My parents took me to see 2001 when it was re-released in 1971. They were in their mid-30s; I was seven. At the intermission, they expressed exasperation and suggested we leave. My response was "No way, this is fantastic!" Regardless of age, there are those who embrace cinema when it produces something unexpected or "different" and those who reject it.

He was a member of that generation, but that's it, he wasn't into rock music (at least the stuff most remembered today), films like 2001 etc., and he was far from the only one.

My dad took my mum to see 2001 on one of their first dates. Then he bought her the Arthur C. Clarke book so that she could find out what the Jupiter and Beyond Infinity sequence was actually meant to represent beyond the trippy visuals. The novel also fleshes out Moon Watcher and his band of apes more as individuals in the Dawn of Man sequence, compared to the way Kubrick is (beautifully) stripping everything down to iconic elements.

That is not to denigrate that final sequence though since it is absolutely stunning (if someone ever adapts Greg Bear's Blood Music, the solarised landscapes would be perfect for the ending of that! I also like the way that Tarkovsky burns through the equivalent of the stargate sequence at the beginning of Solaris with Berton's film of his flight. The driving in Japan sequence, with its propulsive forward movement, could be seen as the equivalent of all of the slitscan visuals zooming past in 2001, both visually spectacular and, if seen uncharitably, narratively redundant) and of course also has that legendary synch up to Pink Floyd's Echoes track going for it too.

David Fincher told a pretty cool story about his dad taking him to see this on a double bill with Yellow Submarine, as a pretty young child.

I'm not enough of a cinéaste to admit I'm not crazy about seeing films I've already seen in the theater. 2001 is an exception, as I'd hope to sneak in my iPod and cue up "Echoes" for the "Jupiter And Beyond" section.

The last time I watched this film, I had a rather interesting idea... Is the future of 2001 distopian? One could see it this way!
HAL could be a stand in for the government, and in many ways "he" is. Watching, judging, HAL is the politician aboard the ship in a way, Like a true politican, creating strife and then selling the solution, The crew runs the ship, yet HAL makes the decisions. Could be some sort of "people unite" message going on here? He is no more a political figure than in the exposition scene/ interview with the BBC. Every single time we see people talking to one another in the film, its a conspiracy, or really, really ,really SMALL talk.Take for instance the brief chat that haywood has with the russian scientists, Haywood is in a position of power and knowledge, and he is lying to them, even when he knows it not only scares them, but very nearly killed them. Then there is the boardroom scene... The american flag prominently placed in the shots while haywood talks about the necessity of lying and covering up the truth can not be accidental, well okay SURE IT CAN! But im making a point here people. Another short exposition scene later, which is more or less an epilogue to the last scene, is not entirely immune to my theory, There is a sort of "comrade" ship that is very shorthand and very forced, "well brothers, this is not real food we are eating, but we will consume it anyways for the revolution"... a.k.a "You got ham, ugh ya... tastes like it anyways". The next major dialogue scene is the expeditionary interview, but after that comes HAL being very deceptive and misleading to frank and bowman, all to better manage their actions and increase their dependancy, well of course all of this lying and scheming and trickery is undone by bowman who transcends yada yada yada. This may be all b.s... but its another interesting way to look at the film. Also, the only two video calls we see are both for birthdays, and both include more talk of buying than birthing, "We just sorted out your a19 (whatever its called) payments", Debt, Big Brother, Isolation, Ham sandwiches that dont taste like the real thing, conspiracies and ugh... ya okay its a bit of a stretch.

There's no question in my mind that much of 2001 is a satire (every Kubrick film from LOLITA on is, in my opinion, although some are more obvious than others). The painfully dull interactions among the scientists/astronauts are there to remind you how mundane we are in the face of cosmic wonder. When Floyd is congratulated for giving an inspiring speech, we're reminded of every facetious moment spent in a boardroom of yes-men. The juxtaposition of these drones with the discovery of alien intelligence is not too dissimilar to Col. "Bat" Guano being concerned about the property of Coca-Cola when nuclear annihilation is imminent in DR. STRANGELOVE.

Then there's the idea that the alien's idea of human habitation seems like a high class hotel suite where the main character has to wait himself to death until being reborn. I often think 2001 is a film mostly about a never ending commute in various forms, with the various stops along the way just bland stations or waiting rooms that you can 'message home' from.

Those are both really good points! it never occurred to me that the film could be about living ones life to the bitter end, ritual and culture, knowledge, friends, family... Being just apart of the dull routine until... ZAP! Well, I guess my rephrasing it in such moronic fashion was unnecessary!
Crazy, Im rather embarrassed I never thought of it like that. I'll have to watch it real soon now.

Lots of very sharp satire in 2001. I didn't notice this all that much in my teens (when the film was new) -- but revisiting years later I was surprised at the high level of "humor" in the film (and also at the complexity of HAL's "problem" -- and HAL's "innocence" -- and at the true "villains" of the film).

I remember my dad taking me to see this in the early 80s when i was around ten.It was screening for free at a library on Long Island and i distinctly remember thinking (during the scene where Haywood Floyd and the other scientists are shown the excavation site on the moon) that the monolith was defending itself with that deafening high pitched tone after Dr.Floyd reached out to touch it.The mononliths weren't the only thing i didn't understand-I was completely baffled by the dawn of man scene,the stargate sequence and the extra-dimensional hotel suite as well.My father refused to explain anything on the ride home saying i needed to watch it again.I was so frustrated by his lack of answers i told him the chances of me re-watching it were slim to none.I finally asked him,"why would you even bring me to see something like this?" He replied,"because you liked Star Wars...."

I just remembered that whilst Jonathan Glazer's work always invites Kubrick comparisons, most on display in the music video for Blur's "The Universal" which obviously homages A Clockwork Orange, perhaps his best and most subtle Kubrick homage was to the hotel suite ending of 2001 in his Richard Ashcroft music video, with its amusingly mundane possible explanations for why food just 'magically' appears and the way that the character pauses at a couple of points to take look around!

I may be pointing out something very obvious, which would be why I have not come across it. But the last occasion in which I viewed 2001... I did so under the influence of marijuana, as I had read so much about its use by then theatergoers and even noted critics. One thing I was really struck by, was how really rude everyone is to Hal. The entire first scene with Hal is him being belittled, with two main themes coming across. The first being that Hal is only asked questions regarding his doubts, insecurities, and asked to speak about his limitations. So there would be a point made about Hal's limitations. Whereas the human crew gets to wax poetic about the breathing rate and blood pressure drop during hyper sleep. As if these human limitations were proof of their superiority, as if they were more qualified to speak about them than Hal... Who is actually the one displaying said information. Then there is the assumption that Hal does not have genuine emotions. During this viewing, it sort of felt like every ensuing scene came as a direct result of this first televised conversation, which I had previously only seen as incredibly sleek exposition.

The birthday scene seemed like Hal's attempt to address their dismissal of his ability to feel. Which felt like Hal's way of showing that he has feelings, that he is lonely too. But Hal is rebuffed. Frank not only seems to take his good fortune for granted, but Hal as well, who I could feel jealously watching ever second of that tape transmission. Hal then proves that he is more intelligent than frank by "beating" him at chess. And finally, Hal tries simultaneously to treat bowman as an equal, gauge his intelligence, he demonstrates feelings by "projecting concern" and really tries to reach out. But is seen by bowman to just be collecting data and running a program, which would be the crew psychology report. Bowman could just not bring himself to talk to Hal as an equal, because he could never be one in his eyes. I guess what I am trying to say is, this is the first time I really felt bad for Hal, felt like he was the human being, and the men men were the limited machines.

A common criticism of the film is that the humans are less "human" than the computer. Perhaps these reviewers meant that HAL appears more sympathetic than the astronauts which I believe was Kubrick's intention. One gets the impression that the conflict between astronaut and computer is a class struggle with Bowman as a lord and HAL his servant. I think what strikes some viewers as bizarre is that Bowman refuses to show panic (or, rather, there is only the barest suggestion of Bowman becoming unsettled) when HAL turns malevolent, whereas in most dramas the protagonist would be sweating and shouting. But in Kubrick's world, the human must eliminate his emotional response in order to beat a computer that aspires to have emotions.

Then there's the matter of the astronaut training program that Bowman is a product of. He has been both trained and then selected based on his ability to sublimate his emotions in high-pressure situations to successfully complete difficult tasks. Kubrick did a lot of research to get the visuals right; that research also paid off when it came to credible characterizations.

Kubrick sounds like he was getting into that A Clockwork Orange mode.

Where did that come from? It doesn't look genuine.

Everyone knows the man's missives were always set in Futura:

Not only do the signatures not match, but in the first one, "Stanley" appears to have crossed his "L" rather than his "T", and I think he also may have left the "E" out of his name!

It's been confirmed as fake.

In fact, the evidence is present in the letter itself - how many pre-1970 typewriters featured smart quotes?

Even if Kubrick had such a thing in 1970, he clearly stopped using it by 1975 (see the equivalent in the Barry Lyndon letter, which is certainly genuine).

Maybe it was the first salvo from Alan Conway.

Is it true a version of the Criterion laserdiscs has the film in 2.35:1?

The CAV version is 2.2:1 or something near it, but it's cropped from a 35mm 2.35:1 source, which was itself cropped from the 65mm 2.2:1 original. The cropping is quite noticeable compared to later transfers. Maybe the CLV version is 2.35:1, but I don't have that one. Those are the only two versions Criterion ever released, unless they changed something for a second pressing.