Next movie - No surprise here - 2001 - A Space Odyssey

1969 was a memorable year for me. I was in Bombay at the time and glued to the radio, following the historical Apollo 11 mission. In those days, we had no TV at home but it was easy enough to get the latest news via my dad's international shortwave radio. I was always interested in what was "up there" in the sky, amidst the millions of stars that were visible to the naked eye. To think that humans had finally set foot on a world different from ours, even a rocky, barren sphere that was pockmarked with thousands of craters, was something that really stirred my imagination at the time.

Shortly after that time, "2001 - A Space Odyssey" was released at the Strand theater in glorious 70 mm and stereophonic sound. I remember telling my dad repeatedly that we needed to be there, possibly for the very first viewing. Alas, while the images were glorious and I was captivated by the first giant images of outer space, the movie somehow eluded me, especially the ending. I was unable to grasp the grand idea of Kubrick / Clarke and pondered over the last scenes of the movie, when astronaut Dave Bowman is sucked into the cavernous black interior of the giant monolith orbiting Jupiter.

It's a pity that his last words to Houston before he cuts off - "My god, it's full of stars" wasn't in the movie I saw. If it were, perhaps it would have been more comprehensible at the time. Needless to say, after Dave's encounter with the monolith, he embarks on a kaleidoscopic journey into the unknown, before his spaceship settles down in the middle of a hotel suite in the middle of some strange, alien like world, in a reality so far from our own, as to be almost unintelligible to the human way of thought.

The final image, when the movie ends, with Dave seeing himself literally age and die, is a giant child in an embroyonic cocoon, the "star child", that was supposed to mark the next evolution of humankind - from ape to man to starchild.

Of course, when I saw the movie for the first time, I was still a boy, barely out of 5th grade. However, those images lingered with me long after, prompting me to read a lot about the space exploration program as well as develop a lifelong interest in sci-fi.

In 2001, Arthur C Clarke borrows on a lot of ideas from various works he has written throughout his career and paradoxically, when the book 2001 came out, it was based on the movie and not the other way around.

The ideas explored in this seminal movie are staggering, to say the least. First of all, there is a premise that intelligence, which is so rare a commodity in the universe for a species, was not accidental, but nurtured, even created by an external non-human entity or intelligence of sorts. They create a monolith which travels various worlds, seeking to seed and nurture intelligence among species which are capable of being manipulated, for their own benefit and development.

To this end, the monolith appears at the dawn of man, when the first homonid type creatures walked the surface of the planet. To these early ape-like creatures that resembled men in that they walked upright and had large brains that were still undeveloped in their functioning, the idea of developing tools had not yet formed in their minds. They spent all day foraging for berries and other food, mostly shrubs or roots or maybe even insects, while abundant game (in the form of tapirs) was right next to them, in competition for these same food sources. However, since they had no tools and were ill-equipped physically to kill these animals, having no sharp teeth, the idea of using them for food had not occurred.

There is also some competition with another group, as water is scarce but each group has no wherewithal to dominate the other group and resorts to mere shows of bravado through loud noises and aggressive posturing. Enter the monolith from outer space one morning.

Curious, the apes approach this monolith, which begins its work of using some kind of rays or other technology to alter / stimulate their brains, by creating new pathways and forcing them to develop intelligence. Within days, one ape finds that he can use a bone as a tool and with that, smash other bones and eventually, kill one of the tapirs for food. From then on, it is a short leap to establish dominance over their rival group.

Kubrick wastes no time in developing this idea. Once the first tool is developed, it is inevitable that man will one day reach out and explore beyond the confines of the Earth. This is shown in one simple, extraordinary cut - from the shot of a bone flying up into the sky to end up in deep space, where we see the giant circular wheel of the space station slowly rotating to create artificial gravity for its inhabitants.

The monolith appears again, in 2001, this time discovered by men exploring the moon, due to the powerful magnetic field it generates. Buried for over three million years, the monolith is eagerly uncovered, probed and tested by various scientists trying to deduce its composition, purpose and also get a clue as to its original creators. Freed at last on the moon, the monolith sends a screeching signal to its counterpart in orbit around Jupiter, possibly signaling that it has been found.

After that, the rest of the movie is about the long voyage to Jupiter, with an artifical person on board, a computer called "Hal". I think this movie is way ahead of its time, as it explores what it means to deal with an intelligence that has no human form, but only a single point of light, a red, domed porthole that glows. However, it communicates in perfect English with the astronaut and as we really get deep into the mission to Jupiter, exhibits its own personality and very human-like traits - deception, jealousy etc.

Many have criticized the movie for its slowness of pace but given the grandeur of its ideas and the way everything unfolds, I think this criticism is unfair and possibly, those people had no understanding of the movie at all.

All in all, I would rate the movie five stars out of five and if anyone finds it boring, I would attribute it to their lack of imagination, not the movie's, which is spectacular, even brilliant in its own way. There is not much by way of acting, as there are no dramatic scenes. However, there is drama involved, especially in the scenes between the lone astronaut, Dave, the surviving crew member and Hal, the computer.

The movie, at the end, leaves more questions than answers. The unknown intelligence responsible for stimulating the development of intelligence in man had finally collected a specimen in its fully evolved 21st century version and transported it to its own world at the other end of the galaxy, or perhaps, even a different galaxy than our own. There, it modifies the specimen (Dave Bowman) again, creating the next phase for the evolution of man - a starchild, with the expectation that this being will conquer space, like man has conquered Earth. Of course, all this is not literally depicted in the movie but left to the imagination of the viewer and to be frank, without a proper reading of the book, all the concepts in the movie cannot be grasped intellectually, solely based on the imagery.

I think this is the primary reason Arthur Clarke decided to release a book of the same name, based on the movie, which shows their joint vision - I say joint, as Kubrick's ideas are as much a part of the movie as Arthur's.

If you still haven't seen the film or if you saw it but got bored or didn't like it, go rent or buy one, I think you'll see the difference, after reading this review, and I'm sure you'll also appreciate the genius of Kubrick and the way he tells his story through pure visual imagery, which is the fundamental method by which one should communicate in film.

The opening shots are great, with desolate scenes showing the primordial landscape, through a series of still shots with the movie camera. Some of the images are Ansel Adams like, only difference being that these are all in color, in varying degrees of light, something that Kubrick explores very well, with subtle nuances showing the passage of time.

Well, I didn't expect to post after such a lengthy period of time but I wanted to reflect on the film and get my thoughts in order before writing.

My favorite sci-fi films of all time - A list starting with "Blade Runner"

Who doesn't have a list?

Well, without much ado, here is mine, along with brief comments of why I like them.

I have attempted to rank them according to my personal preference. I know everyone will have a different choice, but I will attempt to share my reasons for each selection in this list.
There may be movies which are missing from this list and if any are omitted, it is not by design and I would defer to any readers of this blog to enlighten me.

Please feel free to comment, all comments are welcome. However, would request you to elaborate your reasons as well, so that I may understand and appreciate your views as well.

1. Blade Runner (In subsequent posts, I will continue this list, revealing my choices / reasons)

There are several versions of Blade Runner - the theatrical version (with the voice-over), an international version (with the voice-over), released by Criterion on laserdisc, the Director's Cut and the Final Cut. There is also a workprint version.

My personal preference is the Director's Cut, which I own on laserdisc and have watched a number of times. I know there are a lot of people who believe the film is over-rated and who possibly dislike it for a variety of reasons - for its slowness, murky quality of the images (smoky atmosphere, dim lighting etc.) and other reasons as well. To all those people, I would recommend that they read up a bit about the movie and give it a second chance, as your appreciation of the greatness of this film begins to sink in only after the third or fourth viewing.

One reason often cited by film goers is that the pacing of the movie is very slow and that they found the movie incomprehensible. Well, to this I would respond that this is a very complex film, with many layers of meaning and explores not only a basic story - one about a killer 'retiring' non humans (androids or replicants) but also has philosophical, environmental and global themes. In short, this movie is an exploration of the mind and the senses as it invents a reality that everyone can identify with, maybe even anticipate, if things continue the way are at present. The mind-boggling thing about this movie is that this vision was conceived by Ridley Scott in the '80s and far from being dated, this movie was far ahead of its time.

Deckard, the "blade runner" of this seminal movie, is charged with a simple task. Find four "replicants", who are androids created by a global corporation (Tyrell) and kill them. The euphemism used for 'killing' is retirement, possibly to avoid any legal issues. However, the task is anything but simple as the replicants are indistinguishable from humans and some, like Roy Baty, the charismatic leader played brilliantly by Rutger Hauer, represent perfection to a degree impossible for most humans - physically as well as mentally.

There is, however, one damning limitation to being a replicant - it is their extraordinarily short life span - a fail safe method to limit their capacity to cause untold harm to "humans". While emotions have not been programmed into replicants, they do, in fact, begin to develop human emotions, creating a perfect conundrum and posing the quintessential question - what does it really mean to be human? How can you justify killing something which posseses humanity? It talks, it walks, it sees and it feels. Deckard, played by a brooding Harrison Ford, in one of his best performances on film, faces the same dilemma, especially when confronted with the fifth replicant, Rachel, who works at the Tyrell corporation.

Rachel, played by Sean Young in a nervous fashion but eminently suited for the role, as conceived by Ridley Scott, does not know that she is a replicant. This sentiment is echoed by Rick Deckard to Tyrell, the creator of these replicants (who himself may be one, that is never explained) when he asks him pointedly - "How can she not know?"

The answer may be simplistic to some - implanting memories of childhood at the time of creation of these replicants, but as Ridley explores this even further, it is in fact, a complex question. There is also the question of whether Rick Deckard himself is a replicant - there is a famous scene showing a Unicorn running in the wild forest in the Director's cut but this scene is omitted in the international version and the theatrical version, both of which were cut differently to accomodate the producers, who didn't understand the movie themselves and possibly hated Ridley's guts as well with the cost over-runs and other creative touches.

All of these questions are left for the audience to ponder and there have been endless debates as to whether Deckard himself was a replicant or not. To me, however, the question is no doubt valid, but either way, the answer is not relevant to what unfolds on screen, as the story is revealed through the sheer brilliance of its complex imagery, from the shadowy lighting, to the smoke and rain of a post-apocalyptic Los Angeles of the future.

Humans have destroyed the environment and the rich have literally fled the planet, to the comfort and luxury of 'off world' colonies, leaving only the destitute behind - a vast conglomeration of people from all races and cultures, melding together in a kaleidoscope of human forms, speaking in a cacophony of languages that seem vaguely familiar - a mixture of Chinese, Spanish, French and other languages - 'city speak' in short. The world of Blade Runner is chaotic at first glance, but all too human at the same time and very understandable. The cops run the show on Earth - everyone else is 'little people', according to the jingoistic police captain Bryant (as Deckard explains in a voice-over, in another era, he would be the one using the n-word or other racial epithet, a stereotype of the future).

Ridley Scott's vision here, based loosely on Phillip K. Dick's novel, is nothing short of a masterpiece, in my opinion - a chef d'oeuvre, to use a French expression.

There are a number of memorable lines in the movie but none more memorable than the dying verses of poetry, improvised by Rutger Hauer, who plays an implacable killer confronted by the inevitable fate of his own mortality and becoming truly human at the very instant he loses his grip on "life" - the yearning, the sadness and the deep poetry of those last lines are washed away, like "tears in rain".

If there is one science fiction film that is a must own or must buy for any sci-fi fan, then this is it.  What else can I say ? If you haven't seen it yet, then, all I can say is that you are really missing out on something. This is a movie that makes you think and ponder and allows your imagination to flow. What more could you ask from any film? In my opinion, this is the greatest science fiction movie of all time. Well, enough said.