For the sake of this discussion, we’re going to focus on the latter…Kubrick’s pacing. Film critic Roger Ebert attended the film’s premiere in 1968 and recalls the screening:
“To describe that first screening as a disaster would be wrong, for many of those who remained until the end knew they had seen one of the greatest films ever made. But not everyone remained. Rock Hudson stalked down the aisle, complaining, ‘Will someone tell me what the hell this is about?'’ There were many other walkouts, and some restlessness at the film's slow pace (Kubrick immediately cut about 17 minutes, including a pod sequence that essentially repeated another one).”
Needless to say, not everyone is pleased by the pacing of the film when they first see it. Many people think it’s slow and boring, never getting to the point. The truth is, however, the pacing is the point. The slow pacing is what the film is ‘about.’ Ebert describes the purpose of Kubrick’s pacing:
“The genius is not in how much Stanley Kubrick does in 2001: A Space Odyssey, but in how little. This is the work of an artist so sublimely confident that he doesn't include a single shot simply to keep our attention. He reduces each scene to its essence, and leaves it on screen long enough for us to contemplate it, to inhabit it in our imaginations. Alone among science-fiction movies, 2001 is not concerned with thrilling us, but with inspiring our awe.”
And that’s the key. Kubrick is not simply telling us a story; he is allowing us to actually participate in a story. Scratch that. More than a story. A cosmic event. And as we all know, when you participate in anything - a family picnic, a volleyball game, Thanksgiving dinner - there's always a lot of waiting between climatic happenings. Most of life is waiting, in fact, but that’s what makes the happenings so interesting – we’ve been anticipating them, waiting for them to occur. And when they finally do, we feel what Aristotle called a 'catharsis'; we have an emotional reaction to the events. We feel 'fulfilled'.
There’s no denying that Star Wars, The Matrix, or Terminator 2 – great films all – are more action packed and thrilling sci-fi adventures than 2001. And there’s no denying that each of those films contain interesting philosophical dilemmas: What makes a hero? How credible is our perception of reality? How are we contributing to our own destruction? But none of them – in fact, probably no science fiction film before or since – has cut to the core of and debated mankind’s central dilemma more thoroughly: “Who are we, and why are we here?”
And that is a question one simply cannot rush.
So Kubrick’s pacing of 2001 is slow and deliberate. And it’s not a great film despite its slow pacing; it’s a great film because of its slow pacing.
Here are two questions for you to discuss: (1) In what specific moments of the film is Kubrick’s slow pacing particularly effective, and why? (2) What other films can you think of that use similarly slow and deliberate pacing for similar dramatic effect?
I think this is a fantastic point to bring up about 2001 A Space Odyssey. I think the slow pacing indeed, does add to the dramatic effect. I think one scene really pops out at me where the slow pacing increased the dramatic effect. This scene is where symbolically, he is traveling through infinity and advancing in both knowledge and discovery. The slow pacing in this scene is awfully apparent. The scene is basically full of special effects and depicts Bowman flying through infinity, or maybe a black hole of some sort that is transporting him to infinity. At least thats how I, personally imagined and pictured it. The way that the director stretched and stretched the length of the scene out by adding more and more special effects was very interesting. he kept on adding shot after shot of colorful and "trippy" patterns that kept the audience in check and focused. This made the scene much more dramatic. The slow pace and the way he stretched out the scene only added anticipation to the movie. I think that the movie King Kong has an effect of the same kind. By King Kong, I meant the recent one. The movie itself is three hours long. I think although it does not exactly go with the same idea of Space Odyssey, it is similar. I think the way in King Kong that it took them practically more than half the movie to get to the island made it more dramatic. Although I did not thing it was a very great or outstanding movie, the way that they held off for so long to get to the island only added to the dramatic effect and when the actions and discoveries on the island happen, it creates a catharsis. So overall I believe that the slow pace and how it effects this and other movies is a great point.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, my film collection isn't extensive enoguh to be able to know where this is used in other films. However, I do know that I felt in pain but simultaneously in awe when Hel was telling Dave "don't do that". The repetition really got to me, but at the same time, it was realistic. In real life, you can't just cut-out times when people repeat the exact same request to you. You can't direct cut to a beautiful view of outer space when your siblings are nagging on you to play a game. As Dave was pulling out each memory chip in Hel's system, it was a painfully slow process. One would think that after 3 removals, you'd get the point across-- but alas, nope. It was absolutely effective, though. It made you cringe and contemplate the growing damage that he was doing.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Luke, the best moment in the film that exemplifies Kubrick's use of pacing is when Dave Bowman is traveling through 'infinity'. In the audience's mind, watching that scene is extremely long, so it briefly symbolizes the distance and speed that Bowman is traveling. But I don't think the scene was supposed to represent infinity because infinity goes on forever, it does not end. But Bowman did reach an end (after a really long time of traveling). I think it could symbolize how people think that civilization as we know it will go on forever, but Kubrick is saying that it will not go on forever, he is saying that there is an end to life as we know it. I thought he was getting at the concept of an apocalypse, as the end of man, and a rebirth into a higher being (ie. the star-child).
ReplyDeleteI don't think there is any other movie that uses pacing this slow, and I'm not sure any other director could have made it work. Suzana Amaral once said, "I think a good film is a film that starts when the lights go on.When the film is over, that’s when the film should start in your head.When you leave the theater thinking about the film . . .and you cannot forget what you’ve seen . . . it’s a good film". By using this deliberate slow pacing, Kubrick burns the scenes into the audience's mind. Experiences of the film, like the scene of traveling through 'infinity' stays in our mind. I don't think there was anything too dramatic in this film, but it was the audience's imagination that went along with the film, that made the film exciting. If the audience members don't lose their focus, they can be a part of the experience of this film, and they would be able to enjoy it. But if they do lose their focus, the film ends up becoming a bore. I think with this generation, our attention spans are so short, it is difficult to fully appreciate the slow pacing of this film.
Luke -
ReplyDeleteGood point about stretching out time for the 'travel to infinity' sequence. I had never thought of it that way before, but now that you mention it...it wouldn't make much sense to rush through a scene depicting "infinity." By definition, "infinity" should take awhile, shouldn't it?
Dakota -
ReplyDeleteI like your use of the phrase "getting to me." Wasn't Hal's repetitive begging "getting to" Dave Bowman as well? This is a great example, therefore, of not just showing how a character feels, but actually taking the time to make your audience feel the same as a character. We wan't Hal to shut up, just like Dave wanted Hal to shut up. We were made a part of the story, sharing the emotional experience of the characters. And this, again, takes time. Hense the slow pace. Thanks.
I don't want to be mean or anything, but Jessica Bowman does go on to 'infinity.' This is true, because he goes through the stages of live and then gets 'reborn.' So, he technically never reached an end. Although I do like your opinion Jessica, and I do not want to be mean or harsh in anyway, I just disagree.
ReplyDelete2001: A Space Odyssey is all about the painfully dreadful pacing of the film. Without it, I personally think, it would not be as powerful as a movie. The first part of the movie "The Dawn of Man" is one part in particular that has a lot of long pacing to it. In this part the scenes do seem dreadfully long, but that is only because Stanley wants you to see what these animals are like. He wants you to see the change we make into becoming us.
Space travel in the movie also seems dreadfully long, but it really only takes about five minutes to go through the first flight scene. Again you can tell Stanley wants the audience to see what changes we, as the human race, have made. He tries to show us what technological advancements we have made. He also wants to show us, the audience, how everything works and how it will work, but he also wants us to realize the concept of time. Stanley really pushes for that 'real' concept of time, because, if you think about it, time naturally goes by slowly, but we just do not stop and take a look around to appreciate it once in a while.
Jessica -
ReplyDelete"I think it could symbolize how people think that civilization as we know it will go on forever, but Kubrick is saying that it will not go on forever, he is saying that there is an end to life as we know it. I thought he was getting at the concept of an apocalypse, as the end of man, and a rebirth into a higher being (ie. the star-child)." This is brilliant. Nicely well done.
"I don't think there is any other movie that uses pacing this slow"...Believe it or not, there are. Roshomon comes to mind. (Old samurai movie.) But I agree, Kubrick might do it best.
Caleb -
ReplyDeleteShould infinty be defined as "going on forever," or should it be defined as "continually restarting"? You pose an interesting dillemma.
Good point about space travel taking so song. I never thought of it in this respect, either. I've been saying that Kubrick's slow pacing is an attempt to make us feel like we are there, and the more I think about it, showing space travel as a fast-paced race, the less realistic it becomes, and the less we share the emotional state of the characters.
Actually, for flying through deep space at tremendous speeds, in reality, space travel is probably a pretty boring affair.
1. I believe a scene that was really stretched out was the one in which Dave Bowman is traveling through infinity after contacting the monolith. Not only do we get that flashing colors display, but we also get treated to a dining room scene in which Bowman is getting older and finally being reborn. Kubrick really wanted to hit us with his concept of infinity. I also believe Kubrick portrayed the monolith as God because the monolith was faceless and also it bestowed knowledge upon Bowman, man, and pre-man.
ReplyDelete2. A very good and very famous movie which employed the "waiting game" tactic was the 1960 Hitchcock's Psycho. It's very different from modern day slashers because nowadays, a victim is murdered every 5 seconds, whereas in the '60s, the suspense was allowed to build up, and in my opinion, the latter strategy was more effective. Back then, people were not used to slashers or mass-murders, therefore people were more shocked and amazed whenever the killer claimed another victim. Your reaction was more of a paroxysm because the movie built itself up to that one climactic point, and then the action exploded, leaving you mesmerized and anxious to experience more.
Throughout the entire film, the slow and calm pacing is used to hyptnotize the audience and make them feel as though they are experiencing every little movement. It's hard to decide which slow part of the movie is the most effective because each scene slowly builds up to another. There is absolutley no rush to another part of the film, the audience is supposed to feel the movie and feel every little detail presented to them. When it comes down to it, the long scene at the end when Bowman is traveling through infinity into another dimension, the pacing then is extremely significant. At that part of the movie, the audience has experienced so much during the movie including the beginning of man-kind and man's love towards machine and the betrayel between the two. The ending is supposed to be slow and simple and open for the audience's interpretation. It's hard to put into words what I felt at the end of the movie as I was left in a slow trance, traveling through the eyes of Bowman; however, it reminded me of this one short animation film by Makoto Yabuki... (here's the link)
ReplyDeletewww.vimeo.com/5469963
(click my name if you want the direct link)
Once you watch it, it's really easy to relate it to the end of 2001: A Space Odyssey in an abstract way. Both are all about visuals, and no spoken words are used that might break the audience's trance. Both are eerie in a magical way that have the ability to expand a human's mind to the infinite. Everyone's mind might run towards another direction and thats the beauty of slow pacing.
I like your connetion between the animation and the film. Both have an interesting 'story' that begs the audience to ask, "Okay, where are we going?" And some how, this 'story' of destination is created with light and geometric shape. Once diffecence I found, however, is that the animation is, just slightly, fast paced. Overall it's pretty slow, but there are moments of popping and speed. The infinity sequence of 2001 was pretty much a steady pace, luring us into a trance-like state. Hypnotic, almost.
ReplyDeleteOn another note, I'm surprised no one was mentioned the prehistoric man sequence of 2001. That stuff is pretty slow, too. As are the two docking sequences.
Dmitriy's got a point as well. Hitchcock does a pretty good job of building suspense by just making us...wait.
ReplyDeleteThe slow pace shots are mostly in space because in that time space was probaly not shown like that before and space was was also really mysterious and no one knew much about it. also our generation of kids is so used to seeing faster paced movies with car chases and gun fights.
ReplyDeleteI think that the slow pacing in 2001: a Space Odyssey is most effective before each climatic moment (before each action and that faster moment occurs). For example, when the astronauts are on the moon (or maybe it was jupiter) and they are making their way toward the monolith. Everything before was really slow, it made you want to say "Get on with it!" And then they get there, and they are walking toward the monolith and its just like "Oh my god, what's going to happen?!" The movie gets more exciting than it would if there was action or a fast feel throughout most of the movie. The constant slow pacing makes the moments of action more exciting. It also makes the movie suspenseful. Another example is the time before Bowman's travel through all those colors in space (i took it as a black hole or time travel), because when it gets to that point its really exciting. And at first everything is new and fast but then that scene lasts for sooo long-- or at least it feels long. And then when we see Bowman in that house, everything passes so quickly because again, it was slow before. After awhile this effect makes you almost annoyed but it does add to the movie (and take away in other ways).
ReplyDeleteI agree with everyone on believing that there isn't a movie where the pacing is this slow. But there are slow movies- we've all watched them- they are the movies that are usually boring to us. For me Good Night and Good Luck felt really slow. The movie is in black and white and the movie takes place in the 1950s. George Clooney plays a broadcast journalist and the whole time when he along with others report is so slow because nothing really happens (i fell asleep twice) but when they finally think that there are communists in America everything gets slightly more exciting because the tension builds. But though overall I didn't like the movie, the slow pacing did have an effect on the climax and action of the movie.
Brandon Stark,
ReplyDelete1. This movie was done in such a magnificent way. This movie just warped my mind. The most slow pacing scene in the movie would have to be Bowman going through the black hole/infinity. Bowman goes through the black hole/infinity and grows old and then becomes reborn.It made you as the audience feel like time did slow down and the movie was actually taking you as a viewer somewhere. The effects were brilliant and put you in this trans of amazement/confusion. The lights and effects made everything go slower due to the fact all these things are shooting out at you at once. For me personally, slow pacing movies are actually better because if reels you in and not making you want to stop watching it.
2. A movie that comes to mind for me is The Shining. The Shining didn't make you think much at first, but as the movie went on you started questioning things. You started getting paranoid and when you did the director knew when you were going to as a viewer and put sections in the movie in that direct part to keep you paranoid. He knew when the audience would start reacting to the movie. The paranoia caused you to feel like timed slowed down and made the movie go at a slow pace. When the ending came in made you got swarmed in fear. But the fear in this movie didn't make you feel like everything sped up, it made everything slow down. When Jack is chasing Danny in the maze covered in snow with the axe, that made it seem like it lasted for hours. Your fear and paranoia fused together and you felt like Jack Nicholson was chasing you. That movie was so scary in so many ways. It was a true horror movie that didn't just screw around with your fears but made you start questioning your mind. That movie's pace and meaning showed that a real scary movie didn't have to be an hour and a half of a group of teenagers getting sliced to bits by some guy in a mask in the woods.
Brandon -
ReplyDeleteAre you aware that 2001 and The Shining were both directed by Stanley Kubrick. On a side note, Stephen King reportedly hates Kubrick's adaptation of The Shining. There was a television 4 hour remake a few years ago that King was involved with that is suposedly more faithful to the novel. I did not hear good things about it, though, and I've never seen it.
On that note...looking for anohter good Stephen King adaptation? I suggest Christine, directed by John Carpenter - the guy who directed the original Halloween. It's not super scary, but it is very fun.
Personally, I like the slow pacing of 2001 because it makes the viewer think about each scene/shot longer because it's on the screen for a longer period of time. For me, the slow pace was very effective during the shots where they only showed HAL. The shot was a close up of HAL's little red dot that he see's out of.
ReplyDeleteAnother movie that does this to the audience in my eyes is Fight Club. I know that Fight Club has a lot more action in it, but it stills builds up the suspense until the end. At some points during the movies there is a chance for the audience to get bored. During Fight Club all of these random acts of violence and vandalism are happening and you have no reason why. Not until the end where they blow up the credit buildings is that those acts contributed to this indirectly. Basically, the biggest reason to me why the two are similar is because you (the viewer) can interperet it how ever they want.
1)Kubrick's use of pacing in the Dawn of Man sequence is very effective. For one, the audience feels the slow and tedious lives of the Apes. The audience can feel just how the Apes live really just to find food and water. Kubrick is not trying to jide the fact that the Apes really didn't have muc else going on. When one Ape (Moonwatcher) discovers the bone to be a tool/weapon and then reclaims the watering hole is when the pacing pays off. The match cut of the bone and spaceship is effective because of the pacing of te first story arch. If the audience hadn't sat through about 20 minutes or so of shots of the desert and daily life, the transition of millions of years into the future would have been a wasted idea.
ReplyDelete2) Other films that include this slow pacing include several other Kubrick films. Overall, Kubrick's film Barry Lyndon has been described as boring andslow, similar to 2001 in that it lasts nearly 3 hours long.
Another Kubrick film that is somewhat slow is The Shining. Not until about 21 minutes into the movie do we see any ghosts. Then after this the sightings and scares of the film come in increments, allowing the final act to be truly frightning as frankly speaking everything goes to hell and pandemonioum.
A final film that is similar is the 1989 dark comedy, Heathers. I am not going to give away much of the plot, but the point where the plot begins to twist from what just seems as a Teen Movie so common of the 80's to that of a truly dark comedy comes at just about 28 minutes.
The concept of stringing the audience along may seem unfair to the viewers at first, forcing them to work for the actual "meat" of the story, however this very tactic is what makes all of these movies great and by the end enjoyable.
Owen Moynihan
ReplyDelete1. Whenever there was a scene of the ships or pods flying through the air the pace seemed particularly slow but made it much better. The pacing was in part to go along with the music but also to show off the futuristic technologies. It also allows us to think about what these technologies let us do, like space travel, and it makes us realize that no matter how far we go we will always want to go farther.
2. As for other movies that deliberately slow pace themselves I cannot think of any others except Psycho, which was slow paced but the suspense made it seem fast, and The Incredible Hulk, but the one before newest one, very slow but it did have more action in the end.
I think the slow pacing definitely does add to the dramatic effect. The scene I think is very important is when he is traveling through infinity you can tell he is advancing in knowledge. The scene in which he is driving through a black hole as it seems to appear you can tell there are a lot of special effects in this scene because of all the major colors and graphics. I can not recall any films that use similar slow and deliberate pacing because I consider this to be very rare because I do not notice it. This might be there but you do not notice it. As Mr. Cowlin said in class this movie is suppose to make u angry because you want to know what is going to happen next it is very frustrating. I think we find this slow pacing very frustrating because we all are used to the movies these days which is the opposite of slow pacing. I think this technique was very effective because I was very curious the whole time and would be really cool if some movies today would use it. It would be amazing to see a movie from today with slow pacing it would be interesting.
ReplyDeleteCarolyn Nash:
ReplyDeletea point in the movie where the slow pace was a very good speed was at the beginning. when the monkey is throwing the bone then it changes into the spaceship. this is because it is letting you feel how long it took for man to develop over time. it was like 5 min watching a bone getting thrown in the air. many people find this annoying and just want the movie to continue but it also adds an extra effect to show how long it took to get to where we are today
I think what sets this movie apart from alot of other Sci Fi movies is its unique design. When watching the film, one gets the impression that this isnt a cheap piece of work. It looks great, but more importantly real; it's looks like it could be something filmed recently, if we didnt have computer graphics that this. The point is, the design looks authentic. It doesnt detract from the film which is important because in a movie like this, the viewer wants to focus on the story as much as they can. Something that looked fake would just completely destory it's credibility. Just the way the spaceships look or the futuristic design of their interiors makes the film more interesting to watch and keep the aduiences' attention.
ReplyDeleteI really liked this movie. I mean there aren't too many times I've waited through an hour and a half of random scapeships flying around and supercomputers all for a 15 min montage of trippy colors and shapes which all lead up to a giant baby in outer space. something like this you just wouldnt see anymore and thats why i love it
The one scene that comes to mind for me is when the astronauts are on the moon and have gone out to look at the monolith. The scene in particular is when they have actually arrived near the monolith and are entering toward the dig site. This scene is very slow moving up until they finally reach the monolith. This pace though ends up being very affective and helps build huge suspense for the viewer because we never know for sure what is going to happen and are very curious now to the significance of the monolith and its wonder. Therefore this slow pace helps amplify these emotions and make the scene so much better than if it were to have contained time compression. Secondly the one film that came to mind that contains a slow moving plot in order to be more affective is the movie Cast Away, at least for the island scenes. The whole time Tom Hanks is on the island his life moves so slow and it almost seems like nothing happens except for him just lying around on some random island. This does though end up being affective because it helps the viewer identify with Tom Hanks and actually understand how there is really nothing to do on the island but wait for help and how strenuous and boring it can be. It makes the viewer almost become angry at the film for going so slow and become mad just as Tome Hanks is angry from being stranded with nothing to do and almost goes insane.
ReplyDelete