2001: A Space Odyssey

You could make an argument that perhaps Dave is even more robotic than HAL

A former MGM publicist details the saving of 2001's marketing.

"Why doesn't Pauline Kael like my movie?"

That article is so annoying. About half of it is the guy talking about how much Kubrick respected and liked him.

This just came out on Blu-ray along with A Clockwork Orange, uncensored Eyes Wide Shut and a deluxe edition Full Metal Jacket. Want.

Did Kael really love The Bible?

When the film came out, Stanley set up an office in the conference room on the 26th floor of the MGM building. Tearsheets of ads and reviews from every publication lined the walls. The Monitor essay had to be reprinted immediately, as an ad in the following Sunday's New York Times (Adler's weak review had just appeared) and for insurance sake, in the next issue of the Village Voice, in case Sarris was negative. Most importantly, it had to be read as an editorial; it could not look like an advertisement. The only commercial information would be a discreet line at the very end stating "2001: A Space Odyssey is showing at Loew's Capitol theatre."

Stanley got it immediately. Our plan was that I'd make the case and he'd play back-up if necessary. My boss bought the concept; there was nothing to lose. Business was well below average for a major release. And I was the film's designated point man, having Kubrick's trust. Advertising layouts were ordered immediately. But when the mock-ups arrived, I was shaken. Instead of an editorial look, the Monitor reprint was contained within the standard corporate information: MGM credits and the distinctive unfolding Cinerama logo fought the copy. It was too radical to remove the studio's corporate identity. The intended impact would be lost.

Stanley made his move. Privately, he went to the studio bosses to talk about the film's future openings, saw the mock-ups, and walked out with the layout we wanted - his calm logic prevailing. The advertising agency also delivered with placement. On Sunday, the piece appeared opposite the New York Times' main film page, making it look like a two-page editorial spread. There was nothing stating it was a paid ad. On Thursday, it ran opposite Sarris' lengthy negative review in the Village Voice. The campaign to turn the tide was engaged.

awesome, he invented the advertorial. hurray for this guy.

Sarris, out of touch, always

xp

Well, I don't think this was the first time an advertorial was done. (Eric, I was wondering the same.)

sD, nearly every 'major' critic panned the film. John Simon called it "a shaggy God story."

I just am endlessly amused that the studio was expecting Flash Gordon from SK, even at that point. Did they read the Clarke story?

Unless I'm mistaken, I went to a screening last night on the 28th floor of the old MGM building cited there.

im pretty psyched to watch this again... just got that new kubes box set.

wish there was a way to abbrev 'box set'.

'BS'
I had S4rr1s in school.

wish there was a way to abbrev 'box set'.

-- That one guy that hit it and quit it, Friday, November 2, 2007 4:12 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Link

lol

s1ocki not bothered by aspect ratio futzing?

what's the futzing? it's UN-futzed no?

the versions on the new dvds are the theatrical, not tv

I haven't followed it, I just know there was clusternerding over it.

it's tricky cos el kubo *preffered* tv framing or something. but telecine is not a 'right or wrong' thing and there's always someone who thinks they've been cheated.

no, he preferred the tv framing for home video (so i hear) / tv. this is all before 16:9 tvs became the thing.

exactly.

he just hated the black bars. so there you go

The AR debate is mainly perpetuated by nerds who insist on calling square compositions Kubrickian because, apparently, TV was their first exposure to most of his films.

This is the box that has the daughter's making-of-The Shining doc, yes?

The previous DVD version of The Shining had it too. You're asking because you want to see Shelly Duvall get knocked around more than she does in the main feature, right?

no, but I do want to see Kub badger her.

And then her waxing generous some months later from behind the safety of a restraining order.

scatman so intense in that doc

shelly duval is in a mental hospital or something now, correct? didn't I hear that somewhere (probably here on ILX, bastion and font of all truth)?

you're thinking of Margot Kidder

specifically this incident:

Kidder has bipolar disorder, which led to a widely publicized manic episode in 1996. Kidder was found by Los Angeles police in a distressed state. She was placed in psychiatric care.

thinking of Margot Kidder is quite an achievement these days.

Imagine a 2001 DVD with Martin Balsam's HAL track, ah. Did you know Douglas Rain also does the robot butler (and computer) voices in Sleeper? "The police are here. Will you be wanting lunch?"

you've been thinking about Sleeper a lot lately, apparently

just bcz my Orgasmatron is broken?

There was this exchange on the Shelley Duvall poll. I think there was some more information somewhere, I don't know. I can't find anything else to corroborate what's being said here:
I saw her being interviewed on something recently and she's put on a LOT on weight. She's like double the size now.

so, up to 100 pounds then?

-- akm, Wednesday, August 8, 2007 12:45 PM (2 months ago) Bookmark Link

Yeah, I realised that as soon as I typed it. She's probably tripled or quadrupled in size. I thought it was Shelly Winters.

-- nate woolls, Wednesday, August 8, 2007 12:56 PM (2 months ago) Bookmark Link

shelly duvall is in a mental home?!

:(

-- pisces, Wednesday, August 8, 2007 12:57 PM (2 months ago) Bookmark Link

she's definitely not in a mental home, she's still making movies!

I'm glad! She's great, imo.

yeah I wish I saw more of her - the last thing I can remember really enjoying her in was Roxanne (also probably Steve Martin's last decent movie)

iMdb doesn't have her making a film since '02

from what i remember, the tv versions didn't chop off the image, they actually removed masking from the top and bottom of the image, revealing more?

yes.

ie, visual info that was not seen in theaters

A bunch of links to contemporaneous interviews/reviews on its 40th anniversary:

http://www.mcnblogs.com/mcindie/archives/2008/04/101_links_as_20.html

SK in Playboy:
"The very nature of the visual experience in 2001 is to give the viewer an instantaneous, visceral reaction that does not—and should not—require further amplification. Just speaking generally, however, I would say that there are elements in any good film that would increase the viewer's interest and appreciation on a second viewing; the momentum of a movie often prevents every stimulating detail or nuance from having a full impact the first time it's seen. The whole idea that a movie should be seen only once is an extension of our traditional conception of the film as an ephemeral entertainment rather than as a visual work of art. We don't believe that we should hear a great piece of music only once, or see a great painting once, or even read a great book just once. But the film has until recent years been exempted from the category of art—a situation I'm glad is finally changing."

saw this on ch5 on sunday. infuriatingly slow but WOW at the visuals. such an amazing looking film. that was the only reason i kept watching. and i know some ppl seem to think the bit towards the end where its like some massive interplanetary light show is a bit crap, but i thought it was amazing and really beautiful.

love it, but could do without the annoying start of nothingness

the opening is the BEST

it is totally majestic

^