As someone like you who thinks that 2001 is one of the best films ever made and is as fresh as if it were released this morning, I hear you. I have the poster hanging on the wall behind me. All of your arguments make perfect sense--but the catch is that you're assuming that the Oscars are indicative of quality. They never were. At best, they were a fun celebration of Hollywood, but that all vanished by the 90s. Now, of course, they are as fun as a hospital waiting room.
When people ask me if a movie has won any Oscars, I'm reminded of when Lucy Van Pelt tells Schroeder that Beethoven couldn't have been so great because he never got his picture on bubble gum cards.
You get why 2001 is so great, but the folks running the Oscars have other criteria.
Thanks for reading my post! I agree with everything you say in your reply. And, I'm all too aware that the Oscars have always more about getting people to go see movies than awarding quality. Even so, it's interesting to look at the choices the members of the Academy made back then and ask "what if?" Also, which style poster for 2001 do you have hanging on your wall? Cheers!
Hey, Jim! Great opening piece for a series that sounds more like an awesome essays collection book than a series of posts. Just an idea. 😉
As time goes by it's become clear that The Oscars matter less and less with each new edition. The main reason for that might be the criteria used to select the nominated films and the winners. But it could also be that people are becoming increasingly aware that most of the best films made in a year don't even make the nominations.
In fact, with a few exceptions, having a great film not being nominated for the Oscars could be interpreted as seal that certifies the film as being beyond its time and beyond the masses, as was the case with the masterpiece 2001.
Thanks for reading my post! You could be right - not winning an Oscar these days might help certify that a film is a masterpiece. Who would've imagined that years ago?
I think you're right on the money. They simply didn't "get it" at the time. I mean, none of us can truly "get it" fully, right? But still, I think that is key. Perhaps at the time, too, they reduced the movie to "This movie is its special effects," and left it at that. This still happens with a lot of good movies.
Glad to hear about your first viewing. I showed this to my kids when they were little on Blu-ray and I had the pleasure of taking our then 7-year-old to the 50th Anniversary IMAX 70mm screening and we were blown away. Just an INCREDIBLE experience at a true IMAX screen that sadly no longer exists.
Thanks for reading my post! The theater where I first saw "2001" (and later saw it again there 5 or 6 more times as it came back once a year while I was in high school) had a Cinerama curved screen that was 105 foot wide and 35 foot tall. I liked to sit in the 10th row so the image went from one side of my eye to the other. It was an incredible experience. I think it's great that you got to see it in Imax during its 50th Anniversary reissue (sadly, we don't have any Imax theaters here in Lincoln, Nebraska, where I live). But, even watching the movie at home on a widescreen 55" (or bigger) t.v. can be a great experience too. I watch the film at least once a month :) I still dream of seeing "2001" at the Cinerama Dome someday too.
I love that you can find different things in this film every time you watch it. It is also gorgeous to look at and it's story structure is quite unique
You are spot on, my friend! As someone who saw the film when it first came out, it was something so new, and so different, that people just didn't get it. I was lucky enough that my copy of the book arrived the week after I saw the movie for the first time. Went back to see it again, and it totally made sense. The thought of any of what we saw actually coming true was so far fetched - but as we look back at it now and see how close to future reality it was, it becomes even more amazing. As to the movies that were nominated - they took the country by storm. I saw Funny Girl over 20 times! Rachel, Rachel was the first movie that I saw that involved a lesbian kiss. Groundbreaking! And Romeo and Juliet was probably the most beautiful movie that I had ever seen at the time, and told a story by Shakespeare that the public could actually understand. And don't forget Leonard Whiting's naked ass!
I was in college at UNI in Cedar Falls, Iowa. I convinced a bunch of guys to ride with me to Des Moines where we saw it at the River Hills Cinerama. All I remember is dead silence at the end, as no one knew what to think of it! It was awesome and mesmerizing and dumbfounding all at the same time. We talked about what we had just seen all the way back to the dorms and stayed up quite late that night, trying to figure out just what the hell we had witnessed.
Thanks! Even though Dr. Heywood Floyd has to slurp his food (if you can call it that through a straw), Dave and Frank on Discovery do get to use some weird looking fork like thing to each their mushy dinner.
I don't think the Oscars are totally irrelevant, but I do think they often make mistakes. There are so many interesting cases of great films that didn't win the Oscars they deserve. I plan on exploring those reasons in my posts. Often, great films that lose at the Oscars go onto become part of the canon of cinema while the winners fade away. As you point out, who cares about "Chicago" in 2025? Does anyone even watch it now?
As someone like you who thinks that 2001 is one of the best films ever made and is as fresh as if it were released this morning, I hear you. I have the poster hanging on the wall behind me. All of your arguments make perfect sense--but the catch is that you're assuming that the Oscars are indicative of quality. They never were. At best, they were a fun celebration of Hollywood, but that all vanished by the 90s. Now, of course, they are as fun as a hospital waiting room.
When people ask me if a movie has won any Oscars, I'm reminded of when Lucy Van Pelt tells Schroeder that Beethoven couldn't have been so great because he never got his picture on bubble gum cards.
You get why 2001 is so great, but the folks running the Oscars have other criteria.
Hi Dan,
Thanks for reading my post! I agree with everything you say in your reply. And, I'm all too aware that the Oscars have always more about getting people to go see movies than awarding quality. Even so, it's interesting to look at the choices the members of the Academy made back then and ask "what if?" Also, which style poster for 2001 do you have hanging on your wall? Cheers!
Hey, Jim! Great opening piece for a series that sounds more like an awesome essays collection book than a series of posts. Just an idea. 😉
As time goes by it's become clear that The Oscars matter less and less with each new edition. The main reason for that might be the criteria used to select the nominated films and the winners. But it could also be that people are becoming increasingly aware that most of the best films made in a year don't even make the nominations.
In fact, with a few exceptions, having a great film not being nominated for the Oscars could be interpreted as seal that certifies the film as being beyond its time and beyond the masses, as was the case with the masterpiece 2001.
Hi Juan,
Thanks for reading my post! You could be right - not winning an Oscar these days might help certify that a film is a masterpiece. Who would've imagined that years ago?
I think you're right on the money. They simply didn't "get it" at the time. I mean, none of us can truly "get it" fully, right? But still, I think that is key. Perhaps at the time, too, they reduced the movie to "This movie is its special effects," and left it at that. This still happens with a lot of good movies.
Glad to hear about your first viewing. I showed this to my kids when they were little on Blu-ray and I had the pleasure of taking our then 7-year-old to the 50th Anniversary IMAX 70mm screening and we were blown away. Just an INCREDIBLE experience at a true IMAX screen that sadly no longer exists.
Hi Nate,
Thanks for reading my post! The theater where I first saw "2001" (and later saw it again there 5 or 6 more times as it came back once a year while I was in high school) had a Cinerama curved screen that was 105 foot wide and 35 foot tall. I liked to sit in the 10th row so the image went from one side of my eye to the other. It was an incredible experience. I think it's great that you got to see it in Imax during its 50th Anniversary reissue (sadly, we don't have any Imax theaters here in Lincoln, Nebraska, where I live). But, even watching the movie at home on a widescreen 55" (or bigger) t.v. can be a great experience too. I watch the film at least once a month :) I still dream of seeing "2001" at the Cinerama Dome someday too.
I love that you can find different things in this film every time you watch it. It is also gorgeous to look at and it's story structure is quite unique
Hi Jeff,
Yes! I watch it at least once a month and always notice something new every time I see it too. Thanks for reading!
You are spot on, my friend! As someone who saw the film when it first came out, it was something so new, and so different, that people just didn't get it. I was lucky enough that my copy of the book arrived the week after I saw the movie for the first time. Went back to see it again, and it totally made sense. The thought of any of what we saw actually coming true was so far fetched - but as we look back at it now and see how close to future reality it was, it becomes even more amazing. As to the movies that were nominated - they took the country by storm. I saw Funny Girl over 20 times! Rachel, Rachel was the first movie that I saw that involved a lesbian kiss. Groundbreaking! And Romeo and Juliet was probably the most beautiful movie that I had ever seen at the time, and told a story by Shakespeare that the public could actually understand. And don't forget Leonard Whiting's naked ass!
Hi Chuck,
Thanks for reading! I would've given anything to have been at the first showing of "2001" back in 1968! Can you imagine the audience's reaction?
I was in college at UNI in Cedar Falls, Iowa. I convinced a bunch of guys to ride with me to Des Moines where we saw it at the River Hills Cinerama. All I remember is dead silence at the end, as no one knew what to think of it! It was awesome and mesmerizing and dumbfounding all at the same time. We talked about what we had just seen all the way back to the dorms and stayed up quite late that night, trying to figure out just what the hell we had witnessed.
Great summary of a brilliant film’s lack of silverware, Jim! I want to watch it again.
Hi Erik,
Thanks! Even though Dr. Heywood Floyd has to slurp his food (if you can call it that through a straw), Dave and Frank on Discovery do get to use some weird looking fork like thing to each their mushy dinner.
🤣
Oscars usually get it wrong. CHICAGO, anyone? They've become as irrelevant as the Grammys.
I don't think the Oscars are totally irrelevant, but I do think they often make mistakes. There are so many interesting cases of great films that didn't win the Oscars they deserve. I plan on exploring those reasons in my posts. Often, great films that lose at the Oscars go onto become part of the canon of cinema while the winners fade away. As you point out, who cares about "Chicago" in 2025? Does anyone even watch it now?