2001: Odissea nello spazio abbraccia un arco di oltre un milione d’anni, dall’alba dell’uomo al primo volo verso Giove. Kubrick ha avuto al fianco Arthur C. Clarke, un autore di fantascienza che è anche scienziato, e gli ha chiesto di guidarlo attraverso quelle che una felice formula editoriale ha definito «le meraviglie del possibile».
2001: Odissea nello spazio non somiglia a nessun film di fantascienza o di fantapolitica finora realizzato. Perché non è un film di fantascienza in nessun senso del termine, ma semplicemente un discorso sull’uomo, l’uomo di sempre.
by Bosley Crowther In light of the phenomenal popularity of George Lukas’ 1977 Star Wars, which seems to have done for science fiction movies what Mickey Mouse did for screen cartoons, it may seem a bit acrimonious for a veteran critic to persist in the belief that Stanley Kubrick’s earlier [...]
D’avance, nous savions que ce serait un événement. Parce que les dix millions de dollars dépensés garantissaient la qualité du spectacle et nous promettaient ce récital d’effets spéciaux, cette fête de l’imaginaire, ce plongeon dans l’inconnu dont le cinéma de SF nous frustre régulièrement.
Stanley Kubrick was determined the design for his ‘definitive attempt’ at the science-fiction film should represent a decisive break with Hollywood norms — and who better to enlist to his cause than a pair of spacecraft consultants poached from the very heart of NASA itself?
These are four key scenes from the main sections of 2001: A Space Odyssey, a film that can be considered, with some reservations, a cinematic milestone in both the technical achievement and in its aesthetic exposition.
2001: A Space Odyssey is fascinating when it concentrates on apes or machines, and dreadful when it deals with the in-betweens: humans. For all its lively visual and mechanical spectacle, this is a kind of space-Spartacus and, more pretentious still, a shaggy God story.
Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey is remarkable on a number of counts. Firstly, it is perhaps the first multi-million-dollar supercolossal movie since D. W. Griffith’s Intolerance fifty years ago which can genuinely be regarded as the work of one man.
2001 no less than Dr. Strangelove is an apocalyptic vision: it i is an alternate future but no less pessimistic. Beneath its austerely beautiful surface an alarm is sounded for us to examine a problem of which Dr. Strangelove was a pronounced symptom: the possibility that man is as much at the mercy of his own artifacts as ever he was of the forces of nature.
Louise Sweeney, New York-based film critic for The Christian Science Monitor, wrote a generally favorable review following the New York premiere of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Boston staff critic John Allen’s full-page review appeared in the Monitor a month later and M-G-M reprinted it as an ad in a Sunday edition of The New York Times.
Any annoyance over the ending—if indeed it is widely felt—cannot really compromise Kubrick’s epic achievement, his mastery of the techniques of screen sight and screen sound to create impact and illusion.
After we have seen a stewardess walk up a wall and across the ceiling early in the film, we no longer question similar amazements and accept Kubrick's new world without question. The credibility of the special effects established, we can suspend disbelief, to use a justifiable cliche, and revel in the beauty and imagination of Kubrick/Clarke's space.
With 2001, we learned the real depth and mass of space, and discovered that “The Ultimate Trip” was going to be a cold, lonely one—an adventure more daunting to the psyche than the body.
Kubrick’s original plan was to open 2001 with a ten-minute prologue (35mm film, black and white) — edited interviews on extraterrestrial possibilities with experts on space, theology, chemistry, biology, astronomy. Kubrick says that he decided after the first screening of 2001 for M-G-M executives, in Culver City, California, that it wasn’t a good idea to open 2001 with a prologue, and it was eliminated immediately.
We are happy to report, for the benefit of science-fiction buffs—who have long felt that, at its best, science fiction is a splendid medium for conveying the poetry and wonder of science—that there will soon be a movie for them. We have this from none other than the two authors of the movie, which is to be called Journey Beyond the Stars—Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke.
Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey took five years and $10 million to make, and it’s easy to see where the time and the money have gone. It’s less easy to understand how, for five years, Kubrick managed to concentrate on his ingenuity and ignore his talent.
L’ironia di Kubrick resta sempre fredda, il suo umorismo sereno, forse perciò più toccante. Si limita a prospettare l’eccezionale come raggiunto e quindi divenuto usuale, quotidiano, fine a se stesso.
The pretentiousness of 2001: A Space Odyssey has been a considerable obstacle to appreciating its status as masterpiece. The collaboration with Arthur C. Clarke and Kubrick’s own statements about the film have obviously obscured how deeply it connects to the rest of his work.
2001: IL FILM DI STANLEY KUBRICK Il viaggio interplanetario è un viaggio biologico di Lino Curci Sono giorni di scienza, non di fantascienza. Per la prima volta, con l’«Apollo 8», ritorno ha varcato il confine che separa il campo gravitazionale della Terra dalla zona in cui agiscono le forze dì [...]
In the following essay, DeBellis asserts that John Updike's references to 2001: A Space Odyssey in Rabbit Redux underline the major thematic concerns in the novel.
Arthur C. Clarke's short story "Sentinel of Eternity", published in 1951 , which was used as a starting point for the novel and movie 2001: A Space Odyssey
Interviewer Charlie Kohler met with Kubrick in an MGM conference room surrounded by posters and stills from 2001. Kubrick was eager to discuss his new film.
Annette Michelson in her famous 1969 essay, Bodies in Space: Film as 'Carnal Knowledge' in which she explored the phenomenal impact of 2001: A Space Odyssey
Il 1968 fu un anno memorabile. Il primo Giro vinto da Eddy Merckx, Beamon che a Città del Messico salta 8,90 in lungo, il Maggio, Praga. Inoltre, esce 2001: Odissea nello spazio
In 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) we are invited by director Stanley Kubrick to experience a mesmerizing yet also alienating form of sensory liberation, as paradoxical as such an experience may at first sound.
Non siamo soli nell'universo. Per convincercene, e umiliare il nostro orgoglio, Stanley Kubrick ha scritto e diretto il più clamoroso e agghiacciante film di fantascienza, o come lui dice, di "prescienza", che sinora sia apparso sugli schermi del sistema solare.
Avvisaglie della fine impossibile di Francesco Cattaneo «...è l'individuo tale quale, elementare e tortuoso, vomitato dal Caos in piena Versailles". E.M. Cioran (1). «La luce è tenebra quando è solo luce» Franco Rella (2). Una delle immagini più vulgate del Settecento è sine dubio quella afferente alla formula kantiana secondo [...]
Il caso di 2001: A Space Odyssey, film di enorme successo e di enorme sfortuna, è uno dei più clamorosi. Tanti furono i sofismi che ne accolsero l’uscita da indurre lo stesso Stanley Kubrick a fornire, un poco infastidito, la sua semplice spiegazione
The young cult for Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey now has its HolyWrit. The second 70 mm. release of the movie was accompanied by a collection entitled The Making of Kubrick's '2001' and edited, with the cooperation of the director, by Jerome Agel.
2001: A Space Odyssey, a film in which infinite care, intelligence, patience, imagination and Cinerama have been devoted to what looks like the apotheosis of the fantasy of a precocious, early nineteen-fifties city boy.
Stanley Kubrick’s futuristic 1968 epic ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’ still has the power to startle. Mark Crispin Miller re-examines its subversive vision of power, sex and isolation