[MacBlayne]

2010

“My God! It’s full of stars!”

2010 opens by announcing exactly what it has over 2001. Actors! Celebrities! We got Bob Balaban, Helen Mirren, John Lithgow, returnee Keir Dullea, and God among performers, Roy Scheider. Not to crap over the cast of 2001, but 2010 runs out the gate swinging.

It probably goes without saying that Peter Hyams’s sequel lacks the poetic grace of Kubrick’s efforts. Where 2001 was content in allowing the viewer to come to their conclusions, Hyams’s film insists on providing answers. Why did HAL go mad? 2010 has the answer! Was the Monolith a visual metaphor to explain leaps in mankind’s progress? No! 2010 says otherwise. What actually happened to Bowman? 2010 gives us the deets! Why Jupiter and not Saturn? Never fear! 2010 is here!

Okay, jokes aside, 2010 is much like Psycho II, in that you’re almost shocked that they made a sequel to a classic film by a revered filmmaker, and that it’s actually bloody good. It’s a shame that 2010 is almost buried. I only heard about it through a snarky “unnecessary sequels” piece in Empire magazine, that said you could probably find it in its rightful place in the bottom of a bargain bin. Methinks the writer hadn’t even bothered watching it.

Set nine years after the first film, 2010 follows the disgraced Heywood Floyd (Scheider, replacing William Sylvester) joining a Russian team in trying to unravel what happened to the Discovery outside Jupiter. Complicating matters is a on-Earth conflict between Russia and the USA, and a certain distrust of the Discovery’s computer system. And that’s before they see what’s happening on Jupiter.

2010 is not 2001. Hyams is not Kubrick, and to his credit, he doesn’t even try to ape Kubrick. Kubrick always used film as a gateway to explore human psychology. Hyams is interested in story. His characters are well-defined, and their goals are clearly established. The plot is never up in the air. If 2001’s abstract nature turned you off, then 2010 might be your cup of tea.

2010 also possess it’s own visual aesthetic. Hyams acts as his own cinematographer, and gives the film a dirty, lived-in feel that feels closer to Ridley Scott than Kubrick. Hyams’s photography is rich with shadows and striking compositions. It, and the droning sound design, give the film a sinister atmosphere that always hints at something bad is about to happen. While it never reaches the moments of pure terror that 2001 did, 2010 carries it’s chilling atmosphere throughout the Jupiter mission.

I must stress, I do like this film a lot. I’d even go as far as to say I loved it. However, I cannot deny that it goes against everything 2001 does. 2001 left questions unanswered because Kubrick really wanted us to think about our own morality and mortality. 2010 gives us easy answers, and never asks us to consider. When the finale happens, it feels trite. A simple way of explaining away everything, and giving Cold War audiences an out. It is a betrayal of 2001’s goals.

But be that it may, 2010 is a fantastic film in its own right. It is brilliantly acted, intelligently directed, written with a respect to the audience, and beautifully shot. I cannot trash the film for not being another film. So if you haven’t seen it already, prepare to make contact with 2010.