Sunday, April 8, 2018

Imagining The Future

Michael Moorcock on the strained relationship between Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke on the film version of 2001:
"If Arthur was disappointed by Kubrick’s decision to cut his dialogue and narrative to the bone, he was eventually reconciled by being able to put everything left out of the film into the novel, meaning that each man was able to produce his own preferred version. The success of the film ensured that the book became a bestseller, as audiences sought answers to questions raised by Kubrick’s version, and Arthur soon got over his disappointment, going on to write three bestselling sequels to his novel, only one of which has been filmed so far.
Inspiring governments to invest in space exploration and schoolboys to become astronauts, 2001 convinced the general public that science fiction could be taken seriously. Until Star Wars sent the genre back to an ­essentially juvenile form, the movie led to a greater understanding of the valuable creative possibilities of all kinds of science fiction. There would not be a more influential film until Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner, with its sober moral resonances. It also proved to Hollywood that good, big-budget SF movies could be money-spinners and garner critical respect at the same time. Without 2001 it is unlikely the genre would have progressed to its current state."
It's a pretty amazing case of intertextuality in general.  Clarke thought they were making a straightforward sci-fi documentary about the future of space colonization.  Kubrick obviously had different, more esoteric and ambitious plans.

Also, ouch Star Wars.

No comments:

Post a Comment