2002
I've been looking at a bio of Stanley Kubrick by Vincent LoBrutto. It's interesting to see in the early 60s Kubrick was thinking, in the most general way, of making a science fiction film. No story, not even an outline, just something big and sf-ey.
Kubrick gets immersed in his projects, and it took years for 2001 to be shot and released. But before anything, he wanted to work with a top sf author. He ended up (fairly quickly) with Arthur C. Clarke, but it got me thinking, how would the final product have been different if he'd signed on with other names of the time, whether established or up-and-coming? Robert Heinlein. Isaac Asimov. Ray Bradbury. Kurt Vonnegut. Harlan Ellison. Theodore Sturgeon. Philip Jose Farmer. Frank Herbert.
Kubrick also didn't follow conventional rules. Though the movie is vaguely based on a Clarke short story (among other things), Kubrick wanted Clarke to write a 2001 novel which he would then base the movie on. Kubrick had approval of the novel and kept insisting on rewrites. It finally came out when the movie did, though it's certainly not a novelization.
Overall, LoBrutto's book is an interesting close-up of the making of Kubrick's movies, but sometimes the writing leaves something to be desired. For example, page 226:
...James Mason commented prophetically on the future of Lolita: "[we haven't heard the last of Lolita]." Mason was right.
I kinda figured he was right when you called him prophetic.
Or page 303:
The Star Gate segment, which concludes the film, earned 2001 its reputation with the children of the Age Of Aquarius as the penultimate sixties film.
I get the feeling to LoBrutto, "pen" is to "penultimate" what "quint" is to "quintessential."
Or page 361:
A Clockwork Orange was nominated for best picture at the Academy Awards [....] The majority of the 3,078 members of the Academy voted for The French Connection...
A majority. So LoBrutto was able to uncover the voting tally. I thought the Academy didn't release those numbers.
Or page 391:
During a performance of Cowardly Custard, a Noel Coward review in the early seventies...
Could he be referring to Cowardy Custard?
I could go on, but you get the idea.
Kubrick gets immersed in his projects, and it took years for 2001 to be shot and released. But before anything, he wanted to work with a top sf author. He ended up (fairly quickly) with Arthur C. Clarke, but it got me thinking, how would the final product have been different if he'd signed on with other names of the time, whether established or up-and-coming? Robert Heinlein. Isaac Asimov. Ray Bradbury. Kurt Vonnegut. Harlan Ellison. Theodore Sturgeon. Philip Jose Farmer. Frank Herbert.
Kubrick also didn't follow conventional rules. Though the movie is vaguely based on a Clarke short story (among other things), Kubrick wanted Clarke to write a 2001 novel which he would then base the movie on. Kubrick had approval of the novel and kept insisting on rewrites. It finally came out when the movie did, though it's certainly not a novelization.
Overall, LoBrutto's book is an interesting close-up of the making of Kubrick's movies, but sometimes the writing leaves something to be desired. For example, page 226:
...James Mason commented prophetically on the future of Lolita: "[we haven't heard the last of Lolita]." Mason was right.
I kinda figured he was right when you called him prophetic.
Or page 303:
The Star Gate segment, which concludes the film, earned 2001 its reputation with the children of the Age Of Aquarius as the penultimate sixties film.
I get the feeling to LoBrutto, "pen" is to "penultimate" what "quint" is to "quintessential."
Or page 361:
A Clockwork Orange was nominated for best picture at the Academy Awards [....] The majority of the 3,078 members of the Academy voted for The French Connection...
A majority. So LoBrutto was able to uncover the voting tally. I thought the Academy didn't release those numbers.
Or page 391:
During a performance of Cowardly Custard, a Noel Coward review in the early seventies...
Could he be referring to Cowardy Custard?
I could go on, but you get the idea.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:23 AM
3 Comments:
If Harlen Ellison wrote 2001 it would have been a short.
I recall as part of an advanced course in 8th grade English, some of the books we were sent off to read (instead of sitting through grammar stuff I guess-oops) we got to read Arthur C. Clarke's 2001- I recall it as a great vocabulary-builder. Having read the book first, I thought the movie (I've only seen it on commercial TV) was slow and dull in comparison except for the monkey swinging the bone scene.
The book on Kubrick finally got me to read the Clarke book. I'll probably blog on it later this week.
Clarke said his book is prose, while the movie is poetry. They complement each other, but they're not the same thing. There were actually more scenes, and considerably more dialogue in the original screenplay that Kubrick cut. He wanted it to be a more visual, abstract experience.
Post a Comment
<< Home