comment #1

Walter Sobchak says ...

IMAX? Jeez, I dunno. IMAX is great for about 40 minutes, (the average length of IMAX films), and especially when it's 3D and you're stoned to the bejeebers, but I'm not such a big fan of feature length movies shown there.

2001 might work better than modern films because it's not so frantic and vomit-inducing, but still.... I think I'd be happy just seeing a kick-ass 70mm showing at Chinese Theater, (like that would ever happen anymore, not with movies like "Feel The Noise" to show) or the CineramaDome.

comment #2

JD says ...

Why not project in 70mm? Isn't something invariably lost in any transfer from one format to another? Either way, I think the key to getting the most of this film is attending a screening where the overture and intermission are handled properly. I saw it about 10 years ago at a cinematheque screening where they dimmed the lights and played the overture with the curtains closed (most theatres don't even have curtains anymore). As soon as the stylized MGM logo popped up, the curtains opened... and it was a really powerful sensation, seeing the curtains slowly part as the opening music kicked in. Also during the intermision, the lights came on very dimly as the music played. It may not sound like much, but it changes everything.

comment #3

Rothchild says ...

I'm seeing my first print in 70mm tomorrow night, The Road Warrior at The Egyptian.

comment #4

gruver1 says ...

Wells to Rothchild: No, you're not. The American Cinematheque people are flim-flamming you. The 70mm experience is meaningless unless the film was shot in 70mm, which "The Road Warrior" was not. It's just a 35mm blowup...big deal.

comment #5

Rothchild says ...

I thought it was. Great. I already pre-ordered our tickets.

comment #6

corey3rd says ...

They did strike new 70mm prints of 2001 when they had the bungled 2001 re-issue of the film. Remember that? Strange that Ebert wouldn't mention that.

comment #7

corey3rd says ...

The only reason it used to matter to get a 70mm blow up of your film was to take advantage of the six tracks of sound on the mag around the edges instead of the mono or stereo limit that came with 35mm.

comment #8

BNick says ...

Very few films have been shot totally in 70mm, especially recently. I think the last one to be shot totally in that format was Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet in 1996, which is just an awesome-looking film.

comment #9

Peterson says ...

Many years ago I worked as an assistant manager in a theatre running a 70mm print of "White Nights" which was also shot in 35mm and blown up to 70mm for selected engagements. During the run I was transferred to another location which was running the same title in regular 35mm. I can still remember how stunned I was at the inferior picture quality of the 35mm print compared to the 70mm version. Color, sharpness & density were all inferior. The fact of the matter is that 70mm prints were turned out in small print runs and handled with exraordinary TLC compared to the wide-release runs of the 35mm versions which were ( and still are ) spit out like quarters from a slot machine. I can assure you that it's usually well worth the experience even with a 70mm /35mm blow-up .

comment #10

Bilge says ...

Yeah, the 2001 re-release a few years ago was downright shameful. The film looked great, but you could see that WB was merely doing it because they had a contractual obligation, and since Kubrick wasn't around anymore they didn't have to do anything more than just plop it in a theater for a couple of weeks and then pull it. No ads, no nothing. It played an empty Ziegfeld for several weeks (I went and saw it four times during this run) and then got the hell out of Dodge. The idea that those people would now re-release it in IMAX is sort of laughable, though I'll obviously be the first in line if it does happen.

comment #11

Shane says ...

I've seen 2001 twice in 70mm, the first time being at Ebert's Overlooked Film Festival when they showed an answer print to the (I believe) last theatrical release. It's freaking religious.

comment #12

otakuhouse says ...

I saw the 70mm 2001 rerelease in London and it was fucking stunning. They even kept the intermission, the overture, and before the movie the pa told us what reel and what length the intermission would require. Probably reading notes from Kubrick himself. They ought to do the same. Overtures (having experienced only this and the Lawrence of Arabia one) are a beautiful way to get you off the street and the experience of getting into a theater into a movie. This is the kind of a1 shit that used to make movies such a powerful cultural event. Now going to a movie feels like getting on a bus run by Halliburton. The other night I caught Darjeeling Limited in New York and the lights came up as soon as the credits started and then they let partrons in to seat themselves WHILE THE CREDITS WERE RUNNING.

This is the kind of disrspectful non experience that today's multiplexes offer people, making them think movies are about as important as downloading the new radiohead album for nada.

comment #13

Dellos says ...

why?

I am tried of burned out movies and 2001
is one of them. I would have no problem if it
had the b&w prologue and the 40 mins of footage
restored to it that Kubrick cut to save the movie.
As I hear it hippies would take LSD, lay down in front of last row of seat in front of the screen in order to get the full effect of monolith space trip and that was the best part of it being in 70mm. This movie would have been very obscure if pauline Kael had not champion it.

comment #14

otakuhouse says ...

dellos.

as politely as possible, you're a moron.

comment #15

christian says ...

I saw it years back in 70 mm at the Castro Theater in San Francisco.
Whoa, baby.

comment #16

Dellos says ...

Mr. otakuhouse sir, I am a moron for what reason than being burn out on seeing this film and saying so. please enlighten with more than a one word objectionable comment or is that all you can type

comment #17

Joe Leydon says ...

Worse, an inaccurate moron. Have you ever read Pauline Kael's original review of 2001? Trust me: Not exactly a rave. (BTW: She wasn't a big fan of Blade Runner, either.)

comment #18

Dellos says ...

oh yes, I saw the film about 15 times read every book on it I could get my hands on. read every
review had various model kits and talked about it a lot.

comment #19

Dellos says ...

second review

comment #20

Noah says ...

Dellos, Pauline Kael shredded every Kubrick film other than Dr. Strangelove. She loathed all of his films with increasing intensity.

comment #21

Joe Leydon says ...

Dello: I am sitting in my home office with a copy of Pauline Kael's For Keeps: 30 Years at the Movies. This is typical of what Kael was still saying about 2001 nearly a decade after its initial release: "In Kubrick's conception, there was no richness, no texture [to his view of the future] -- it was all blandness. He might as well have been saying,'I have seen the future and it put me to sleep.'" Are you sure you're not thinking of another critic?

comment #22

corey3rd says ...

a future of blandness - Kubrick predicted Hootie and the Blowfish and Paris Hilton

comment #23

jeffmcm says ...

Dellos, part of the problem is the incoherence of your posts.

comment #24

mutinyco says ...

I love how Bilge saw 2001 4 times at The Zeigfeld... That's really impressive. Really committed. Must've been so caught up in the movie he forgot he was watching it at The Astor in Times Square...

comment #25

Joe Leydon says ...

Hey, I saw it four times at the TransLux Cinerama in New Orleans during its first release. And I still have the souvenir book I bought in the lobby. So nayh-nyah-nyah!

comment #26

mutinyco says ...

I have one of those too. Bought it at a flea market in Florida a dozen years ago. Mint condition. So nyah-nyah-nyah yourself...

comment #27

otakuhouse says ...

joe dude i envy you.

i wish i had memories of exhibition being something special on a frequent basis as opposed to the multiplex experience i grew up with from the 80s onward. instead once in a rare while they do something right like screen lawrence of arabia or 2001 in 70mm with an actual human projectionist.

i think people who don't know that once upon a time movie theaters even had ushers with nice uniforms bitterly savor every wonderful theatrical experience they get.

i caught lust caution a fortnight ago in new york and they started playing the wrong movie.

comment #28

Noah says ...

Does anyone else think it's odd that the guy who wrote to Ebert asking the 2001 question was named "Bowman?"

comment #29

mutinyco says ...

No...ah... I don't. Just kidding. Yeah, I noticed that.

comment #30

Joe Leydon says ...

Yeah, but the sad thing about remembering the glory days of exhibition is... well, you also remember the decline. After the brief heyday of Cinerama and 70 mm, the TransLux Cinerama in N.O. was showing indie and foreign films by the late 60s/early 70s -- believe it or not, that's where I saw Mean Streets and Claude Lelouche's Happy New Year -- before it was turned into a porno house renamed (no, I'm not joking) the TransLux Sin-O-Rama.

comment #31

mutinyco says ...

Porno in Cinerama?... Far out...

comment #32

mutinyco says ...

Take that stargate! This is the REAL slit-scan!

comment #33

Joe Leydon says ...

Unfortunately, only a small portion of the wide Cinerama screen was used for the porn (and, to be honest, for Mean Streets).

You know, at one point, I seriously considered writing my master's thesis about the dramatic changes in film exhibition during the 60s and 70s. (The Rise of the Multiplex, The Fall of the Nabe.) I still would like to do a book on that some day -- if I can find someone willing to pay me at least minimum wage to do it.

comment #34

The Hoyk says ...

Porno in Cinerama?... Far out...

More like SIN-erama! BOOM! Hey Mr. Smith! Hey Mr. Jones...

comment #35

corey3rd says ...

my mom used to drive a Tranlux Sin-o-rama. That had the hydro-transmission.

the big problem today in cinema is everyone wants to be the next Marty, but nobody has the talent to be the next Sam Arkoff. Everyone acts like if you put a title on the marquee and a clip on Youtube, you're going to get the theater packed. Look at the jerk at First Look that went overboard perking himself instead of living low to the bone and pimping his films properly. theater owners have given up their edge in promoting films.

You figure 2001 in 70mm shouldn't need a mega-push in Manhattan. But you do have to sell it cause what's the point in buying 2 tickets when for less you can buy the DVD?

comment #36

Wrecktum says ...

Remember that IMAX is 15 perf while traditional 70mm is 5 perf. Don't know why Warners would want to pay for an expensive 15/70 transfer on a niche title like 2001.

comment #37

christian says ...

"Porno in Cinerama?... Far out."

PANORAMA BLUE is a 70 mm porno from 1974.

That I want to see in the dome.

comment #38

PastePotPete says ...

This isn't as easy as you all seem to think. LA's NuArt theater had 2001 scheduled to play the first week of 2001, I'd been anticipating it for a while, I go to the theater, and there's a sign posted saying that Kubrick's estate had yanked the film because they hadn't approved it in advance.

They are VERY strict about this kind of thing. The NuArt showed the theatrical cut of Blade Runner instead, which was still pretty cool.

I ended up seeing 2001 in 70mm at the Egyptian a while later, in a sanctioned screening. Fantastic.

comment #39

AndrewMallet says ...

Wow you people are abunch of losers. Who cares. 2001 is probably the most overrated movie of all time. Boring, stupid, unrealisitic and soooo cheesy. Most people today agree with this. All of you fake posers probably haven't even seen it. If you have, you wouldn't care about the anniversary or a new print. Get a life all of you!

comment #40

Joe Leydon says ...

OK, everybody, just nod politely at him, then keep walking without making further eye contact. If we ignore him, maybe he'll just go away.

comment #41

KeithNYC says ...

"Wow you people are abunch of losers. Who cares. 2001 is probably the most overrated movie of all time. Boring, stupid, unrealisitic and soooo cheesy. Most people today agree with this. All of you fake posers probably haven't even seen it. If you have, you wouldn't care about the anniversary or a new print. Get a life all of you!"

Are you 12 years old? Just b/c you do not understand the film stop trying to characterize the current perception of the film as "stupid"or "boring". It is arguably one of the top 10 films ever made. I have seen the film many times and read many books and articles on it. However, I have never seen it on the big screen so THAT is why I care about a new print. Many younger people who are fans of the film would love the opportunity.

Also, I am glad someone mentioned how wierd it was that the guy who wrote Ebert was named "Bowman". That cant be his real name??

comment #42

Joe Leydon says ...

Keith: Don't encourage him. You'll only regret it.

comment #43

scooterzz says ...

joe: thanks for the memory jog....i, too, am a child of the 'exhibition screening' and still have glossy, hardcover souvenir books from 'this is cinerama', 'windjammer', '..bros. grimm'(the pacific)-- 'ben-hur' (the egyptian)-- 'mad, mad....world' (the dome), 'great race' (pantages)...it really did used to be such a cool experience...

comment #44

Clark Perry says ...

I caught 2001 at the Aero's 70mm film festival last month. In a word: WOW.

I've seen this movie on video several times over the decades, never on a big screen and never in 70mm. This was as sell-out show and the Aero turned away at least three dozen people. Before the screening, the manager asked how many people had already seen the film. About 75 percent of the audience had, with about a third having already seen it in 70mm.

I have to say that what struck me most were the actors' performances. It's justly argued that there are no three-dimensional characters in the film, and that the only real emotion comes from the computer HAL 9000. What you see in 70mm, in particular from Heywood Floyd and Dave Bowman, are controlled people keeping a tight lid on many things going on below the surface.

The scene where Floyd has to evade questions from his Russian friends ... there's a definite tension and even sadness there. It hurts him to openly lie to people he genuinely likes, and he knows they know he's lying. It's all right there between them, awkward and ugly and tense, yet everyone holds their true feelings below the surface. Sure, it's not major dramatic fireworks, but it is something that's never registered before for me.

And the doe-eyed Keir Dullea is a revelation. Previously I always found his performance likeable but very bland. I was stunned to see more going on in his face this time around. He does an admirable job as the quintessential all-American astronaut whose training barely, and I mean just barely, holds him together as things start going south. I was reminded of Jim Lowell and the Apollo 13 astronauts and how they had to choke down fear and panic while plowing ahead with the tasks that would save their lives.

I seriously caught a lot of nuance in these performances. That was a wonderful surprise as the cosmic spectacle of this story really overwhelmed me. The amazing effects, frame composition, graceful editing, hypnotic pacing ... this is hands-down Kubrick's masterpiece and one of the greatest films ever made.

The Aero manager hinted that, due to the popularity of the screening, they may schedule it again sometime in December. LA film buffs should keep their ears to the ground and snap up tickets ASAP.

Question: The film's end credits specifically state the film was shot in Cinerama. Does this mean 70mm as well, or is Cinerama another film size entirely? I'm just wondering if I've truly seen 2001 in its native format. If not, I'm seriously jonesing to see it in Cinerama! It it possible I can be blown away even more by this film? The possibility gives me chills, people.

comment #45

Jesse Perry says ...

Thank you, Clark . . . Your thoughtful comments washed off the stink of Andrew Mallet's post.

(Oh, and Clark and I aren't related.)

comment #46

Josh Massey says ...

Dude, Corey - lay off the Hootie. You went too far.

comment #47

corey3rd says ...

having lived though Hootie (a guy I DJed with at college was their manager) at ground zero, the blanding of America hit me in the gut. I felt the air going out of culture.

compare our culture 40 years ago and now - who really wins in their vision of the future? Time Square is a TGIFridays. Radio is a graveyard. TV is reviving the Bionic woman. The big advantage of living in the 21st century is fresh porn from the internet.

How could Pauline Kael see the future, she was stuck in a dark room staring at a flickering wall.

comment #48

Josh Massey says ...

Well, I still see Hootie once a year when they come through Atlanta. B.Y.O.B., under the stars, every July/August - the music may not change the world, but it makes for a damn fun evening.

comment #49

EDouglas says ...

But who wants to see a sci-fi movie that by its very title is now a period piece? :)

comment #50

Joe Leydon says ...

Actually, EDouglas, I address that very issue in the chapter on 2001 in my book, which is still on sale at fine bookstores everywhere...

OK, Jeff, that's my second book plug this year. I'm still entitled to two more before Dec. 31, right?

comment #51

AndrewMallet says ...

Joe Leydon and Jesse Perry are gay lovers. They were seen together at Rainbows in West Hollywood over the weekend. They had their hands in each others back pockets, like a couple.

comment #52

Joe Leydon says ...

Very true, Andrew. But we're not monogamous, so we'll be glad to fuck your ass anytime you want. So bend over, bitch. You're about to become... Jesse's girl.

comment #53

Cadavra says ...

Clark: "single-lens Cinerama" was actually Ultra Panavision. The regular 70mm format, Super Panavision, used a spherical (normal) lens and projected at about 2.2:1. Ultra Panavision used an anamorphic lens and projected at about 2.8:1. So yes, you will be losing something at the sides, but those who shot in the process knew that eventually it would work its way down to 35mm in regular theatres and thus were careful to composed for conventional 35mm anamorphic (2.35:1).

There may be a quiz on Friday.

comment #54

christian says ...

This thread is alternately thoughtful, informative, and hilarious.

Jessie's girl!

comment #55

PerfectTommy says ...

Yeah, EDouglas, 2001 is just a period piece. Soon we'll bypass Blade Runner, so we won't have to bother with it anymore. Why do libraries and bookstores bother to stock 1984 anymore?