with more creepy Ligeti music. In a sense, it's setting up for the mood in the next part of the movie.

HAL'S Mutiny: Now it's Frank's turn to walk in space. Immediately, we see our second casualty in the movie (the first was the tapir in Dawn of Man). As I have elaborated before, Dave must act professionally in face of difficulties. He isn't given time to grief and cry over Frank's death, he must take action to handle it. Again, this is the reality for astronauts in real life. Though, thanks to his Kubrick Stares, and twitching lips, it's clear that Dave is in some way, pissed off. He even looks down in a way that gives off the impression that he is showing expression of loss. This is where my praises for the acting heightened, it is difficult to do grief and anger with minimal facial emotions. And through eyes and lip movements, the grief and anger are expressed subtly.

More murders soon follow. HAL shows his anger. This is one of the most sadistic murder scenes in history of movies, in a sense. The other astronauts are helpless, they cannot scream, shout, or beg for life. They can only sleep as their sleep becomes an eternal rest, forced upon them as their bodies gradually dies. HAL's eyes now shows emotions of anger, and it's all only a red dot. Incredible how the same shots of a lens can convey different emotions by changing the contexts. This is some visual storytelling, telling the story of an inanimate object's five stages of depression.

HAL does not let Dave go back in, and HAL is clearly mad that Dave and Frank are planning to 'kill' him behind his back as his reason, therefore conflicting with his programming. HAL also sounds irritated that he is being blamed for a mistake that he senses as human error. This is denial, but in a sense, HAL was right, why would an AI lie to humans? He is programmed to tell the truth, and he trusts Dave and Frank (and vice versa). Dave and Frank hiding from him, discussing their plans is a breach of that trust. HAL is panicking over the loss of control and his life at the hands of humans —– his creators, so to speak, even though Dave was not his creator. This sequence is an example of humanity's fear of tools rebelling against them, but in this case, HAL's fears isn't dumbfounded, and as a result, it becomes an emotional standoff.

Going with the theme of 'God/Follower' subtext present in the previous sequences, HAL is in a sense, regarding humans as Gods, and he is being rejected by Gods. Dave, in HAL's eyes, is one of the Gods who rejects him.

Dave enters the Discovery nonetheless, without helmet and gravity in an impressive zero-gravity dive. It looks like a ballet in 2x speed. Maybe the word 'Movie Magic' isn't appropriate to be used in this scene for the sinister context, but attempting to do this stunt without CGI is a magical feat in itself. More Kubrick stare follows, and the camerawork now shifts into handheld, like at the end of the Floyd sequence. Dave looks like he is getting serious. In a way, the handheld camerawork enhances Dave's emotions and intention. Things are going to get serious.

HAL now goes into bargaining with Dave, now that he knows that his life is at stake. Now Dave is inside HAL's hard drive, with more instance of 'movie magic' being shown with Dave appearing to float in zero-gravity. We now see HAL's depression, as he asks Dave to stop. This is in a sense, an ultra-violent scene, as Dave is essentially violating HAL's autonomy and taking it away from him, while HAL has no means to resist. HAL can feel his mind disintegrating as Dave takes it away from him. Dave is killing a living being. However, you can see that Dave had no choice from his distressed facial expressions, with his profile shots even suggesting expressions of sadness. Dave feels for HAL. After all, they had a good rapport and (stimulating) relationship in with each other. Dave isn't killing a machine, he is killing a friend.

And to follow the 'God/Follower' subtext throughout the movie, Dave, a being that HAL regards as a God, is killing a God's creation, for being too God-like to the liking of the Gods who created him.

HAL resets to factory mode, and sings to Dave, easily the most harrowing scene of the movie as HAL reaches (forced) acceptance of his death. Although HAL sings it on factory mode, the choice of song makes it look like an ode to to a friend who is not reciprocating HAL's feelings, which accidentally adds a subtext of HAL and Dave's relationship before this scene.

And now we see the big reveal —– it's the monolith. They are in reality, heading to the monolith. The entire mission was a lie. HAL was right, it was a human error, and the humans were hiding something from him and the astronauts. The humans broke HAL's trust and programming that HAL has become more human than mankind, only to be rejected. Now Dave is all alone, heading to the monolith, with the revelation in his head.

While this is technically part of The Jupiter Mission part of the story, this storyline is very much solid. HAL and Dave has a great tension, HAL is very compelling, and Dave's subtle emotions actually is given time to shine. There are less 'Movie Magic' moments, but it is easily the best part of the movie.

There is no monolith in this sequence, but it is a strange coincidence that HAL's console looked like a monolith, even in the same dimensions. This plays rather well in the 'God/Follower' dynamic that was previously shown through the monoliths and the monkeys and humans. HAL is a tool built in the image of Gods —– Monoliths, by Humans, who is regarded as Gods by tools. HAL is a 'follower' for humans, but in the process, he gains enlightenment that reaches the level of humans —– Gods who created him. He is rejected by the humans, on grounds that such a tool that is shaped on the image of a God has the potential to become like God.

Jupiter and Beyond the Infinite: Opens with impressive shots of outer space, especially Jupiter and its' moons. Now we are at the penultimate scene. Dave is all alone, facing the unknown, something that isn't part of his job. He's not touching the monolith —– he is going inside it. Dave is looking for any intelligent being behind he monolith. Will it be aliens, gods (which would appeal to Clarke's dabbling into Hinduism and Indian mythology), or simply advanced humans? We don't see it, and it is a brilliant choice in Kubrick and Clarke's part. Our imaginations will always come up with better ideas of who are the ones behind the monolith. Lights begin to appear, colours are bursting into our eyes. The music by Ligeti becomes the only sound in the movie.

When people say 'Movie Magic', a lot of them will point out to the entire Star Gate sequence. It is nothing short of impressive magic, indescribable by words. But it is in a sense, a journey of enlightenment. Sort of one going through the way to Nirvana itself. These light shows the road to whatever is above our existence. Dave is going through a journey that goes beyond humanity, time, and space. He is on the path of Godliness. We even see Dave's expressions as he sees the lights. It suggests that everything feels inhuman, and he is being fed with revelations that no human being should be able to take. Regardless, he is sitting still on the pod, not losing his sanity. In a sense, Dave's low amount of emotions is a trait that enables him to path of Godhood. All that revelation and is still going? Become God, you may

And we have arrived at the end of the movie. It's a beautiful Louis XVI-styled room (an unintentional call-forward to Barry Lyndon), made futuristic through the floors and the whiteness of the walls. All the computers in the pod are non-functional, which is very unsettling. When computers are unable to give information, you know that you are stepping into the unknown. This isn't Earth. This isn't anywhere in the galaxy. Cut to a heavily-aged Dave. This is Limbo.

In Limbo, you will experience your entire life in flashes. The concept of time does not exist in Limbo, you will just age rapidly and die. The process has just begun for Dave. His expression looked like someone who has seen really harsh, unacceptable (to human capabilities of thought), inhuman things. Things that a human being should not be seeing and knowing. And Dave is stuck on that room. As he is no longer human.

There is a bathroom (in a Stanley Kubrick picture, bathrooms are signs of 'shit is about to happen'), and the bed has clothes laid on it. Why not take a nice bath? that's what the limbo suggests. This also provides an excuse for Dave to look in the mirror in shock of his aging face. The bathrooms has alien sounds, which are probably the voices behind the monolith. Dave turns around only to see himself aging further, having a proper meal after two hours of space food being shown to us. If you noticed something, none of the Daves ever return to the position where they stood before. They're always somewhere else —– staying there. Now we see Dave in his deathbed, with the monolith in front of him.

David Bowman is ascending into Godhood. He is to be rebirth as a Divinity, a reward for his actions in the face of adversaries, and a reward for keeping his humanity.

This is easily the most 'abstract' sequence in the movie, and undoubtedly the MOST confusing of all. Yes, it operates in “show, don't tell” to the extremes. It BOTH works and does not work. This sequence can either make or break audiences. It is easy to see why people gets divided over this.

Though, it is nothing short of visual feasts. I do think there IS a reason for that. These visual feasts turns your brain on and think of the infinite. Is there something beyond the infinite? It is the question that this sequence asks you, and Kubrick and Clarke wants you to ask it yourself, while interpreting what does beyond the infinite looks like for you.

DESCENSION OF THE STAR CHILD (FINALE): Thus spoke Zarathustra. The piece of music from the Overture returns. If the intro shows a creation of God, then the finale actually shows a God. Dave have been reborn into a child —– not a human child, but rather, a divine child. The Star Child.

He turns over, and looks at Earth. He will bring message to humanity.

FIN

Al those visual feasts, and trips to infinity. That is 2001: A Space Odyssey. It is a movie about the infinite potentials and capabilities of humanity, as well as the limits of humanity, and what happens when humanity goes beyond the limit. It also has something to say, in regards to human instincts of curiosity and violence and how it evolves while humanity faces evolution. It is a celebration of humanity, and ascension from humanity, while interrogating itself through subtexts.

Evolution, Violence, Godliness, God.

Mankind creates tools through messages from God, Mankind uses tools to enact violence that is engrained within, Mankind evolves and so does their tools and forms of violence. Mankind seeks more than tools and violence by turning to God, Mankind sends the best possible human being to face God, The human being is given adversaries, trials, and commits forced acts of violence towards creation of humanity, The human being learns the truth of life and the universe, The human being faces God, The human being becomes God.

That is my best attempt to sum up 2001. It is a ballet about humanity and infinity. An actually great movie, with zero faults on technical aspects from cinematography, art and production design, camerawork, to music. As a graphic designer, 2001 managed to stay relevant too in the realm of graphic design —– the usage of sans-serif fonts and flat UIs stays in reality to this day. Reality is much closer to films than we think.

I can even like the slowness —– Kubrick's thing is utilizing slowness to give our sensory and brains something to think about without overloading it, an aspect of his style that gets better in his later films, and often misunderstood by his imitators —– most Kubrick imitators keeps forgetting that 'sensory overload' wasn't his thing.

And as I have elaborated before, the acting is not cold and unemotional —– it's realistic, human reactions to fantastic situations. While William Sylvester (Heywood Floyd) and the rest of the cast in the Moon Mission do look professional and definitely scientist-ly, the ones who did the great job are the Jupiter Mission cast Keir Dullea (Dave Bowman), Gary Lockwood (Frank Poole), and Douglas Rain (HAL) who brought the movie to life wonderfully while portraying astronautics realistically —– special mention to Douglas Rain, who masterfully made us feel for HAL.

And again, it is not only a movie, but also an operatic epic consisting of ballets. Space Opera.

I understand if you don't like it. Don't worry about that. It is very slow, very sparse in terms of story, reliant on subtexts, and demands your fullest attention and multiple re-watches. Not for everyone! Only see this if you are in the mood. And if possible, see it on bigger screens like TVs or huge monitors.

Though it is important to understand that my interpretation is not the real interpretation of 2001. It is meant to be interpreted by yourself, using your own thoughts and brains. Why am I writing this then? Knowing that I personally don't think that it is Kubrick's best? (that title goes to Eyes Wide Shut —– but in hindsight that one is much harder to write about than 2001)

Well, I just love this movie, that is all. I cannot shake off the influence 2001 has on media too, from Sci-Fi as a whole to K-Pop videos.....2001 has placed its' monoliths on them. And I am writing this to understand why it did. And I understood. It is truly a monumental film. A showcase of what the medium can do at its' best, giving you something that literature, music, and even video gaming cannot do. I did admit that I did not get what 2001 was about, even when I was completely spellbound by it.

On another hand, It's strange that 2001 caters to my exact niches, after all, “A pretty boy becomes God surrounded with beautiful space sets and visual effects and classical music, interspersed with a plot that concerns Godliness and Humanity's awe of the presence of God” does look like something I could've written, right? Yeah, that helps.

As an aside, if you like it but still cannot comprehend what is going on, fear not, Visual Memory is here to guide, and Keir Dullea is here to help (with Prof. Brian Cox too).

#film #writeup #review #ProjectSK8 #DirectorSpeedrun #StanleyKubrick #Letterboxd #OdysseyOfMichiru