(1984) Written and directed by Peter Hyams; Based on the
novel 2010: Odyssey Two, by Arthur C.
Clarke; Starring: Roy Scheider, John Lithgow, Hellen Mirren, Keir Dullea, Bob
Balaban and Douglas Rain; Available on Blu-ray and DVD.
Rating: ****
“People ask me what the monolith means, and I have a
simple answer – I say see the film, read the book, and repeat the dose as often
as necessary.” – Arthur C. Clarke (from 1984 featurette 2010: The Odyssey
Continues)
“It’s about something that not only could happen, it’s
about something that we’d love to actually happen, because it’s so hopeful, and
I don’t think there’s something more primal, at least to me, than the
fascination with making contact.” – Peter Hyams (ibid)
Call it one of the greatest acts of hubris in film
history, a fool’s errand, or MGM trying to make a quick buck, but creating a sequel
to Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space
Odyssey was bound to invite scorn and derision. The original film
represented a landmark in science fiction storytelling, with a story spanning
the breadth of human history, and special effects that were unprecedented in
detail and scope. Writer/director Peter Hyams (working from a novel by Arthur
C. Clarke) boldly accepted the challenge of following up one of cinema’s
greatest achievements* with a continuation of the story. It shouldn’t have
surprised anyone that 2010 (aka: 2010: The Year We Make Contact) would have
taken a different approach than its predecessor. What was surprising was how
well it complemented Kubrick’s original.
* Yes, I understand not everyone shares the same
enthusiasm for Kubrick’s film, but as far as I’m concerned, they’re wrong,
wrong, wrong. To each, his or her own, however. I’m not judging…much.
As we can glean from the title, the story picks up nine
years later, after the failed U.S. mission to Jupiter, which resulted in the
loss of the spaceship Discovery and its crew. Analysis of the data has yielded
few clues, only questions. One of the primary scientists responsible for the mission,
Dr. Heywood Floyd (Roy Scheider, replacing William Sylvester from the original
film), is invited to tag along with the Russians on a new mission to find out
what went wrong. Due to escalating tensions between the two superpowers, it’s
not an easy sell for either government to permit the joint endeavor, but they
relent in the interest of shared intelligence. Thus, the combined crew set out
in the Soviet spacecraft Alexey Leonov to rendezvous with the Discovery, which
has been orbiting the volcanic moon Io.
* Fun fact: Watch for an Arthur C. Clarke cameo in an
early scene, seated at a park bench in front of the White House, feeding
pigeons. He appears later on a Time magazine
cover along with Stanley Kubrick.
2001 reflected
Kubrick’s obsessive attention to detail, setting the bar to nearly impossible
heights for anyone following in his footsteps. 2010 doesn’t disappoint, however boasting impressive visuals that
hold their own against the effects in the previous film. Because Kubrick ordered
the sets, drawings and models destroyed after shooting 2001, 2010’s crew had to
re-create the Discovery model and interiors, based solely on film frames from
the original. Considering this handicap, they did a remarkable job of staying
true to the original designs. Richard Edlund’s visual effects hold up quite
well, evoking some stunning imagery that could give today’s digital effects
artists a run for their money. Syd Mead described his interior and exterior designs
for the Alexey Leonov as “functional,” created not for aesthetics, but to get
the job done (“…minimal cost for maximum utilitarian value.”).
Fortunately, 2010
is more than just sound and fury, featuring some excellent performances by a
very capable cast. Scheider brings a down-to-earth believability to his
character, Dr. Floyd. There’s a nice little moment between Floyd and one of the
cosmonauts, Irina Yakunina (Natasha Shneider), as the Alexey Leonov performs a tense
and hazardous air braking maneuver in Jupiter’s atmosphere. They cuddle
together to share a platonic moment – two humans against the harsh, indifferent
void of space.
In an essential nod to the first film, Douglas Rain returns
as the voice of HAL 9000, and Keir Dullea (looking like he never aged a day
since 2001) reprises his role as
David Bowman. John Lithgow is also terrific as Dr. Walter Curnow, an engineer
who’s more comfortable behind a desk than floating in space. His terror is
palpable as he drifts between two spacecraft, an ocean of nothing surrounding
him. Helen Mirren also shines as the no-nonsense Russian commander, Tanya
Kirbuk. The only questionable casting choice is Bob Balaban as Dr. Chandra – a
role that was obviously created for someone of Indian descent. To his credit, Balaban,
a talented actor in his own right, does a fine job as Dr. Chandra, who shares a
strange bond with HAL.
Although the Cold War politics in the film are dated, the
basic conceits remain intact. The pervasive “us” versus “them” mentality
depicted in 2010 never goes out of
style, regardless of which countries occupy the roles. As their representative
nations are poised for potential war, the Americans and Russians come to terms
with the fact that the only way they’ll get out of this alive is to cooperate.
For those viewers who are still struggling with the
cognitive dissonance of a sequel to Kubrick’s masterpiece, it might be best to
regard the two films as separate entities, functioning in the same universe. Boiled
down to its essence, 2001 is a big
budget art film, designed to ruminate on the existential. 2010 is a completely different beast. The universe was already
established in the first film, so there was no need for a reintroduction. Hyams
doesn’t try to copy Kubrick’s contemplative style, which would have been a disastrous
misstep. Instead, he approaches the material as a straightforward space
adventure story. At the time of the film’s release one reviewer accused the
film of trying to explain away everything, but many of the mysteries remain
intact. There’s a cursory explanation about the cause for HAL’s malfunction,
yet we’re never sure about the computer’s motives, or how it will react to
Discovery’s new mission. We still don’t understand the nature of the enigmatic monoliths,
or exactly what their function is. We’re also left to speculate the unseen
alien race that created it the monoliths. There’s still plenty left to speculate
and debate.
2010 represents
the best aspects of science fiction cinema, sparking our sense of wonder, while
satisfying our spirit of exploration and adventure (albeit without the
requisite ray guns and space battles). At its core, it’s a hopeful film. As
David Bowman states, “something wonderful” will happen – that is, if we can
manage to put our differences aside long enough to stay alive. 2010 never received its due during its
initial run, but it’s well worth re-examining on its own formidable merits. Go
ahead, say it with me: Hyams wasn’t trying to copy Kubrick. 2010 stands together and apart from 2001. Both films can co-exist in the
same universe.
Good review, Barry!
ReplyDeleteI saw 2010 years before I saw 2001, and thankfully I enjoy them both!
Plus the novels are rather great, too! Even 2061 & 3001!
Thanks John! It's been many years since I read the books, but I enjoyed the different iterations. It's a pity the latter books were never made into movies. I guess no one wanted to take a chance.
DeleteI liked that Hyams didn't copy Kubrick. This was a good feature that tried to answer the questions put forth in 2001. Good pick
ReplyDeleteThanks, Vern! I think it did a good balancing act of solving some mysteries while keeping others intact. Hyams doesn't get enough credit for the work he did here.
Delete