Eh... The Movie was Better II: 2001: A Space Odyssey

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) tends to be a pretty polarizing film. Just mosey on over to the IMDB message boards and you'll see how much discussion the film generates. Of course some of this discussion tends to devolve into one person saying the film sucks and then another person telling them that they are an idiot and just don't understand great cinema. While I love the film I am not one to insult someone that doesn't like the movie.

Now, I bring up the arguments that this film generates for a reason. Sometimes these arguments will end with someone telling the person that didn't understand the movie that they should read the book. Arthur C. Clarke chose to explain a lot more in the book than Stanley Kubrick did in the movie so reading the book would therefore make the movie easier to understand. This will ultimately lead to someone saying that if the movie were any good then you wouldn't need to read the book to understand.

While I somewhat understand this point of view, I think it is doing a great disservice to the film to say that you have to read the book to really understand the film. In my opinion 2001: A Space Odyssey very easily stands on its own as a great film and needs no more explanation than what Kubrick chose to give. In fact for many years I specifically avoided the book because I didn't want that to color my interpretation of the film.

I finally broke down and read the book... well I listened to the audio book (I need something to do during my commute to work). The book does indeed go into a lot more detail than the movie does. I don't think it tells the reader much that can not be inferred from watching the film. The film chooses not to lay everything out on a platter for you and assumes that you will be intelligent enough to figure some things out for yourself.

While the book is certainly an intelligent piece of science fiction, I would say that it explains just a bit to much. I felt that having a complete explanation for where the monoliths came from detracted quite a bit from the story. I thought the film gives a pretty good idea of the purpose of the monoliths without giving a complete history of the civilization that left them for us to find. While I guess I can understand why someone might like having that gap filled in, I personally like having it left open to interpretation. While I had never given much thought to the entire history of the aliens that left the monoliths, I believe that the film does give enough information for the reasons behind the monoliths to be figured out by a viewer that is paying attention.

The book also goes into a bit more detail when it comes to reasons for HAL's malfunction. In fact the book comes right out and gives a entire explanation for why HAL went against his programming and started killing off the astronauts aboard the Discovery space craft. However, again this is another thing that doesn't really need to be told to the reader. Honestly I prefer not having a full explanation because it allows you to come up with your own theories about HAL. Some of the best discussions I have seen about this film have been about why HAL chose kill the crew of the Discovery.

Both Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick had said that one of their intentions when creating 2001 was to create a story that would ask more questions than it answers. While I do believe that both version of the story to succeed in this goal, I think that Kubrick's film was much more successful at this than Clarke's novel was.

Now, I do not necessarily fault Arthur C. Clarke for giving explanations for things that were left ambiguous in the film. Of course a novel is always going to be more detailed than a film, it is just the nature of those two mediums. I just find that the things Kubrick left out really helped add a nice sense of mystery and intrigue to the story. While most of what is missing can be inferred by someone that is paying attention to the film, I like the fact that it is still up to me to fill in these gaps.

Adding these details to the film would have just led to unnecessary verbal exposition and one of the things I love about this film is just how visual the story telling really is. Visual story telling is something that has been missing from film for quite sometime. Filmmakers tell us everything we need to know through dialog instead of actually using the visual nature of film to show us these things. I always enjoy a movie that expects its viewers to actually pay attention to what is going on and act as more than just a passive viewer. 2001: A Space Odyssey is one of those films that you must allow yourself to become fully absorbed in before you can really enjoy it.

I believe that when it comes down to it the film version of 2001: A Space Odyssey is just a more memorable experience than the novel. Seeing the film in at theater a couple years back is one of my most memorable movie going experiences of my life. While I enjoyed reading the book, I don't feel that it is going to stay with me the way that the movie has. The film is one of the most beautiful things ever put on celluloid and is often listed as one of the best movies of all time. While Clarke's novel is good and a interesting read, it doesn't even come close to being one of the best science fiction novels of all time. Clarke is a very talented writer but when it comes to this story the film version is what is going to be best remembered.